Was Lydiard wrong?

metabollocks wrote:

I hope that poster is joking.

The whole PED concept is quackery.

I was joking in that post (but not my next post after that one).

Of course some athletes were using anabolic steroids in the 1960s and before.

Silly to assume some nostalgic idyllic innocence.

https://www.asas.org/docs/default-source/midwest/mw2020/publications/raunhist.pdf?sfvrsn=3ac11b67_0

Lydiard was not especially bright or astute; Snell did not have astounding stamina.

These days most any 1:44.3 800m runner can manage a < 3:55 mile, typically on far less volume than Snell's.

Lydiard was right imho

Aerobic is virtually unlimited…

Anaerobic can only be improved (and I can’t find the exact figures but it’s like 8-16 mml or some figures like that which I don’t have at my fingertips)

Yes speed is necessary but only certain times of the year

My own experience is when the mileage hogs came back for Xc tf in fall they were still running well into spring whereas the guys who hung out all summer drinking beer and going to the beach or whatever (with no base traing)

While they improved a little in the fall they fell behind very quickly they had no foundation

The aerobic base also makes speed work easier

Read the science all the real good adaptations take place at easy paces (enzymes mitochondria capillary beds etc)

The bad adaptations take place with too much speed work (blood ph levels all fcked up)

GettingFasterDude wrote:

Jed Clampett wrote:

Maybe I'm too critical with my responses, and that's why this thread has died. I have continue thinking that Lydiard was right in his thinking about the seriousness of building a base. He called it Marathon Training and felt it important for all distance events. That's why little New Zealand dominated the world for a short time.

Drugs did not stop his theory. However, few people have the patience for it.

Which type of thread do we have more of?

A) "What magic workout can I do, as a shortcut to running high volume?"

Or,

B) "I went out and ran high mileage, every week for 5 years and here are my results _____."

I'd say "A" type threads outnumber "B" type threads, 100 to 1.

There's your problem.

There’s a third group that realizes that high volume is not needed. No need to call it a shortcut. High volume 800m runners are pretty rare. Snell and is about it maybe Wottle and Coe. There are many more world class low volume 800m guys. High volume is the exception not the rule.

This! What people don’t realize is that the main purpose of the Lydiard base phase is to develop the aerobic system. Lydiard didn’t believe in schedules because every athlete is different. Doing interval workouts at these speeds (as long as they aren’t anaerobic/lactic in nature) is completely fine! These workouts that parkerjohn included are known as cruise intervals or critical velocity, very much different than the typical vo2max/glycolytic workouts you see lydiard referring to in the anaerobic phase.

HS athletics is primarily about physical fitness and teaching, not about reaching running potential. Clubs are for proper training.

metabollocks wrote:

The poster was wrong anyway. Brother Colm O'Connell coached David Rudisha and many others with similar conditioning ideas to Lydiard.

Lydiards base phase of 6-10 hours of easy running with 2 harder efforts and a day of short sprints stands up pretty well. you can debate if the 60min MP runs, 30 min HM paced runs Or 5x1 mile at 10k pace is better or if you should be doing 8s up a hill ot 150s but those are pretty minor details.

The hill and specific comp phases havent held up as well. The basic ideas are there of doing more race specific stuff but he was always pretty vague.

Most good 800m guys are more 400/800 guys so lydiard is a bit sketchy. Yeah it worked for Snell but he might be more of the exception.

I have the feeling that the Lydiard System is more for 10k+ runners (100 mpw). For 5k runners, about 80mpw seems to be enough, and for shorter race distances mybe a little less could be enough. So there seems to be a sweetspot in optimal miles per week.

dsrunner wrote:

Lydiard was not especially bright or astute; Snell did not have astounding stamina.

These days most any 1:44.3 800m runner can manage a < 3:55 mile, typically on far less volume than Snell's.

Not on cinder tracks they can't. Snell had enough stamina to win 3 olympic golds and his 1500m win was going away from the entire field even while shutting the engines down over the last 100m.

Please don't say that you are a fan of that self-acclaimed expert coach Antonio Cabral ....

What you bet said.

Rudolf Harbig, Tom Courtney, Bill Crothers are thoroughbreds that Larry Dickman is talking about. Not one of the three were Black.

you bet wrote:

Larry Dickman wrote:

If we can get old white guys to stop calling black athletes "Thoroughbreds," that would be great.

You read something that wasn’t there. Whatever you are inferring is coming from within you! Don’t derail the thread with some lame accusation.

His point is correct the 800 is more of a long sprint than it is a distance race. 400 runners that move up are better prospects.

I literally quoted him, but okay.

SlowFatMaster wrote:

What you bet said.

Rudolf Harbig, Tom Courtney, Bill Crothers are thoroughbreds that Larry Dickman is talking about. Not one of the three were Black.

He doesn't call them Thoroughbreds. He moves into the present tense for that. I quote:

"Elite 400m men are Thoroughbreds. Asking elite 400m men to log 100 miles over the summer for fall XC discouraged elite 400m men from moving up to 800m."

This is basic reading comprehension.

Larry Dickman wrote:

you bet wrote:

You read something that wasn’t there. Whatever you are inferring is coming from within you! Don’t derail the thread with some lame accusation.

His point is correct the 800 is more of a long sprint than it is a distance race. 400 runners that move up are better prospects.

I literally quoted him, but okay.

You literally added “black athletes”, when he said nothing of the sort. Then you pretended to be offended by the thing that you added. If you inferred “black athletes” from what he wrote that comes from you. You seem to have the problem that you are accusing him of.

you bet wrote:

GettingFasterDude wrote:

Which type of thread do we have more of?

A) "What magic workout can I do, as a shortcut to running high volume?"

Or,

B) "I went out and ran high mileage, every week for 5 years and here are my results _____."

I'd say "A" type threads outnumber "B" type threads, 100 to 1.

There's your problem.

There’s a third group that realizes that high volume is not needed. No need to call it a shortcut. High volume 800m runners are pretty rare. Snell and is about it maybe Wottle and Coe. There are many more world class low volume 800m guys. High volume is the exception not the rule.

And Ovett.

I think while there have always been some 400/800m types, such as Harbig, for a long time the balance was more towards 800/1500m type (with intrusions from such as Fiasconaro and Juantorena).

The 800/1500m type probably did benefit from high-mileage, and Ovett certainly ran 100 mile weeks (Ovett or maybe Cruz were the last 800/1500m types to win an Olympic 800m).

Coe was something of an oddity with his 400m speed, but his ability over 1500m (and enough aerobic ability to beat runners like McLeod, Coghlan, Spedding and even Cova in races of 4 miles and up).

Since then, however, the event has tilted far more towards a 400m/800m type, even if they perform as an 800m specialist, and they are far less likely to benefit from big mileage. I would say the event is actually shifting a little in terms of aerobic/anaerobic contribution in the case of these runners.

A second thing that I've seen is that Lydiard's long runs were at a good pace over hilly courses, so still having some anaerobic contribution and some a power building.

Maybe all great coaches are crackpots!

BUT -- Can't argue with Snell's success '60 - '64, and the great John Walker's coach was a Lydiard follower.

I was always perplexed a bit by Snell's collapse in '65 -- he started off with fast wins in the spring and once Jim Ryun beat him he couldn't win a race at all.

So it may have been burnout/overtraining! I always figured that is what happened to Jim Ryun too, in due course. He went at it LIKE HE WAS KILLING SNAKES '64 - '67, then he was simply done. Yes, I think the '67 Ryun beats the '68 Keino, even in Mexico City. HA!

Jed Clampett wrote:

Some coaches say he had runners doing too much distance. However, Lydiard's theory was

to "work on stamina for as long as possible." You can strengthen the aerobic system almost indefinitely,

but running without air is extremely limited in all athletes.

I know that we must add speed a little bit all along the way when working with a scholastic team. Yet, we have way too many 2:00 800 high school runners in this country who are not meeting their potential because we work too much on the anaerobic systems. We need more long runs and less racing!

I replied to you 5 years ago under a different handle.

I'm not sure that Lydiard got it wrong but there are many ways to improve endurance performances.

During the past track season I was lucky to work with athletes that ran 1:49.78 and 1:50.05 for 800m and another runner run 3:43.69 for 1500m. None of these athletes had extensive volume. My 1500m runner averaged about 84k (52 miles) for the 6 months leading up to his performance. My fastest 800m runner ran nowhere near that and probably averaged only 50-55k per week but he has only been running 4 years so we are taking it rather slow.

In their training we base we focus on short hills, threshold, and alternations. I have found that running at 3k pace (roughly VO2 Max pace) throughout the year in the form of short efforts keeps them rather fit.

Our fast efforts are over 150's and we do some high quality lactate tolerance sessions on a nice 300m grass hill. Coaching is an art and I am lucking to have worked with these runners since they started running so can progress training over the years.

Here is there progression

Athlete 1 Age 14 4:34 1500m Age 21 3:43 (next season he will be back at Princeton)

Athlete 2 Age 21 2:16 800m Age 25 1:49.78

Athlete 3 Age 14 2:09 800m Age 19 1:50.05

These athletes aren't world class but they have improved with sound training without a huge amount of volume and not necessarily too much intensity. The females that I coach?? They have strived under the same training and I believe the key is consistent training from year to year.

Good luck in your book.

Speed in the Lydiard context wasn't 800m, 1000m, mile etc etc repetitions at 10K race pace off 60" or 90" rest, which is very common.

Think about it. If you are running 10k race pace, you are not provoking fast twitch muscles or going anaerobic.

So, let's get Lydiard right first. I don't think anyone here actually gets him completely, which is totally understandable. He pioneered this stuff and the language was a little different then and sometimes he sounded as if he contradicted himself. He didn't and he was rarely wrong.

Snell and Lydiard made up and after Snell became a noted exercise physiologist, he was asked what he would change and he answered, "very little."

He did indeed want a little more so-called "speed" but fast twitch stuff. So, for those who are visualising heading down to the track to run hard V02max workouts or LT or AT.....Snell was talking about fast nueromuscular speed-oriented running. He did infact take it upon himself to restart training one year, not with the base phase, but for two weeks before the base phase, a speed phase.....perhaps something closer to Mona fartlek. Then, he started the base phase.

The base or marathon conditioning phase has a weekly fartlek. So, you are never too far away from faster, shorter intervals, but the fartleks were done proper BY FEEL and not measured.

Pre-super spikes, pre-drugs, pre-money on cinder track, the man ran 1:44.1. This is worth 1:42.xx put on the super spikes, add some drugs and goodness knows what he could do.

Lydiard trained a lot of people, then trained coaches and was a national head coach of five different countries. He was knighted in two. Don't kid yourself. He was very right. He made bold and accurate predictions and admitted when he wasn't needed, for example, when he went to Kenya, he said, "they are doing everything right."

If Lydiard's method didn't work for you, it is very likely you weren't quite doing Lydiard. One of his aphorisms is:

Good and bad training can look the same on paper.

Why aren't the women's records of the 80s being broken if PEDs have no benefit?