Lydiard anaerobic phase work outs?

Your "question" seems a bit vague and too general. There have been a couple of threads on Lydiard repetitions/anaerobic training. Lots of information as well as interesting debate:

http://www.letsrun.com/forum/flat_read.php?thread=1829467

http://www.letsrun.com/forum/flat_read.php?thread=1830712

Also we've put quite a bit of information on our website (www.lydiardfoundation.org); either Athletic Training, Osaka lecture or PPT presentation. Check it out.

Forgot to add also; if you're trying the Lydiard program, after conditioning, you should be heading for the hills. But then again, your "conditioning" all depends on: How fast were you doing all those mileages? How hilly or flat were those courses? A lot on what you should be doing next depends on how you did those 100-mile weeks.

Thank you for replying. All the miles are in central park NY, undulating course. my easy running is 7:30 pace, medium days are 6:30 to 7:00 steady, and my fast days are 5:50 to 6:15. I plan to run Chicago this fall and need to start thinking about when I will do the anaerobic work. My thinking is mid July. Thoughts? Again, I really appreciate the input.

From the pace you've been training, I would guess you're shooting for sub-3??? If you are training for Chicago, I would suggest you do some track/road races this spring to sharpen up; start build-up for Chicago in June? That'll cut your program a bit short but if you've been doing build-up, it's going to be an aweful long time before you do anything else (you should start the build up for the up-coming 6-months program in April). Again, depending on how many months of 100mpw you've been doing up until now, I'd go around and so some speed work/hill training and run some track 5k or road 10k or something like that. Getting those races' times would help bring your base fitness level up. In other words, you can train for the marathon as a 32-minutes 10k guy instead of 34 (for example).

It is possible and just fine to have conditioning over 20 weeks period (say, if you've been doing conditionin for 8 weeks till now, continue with it for another 3 months till July where you should concentrate more on hill/strength workouts). It all depends on your personal temperament as well as background of training, say, in the last 2 to 3 years.

Ive run 2:48 from just mileage and 16:30 from just speed work. I started reading your posts, the "Lydiard Interpreted" piece by John molvar and you, and Lydiard books to put it all together. I've done a month of solid 100 miles per week and thought that the conditioning phase should last longer. Thanks for the advice, I will incorporate some speed/hills, and short races. I am aiming for 2:30 and believe the Lydiard method will get me there.

Sounds good! I don't want to start this argument here but I more or less believe Japanese has perfected marathon training based on Lydiard principles. In those days (good old Arthur's days), his runners were faster than any other marathon runners because they were track distance men; and they were stronger than any other track men because they were marathon-trained. I think things changed a bit since then and marathon runners are a bit more specialized. If I were to coach a marathon runner, I would incorporate a bit more tempo/time trial type training of, say, 25~35km than Arthur would have originally scheduled. Of course, his training has plenty of 15~18-miler at a strong effort...

With a month of solid 100mpw, I would move on to some reps/time trials/hills and work on your 5~10k time down. By not solely concentrating on short distances like 5k, perhaps do 10k up to half marathon, you will not lose much of solid condition. Regroup yourself and start packing up mileage in June and July; apply effort and do some hills and long tempo runs in August and September; taper in October for Chicago. How does this plan look to you?

Remember one thing; it does NOT have to be 10 weeks of conditioning, 4 weeks of hills, etc. Races won't accommodate for your schedule; you'd most likely need to accommodate your schedule around it. And it CAN be done.

The development of marathon training is eternal.

Great plan. There are some really fun races that I thought I would have to sacrifice this year to training but now they will be part of my training!

Also, I checked out the Lydiard Foundation site and am interested in DVD's and some of the info that is under construction. Do you know when it will be available? Again, many thanks!

Nobby if you would have 8 weeks (after condition period) to the main 5k race how you would schedule the hills/anaerobic reps/cordination phase?

""In those days (good old Arthur's days), his runners were faster than any other marathon runners because they were track distance men; and they were stronger than any other track men because they were marathon-trained.""

Say what?

Really Nobby you do oversimplify a lot.

Lydiard used to say that people didn't understand his system because it was "too simple."

HRE is right. Too many people looked for some magic complicated ingredient in Arthur's work. It was just that : 'work', no short cuts.

As for Nobby's statement. I believe that 'back in the day' most of the guys would happily line up in a marathon, whether they were Marathon runners or track men it did not matter. After all it was just an extension of the long runs.

As for myself,At the time a 'wannabe' track runner, This is exactly what some of us did. We would run a marathon at the end of track season and then run another just before the next Track season began.

This was not something done from any great 'philosophical' or 'physiological' argument or reason. It just suited what we were doing and both Marathons had a great Social functions afterwards.

I can also remember one year,lining up in a marathon in the middle of cross country season. But I just trucked along at 3 hour pace and that is the time I did. That run constituted my long run for that weekend.

It is simple if you just 'stick to the basics'.

I've thought that if you looked at the way things were in the sport in Arthur's early coaching years, you had a wall between marathon runners and track runners. Track runners didn't run marathons except occasionally as a "back up" event for an Olympics. Marathoners didn't do track races. The training was also different for each group. Marathoners almost never did anything but steady runs and track guys rarely ran runs that lasted 90-120 minutes.

Arthur essentially sorted out that if you had track guys doing some of the work marathon runners did they'd get better. He found that if you had marathoners do some of the sort of work track guys did, they got better.

So Nobby's point is pretty much on the mark, even if it seems simplistic. It seems simplistic now because the landscape has changed so much, due to a large extent, because of Arthur's influence.

you regular lydiardites are a great bunch and i always enjoy these threads. but always too much weight is given to arthurs influence. in the 19th century and early 20th century most of the best middle distance runners were doing regular long runs and the best marathoners were doing track races and track work. i can give reams of examples where marathoners did track races before arthur came along, contrary to what hre said. arthur did not invent marathoners / track runners doing opposite work to the specialty. this is just one example in this thread where you guys are attributing things to lydiard which are very exaggerated. lydiard was a great man who did a lot but i wish we could stop the tunnel vision.

i'd be interested in those examples.

If you look at guys like DeMar, Tarzan Brown, Les Pawson, Johnny Miles, you don't see much track racing and from what I've read of their training they didn't do much of anything that looked like interval work.

I know that by the late 40's and 50's you had guys like Jim Peters who did do track races moving to the marathon and of course Zaropek moved up. Dave Powers moved to the marathon while still having a pretty decent track career in the late 50's, but he was influenced by Arthur.

I've paid a lot of attention to the history of the sport so I'd be interested in whoever you're referring to.

Yes, I am oversimplifying things. There are always some exceptions and I'd rather not count all of them. I don't see anybody in the 19th and early 20th century who can leg 4 X 1 mile relay and set the world record as well as winning the Olympic bronze medal in the marathon (Barry Magee) or too many 800m world champion who can run a 2:40 marathon (Snell). Magee also ran the fastest 3- and 6-miles in the world as a marathon runner. Zatopek was an exception but his biggest advantage was the fact he was covering almost 20 miles a day on foot. I'd say Buddy Edlen would be an exception also. It really wasn't until Georg Young the US finally saw a track runner moving up to the marathon and did really well.

The truth of the fact is; I was actually pointing out that Lydiard's marathon program was NOT perfect. I get criticized praising Lydiard; I get criticized denying Lydiard... What do you expect? There are always some who like to criticize no matter what anyways. I guess I just go keep telling what I believe and don't worry about what others might have to say. I have NO doubt in my mind; Lydiard was the one who finally put everything together in the correct order and explained things in a make-sense fashion so anybody in the world, if they understand what he was getting at correctly, can apply it and succeed. Some before him had stumbled along the same, or similar, program but I doubt how many of them actually understood why it worked. Also Lydiard was pretty much the first one who went out and discussed his finding with everybody and anybody; always trying to refine it and actively preached his learning with everybody and anybody around the world. It is ironic, if not sad, that; you go to Japan and just about every successful coach would praise Lydiard and they still study the principles of Lydiardism and make a good impact in the running scene; yet, the country he (Lydiard) really liked and would have loved to support and help succeed, people continue to question and deny. He had every intention to help.

I back Nobby here. Sometimes I wonder why we bother !. If we we do we get damned if we don't we get damned.

I for one would love to know where we stated that Arthur was the first to do many of these things. My History of the Sport is reasonable and I I know for a fact that Arthur looked deeply at what was happening with training and what he felt worked and what did not.

He stated himself that it was the work of F A M Webster that got him on the track he took.

But I will come in from a different angle.

40 years ago this month I wandered down to the Lynndale club in Auckland. The first 2 people who greeted me were Bruce harrison and Jack Dolan. Bruce was an original "Arthur's Boy". He took me on my first run with the guys (I've never stopped since)and if you look at the dedication in Arthur's "Run to the Top" it was to Jack Dolan.

Jack was a student of the Sport and remained that way intil he passed away. He fired Arthur up with his knowledge. All Arthur did was take that flame and make it burn brighter.

As I have said before here. I too would not be running if it was not for Jack Dolan.

Oh Yes ! I asked Bill Baillie once who did he and the others look up to as the "heroes of running and the training involved " when he was young. Quick Answer : Emil Zatopek. Arthur too, studied the what and how Zatopek trained and in 1965 a big group of the guys stayed in Czechoslovakia to spend time with the great man.

Arthur could be dogmatic but if he saw value in something he ran with it.