LYDIARD OR DANIELS?

Wet Coast + Skuj = 1:49 = a good victoria = knower of harrier = thousand other psuedonyms.

***ignore***

Um, I insulted Skuj on the Rono thread part II. See the top of page 3 there. :)

Not a response to anyone or anything in particular, just some comments. Maybe my education and experience as a researcher and an athlete and coach make me look at things a little differently than many coaches. When different people conduct research and come up with similar (maybe even identical) findings, then there should be joy in the fact that different approaches came up with the same result. Certainly this has happened in coaching distance runners over the years, and when one person uses a technique similar to what others have also used, that doesn't necessarily mean one was taking from the other. Of course in this day and age of instant communication it is more likely the case, but not so long ago people in different parts of the world didn't even know what the other folks were doing, yet they still may have come up with the same approach for development of runners. It's because of this thinking that I prefer to try to dwell more on principles of training and what intensities produce what results, than to say this is how much, how often and for how long such and such should be done. Coaching is a never-ending research project. Some things are pretty clear -- for example, you have to run if you want to optimize your running capabilities, but how much of each type and at what age is optimum is not so set in stone. To borrow from Pirates, I like to think of my recommendations more as guidelines than laws. And there are always exceptions -- if there weren't, scientists wouldn't have to say that they discovered something and that there is a 95% chance that if you do this, this will be the result. It is also very difficult to write something down that can apply equally to youngsters and to adults, as well as to beginners and experienced. Every time I read something that I have written, I see how it could be taken a little differently or how better to say it. Think of them more as guidelines. Be willing to try something different, but always have the athletes’ interest foremost in your mind – the sport is for the athletes, not for the media nor the fans, as we often are led to believe

Point taken, I noted the question that 1:49 asked. That area is a weak point of mine with Arthur's Coaching but I will attempt to answer if Nobby does not do so.

Why I answered 1:49's other post is I feel that there was an "attack" on Arthur and seeing the old man is not here to give some background. I jumped in.

Yeah ! I will admit to some sarcasm with the VALUABLE comment, but what I feel what 1:49 needed to do is say what/ how he felt these Anaerobic sessions went and the "How did he know when to stop" and then ask the qustion 'How did Arthur know?" Rather than back up his good questions with comments about Arthur which were totally unfounded.

I am going to tread on some "dangerous ground' here and say tht Arthur got it wrong occasionally and occasionally "big time wrong". The 1964 Olympic marathon was one. All 3 kiwis ran badly. Peter Snell eludes to it in his book and mentions that the guys maybe ran their last Time Trial rather late in the piece. Years later I heard a discussion about that incident and how things could have been different if the Training had been different. The guys concerned were amongst the toughest athletes this country has produced so there was no question about "Intestinal fortitude". The guys were devestated. But Arthur was just as devestated as the runners.

Nobby may know but I feel that Arthur blamed himself for years for the fact that the guys "got it wrong".

The biggest contribution that Arthur made to me I have already mentioned. But one of the interesting aspects was you could always give Arthur a call or visit him and ask for help. In my experience he NEVER turned me away or anyone else for that matter. It did not matter whether you were Coaching Joggers or elites, the enthusaism was always there.How many top Coaches are that approachable ?.

Glad to be back on track, after that rude

and unneccessary interruption.

I hope Nobby or perhaps Tinman, or anyone actually, will address those 1:49 questions. No need to get emotional about these questions. I seriously also want

to know, as Nobby alluded, how Arthur knew when that particular goal was achieved. Was it race results, or how the athlete looked or responded?

Or the TIME TRIAL???

I just wonder what is that magical turning point when you know there is no more room for improvement in the anaerobic area. Is it essentially when the

athlete reaches the end of that X amount of weeks?

I'm so happy that you do continue to contribute here, jtupper.

Kim Stevenson wrote:

Why I answered 1:49's other post is I feel that there was an "attack" on Arthur and seeing the old man is not here to give some background. I jumped in.

Yeah ! I will admit to some sarcasm with the VALUABLE comment, but what I feel what 1:49 needed to do is say what/ how he felt these Anaerobic sessions went and the "How did he know when to stop" and then ask the qustion 'How did Arthur know?" Rather than back up his good questions with comments about Arthur which were totally unfounded.

Quote the "attack" / "unfounded comments".

Okay, I've just rolled in from being with one of my athletes. I rode my bike alongside him as he ran his "effort" run. Nice time to think about 1:49's question !!!!.

I may need Nobby,Glenn, HRE and Tinman to support here.

I did not actually do a "specific" workout with Arthur to know "How he knows". But this is what I picked up.

I feel you possibly need only a few weeks of Anaerobic work before "tackling' the sharpeners.

Lets take a workout like 10 X 400 @ half effort. Using the athlete I was with this morning would look at him running that at around 62 - 64 pace. If he managed to do that at 'around' the 62-64 pace then I know we are 'on track'.

If at any stage he struggles with the workout and I mean here that he drops off considerably and runs a 70 then we shut down and just run easily.

When we complete a 4 week block of Anaerobic work within the boundaries of what we set ourselves then we are ready for the sharpeners.

I 'know' when an athlete has 'overcooked' using 2 methods.

1. The stop watch.

2. Their 'form' falls apart.

I learned these from Bill Baillie as well as Arthur.

To answer 'Gone but not forgotten'. Regarding Goals.

With my athletes we set Goals for the season. Usually involving a "Title Race" that is quite some time away from Goal setting day.

We then set the parameters of what the workouts will entail to get to that goal.

I train the athletes using Arthur's 'For as long as possible'Aerobic running, followed by Hills, then the Anaerobic work and finally sharpeners.

We keep an eye on the Timetrials but always look at 'conditions' that may surround the circumstances. eg Today with my young athlete I said lets try to run this 2.5 k. at around 8;20 pace. We were on trails.,it was frozen underfoot, A VERY cold wind blowing on a section of the course and some of the trails had been maintained lately and were a little 'bumpier' than normal. I did a time check at one mile and noted we were about 5 seconds adrift, no problem that is about right for a day like this. At the finish we were 8;26 . That was fine. The kid was delighted.

I was pleased because it says we are about where we need to be at this stage of his training.

When doing repetition work ensure that we do not run too quickly. I prefer running slower than prescribed rather than faster.

I tend to 'undertrain' an athlete so that they go into Championships "busting to race". I developed that idea from Arthur.

So guys does any of this help what you are asking.

Chris Kelsall, email me from your place of work as soon as you can. (Your family should not see what I have to say.)

I know that Arthur had said that you stop getting the benefits of anaerobic work after 4 to 6 weeks. But that will vary with different athletes.

In my case, I don't seem to benefit at all from anaerobic work. There was a time we were in an anaerobic phase and I was also doing time trials regularly. Each one was slower than the one before. So we bagged the anaerobic stuff. I think it ammoyed him because he didn't think it was supposed to work that way. So in my case, the time to stop was before I stareed. If I had been "normal," we'd probably have continued on for that 4-6 week block. How did he come up with those numbers I believe that he'd read something to that effect and he'd also observed it with his athletes over the years. So there's not one overall answer here.

One thing to bear in mind is that he always had you pick the time you wanted to be at your peak and count back from there. So he had you on something of a timetable and I think in many cases he'd just stop you when the allotted time was up and move you onto the next phase. But there was attention paid to how well you were reponding and if the timed things that you did were consistently not going well, that would be the time you'd stop.

I'd have to admit; Arthur knew enough about exercise physiology to be dangerous (phrase stolen from Dave Martin which I agreed). He wasn't a scientist so his explanation was perhaps somewhat half-correct; but not fully. Arthur always said that, with his green-finger approach, he figured 4 weeks of anaerobic training is enough to develop his runners' anaerobic capacity to maximum. Bear in mind, he never "tested" his athletes so how did he know? Well, if he gave more than that, his athletes went flat. Now, bear in mind also that this is the runner(s) who ran 10 weeks of 100MPW plus 4 to 6 weeks of hill training (6 days a week); in other words, very very tough runners. They would do anaerobic type repetitions 3 days a week. He claims East Germans said 5 week (instead of his green-finger 4 weeks). What he meant actually is not to do more anaerobic training necessarily; but they would take longer recovery days in between so they might do twice a week instead of three; hense, taking longer to develop it fully. He always prefered doing anaerobic training less than more. If it's not fully developed, fine. All the races that would follow would further develop it so just let it be. That was his "green-finger" approach. Now, some people would peak quicker than others. Arthur was always sensitve enough about that. Some would not run as fast in training; therefore it may take longer to develop it fully. Some of you might be more of a speedster and you may come off the edge quickly and you may not even take full 4 weeks. So you, as a coach, would have to watch them carefully. How do you know when they had it enough? Well, mainly I'll check how their legs feel. When you come off over the edge, your legs feel very light. Now, as some Japanese coaches would say, you need to put the lid on. Arthur used to say the athletes get edgy and irritable. Those are, as he would put it, physiological reaction from lowering of pH level. Again, you need to check individual reactions and learn that from each athletes over a couple of seasons because everybody is different. Don't try to produce the Olympic champion in the first season; I think it'll take at least 3 cycles (not 3 years)...to get to know the individual!

For each workout; I think Kim put it beautifully. As a coach, yeah, I timed my athletes. I even timed myself (ah, those were the days...). Of course, I was doing the reps over a strech of about 520m (measured by my "walking"); the only thing I checked with my timing them was; is it vividly slowing even when I was putting more effort? Same thing. You're timing your athletes with, say, 400ms. Let's just say, for the argument sake, 72 seconds. Then it goes, 72, 73, 71, 74 even, that's okay; back to 72 for the next one... Then all of a sudden, you'll know it; he would be struggling at the backstretch, head rolling, teeth gritting, arms start to swing all over the place... Yet the time comes out as, say, 76. Stop him. He's not straining, not training. It could be in his 10th 400. Could be 16th. May not happen till the 24th one. You, as a coach, may have written down 20X400m. But should you stop him? Absolutely. With this type of "anaerobic training" as described by Arthur, you would want to "lower your blood pH level down throughout your body" to affect overall chemistry. If you do them too fast in the beginning; or take too short of recovery that you may end the workout prematurely, then you may only affecting the blood pH level of the working muscle. Arthur used to use the exmample of, say, push-up or chin-up. Your arms get tired and you'll have to stop the workout. It's not because YOU are tired; but your arms are tired. Same thing. If you sprint flat-out; your legs get tired and you'll have to stop the workout. For now, you'll need the volume of anaerobic workout. That's why he prefered simply run one fast, jog one; I kinda like this 0.2 mile markers because 400 is a bit too far for me. 0.1 is a bit too short. I just run two posts fast; jog two posts. I'll pack up when I get "stuffed". Depending on what I did the day before or days before, that could be x8, or x12, something like that. I actually like ladder too. Arthur didn't. But that's personal preference. He never liked fish. As you know, I love it raw!

As for Tokyo Olympic marathon; I think the problem with Julian and Puckett (the third guy, Ivan Keats, I don't think was coached by Arthur) was not so much of a marathon distance trial a month before; but all the training. This is the Olympics; this is the important race. So you need to train twice as hard... Julian, as you know, won Pre-Olympic marathon in Tokyo in 1963 and Japanese regarded him as the favorite. They called him "King Julian" and followed him around instead of Snell. Puckett, as you know, Kim, was probably the toughest runner in NZ at the time. I know, because he was the guy, at the age of 45, really taught me how to knock yourself in shape. Puckett unfortunately had some nervous problem and used to get stomach problem running overseas (didn't go to well with fish or rice, I guess...). Julian, I heard, simply trained like a mad man... Magee, for 1960, just carried on the same workouts as the nationals and did well (Julian and Pucket had the same problem in Rome). Of course, those were the days that it's rare to compete overseas... It would be hard to believe anybody would have challenged Abebe in both 1960 or 1964. But I'm sure either Julian or Puckett would have done much better had they carried on regular program. I'm not quite sure how much hands-on coaching Arthur was doing for 1964. Magee had developed plantar fasciitis back then to run marathon (he ran 10,000). Injuries were more deadly back then; John Davies had to hang up spike shoes before he had a chance to move up to 5,000m with a bad case of Achilles problem. Of course, Arthur always had to fight against situration/environment. The only compnay that was willing to help him and his athletes was a cigarett company. He was probably more involved then with jogging program than coaching elites.

I think it's easy for us to say that he really didn't coach anybody after Tokyo. Sure, he didn't coach "everybody". But he didn't have a chance either. Nobody paid him to coach. He did what he did, as Kim pointed out, because he was NEVER short of helping others. He NEVER turned down anybody. But he only coached people who came to him. He never went to some talented kid and said, "Here, let me coach you." Producing champions, though he got kick out of it, no doubt, wasn't necessarily his goal. He got real gratification from simply "helping people". He didn't coach every sigle Olympic champion since 1960 nor influenced every world record holder. He didn't claim he did either. He was very firm with his principles; but was amazingly humble as well. He helped me immensely; athletically as well as professionally. His training method makes sense to me. I believe that it's a very sound program that, applied correctly, can help anybody. He was a good man and I loved him. I have every intention to keep his legacy alive. And if somebody don't give a damn about his training or him as a man; I don't need to twist his arms to make him believe. Arthur never whipped his athletes to do something. His philosophy was always, "Explain why". If he doesn't get it, or insist on not getting; what more can you do?

Thanks Mate ! For clarifying a few things.

This thread is getting to where I cannot remember if I posted something or not, plus I am too lazy to go back and check. So I aplogise if I repeat myself.

Athur helped me immensely,In the late 1990's I may have had literally no contact with him for quite sometime but I always find when I am Coaching this voice of reason comes into my head. Yes it is Arthur !.

But my background also comes from the likes of Jack Dolan, Bruce Harrison, George Gibson, Merv Hellier, Dick Chase, John Fenton and of course Bill Baillie. All were Lydiard "Boys" and Lynndale members. But that list I have just given other than Bill is not known out of this country.

The knowledge base of Arthur's ideas those guys hold is phenomenal, I learned something from all of them. Bill most of all.

An aside on the Tokyo Marathon. Ivan Keats was not Coached by Arthur but trained along his lines. He too was one tough character. The first long run I did was with Bill Baillie and Ivan. An intersting, very funny combination.

Ivan never told me this but I was told that he was feeling great in that Tokyo marathon but then suddenly needed to take a toilet break. The crowds along the course were so deep that he could not find anywhere to stop to relieve his "burden", so he just kept running. The results of his "unburdening" chaffed his legs so badly that he finished bleeding.

Peter Snell mentions in his book just how courageous Ivan was just to finish.

I believe that 1964 was really the last Olympics for New Zealand that Arthur had a "hands on" interest in the Coaching. I maybe wrong.

1:49 -

I must have missed your question. What is it that you want me to explain? Tinman

Really detailed responses thank you,

Nobby and HRE. Kim too. Tinman I don't think 1:49 will be back, but he was asking questions about

how a coach / Arthur can exactly pinpoint when anaerobic development has reached its maximum.

Somehow everyone got upset after that. Anyway I'm rereading the last few bits of info, thank you.

I suppose you can take a portable kit out to where you are doing "anaerobic" reps and be ready to take blood ph samples. As soon as you drop to 7.1 (down from 7.4 as an average), you have maxed-out. Of course, you already know that because you are slowing down several seconds with each repetition.

Also, we could do the more painful version and test your muscle ph - which could go down to around a 6.4 level. Ouch, it sure hurts when people cut a sample from your leg!

Hmmm, how about this one, you could run to the bathroom (water closet for you British type speakers) and pee on some strips that reveal acidsosis or alkalinity. It would be about the same as blood samples upon exhaustion. You might have to make several trips, though!

Tinman

Nobby wrote

>>ran 10 weeks of 100MPW plus 4 to 6 weeks of hill training (6 days a week); in other words, very very tough runners. They would do anaerobic type repetitions 3 days a week.<<

In a shortened program, with a total of 15 weeks including taper (I know there is no cookie cutter program) would you suggest overlapping the hills with weeks of 100mpw steady state running? - Someone in this thread mentioned that Arthur later put less emphasis on the hill phase, as a distint phase anyway.

I also understand (I think I read this - correct me if I am wrong) that being super fit and very well conditioned one can race quite well with out much or in some cases any speed (or emphasis on speed work).

If the above is true, then should I overlap (to some degree) all three phases + pace work and coordination? - 15 weeks is all I have and 12 left.

Before the 15 weeks started my condition and volume had varied quite a bit for 6 months.

Thanks!

ps - Your last post was a powerful little read....

Tinman are you talking about maxing out in a particular anaerobic session, or maxing out in seasonal

anerobic development? (Actually, I think you are being quite humorous, mostly!

Needed today on this thread. :)

Your sense of humor shines rarely, but brightly, I have found.) I think this is a very important question

because it really concerns timing and peaking at

the right time. I have heard the same

with aerobic development too - "you have done all you can" - but what

maintenance strategies exist and how do you know for sure that you have done all you can in the aerobic

area. Athlete testing, as tinman alluded to, would make sense, but are those values absolute indicators?

I was discussing per session exhaustion of anaerobiosis where ATP generated becomes less per unit time. If your blood Ph level hits 7.1, you rarely can run anymore. You have gone very anaerobic.

Maintenance strategies for aerobic are simple - don't exclude aerobic running, whether it is distance running or slow aerobic intervals or tempo work, during all phases of training.

How do you know you have done all you can in the aerobic area? That's both hard and simple; an interesting dichotomy. The hard part or answer is you never do know for sure because aerobic form can be developed further in nearly all cases. The simple answer is look at your ability to hold a pace over a couple key distances: 3k and 10 miles. If you can still do well in a 3k race or time trial, your aerobic power is solid. If you do well in a 10 mile run, you know your stamina is good. If you lack in either one, you better go back to the drawing board and do some more aerobic. At this point, doing anaerobic type training is going to make you slower and slower in all races except a sprint. Tinman

Tinman

Thank you Tinman.

Now how about your take on maximum SEASONAL

anearobic development pinpointing, apart from the obvious and hopeful peak at the right time, and irrespective

of the excellent responses on this question so far from

Kim and Nobby and HRE.

Arthur NEVER ever de-emphasized hills. Be careful who you get the information from.