Wow, Lydiard training seems ridiculously hard

I'm hoping we can avoid repeating some of the same mistakes, and stay focused on a couple more "deep comments".

HRE,

It's easier for me to ask good questions than give good answers. I have lots of questions.

For example, I wonder how far a Canova, Rosa, Brother Colm, Berradelli, Li, etc., could take a group of talented European or American teenagers, or for that matter, New Zealand club runners.

I'm also curious to see how far a coach like a Greg McMillan or a Jack Daniels could take a group of East African teenagers.

We won't ever know until someone does it.

I also wonder what Bekele's training looked like before his first Junior World Cross. Was it structured?

I'm enough of a scientist to know that deciding which approach is the best is not possible without controlling all the variables in any comparative study.

HRE wrote:

Rather than talk about "outdated vs. modern", it seems what's coming up here is "constantly specific vs. periodically specific" and the assumption made by some is that constantly specific training is more modern and therefore better.

So what ? Ron Davies did the same schedule than Peter Snell or he didn´t?

On this thread Mr. Kim Stevenson confirms what I said.

Please, once in a lifetime, be humble and not arrogant. Do confess that you aren´t the owner of the truth. Be able to admit that you contest me, but you were wrong.

Why do i bring that fact to the discuss ? It´s not simply because it´s a curiosity, but because it reveals that Lydiard training doesn´t respect TRAINING INDIVIDUALIZATION and in this item is outdate as well. As you see it´s not just "constant specific versus periodically specific". It´s also "individualization versus non-individualization” that Lydiard is outdate.

About your comment "constantly specific versus periodically specific, can´t you understand that on this thread. From a certain post on, the focus of the Lydiard analysis is limited to the single issue of SPECIFIC TRAINING, and to able the kind of deep discuss of the method, we can´t go out of this single aspect of the specificity, but Lydiard is outdate in several aspects.

Can´t you read ? We discuss the useless of LONG RUNS as well. We discuss the Lydiard contain of SEASON PERIODIZATION, we discuss the Lydiard wrong version of INTERVAL TRAINING and many more. It´s all more or less outdate, not just what you say. The case of “constant specificity versus periodical specificity” it´s a your attempt to be simplistic and reductionist.

However i may point out several other aspects that Lydiard is outdate.

The Lydiard SEASON PERIODIZATION is outdating. Lydiard based his training by a linear periodization, very influenced by the ex-East German training system and also influenced by the ex-USSR scientist and physiologist Matveiev. It´s not me that create this Lydiard referential of influence. It´s documented. In several interviews Lydiard reveals from where it comes his season periodization concept. Among other aspects I name some that are outdate. The annual season periodization, when some other modern coach methodologists they prove this is wrong. The training that goes from aerobic > anaerobic in season progress, when might be quality > quantity in an extensive and progressive non-linear process. The outdate concept of 6 weeks of taper right before the peak competition. All that Lydiard uses and it´s the result of that ex-USSR and ex-DDR influence. Actually that kind of season periodization is outdating as well. I remember that on this board Renato Canova posts about this question of how outdate is that kind of Matveivev-Lydiard season periodization. Go back and read what he says. I don´t need to repeat.

The wrong prescription of INTERVAL TRAINING. Basically Lydiard considers the interval training of short bouts with short recovery, anaerobic training kind, what isn´t either. From that wrong interpretation Lydiard refuses to use that kind of interval training during the early phases of his season periodization, when this Kind of short interval training is aerobic really indeed and not anaerobic as he says. We discuss this problem in detail. I got many documents where Lydiard says it´s anaerobic training.

I remember that one interest thread on this board about the miss of Lydiard interval training during the aerobic block/phase , is deleted, but i save it ,and i keep it. At some point of discuss, You HRE, you are confronted with the anonymous man that posts with the nickname of Ö, with the fact that nothing can replace the interval use. Ö posts while quote one physiology article, and you said “I don´t know if what you say it´s true”. This is another item where the Lydiard training is outdate.

I can continue, and I can bring more details. Each single this aspects, SEASON PERIODIZATION, TRAINING INDIVIDUALIZATION , LONG RUNS, INTERVAL TRAINING, quantity to quality and not aerobic to anaerobic, etc. I may discuss in detail each one of several Lydiard training aspects that is outdating. Each one can be one long book, so many can be said. But it really doesn´t matter.

Finally, let me say this. I write PROGRESSIVE SPECIFIC WORKOUTS, I didn´t write “constant specific workouts”.

you don´t know what´s the meaning of progressive specific workouts eventually, and it´s why you think that in the modern training the specific workouts are constant, but it´s not constant, it´s progressive, one concept that Lydiard doesn´t respect, and consequently you aren´t able to understand.

From some 6-8 weeks of specific training sparsely on that very short period, to 50-54 weeks that´s the years round, is there several alternatives. To run from 12-16 weeks of specific workouts, what the twice to what Lydiard does, 24-36 what is sensible and 4 times more weeks, but in no one of that modern expand alternatives demands “constantly” or “permanenttly” specific workouts. If youi do the modrn style there you open one gap to do PROGRESSIVE SPECIFIC WORKOUTS, not condense as Lydiard did, but build up PROGRESSIVE STIMULUS.

The true reason I don´t post Peter Snell or Pekka Vasala training it´s because the persons that gave me that data ask me to keep it private. As i´m a man of word and character I willn´t take it public. As curiosity, many of you will be surprised who are the 2 persons that gave me that schedules.

About one of your comments, the NZ triathlon girls, it´s curious what you say.

They did is good, but I may inform you that coach the triathlon woman that did more wins in triathlons and top world level, mainly she did win more than 15 times that both NZ athletes as all the others of course. The world biggest triathlon palmares is of a my own female athlete.

As you see, to be a triathlon olympic or world major winner don´t need to train in the Lydiard method that she doesn´t and I don´t.

Finally one little message about all those big earthquake, some followed by tsunami. From NZ to Japan and I don´t forget Haiti. I can do nothing except solidarity with those that suffer, to those that get hurt or died and those that get material lost.

Kadaffi, I am not sure I have the time to carry out deep discussions on a message board. However,I am interested in what you posted yesterday.

Point One about Lydiard not introducing training variables. If you look at the schedules written in the books, that is right. However, I saw a programme put together by Arthur for one of our top women back around the early/mid 80's.

It had a lot of variation compared with what would have been called 'Traditional Lydiard". It was a programme designed for her, no one else. Problem is, I cannot recall details !!! I do recall seeing a progressive Interval type workout in there somewhere.

I know that Bill Baillie was a huge fan of 200m Interval workouts and had them in all sorts of phases of training.

Two: I am a huge fan of the long run. I know from my own experience that once you have completed many weeks of these runs that the body adjusts accordingly and one can feel as though all you have done is a jog around the block.

However, I know that after specific workouts that run can be difficult and I asked Arthur about that. He said just run 'easy' or "recovery" runs until one feels that the programme can be continued.

In most cases the long run is not difficult and I can think of many athletes who ran them far too fast and really did not get any benefit.

Your point three. I feel you are arguing purely from what you have read in the books. Arthur had all sorts of workouts according to the athlete. When you say "Specicific" can you tell us what you mean .. as interpretation may come in here. eg : Specific to training Energy systems, or Specific to training Muscle groups.

Point four: I have seen seen Interval training placed in the introductory phase. (With the proviso .. "Don't run it too quickly") also hill sessions .. it depended on the athlete and what that athlete needed or where they were in the overall picture.

On to the triathletes : the 2004 MENS Triathlon is what I was talking about. Hamish Carter and Bevan Docherty .. not the women's Tri.

Kadaffi out of power wrote:

Similar situation with Lasse Viren. Training in altitude by Lydaird influence and with blood doping he could run faster than 13:16 and 27:38 what were earlier world records, and he did double 5000m-10000m wins in 2 olympics, but tehn the Lydiard training starts to be outdate and more modernm training arrives on teh scene and actually many runners did sub 13:00 and sub 27:00

The interesting thing is that depite more altitude training and the introduciton of EPO use, European distance running has bascially gone absolutely nowhere since the days of Viren (who has never been proven to have used blood doping unlike some of his team mates).

Standards worldwide have improved but this has largely been through the East-African emergence, starting in the 1990s. Meanwhile, it sadly looks like Europe is going backwards and European distance runners are not as fast as they once were. For example, look at the results of the Euro champs for 10000m in 1978 and compare them with the results for the 10000m in the 1990s and 2000's.

There could be many factors underlying this decline. Nevertheless, with the results we have, it is difficult to say that "modern training methods" have raised the level of distance running in Europe, which today appears worse than it used to be. I think that this underlies the sentiment that older style or "Lydiard" training was actually a better method for most top class runners than what is being done right now. I am not sure if this is correct but it is not unjustified when you look at the actual results.

Kadaffi out of power wrote:

I have many things of that kind in my archive.

If they pay me well, it´s a possibility.

You are quite the comedian/tease.

When you seem like you have any understanding of the Lydiard Method I might be "humble, not arrogant." But as long as you show no understanding of the approach there's not much to do other than disagree.

Prove that long runs are useless.

HRE, why don't you ask that question to malmo?

HRE wrote:

When you seem like you have any understanding of the Lydiard Method I might be "humble, not arrogant." But as long as you show no understanding of the approach there's not much to do other than disagree.

Prove that long runs are useless.

See. How arrogant and jealous you are that you can´t confess that you where wrong about what the fact that i post, that Ron Davies did train togheter with Peter Snell in 1964 and both did the same schedule. By happiness mr. Kim Stevenson that is a Lydiard adept - why not, what´s the problem ? it´s not a sin - he is a man of character and confirms that i´m right.

It´s not me that needs to prove. It´s the individual that trust on the Lydiard training method that precribes long runs for 800m and 1500m/mile runs the one that needs to prove and no not me. I read the Lydiard argument but can´t trust.

Everything is so easy to prove and as you never discuss about physiology i go for the basic but correct methodologic prove.

The LONG RUN stimulus is so distant from the specific pace from most of the distance runs and namely the short-middle distance runs like the 800m and the 1500m/mile that doesn´t specific qualification. The long run it´s of energetic interest as well as aerobic condition. But can b e replace with best efficiency with doubles. It´s not by change that Lydiard on the last sunday before the heats of 64 olympics schedules for Peter Snell doubles of 60min each one and long the usual long run. the same with Pekka Vasala in 74.

I might go on with advanced concepts against the long run. But you hardly would understand and you will never admit my opinion.

Finnaly i repeat what i always say. The long run can be done, it´s not poor training eventaully, but place that on early aerobic phases and the main aspect to fix it´s that the long run are´t as efficient as the Lydiard training says.

About the long run, as you don´t trust me at all, and you trust on Malmo, i advice you to do SEARCH on this board and read Malmo´s ideas about the long run subject, and you might read Renato Canova as well.

rekrunner wrote:

If you say it's "too sparse" and "during one short training period", I can understand your concern, for example, when comparing it to Canova's descriptions and examples. That's a little different than saying the concept is missing, but I see your point better now.

Are you familiar with Robert de Castella's training? Trained by Pat Clohessey, they were influenced by Lydiard's concepts, including long runs and high mileage, but didn't agree with the periodization, instead favoring of a "complex" approach, leaving him race ready year round.

Would you say that was a big improvement and step towards modern methodology?

I read some information about Robert Castella but i don´t want to comment. I consider myself one modern coach and i´m not attach to any training methdology, be Renato Canova, Lydiard, Kostre, or Pat Clohessey whatever. My training is my own training, point.

As George Harrison song says "everything must pass".

I don´t deny what you say. I´m open to learn what Lydiard did different than pure/classic Lydiard. But he did the authority to do so, because he is the ownwer of his training, and with the experience that he got he could do it and i may accept.

What i deny is the tons of people that they aren´t Lydiards

and they think they are allow to change what Lydiard prescribes up to wired training, out of Lydiard caracterization. That person with no coach skill, no major experience, they think they know all about Lydiard. The more they think that some special talent as "gestalt", "intuition" or "holism" to be able to change Lydiard coach.

The final result of that mess it´s everything less Lydiard training.

Besides as you might understand the thousands of those schedules i can´t comment, and i can´t consider as lydiard training. That kind of training, that kind of coach, that kind of schedules are one melting pot, but not Lydiard training.

lolask wrote:

HRE, why don't you ask that question to malmo?

Because I know malmo's position on long runs and I am not in complete disagreement. He does not say they're useless. He calls them the least important aspect of training and the icing on the cake. But cakes with icing are better than those without as a rule and of everything that's important something has to be least. That doesn't make it unimportant. There's a difference. And with all due respect to malmo, he's offerred an opinion, not proof and besides, I want to see what Khadaffi has to say.

On that big "Renato Canova" thread that's evidently gone away now Knut Kvalheim had some interesting comments about the rise and fall of Norweigan distance running in the 70s, 80s, and beyond. He said that in the 70s and 80s when there were many fast Norweigans they generally were inspired by Lydiard and spent the winter running a fairly high number of miles/kilometers at relatively easy paces if only because there was too much ice and snow on the ground to run faster.

Then, he said, Norweigan cities began building indoor tracks and runners began doing interval work during the winter as well as during the spring and summer. Volume fell. Intensity rose. Norweigans ran slower than they'd done before the indoor tracks came along. He attributed the decline to, using the terms of this discussion, more time spent training specifically and less training generally.

In the US we had the 90s when we got all scientific and specific and the bottom dropped out. Now we have Ritzenhein training as a marathoner then stepping down to the 5,000 and becoming one of the very few non-Africans to better 13:00 and Solinsky doing very respectable volume at a very respectable pace and becoming the only non-African to run 10,000 meters in under 27:00. All of my times at every distance improved dramatically when I began training for the marathon and since you want to bring malmo into this, he once told me that he trained for the marathon from the beginning of his career.

I once brought Kvalheim's comments up years ago on a thread here and another of Khadaffi's alter egos said something to the effect of Kvalheim's comments not being of much use because today's runners are faster than he was. And of course they are, but as has been mentioned here already, overwhelmingly those faster runners are Africans. If Kvalheim were at his peak today he'd own European distance running.

In Toby Tanser's first book he has a section on Kenyan coaches and their ways of training. One of them is quoted as saying that anyone who does his (the coach's) training will become a world class runner. The first session he lists is 4 x 800 in 1:56-2:02. Well, if you can run that session you're not all that far away from being a world class runner. But most of us can't and the issue at hand is more of how to get people to the level where they could manage that sort of running.

That's why I am not impressed with a lot of what of today's top coaches, with some exceptions, many here in the US, are doing. They're doing it with no one but Africans and Lydiard frequently said, "Anyone can coach a Kenyan." When someone comes along with some modern, scientific coaching that gets US high school kid with 9:30ish two mile bests down to 13:00 for the 5,000 consistently I may change my mind.

HRE wrote:

When you seem like you have any understanding of the Lydiard Method I might be "humble, not arrogant." But as long as you show no understanding of the approach there's not much to do other than disagree.

Prove that long runs are useless.

Keep on deny the evidence.

[quote]khadaffi out of power wrote:

I don´t deny what you say. I´m open to learn what Lydiard did different than pure/classic Lydiard. But he did the authority to do so, because he is the ownwer of his training, and with the experience that he got he could do it and i may accept.[quote]

Actually, as soon as Lydiard died, Nobby "owned" his (Lydiard's) training. Legally the training was Arthur's intellectual property and he willed it to Nobby.

Kim Stevenson wrote:

I love reading about how the guys "back in the day" trained and have just finished "3:59.4 The quest to break the 4 minute mile" by John Bryant.

If anyone here is in London, John is giving a talk on the evolution of 1500/mile training next Monday. As well as being a great writer, and my club President, he's a fantastic public speaker (and was a low 14 5k runner in college...)

khadaffi out of power wrote:

About the long run, as you don´t trust me at all, and you trust on Malmo, i advice you to do SEARCH on this board and read Malmo´s ideas about the long run subject, and you might read Renato Canova as well.

Hey Looney tunes, I don't think that HRE is the one who needs to read my opinion on long runs, he understands me perfectly. You do not.

HRE -

Lydiard's Olympic medalists were extremely talented too just like today's africans. Do you think Lydiard's runners had ordinary talent?

There is no way to determine how much talent anyone has. In any endeavor there will be a small percentage of people who stand out for performing exceptionally well, a small percentage who'll perform exceptionally poorly, and the vast majority will be somewhere in between. I have only very general ideas of what impels people to either extreme.