Lydiardism or Coe-Martinism???

weldon assures me that all will be fixed for me soon. in the meantime, i'll post, and the person on this thread who keeps being "absolutely" can do what he wants...go ahead! copy this name too! c'mon weldon! i'm dying here!

nobby, i know it's been confusing. it's not my fault.

look, i'm sorry, but blaming coe's famous illness on "too much anaerobic training" really bothers me. it's not a reasonable, or responsible conclusion. it's actually insulting. but, having said that, i still think you are poster of the year! :)

I can't comment on Coe's illness but have certainly found with myself that if I do too much anaerobic training for too long I get sick much more often than if I do more of a Lydiard approach. Should also say that I ran my 10k PB (and was only 3s off my 5k PB and 2s off my 1500m PB) and had my best ever cross season after doing Lydiard style training.

The increased frequency of illness makes sense since you were doing more intense training. That doesn't make it a bad thing necessarily. I'm assuming your 5K and 1500m PBs were done with this type of training. N'est pas?

Nobby -- no one should be busting their guts on the track 52 weeks per year. I don't think that is what Coe recommends. But, yes, Coe trained athletes do more intense work which, I believe, would better prepare them for the rigors of a 7 races in 9 days schedule.

even though you copied my escape-from-trolls handle, i like what you say, absolutely.

the coeseses were the perfect example of absolutely meticulous training and planning, with attention to every single detail. no stone was left unturned.

just as many think lydiard is all about 100mpw, so too, do many think that coe is all about intervals and anaerobics. there was/is tons and tons of endurance work in coemartin. how could anyone win olympics or set wr by poncing about the track all the time?

but obviously the approach was different.

"Coe trained athletes do more intense work which, I believe, would better prepare them for the rigors of a 7 races in 9 days schedule"

The more intense, the better. No pain, no gain. Then busting your guts 52 weeks a year might be even better?

I really don't know who I'm talking to but, right, if Coe/Matin has a lot more than just intervals/repetitions; they surely have done plenty of aerobic work as well. Then all of a sudden it starts to look awfully like the Lydiard program, doesn't it?

Are you just switching names to collect votes? "See, we have 30 people (or "names") saying Coe/Matin is better!" At least keeps you creative.

There has been a lot of agreement on this thread regarding the similarities of the two training philosophies. Neither one would have been successful without proper conditioning of all necessary racing components. The differences, as I see them, relate to such things as race length and density. Coe/Martin works better for 800/1500 types and Lydiard is best for marathoners. Where the line in between is drawn is debatable. Further, as per current discussion, I think Coe/Martin would be a preferred regimen for someone required to do multiple races in a short period of time (7 races in 9 days).

test

RIGHT!!!

I'm fooooking registered.

absolutely, why did you steal my temporary handle? I do enjoy your posts though.

Nobby....I know you are not happy. Don't know what else to say really. Very confusing, and frustrating for me.

Some troll will still use Skuj, I suppose. But now I can prove it's not me. Weldon is busy.

Coe shifted the emphasis depending on wether or not there was a championship to train for, or just one off blinders, as he called it. The chamionship, with 7 races in 9 days, called for a different kind of buildup / approach....something that many top middle distance people were not recognizing in training. Because, even if you can run 3:29, 7 races in 9 days is a different animal, eh?

Cheers

Darren Skuja

www.absolutelyrunning.com

Skuj???

I absolutely 100% disagree with you (read it as if I'm talking like Simon at "American Idol"). In fact, I always thought Lydiard program's weakest event was the marathon. In his hey days, 2:15 would have won any major marathons and his distance men wiped out the marathon field any day. His original marathon schedule is decent, but heck of a lot of room for improvement which, in my view, Japanese did.

In fact, I believe Lydiard's program's strength, if understood and executed correctly, is between 1500 and 5000.

I'm "assuming" your "assumption" on Lydiard being best suited to the marathon (or longer distance) is because of its volume of training. This kind of thinking is absolutely wrong. Training speed does not directly inpact the racing speed or distance...in general to a degree (if I don't add that, I'm certain somebody would jump all over by saying, "I train at 100" quarters but never broken 4-minute for the mile yet!"... This is the land of no common sense...).

By the way, you know I know Dave Martin personally, right? I just talked to him yesterday. He is one of the key note advisory staffs of the Lydiard Foundation. I thought I've mentioned it somewhere a couple of times but just in case if that's slipped on your rader...

A couple of things to remember in my understanding of Lydiard....

His anaerobic phase may have only been 4 weeks or so, but that's 3 anaerobic workouts a week for 4 weeks. 4x3=12 total anaerobic workouts. That should be taken into account. Instead of using weeks, look at total number of workouts. Some programs may do 8-10 weeks of anaerobic training but that might mean just one anaerobic workout per week.

Someone asked why didn't Lydiard use traditional VO2max type workouts(3k-5k pace intervals like 5x1000m). Nobby gave a good answer, but look into some of his schedules. In this I'm referencing Lydiards trainingschedules and an article written by

him in the 70's.

It includes 4x880, at 1/4 effort, (which would be about 3k pace or a tad faster),

Or

2 miles, 1/4 effort

Or

3miles at 1/4 effort

OR

1 mile, 1/4; 1 mile, 1/2 (about 3k pace for 1/4 and a tad faster for 1/2)

Also included our time trials over 3mi or various differences.

In addition aerobic fartlek is done during the base phase.

Also look at the original hill phase. It included an 800m downhill at a fast pace.

Lydiard used these things to work on the same things that traditional VO2max training would.

I believe their are more similarities than differences in the Lydiard and Coe model.

They both use the same types of ingredients. They are just mixed differently.

I also think there is a confusion of terms between the two. What one person would consider a type of anaerobic training, the other wouldn't.

So Seb Coe ran poorly in 1982 to early 1984 because he picked up a rare disease from a cat ??????? This must be one of the most hilarious excuses I have heard for an athlete not performing well. It ranks with the Paula Radcliffe "I forgot to take my magnesium injections this morning" excuse.

I never thought so but looking this type seeing this type of excuse looks as if the rumours of Coe taking part in the blood doping practices common in Italy at the time have a smell of truth about them ...

NOT SKUJ, Nobby. I'm Skuj. "absolutely" confused everyone by taking a handle I was using in order to escape the troll who stole "Skuj". Oh, never mind.

Cheers

Darren Skuja

test

And then, finally, Weldon did swing his axe, and the Troll ran to the hills, and Skuj became registered as Skuj.

Right.....Coe / Lydiard......

There are so many myths about both camps. So many little quotes have been taken way out of context, and blown right out of proportion.

I'm certain that Coe ran many 14-17 mile runs in his career, and many weeks that wre not far from 100 miles.

A week of Lydiard speed phase might look very similar to Coe training in July.

Who can paste sample weeks from both camps for comparison / analysis?

To the person who laughs at Coe's "cat excuse", please look up toxoplasmosis. Educate yourself.

Cheers

Darren Skuja

www.absolutelyrunning.com

Excellent, excellent post!

Cheers

Darren Skuja

That's not skuj!

Nobby,

would be great if you could advise what changes the Japanese made to Lydiard's original marathon program?

I always wondered that the guys on his original program ran as you say 2.15 approx., but that nowadays, and in the late 70's and early 80's onwards that would be nowhere.

Would really appreciate response.

Jock 1:

I don't want to digress too much from the original topic but basically I'd summarize it to the followings:

1) They run even further

2) They made it more "feeling-based"

3) They use more "event-specific" coordination

Particularly (3) means they use closer to race-distance (30~40k) time trials more often.

One thing they DON'T do from the Lydiard program is speed refining. They don't seem to work nearly enough on technique work (they do in a sense that they talk about it--I'm talking about drills to strengthen the form); they don't do nearly enough strength/flexibility work like hill exercises to sharpen their fine speed. Coupled with their cultural temperament, it hurts their middle distances.

In regards to Dr. Dave Martin; if "his" system is so different from that of Lydiard, we, Lorraine Moller and I (=the Lydiard Foundation), would have not asked him to be on our advisory staff. Likewise, if he didn't think the Lydiardism is valid, he wouldn't have been so keen on joining us. We don't have any intention of contorting the Lydiardism just to have some big names. Dr. Martin has nothing but great respect to the work Lydiard has done.