Was he wrong about doing stamina work "for as long as possible?" I see so many recommendations for doing interval training. Lydiard was against most of that.
He confused "aerobic capacity" with "aerobic endurance".
For that reason, he believed that racing limited physiological development. Which obviously isn't true. That can be a short term limitation, sometimes, but not long term.
He was correct that you can only do many times go to the well before ph blood levels turn detriment. Whether that’s in a hard workout or “race” it doesn’t matter. 1-2 hard workouts and race every weekend will burn the ship. However, a race OR 1 hard workout a week is manageable. It all depends on how you schedule. Lydiard had training plans for those that raced every week and for those that spent 6-9 months base building before a peak racing season. What elites do rare now is certainly a reflection of lydiard concepts.
Was he wrong about doing stamina work "for as long as possible?" I see so many recommendations for doing interval training. Lydiard was against most of that.
Back then interval training was hard 400s. Lydiards hard 60min runs 2x/week during the base phase aren’t that different than doing 60mins of threshold work.
He was correct that you can only do many times go to the well before ph blood levels turn detriment. Whether that’s in a hard workout or “race” it doesn’t matter. 1-2 hard workouts and race every weekend will burn the ship. However, a race OR 1 hard workout a week is manageable. It all depends on how you schedule. Lydiard had training plans for those that raced every week and for those that spent 6-9 months base building before a peak racing season. What elites do rare now is certainly a reflection of lydiard concepts.
The fitter you are, the faster you recover. The faster you recover, the harder you can train.
Eventually something gives. For me it was motivation after I achieved my goals.
Isn't this the wonning philosophy of most of the best athletes and coaches?
Was he wrong about doing stamina work "for as long as possible?" I see so many recommendations for doing interval training. Lydiard was against most of that.
Even Lydiard prescribed intervals at times.
But yes, Lydiardism has long since been discredited. Nobody uses Lydiard training in the modern era and certainly not 800 guys.
Was he wrong about doing stamina work "for as long as possible?" I see so many recommendations for doing interval training. Lydiard was against most of that.
Even Lydiard prescribed intervals at times.
But yes, Lydiardism has long since been discredited. Nobody uses Lydiard training in the modern era and certainly not 800 guys.
It certainly worked for Snell. You can't deny that.
Was he wrong about doing stamina work "for as long as possible?" I see so many recommendations for doing interval training. Lydiard was against most of that.
Arthur was not always as clear as he maybe could have been. He really wasn't against anything if it was done in what he considered the proper time. When he said "as long as possible" he really meant within the context of his overall plan, i.e. you'd schedule 10-12 weeks for your base phase but if something changed in your timing, say the first race you wanted to do was cancelled and your next planned race was a couple weeks later and you knew all this when doing your base you'd extend the base phase a couple more weeks. He didn't mean extending it much more than that. He believed that once you'd done a particular kind of training for a while you'd have pretty much milked it for all you could and you should do something else for a while.
He was not at all against hard intervals. He was against doing them for too long and he was never a fan of hero workouts. What most people who look at his method don't seem to grasp is that the phases that preceded the interval phase was to allow you to run more intervals faster than you could do without the earlier phases. Peter Snell once said that how fast you can race depends on how much training you can do at near race efforts and that how much of that kind of training you can manage depends on how much aerobic running you've done.
The problem with "The Lydiard Method" is that there really wasn't one. He adapted to each athlete and he learned from other coaches such as Percy Cerutty. More has been written about the New Zealand legend than any other coach.
Was he wrong about doing stamina work "for as long as possible?" I see so many recommendations for doing interval training. Lydiard was against most of that.
Arthur was not always as clear as he maybe could have been. He really wasn't against anything if it was done in what he considered the proper time. When he said "as long as possible" he really meant within the context of his overall plan, i.e. you'd schedule 10-12 weeks for your base phase but if something changed in your timing, say the first race you wanted to do was cancelled and your next planned race was a couple weeks later and you knew all this when doing your base you'd extend the base phase a couple more weeks. He didn't mean extending it much more than that. He believed that once you'd done a particular kind of training for a while you'd have pretty much milked it for all you could and you should do something else for a while.
He was not at all against hard intervals. He was against doing them for too long and he was never a fan of hero workouts. What most people who look at his method don't seem to grasp is that the phases that preceded the interval phase was to allow you to run more intervals faster than you could do without the earlier phases. Peter Snell once said that how fast you can race depends on how much training you can do at near race efforts and that how much of that kind of training you can manage depends on how much aerobic running you've done.
Arthur was not always as clear as he maybe could have been. He really wasn't against anything if it was done in what he considered the proper time. When he said "as long as possible" he really meant within the context of his overall plan, i.e. you'd schedule 10-12 weeks for your base phase but if something changed in your timing, say the first race you wanted to do was cancelled and your next planned race was a couple weeks later and you knew all this when doing your base you'd extend the base phase a couple more weeks. He didn't mean extending it much more than that. He believed that once you'd done a particular kind of training for a while you'd have pretty much milked it for all you could and you should do something else for a while.
He was not at all against hard intervals. He was against doing them for too long and he was never a fan of hero workouts. What most people who look at his method don't seem to grasp is that the phases that preceded the interval phase was to allow you to run more intervals faster than you could do without the earlier phases. Peter Snell once said that how fast you can race depends on how much training you can do at near race efforts and that how much of that kind of training you can manage depends on how much aerobic running you've done.
Snell ran 1:44 on grass over 60 years ago, then in Tokyo he ran over all comers, including Kiprugut and Kerr, not exactly the whitest fellas out there.
Was he wrong about doing stamina work "for as long as possible?" I see so many recommendations for doing interval training. Lydiard was against most of that.
Even Lydiard prescribed intervals at times.
But yes, Lydiardism has long since been discredited. Nobody uses Lydiard training in the modern era and certainly not 800 guys.
Lydiard developed his training philosphy from the successes of prior coaches like Cerutty, and a lot of his own trial and error. He did so in the era before we had the current level of scientific understanding of aerobic and anaerobic metabolism. Rather than being "discredited", Lydiard's coaching has been refined with the added knowledge of metabolic biochemistry and tools like heart monitors, lactate testing and other scientific advances that allow coaches to know more precisely the impacts of training that Lydiard had to estimate from just a stopwatch and personal observation of his athletes.
Most understanding of Lydiard here is of one 22 mile run a week. It was much much more diverse than long runs and a conditioning phase. But at the core he recognised that every event from 800 up required endurance, and not just speed. His athletes proved him right, as well as those who followed.
But yes, Lydiardism has long since been discredited. Nobody uses Lydiard training in the modern era and certainly not 800 guys.
Lydiard developed his training philosphy from the successes of prior coaches like Cerutty, and a lot of his own trial and error. He did so in the era before we had the current level of scientific understanding of aerobic and anaerobic metabolism. Rather than being "discredited", Lydiard's coaching has been refined with the added knowledge of metabolic biochemistry and tools like heart monitors, lactate testing and other scientific advances that allow coaches to know more precisely the impacts of training that Lydiard had to estimate from just a stopwatch and personal observation of his athletes.
Lydiard didn't develop his methods from Cerutty. They were contemporaries but Lydiard's methods were developed from his own running in the early '50's and with his early proteges like Halberg. I doubt he was aware of Cerutty until Elliott's successes in the late '50's.
The accretion of scientific knowledge you refer to has explained much of why his methods worked, but it also shows that practical application and experience are better for doing things than theorising about how they could be done.