Was Lydiard wrong?

I agree with this for the most part.

A good middle distance runner needs a good portion of Fast-twitch. With training these can be developed aerobically but they can also quickly be pushed back to anaerobically for top speed. Often it's simply a matter of which type of enzyme is present.

To develop them aerobically takes years. Anaerobic can be built in a matter of weeks. This was why Lydiard focused on building the aerobic side.

Running your best 800/1500 /whatever is about finding the right aerobic/anaerobic balance for you. It's easier to push the Aerobic side down by doing more Anaerobic in the peaking phase than it is to build the Aerobic side up during it.

I think Lydiard was somewhat brute force with the mileage but heck the guy wasn't tracking everybody's Strava, doing lactate tests, looking at heart-rates, treadmill testing to get a precise picture. As I say, easier to change some of that aerobic to anaerobic through a harder track session or racing than to realise as you enter the championships you lack the endurance.

metabollocks wrote:

Uhhh wrote:

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

Good question. I enjoyed watching the Women's races in Tokyo. I don't believe the 800 or 400 times from the past are unbeatable.

Let me throw the question back at you. Why did no doped up runners get near Flojo's performances?

Why didnt blood doping work so well in the 70s and 80s, but in the 90s and onwards, suddenly it supposedly did? You do know that Lance Armstrong switched to blood transfusions in 2003 don't you?

Where is the extra energy that doping supposedly provides, supposed to come from? Ask an Exercise Physiologist that question.

I don't know about extra energy. I don't know about the blood transfusions.

Do we agree that steroids help you recover quicker? That's why doctor give ordinary people steroids or cortisone shots when they have a bad shoulder, knee or whatever.

Modern athletes can't take steroids like those of the 80s did. Flojo's best in pre-88 for 100m was 10.96m and 200m was 21.96 - those times are on a par with 2021 Olympics. It's hard to believe she improved by 1/2 second at age 29 without PEDs. She didn't look like the East German women but they'd been at it for years. She retired the next year, as out of competition testing came in.

From what Tyler Hamilton wrote, it was taking the steroid pills that enabled him to recover and perform at the same level next day, whereas he was too tired in the multi-day tours before that. That overnight 10pm -6am window when the testers aren't allowed to disturb athletes does allow them to microdose.

I think it was Ben Johnson said he was training hard the same afternoon. Or it was said about him whereas other runners who might only be able to train the next day. Ben got caught at Seoul because he took his doses too close to competition. Think it's said he was struggling in the spring with Lewis beating him and he got desperate.

Jed Clampett wrote:

high school xc coach wrote:

Canova was a nice improvement to lydiard, but DANCAN is another level up.

what a time to be alive!

Remember that Peter Snell set world records in the 880 and Mile on a Grass Track. Those are still the records in New Zealand today. Perhaps Lydiard knew more than his pupil? In fact, they did have arguments over some of the morning runs Snell was asked to do each day!

What some people fail to acknowledge is that when you have a number of elite or quality athletes training together, you often get an intensity to sessions that provide real value.

Snell was in a quality group, and I expect there really were no slow long session.

Ben Johnson in the summer of '88 went to see club doctor Jamie Astaphan in St. Kitts, and he was juicing close to Seoul for reasons that you mention; Charlie Francis his coach at the time was pissed because Francis supervised the doping program with the Mazda Optimist Track Club, and timed the cycles well so Ben wouldn't get caught ie. Rome 1987 World Champs, 1986 Goodwill Games. The positive result was definitely a surprise to Francis, since he didn't realize that his athlete was not just convalescing in St. Kitts! If you can find it read "Speed Trap" by the late Charlie Francis- real good insight into doping in track in the 70's and 80's....as for FloJo-look at her 84 pics compared 1988...only thing that was bigger in '84 were her nails lol!

metabollocks wrote:

rekrunner wrote:

I would say things got worse for the US, after Coe, with a shift away from mileage to more intensity.

I think that's a popular myth. Coe's training was about building endurance too. He was applying the same "Train, don't strain" mantra.

…

This problem has been addressed by many coaching groups in the last 20 years though.

Maybe it was a popular myth, but many countries changed their training for the worse by reducing mileage and increasing intenstiy in the ‘90s because of it.

One of the early founding missions of “letsrun” was to bring back high mileage into distance running training.

metabollocks wrote:

Uhhh wrote:

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

Good question. I enjoyed watching the Women's races in Tokyo. I don't believe the 800 or 400 times from the past are unbeatable.

Let me throw the question back at you. Why did no doped up runners get near Flojo's performances?

Why didnt blood doping work so well in the 70s and 80s, but in the 90s and onwards, suddenly it supposedly did? You do know that Lance Armstrong switched to blood transfusions in 2003 don't you?

Where is the extra energy that doping supposedly provides, supposed to come from? Ask an Exercise Physiologist that question.

I was going to pose the same question as Uhhh - that is, if PEDs don't actually do anything, why were Eastern Bloc sprinters - especially women - so strong in the '80s? Why were they running 47 and 1:53 in the early '80s, but nobody has done that since, and very few have even come close?

Simply put, it is blindingly obvious that, even if you accept nothing else regarding mainstream beliefs about PEDs, you can hardly deny that one type of PED - anabolic steroids - is very effective for women sprinters. And once you concede that point, your whole claim about why PEDs can't possibly work is shown to be bunk.

Just stating that you believe those nearly 40-year-old records are beatable doesn't count as a legitimate response. All you did to answer the question was to to try to distract by asking more questions.

rekrunner wrote:

800m training is applied science wrote:

Or maybe Lydiard lucked up and was able to coach an elite 800m talent in Peter Snell. Do you praise Don Shula as a coaching genius for both Larry Csonka and Eugene Morris rushing for 1000 yards in a 14 game season? If Snell were a runner today, Snell would be an 800m specialists. Even with faster surfaces and faster shoes, Snell would not be an elite 1500m man today. If Snell were an 800m specialist today, Snell would not slog 100 miles per week.

Not just Snell. He won Olympic medals with local club runners.

Lydiard's flaw was his 800m training philosophy. Anytime any poster brings up Lydiard's flawed 800m training, there are two responses: 1) Peter Snell; 2) other medalists at long events.

Larry Dickman wrote:

800m training is applied science wrote:

Lydiard training along with Dave Wottle's 1972 were the worst thing to happen to U.S. 800m. Lydiard and his 100 miles per week for all events 800m and longer chased away many potential elite 800m runners. U.S. elite 800m men from 1930's through 1950's were elite 400m men. 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.

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

Wow! I just read this.

Eight-hundred metres is an event the entire world believes they can send one of their runners to Olympics to compete. Many programs have F.A.T. sub-22 200m &/or F.A.T. sub-47 400m as the dividing line for special treatment. Either no XC or a modified XC training program. I don't even know if there are more of one racial group or another capable of sub-47 400m. I know Steve Ovett never officially sprinted a sub-47 400m but based on his sub-22 200m talent, certainly Steve Ovett would be considered a Thoroughbred by anyone.

Speed is determined by Genetics, not drugs.

A woman who can run 11 meters per second or a man who can run 12 meters per second will display that ability long before they reach adulthood.

800m training is applied science wrote:

Larry Dickman wrote:

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

Wow! I just read this.

Eight-hundred metres is an event the entire world believes they can send one of their runners to Olympics to compete. Many programs have F.A.T. sub-22 200m &/or F.A.T. sub-47 400m as the dividing line for special treatment. Either no XC or a modified XC training program. I don't even know if there are more of one racial group or another capable of sub-47 400m. I know Steve Ovett never officially sprinted a sub-47 400m but based on his sub-22 200m talent, certainly Steve Ovett would be considered a Thoroughbred by anyone.

Ovett didn't run sub 22 for 200. It's a popular myth based on a misprint in his autobiography.

22.7 not 21.7

Again, speed is controlled by Genetics. Those athletes were contolled by their coaches and/or the state.

Putting young athletes on a doping programme is abusive to the athlete. It's quackery. Why does everyone deny this and target the young athletes and not the system?

The abuse of young people continues and the older abusers get away with it. Where is the morality?

What is WADA going to do about it?

Nothing. They are too busy congratulating themselves.

metabollocks wrote:

800m training is applied science wrote:

Wow! I just read this.

Eight-hundred metres is an event the entire world believes they can send one of their runners to Olympics to compete. Many programs have F.A.T. sub-22 200m &/or F.A.T. sub-47 400m as the dividing line for special treatment. Either no XC or a modified XC training program. I don't even know if there are more of one racial group or another capable of sub-47 400m. I know Steve Ovett never officially sprinted a sub-47 400m but based on his sub-22 200m talent, certainly Steve Ovett would be considered a Thoroughbred by anyone.

Ovett didn't run sub 22 for 200. It's a popular myth based on a misprint in his autobiography.

22.7 not 21.7

Well, Ovett's 47.5 400m is official. We have your post stating 22.7 200m but 21.7 200m seems reasonable for a 47.5 400m man. Are you trying to turn Steve Ovett into a typical 2:12 Marathoner who could never break 57 seconds for 400m?

800m training is applied science wrote:

metabollocks wrote:

Ovett didn't run sub 22 for 200. It's a popular myth based on a misprint in his autobiography.

22.7 not 21.7

Well, Ovett's 47.5 400m is official. We have your post stating 22.7 200m but 21.7 200m seems reasonable for a 47.5 400m man. Are you trying to turn Steve Ovett into a typical 2:12 Marathoner who could never break 57 seconds for 400m?

I coach an athlete who has run 48.26 and his 200m pb is 22.8. He has been running for only 4 years. I don't think Steve Ovett ran 21.7.

If he ran 21.7 as an endurance based athlete his pb for 400m would be in the low 46 high 45 range. Just my opinion happy for Steve to chime in.

Steve Ovett definitely ran 21.7 for 200m. He started life as a sprinter and long jumper. This isn't one of those 'Oh I ran it in training' stories either - he ran it in a British Athletics league race. On the same day he ran 48.7 for 400m too. This was in 1975 - https://www.thepowerof10.info/athletes/profile.aspx?athleteid=2424 - Ovett was fast! What is also quite interesting is that in March of that year he won a 6 mile XC race too - the England U20 Champs. He was quite the specimen!

thanks Steve!

His 800m time should have been around 1:42 with a 200m in 21.7

Yep, I think it is fair to say that Ovett's actual times were 'relatively' poor in comparison to his sprint times. One thing to note, however, is that Ovett was very much a racer who had almost no interest in times. He got dragged along into it when the UK media were hyping him and Coe to exchange WRs but he was far more interested in beating people than chasing times and so perhaps never quite hit his true potential.

You only need to see a few of his races where he'd sit as long as possible before unleashing a frightening last 150/200m often waving to the crowd to realise that he was often running well within himself. Case in point - check out the famous finish in 1:56 in the below video where he makes world class athletes look like joggers.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bMfVDRQEePg

Doped Up Real Estate Broker wrote:

Jed - the fact that you are being intellectually honest, not resorting to name calling, and not declaring one system to be the ONLY system that works is what is killing the thread. LRC is only interested in shortcuts and hyperbole.

Of course Lydiard was right and his notions are proven time and again. Other coaches have brought refinements but, the best athletes at 1500 and up all have a well developed base. The 800 straddles that grey zone where an aerobically developed runner can match a true speedster. Our system does not reward long term development. Like our economy and society, we demand quick improvement, victories, and rewards in the near term. The fact that we "use" kids in high school and collegiate track to keep coaches employed and boosters happy is why we often fail on the world stage.

Thank you. I agree with your response 100%.

800m training is applied science wrote:

Lydiard training along with Dave Wottle's 1972 were the worst thing to happen to U.S. 800m. Lydiard and his 100 miles per week for all events 800m and longer chased away many potential elite 800m runners. U.S. elite 800m men from 1930's through 1950's were elite 400m men. 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.

There might be something to what you say except that it's hard for most coaches to get kids to run the 400, let alone the 800. The American way is to run the shortest distance you can get away with running. If I can run only the 60 meter dash indoors then why run the 100? And so on. Besides there have been many people who developed the "sit and kick or even-paced" running strategies. That's why we haven't had anyone chase the mile record for almost 30 years.