LYDIARD OR DANIELS?

Dr. Exag. wrote:

...also I found that there are males that are not typical males and can be highly sensitive - not the high strung male ego you are perhaps thinking but ...well...like dealing with a female.

AND I have coached a couple of girls in XC that were so far more competitive than any of the boys that year that they were the talk of the parent group, "look at her go, you go gurl"

Where if they were males with that competitiveness, it would have been "typical males ha ha ha...look at them go at each other".

Because there is no such thing as typical male or typical female. It is all stereotyping not based on any reality or fact. The longer we perpetuate these myths, the longer women will be dominated in industry, decision making, sport.

Good thread.

To I Spy Sexism,

If you spy sexism here, then perhaps you should fix your lens perspective.

I showed this thread to two women who not only agreed with Nobby, but asked if Nobby was not actually a woman...cause it's hard to tell just looking at words.

I said "yes" and they replied, "we knew that".

Then I said "no" and it took them awhile to believe me....

Majority rules...

Hitler was voted in democratically.

What does your exercise prove? Why would they assume he was one or the other? What am I?

Dr. Exag. wrote:

To I Spy Sexism,

If you spy sexism here, then perhaps you should fix your lens perspective.

I showed this thread to two women who not only agreed with Nobby, but asked if Nobby was not actually a woman...cause it's hard to tell just looking at words.

I said "yes" and they replied, "we knew that".

Then I said "no" and it took them awhile to believe me....

Majority rules...

Very ironic that the above supports MY argument 100%. They assumed Nobby is female and were surprised to learn that he is male, because why exactly? :)

I'm going to move on because this silly diversion is detracting from a great thread. If you want to engage in another debate please start up another thread and I will join in.

**ignore mode**

Dr. Exag. wrote:

I'm going to move on because this silly diversion is detracting from a great thread. If you want to engage in another debate please start up another thread and I will join in.

**ignore mode**

i started a thread on this topic already and you didn't contribute. neither did nobby, whose long post full of sexist attitude started this discussion. is this **ignore mode** what you do when you have lost an argument?

We could vote on who's won or lost, but it wouldn't matter. All this is really off topic. It's got nothing to do with the whole Lydiard or Daniels subject. So fine. You've won. Nobby's lost and you can take over explaining Arthur's method.

What would Lydiard or Daniels do with a 400-800 bound runner? Would the books apply, or would big modifications be needed in the training?

i would take Daniels.he will treat every runner different.he just dont tell you to go out and run.also if Daniels had trouble making you better he would try everything possible to get you there.just because something works for 1 person doesnt mean it will work for everyone.jack understands this.

Bound? I'm not sure I know what you mean. If you're talking about an athlete bound to run the 400-800, he thought they would benefit from more aerobic work than most runners who run those distances traditionally do.

He told a story about how he'd talked about training 200-400 meter runners with Bud Winter and convinced him that they should do more aerobic work but Winter had a hard time getting his sprinters to do that sort of thing so they made up a game where the sprinters would get a head start and Winter's distance guys would try to run them down. The game would go on for about an hour and the idea was to get the sprinters on an extended run.

So Borza or Juantorina would be advised to do a healthy amount of aerobic work by Lydiard? (I'm unaware of what they do/did.)

Why would sprinters need an extended run? I asked about 400-800 because it reaches into that area of aerobic endurance, and would 100 miles be smart? But 200-400 doesn't benefit from aerobic work I wouldnt think.

Wondering if Daniels or Lydiard ever coached runners who went below 800.

You asked. Arthur thought that aerobic fitness was the basis for ALL athletic success. I don't think he worked much with anyone who ran below the 800, but I'm really not sure. I never discussed it with him.

"You asked" Sorry if my questions are irritating.

Can anyone enlighten me on Daniels philosophy of below 800 training or if he ever worked with those types.

I can answer the first part of your question.

As HRE said Arthur believed that Aerobic conditioning was essential for all sport.

As for Coaching anyone that ran under 800m. To my knowledge he did not. He had too many Distance runners to worry about.

When you consider that Peter Snell was once the Owairaka club record holder over 200m (22 secs).. run on a grass track you can see that Arthur possibly could have Coached Sprinters if he had the time or inclination.

Not irritating at all. It's just that I never got into great detail woth Arthur about sprinter's training, so I really couldn't elaborate much or answer any comments.

trackmania -- my early coaching days were as the only coach of a college track and field team so had all events to deal with. as a school of under 1200 students I think we did pretty well and we had 4 freshmen run 3:15 for the 4X400 (only 1 had broken 50 in HS so that wa pretty good). I cannot say I have been involved coaching elite 400 runners and aerobic conditioning can be of benefit for moderately talented 400 runners, because to break 50 for a guy or breatk 60 for a girl doesn't really involve being real fast, just strong enough not to slow down. even football players can benefit from aerobic conditioning because it allows them to recover faster from the bulk of the training they do which is anaerobic. however, in addition to strength and anaerobic work, to have sprinters run 5 miles a day may not be any better than watching tv for a similar period of time. don't take that completely at face value, but training must be pretty specific for whatever event you want to be best at -- physiologically as well as biomechanically. seems it is getting harder and harder to evaluate what works best when there is now more than just training involved (drugs, for example). I remember back in the 60s an Olympic sprinter asking one of the distance runners to time him for a 300, becasue he had to get in some endurance training. He brought out the blocks, got psyched up, ran a 300, took up the blocks and left the track -- endurance training complete. You do what works, and if it doesn't, you better start looking for something that does

Dr Daniels, Thanks for that. I believe you and Arthur would have had a 'Field day" with Football players !!.

One of my pet complaints about our national Rugby Team (The All Blacks)is they no longer Train 'on the roads/trails/Parks'. It is all "In the Gym" or set practices on the field.

Many years ago Arthur worked alongside Don Clarke who in the 1960's was considered the greatest Fullback in the Game. He was also a prestigious Goal Kicker.

Don was still on the Road with Arthur when he retired from Rugby, when one day Arthur said he and Peter Snell had to for for a run. "How far ? " said Don "15 miles" said Arthur.

I'll come with you" Don replied. He did so, albeit in Big heavy cotton shorts and long socks.

I doubt if too many Rugby players could do that today.

One of the last times I spent with Artur he told me he had Kel Tremain one of our greatest "loose Forwards" of the 1960's/early 70's(linebacker would be a close description) running 100 miles a week in the off season.

I knew Arthur well enough to know that at times he could slightly "embelish" what he was saying but did so to make you think about what he was getting at.

Anyway, I decided to check this out so talked to Bill Davis who played with Kel in the All Blacks and also on the same Provincial Team, Hawkes Bay.

Bill said "No, Kel did not run 100 miles a week. It was more like 70 miles a week. BUT he ran those miles with a full raincoat and plastic trousers on."

Hawkes Bay summers could easily get up to 40plus deg (Centigrade). That is around the 100 Deg F. !!!

Interestingly, Kel had the record for the most points scored in the second half of Rugby matches for many years.

he was still running as fast at the end of a game as he was at the beginning.

Arthur loved our National game as much as the next Kiwi and I would love to know what he thinks of our current Team who are playing magnificently but I still worry about the fact that the game is 80 minutes. The emphasis is on size/speed and strength. Not the ability to run and keep running.

I was a collegiate coach for only 3 years, so take my suggestions with that in mind. I trained all the athletes except the ones threw the shot, discus, and hammer.You have to admit when someone else is better at something and let them do their job!

Anyway, our 100-400m runner were atheltes from the football team who went out for track because the head track coach was their head football coach: a matter of association. The sprinters were not rookies at the sport: they averaged 6-8 years of prior experience in track & field.

The first year I coached sprinters I got them started on conditioning as soon as their football season ended in November, about the same time as the cross-country runners were finishing their season. Much to the amazment of the sprinters, I gave them distance running on Tuesdays, Thursdays and Saturdays. I gave them one day of 100 or 150s on grass at 70% speed with 40 seconds of shuffling between for recovery, one day of 300s on an indoor track at 75% speed with 300m of shuffling for recovery, and one day of pool running in which they did a 15-second pickup of effort to 75%, once evey minute, starting after 7 minutes of warming up. They ended the pickups at 21 minutes and did a 4 minute cool down of continue 50% effort "running."

The above was done all the way until to school resumed in January. They really were doing aerobic work, about 25 minutes per day, 6 days per week. They did medium intensity weight training 3 x wk too.

In early December, just before they left, I administered a performance test on them: 2 x 200m, rest 1 minute, at best effort. The average total time for the 9 sprinters in the group was 56 seconds and change. The best of the lot was 53 high. In the middle of January, after continuing the program I had started, they averaged nearly 2 seconds of improvement on nothing but endurance work and nothing over 75% effort (about the same as 75% speed). In mid-April, they average just a tad under 51 seconds for the 2 x 200m, rest 1 minute test.

The training changed in January once school resumed.

I then gave them the same training, over and over until the end of April. It was simple to administer and it seemed to work quite well. The progress was steady and the results were good. Every Monday, they ran short reps (100s) at 80% effort/speed, jog 100m, walk 100m between each rep. The volume started at 800m and by the end of March it was 1200m and stayed there. In April, the latter half of reps were run at 85% effort/speed. Stille the jog was 100m and the walk was nearly 100m, too, with the last few meters of recovery as jogging again.

Every Wednesday they did longer reps (300s to 600s) at 80% effort/speed. They jogged 1/2 the distance and walked 1/2 the distance of the rep. So, if they ran a 300m at 80% effort, they immediately jogged 150m, then walked 150m. In reality, I always wanted them to jog the last 30m as they approached the starting point of the next rep- a running start of sorts. The volume of longer reps in January was 1000m and by the end of March it was 1600m and stayed there. Many times the reps length was 500-600m, just 3 reps at 80%. In April, they increased the effort for the latter part of the workout to 85%.

Every Friday was either a track meet or warm up, strarts, hand-offs, and cool down; always 25 minutes of total running. W-up was 800m of running and striders and so was cool down.

Every Tuesday was a 3 mile slow run. Every Thursday was a 25 minute endurance run in the pool. Every Saturday was either a track meet or a series of 100s on grass at 75% effort-speed (an aerobic capacity workout). Total running time was 25 minutes.

Weight training continued on Tuesdays and Thursdays. Sundays were rest.

Results? Most of the sprinters thought I was crazy for making them do 25 minutes of continuous running 6 days per week. They couldn't believe, at first how running just 70-75% effort could possibly help them in sprint races. They did start to get onboard with the training in February when we went to our first indoor meet at the Univ. of Chicago and they all ran about 1 second or less away from their lifetime personal best times in the 400m and about 4 tenths off their 200m time.

By the middle of April, all runners were setting personal best times by a couple of seconds in the 400m and about half of them were setting personal best times in the 200m or 100m. By the end of April, that group set 7 school records in sprints or sprint relays and they won two medium sized invitational meets, though we had the second smallest or smallest team at those meets.

By the beginning of May, our 4 x 400m team ran 3:22 and one sprinter ran 21.9 for the 200m, despite weighing 225 lbs. He, by the way, also ran 49.4 for the 400m despite that weight. Two and half weeks later, after our official track season ended, he ran 47.6 seconds on the Wheaton College track, paced by two other runners from our team ( I timed him on a beautiful Wendesday evening). Had we gone to a track meet a half week later, he would have qualified for D3 nationals, I am fairly sure.

The top 4 sprinters on my team ranged from 49.4 to 50.8 seconds, all personal bests by 3-5 seconds. The next 5 guys average just under 52 seconds - and most of them had never run faster than 56 seconds, even when they were far lighter as younger athletes (remember, these guys were all heavily muscled football players by time I had the chance to coach them). The average body weight for my top 4 guys was 202 lbs. The average body weight for the next 5 was 211 lbs. The lightest man was 178 lbs - a free safety.

The point is, 25 minutes of runing, most of it aerobic or easy to medium speed reps with no heavy lactic acid build up, worked quite well for that group of sprinters. They never ran two interval days in a row. They never ran close to full-out in practice. The speed and intensity that they used was very modest, yet they improved a lot.

My questions are these: Has anyone else witnessed similar performance improvements in sprinters when very modest but continuous running is used? Will such a modest approach be useful in other arenas besides sprinting? Tinman

I am so (BLEEPING) sick of Political Correctness.

This idea is in the same peapod as "no child left behind" which is the same as "No talented child moves ahead".

Hey, NEWS: THE WORLD IS NOT FAIR.

In my state the educational system is running aground owing to our open borders and this disgusting Liberal Bias in the vein of "all white men in history were evil" or whatever they are teaching at UMASS and Yale.

America is in big BIG trouble and the comments recently shown on this board are reflecting it.

Face up: not everyone's little darlin' is going to be a Rhodes Scholar and Disneyworld is in Florida, not the real world. Not all kids will be great or even adequate athletes without the application of some physical discomfort.

This was a terrific thread that has been misguided or hijacked.

(OK I'm over my rant, thanks.)