Was Lydiard wrong?

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.

Actually, if Snell were an athlete today, he'd likely be a tennis player. There's a lot more money in it. I mean really we can't really say what he would have done. The fact is running the times he ran on grass, dirt, and cinder is phenomenal. There was another guy from Australia who was unbeaten in the 1500/mile by the name of Herb Elliot. I believe he retired at age 21, which was the same age Jim Ryun retired. Too much, too soon is often the problem. That's why building a base is so critical rather than running tons of intervals. Many coaches still break this rule today, and they claim they "understand the science."

Yessiree Bob wrote:

Lydiard provided the key to our current understanding of optimal training methods, all of which are a refinement of his discoveries.

Thank you. I agree 100%.

I learned the hard way that you do have to do some long intervals, short intervals, and speed development all season. But for my coaching that meant during the cross country season and track & field season. The off-season can be devoted totally towards aerobic development, although I recommend a little bit of speed development too, once in a while. You never want to stray too far away from speed. This was a Lydiard concept!

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.

No doubt Snell was an animal. He was supposed to have been talented at many sports, not just running. Yet, he was willing to do the 22-mile hilly runs every week. Lydiard must have been some kind of coach. Lydiard is also the only coach who pioneered programs in many countries. Most people just stick to one.

GettingFasterDude wrote:

Jed Clampett wrote:

Maybe I'm too critical with my responses, and that's why this thread has died. I have to continue thinking that Lydiard was right 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 base training.

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.

It sounds like you agree with me that base training is a big key. But kids are also getting injured because of a lack of warm-ups or fast warm-ups. They will also push too hard on certain days, and it only takes one day to get hurt. Coaches are at fault, kids are at fault, but so is the insane number, volume, and frequency of national championship races. Heck, most states now have pre-season-type championships as well as the usual arrangement of post-season title contests! As long as there are races, kids will skip all the preparation and just go for it.

rightindeed wrote:

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.

The problem is many teams are running their best races in practice! Lydiard said in one of his speeches that he used to take people out to an oval and have them run laps. But the runner determined how many to do and at what speed. We, American coaches, feel the need to measure everything in the name of science.

strong aerobic base wrote:

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 ....

Peter Snell ran 1:44.3 on a "GRASS TRACK." When was the last time you saw anyone run 1:44.3 on a grass track? And your right, there might not be anyone who could do it in this great era of 800-meter runners. Read the sign where it says, "Slippery When Wet."

okaywantkababi wrote:

Jed Clampett wrote:

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.

I tend to agree with you, although it's rare when we know exactly what an athlete did during training. The 22 miler they ran was not only long, but it also had many tough hills, that basically made it a Fartlek workout! Athletes get sick and miss workouts, and some do not write down everything they did.

Elliott retired to pursue a career. His decision to leave the sport had more to do with money than anything else. There's no evidence that Elliott did to too much speed work. In fact his training was very diverse, he spent very little time on a track pounding out intervals. Ryun is another story. Still, Snell's career wasn't exactly long either. He was retired by 1965.

Snell needs to stop being used to extol the benefits of Lydiard's system for 800m runners. Anyone that's seen a picture of him should see that he was a genetic freak. He went from not really being a runner to Olympic champ in 3 years. That kind of improvement isn't in any way typical, and isn't due to some magical coaching formula. Snell may have been one of the only 800m type runners who's body could hold up to Lydiard's mileage requirements. It worked for him and him alone. Lydiard never had another athlete like Snell and he never repeated Snell's success.

coahc wrote:

800m training is applied science wrote:

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.

A 22.7 200m lad as a teenager in 1974 would not have had the b@lls to attempt to medal in 1974 European Championship, 800m.

A 22.7 200m 20 year old would not have had the b@lls to attempt to earn an Olympic 800m medal, 1976.

If you coach a 22.8 200m middle distance or long distance runner, that gentlemen looks like something between Eamonn Coghlan to Dave Moorcroft on a track, not like Steve Ovett on a track.

Yes he started running as a 21 year old and in his 2nd year ran 22.8 and 48.26 which is quite good. This year at the age of 25 on approximately 40-50k per week he ran 1:49.78. More volume will help in the 2022 season.

I've read the same books you have and then some. Obviously, you do not know about all the countries Lydiard to which he went in the later years of his life. Finland and Ethiopia were two of the more notable ones.

I know Lydiard went to Finland and Ethiopia. he also went to South America for a while. However, most of his success was with longer distances. He really only had one 800m runner, Snell. He was unable to repeat his success with any other 800m runner. I don't think Lydiard's training is wrong per se. I think the mileage component has merit for longer distances. I think the periodization is way too specific and way over done.

I've only read about half the thread, but:

The value of the Lydiard method--especially with middle school and high school runners--is that the centerpiece is long term aerobic development. The challenge for US coaches is to get young runnersto commit to consistent training, and using the Lydiard framework or some appropriate adaptation sets up the right priorities.

Too many hs programs in the US just beat the piss out of kids for the sacntioned 12 week seaon with short term goals.

Not smart.

Steve Ovett wrote:

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!

Steve Ovett didn’t run 21.7 for 200. It never happened. It's a misprint in his autobiography.

He was running 11.8 for 100 and 22.8 for 200.

22.7 is probably the real time. That power of 10 list is incomplete and disappointing. It just adds to the mythologising.

800m training is applied science wrote:

coahc wrote:

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.

A 22.7 200m lad as a teenager in 1974 would not have had the b@lls to attempt to medal in 1974 European Championship, 800m.

A 22.7 200m 20 year old would not have had the b@lls to attempt to earn an Olympic 800m medal, 1976.

If you coach a 22.8 200m middle distance or long distance runner, that gentlemen looks like something between Eamonn Coghlan to Dave Moorcroft on a track, not like Steve Ovett on a track.

I suggest you read his autobiography and check the numbers and have a rethink.

Ovett was All-England schools champion at 400m and second in the English schools x-country within a few months.

I believe he may have won the Inter-Counties x-country - then the trial for worlds - at 7 1/2 miles one year. If not he was close up.

Lydiard was mostly right, however he lucked into coaching a super responder, Peter Snell which magnifies the credit his program is given.

I'm also gonna call BS on the 21.7 as we;;. Amos could "only" run a 21.34 off a 44.99 400m PR, and unlike Ovett, he's extremely speed-based. Most likely a misprint as someone suggested and 22.7 sounds about right.