Lydiard vs Coe vs Daniels

Bumping this thread.

Lydiard. It seems like there were alot more fast runners when people were more apt to follow Lydiard. However, Coe and Daniels are good as well. I think it depends on the individual. Find what works for you.

Alot of people forget that alot of those Lydiard guys who ran 1:45's were not running on 400m mondo in perfect conditions with pace makers.

bump

hiblit wrote:

How effective was the Coe plan? In 1980 Track and Field News projected what all World records would be in the year 2000 at all distance from the 100m to the marathon. In the year 2000 the actual world record were faster in all distances except the 800m, which they projected would be sub 1:40. No one has even gone sub 1:41, and only Kipketer has gone sub 1:42. That should put in perspective how fast Coe's 1:41.8 really was. Lydiard trained runners (with great talent) can and have run 1:45, but they will not run 1:41, and there is a huge difference in those times.

Makes good sense what you are saying here, except Snell has run a 1.44.3 on grass, which surely could be equated to roughly 1.42 in todays environment (mondo track / good pacemakers).

Good discussion, keep it rolling.

It suprises me to see people mention how "not many people are advocates of Coe system." "who uses it etc"

Like bakken says and like Kada (El G coach) has said in lectures they got this information (the Coe book) and took it to morrocco. P144 in the Training Distance Runners. That is what alot of the morrocan squad are doing.

Having done a few years of daniels had a long spell off (6months) and now using coe method i can say a few things:

1. Coe system is alot harder. Its very hard to keep it going. Found Daniels mentally easier (too easy) and boring.

2. Im alot thinner now. Seriously. The heart rate under coe is much higher for alot of your week! You will get thin very fast.

3. I think im gonna run very very fast using this coe system. I like it! But you have to be careful and back off cause its so stressful.

There have been big improvments but i cant for sure attrribute to coe system. Running is cumulative. So it could be years of hard work.

I think that Lydiards base building phase calls for two 90 min runs/ week and one run of 120 mins. or more. The rest is 60 mins. he advises a second run/day if time allows in order to keep the blood ph high and for cardiovascular reasons. All of these runs are done at a high aerobic pace so the actual mileage will vary greatly depending on the ability of the runner.

I am bumping this one.

Coe system relies heavily on usage of epo....Petah coached one and only one runner and amazingly it was his son who set a world record...BULLSHIT....

I wish everyone would stop talking as if they are an exercise physiologist!!! Stopping reading a few articles about the bioenergetic recruitment pattern of the body during exercise at different intensities, and then all of a sudden think you are some hot-shot who thinks they have the right to an opinion on exercise physiology!!

In the big picture screw this so-called "Aerobic Threshold!!" It doesn't mean ANYTHING!!!! OBLA occurs during any activity such as walking up a couple stairs too quickly!! The key to becoming a good distance runner is to raise the ANAEROBIC THRESHOLD!!!!!!!!!! If your body can metabolize energy with the predominant use of oxygen at the fastest pace . . . Then you will win the race!

physiologistrunner you my friend are an idiot unless you accidentally mixed up the aerobic and anaerobic. which you may have since the last statement says "If your body can metabolize energy with the predominant use of oxygen at the fastest pace" (the aerobic system happens to be the one that predominantly uses oxygen) ..."then you win the race"

...says the "physiologist" who can't get his information right.

There's evidence (central governor theory, to be precise) that the ANaerobic threshold may in fact be meaningless. It doesnt have a specific point at which it occures. However the aerobic threshold is VERY easy to pinpoint. And correlates extremely well with performance!

If the anerobic threshold was more important, we'd be doing cruise intervals 5 days a week. But we're not. Damn near everyone on this board is running a LOT of AEROBIC miles this time of year. Why? Because it improves the aerobic threshold and it OBVIOUSLY works.

It'd be great if we could just do cruise intervals to our heart's desire and win "the race." But we can't.

"I have a saying 'train, don't strain.' The Americans have the saying 'no pain, no gain' and that's why they have no distance running champions. They get down to the track with a stopwatch and flog their guts out thinking that it'll make them a champion, but they'll never make a champion that way" ---Arthur Lydiard

Has anyone apart from Seb Coe (& Wendy Sly) had success with the Peter Coe method?

To be clear, as I understand it the Peter Coe method used on Seb Coe involved:

1) High intensity

2) Lowest mileage possible to get the job done

3) Emphasis on speed first and endurance second i.e. get the speed and THEN work on endurance

4) Lots of running on roads to ensure quality fast running

5) Speedwork in spikes not racing flats or running trainers

6) Extensive use of Frank Horwill's 5-pace system

7) No altitude training only warm weather training to avoid winter weather

8) Extensive circuit, plyometric and biomechanical work

9) Extensive HEAVY leg weight training

Has ANYONE elite or otherwise trained like this and had success?

SUCCESS = big improvments over 400m to 5k as Coe did &

few injuries - Coe got injured/ill but no more so than anyone else and he had a relativley long career for an elite runner.

Hi CBA,

I think you have it very wrong. Just my opinion. Seb did the big miles.

the buzz wrote:

Hi CBA,

I think you have it very wrong. Just my opinion. Seb did the big miles.

Fair point. This is debatable as Peter (& Seb) can be quite ambiguous about what mileage Seb actually did. It is not clear if Peter includes Seb's easy and morning runs in his mileage calculations.

I have a suspicion that Peter Coe emphasises (and could be lying about) the low volume nature of Seb's training to make it seem more unique and to enhance his coaching reputation and legacy.

However, if we do take what Peter and Seb say regarding mileage at face value, has anyone else done similar training with success?

Seb: "It was a happy accident that from the first, when I was 13, my father felt you ought not to smash a kid on the road, so he kept the distance low. As a junior in 1975, I averaged 28 miles per week and ran successfully—third in the European junior 1,500—against those juniors who were running 80 or 90 miles."

I suspect Lydiard and his followers would argue 28 miles per week as a junior is too low for aerobic development.

Hi CBA,

I don't trust Seb. To my knowledge no-one has done similar training with success.

Check here

http://z12.invisionfree.com/Hunter_Reports/index.php?showtopic=432

"Stress, recover, improve" -Bill Bowerman

That should be the basis of any running training program.

After you cover that, it is a matter of balancing aerobic and anaerobic training, and different things work for different people.

coe was training twice daily since he was 16

http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2009/jan/10/sebastian-coe-steve-cram-running

how do u do that and only run 28 miles per week?