solrichards wrote:
I will give you that a person with a keen sense of there body likely train hard without getting hurt.
hi Sol,
do you think that this sense can be developed?
ps keep the Lydiard quotes coming!
solrichards wrote:
I will give you that a person with a keen sense of there body likely train hard without getting hurt.
hi Sol,
do you think that this sense can be developed?
ps keep the Lydiard quotes coming!
runner_pucci wrote:
Ok if you want running economy, which I totally agree needs continuous work, its not a either or argument. You can work on running economy by doing strides at the end of long runs, form drills and other such activities to improve form at high speeds without having to do speed sessions.
I agree on both counts.
Technique requires constant work but the good thing is it is open-ended, it can be improved infinitely. Lydiard says the aerobic capacity can be improved forever, that it has no limit.I wonder if all things follow the same rule?
And speed can undergo a lot of development without actually doing a 'speed' session.
cheers
pete
I am enjoying reading this debate very much. I would like to point out that obviously every coach/athlete has their own philosophy when it comes to base preparation and running in general. However, no one has the same exact body type. Everyone benefits differently from certain stimulus. So, rather than trying to prove that one training scheme is better than the other, why not just state examples and explain benefits rather than blocking out an entire philosophy due to specifics?
21questions wrote:
I am enjoying reading this debate very much. I would like to point out that obviously every coach/athlete has their own philosophy when it comes to base preparation and running in general. However, no one has the same exact body type. Everyone benefits differently from certain stimulus. So, rather than trying to prove that one training scheme is better than the other, why not just state examples and explain benefits rather than blocking out an entire philosophy due to specifics?
I do agree that every person and every coach should have their own philosophy. And there is the whole spectrum to choose from. Someone could decide to avoid all specific training. So a runner swims, cycles, rows and plays basketball. We would say this is a very strange approach and i doubt anybody would follow this method in this day and age. Some would say it is stupid. Yet 50 years ago it may well have been accepted by some. In fact many of the practices from 50 years ago would not be followed today at all. Experience and science has ruled out many approaches. Today you could say we have the narrowest range of choices that we have ever had. Within this very narrow range sits Lydiard's approach, still, after 50 years. This is one reason why i like his approach.
The other main one is that it is a complete system and there aren't that many around. Of those that are around few are as tried and tested and even less yielded such extreme success. It's hard to beat.
Saying all of that i would not say i am following Lydiard precisely. I was coached by a Soviet coach so their periodisation is something i apply on top of Lydiard's plan. Also i take a lot of details from Cerutty that Lydaird doesn't provide and also i apply an understanding of mechanics from outside of track and field. So you couldn't really say i am purely following Lydiard.
The reason i promote Lydiard? It's worth spending the time looking into his system and applying it to yourself (and at least one other system for comparison). I think it is worth this if only as a student trying to understand why so many people call him a master, including many Olympic Champions and former World Record Holders who i think have to be at the pinnacle of our sport.
pete
21questions wrote:
I am enjoying reading this debate very much. I would like to point out that obviously every coach/athlete has their own philosophy when it comes to base preparation and running in general. However, no one has the same exact body type. Everyone benefits differently from certain stimulus. So, rather than trying to prove that one training scheme is better than the other, why not just state examples and explain benefits rather than blocking out an entire philosophy due to specifics?
I do agree that every person and every coach should have their own philosophy. And there is the whole spectrum to choose from. Someone could decide to avoid all specific training. So a runner swims, cycles, rows and plays basketball. We would say this is a very strange approach and i doubt anybody would follow this method in this day and age. Some would say it is stupid. Yet 50 years ago it may well have been accepted by some. In fact many of the practices from 50 years ago would not be followed today at all. Experience and science has ruled out many approaches. Today you could say we have the narrowest range of choices that we have ever had. Within this very narrow range sits Lydiard's approach, still, after 50 years. This is one reason why i like his approach.
The other main one is that it is a complete system and there aren't that many around. Of those that are around few are as tried and tested and even less yielded such extreme success. It's hard to beat.
Saying all of that i would not say i am following Lydiard precisely. I was coached by a Soviet coach so their periodisation is something i apply on top of Lydiard's plan. Also i take a lot of details from Cerutty that Lydaird doesn't provide and also i apply an understanding of mechanics from outside of track and field. So you couldn't really say i am purely following Lydiard.
The reason i promote Lydiard? It's worth spending the time looking into his system and applying it to yourself (and at least one other system for comparison). I think it is worth this if only as a student trying to understand why so many people call him a master, including many Olympic Champions and former World Record Holders who i think have to be at the pinnacle of our sport.
pete
21questions wrote:
I am enjoying reading this debate very much. I would like to point out that obviously every coach/athlete has their own philosophy when it comes to base preparation and running in general. However, no one has the same exact body type. Everyone benefits differently from certain stimulus. So, rather than trying to prove that one training scheme is better than the other, why not just state examples and explain benefits rather than blocking out an entire philosophy due to specifics?
I hear you although i'm actually trying to look at the fundamentals underlying Lydiard's philosophy rather than just pushing the method itself, although i do think it is a very good method.
I guess when the same fundamentals appear in more than one system you can start to trust them. So when the same things appear in Lydiard's stuff, Cerutty's stuff, Soviet stuff, the English golden era stuff, what the kenyans and Ethiopians do etc i start to trust them as fundamentals.
I doubt them when there is another approach trying to achieve the same result, or at least appears to be trying to achieve the same result, and has had great success doing so. That result would be run as fast as possible at the right time.
I have my reasons why i choose to utilise interval training for only part of the entire training year and i've put down a training week showing my system in practise. Possibly someone else should do the same for comparison?
pete
Good thread that needs to be on the first page.
hi HRE
you spent time with Arthur back in the day and you know his method well; i have a few questions if you don't mind. Perhaps Nobby can also answer if he is around?
The first is practical and follows your point regarding hills. At the moment the distance crew i coach is now 12 weeks in to base preparation. Hills to date have been incidental apart from the occasional session where they look for hills. With another 15 weeks of base preparation remaining before the final 16 weeks to the peak, what should I be thinking about as we gradually increase the hills in preparation for the hill phase?
The second relates to the 10 milers. You mentioned two versions of them and i was wondering what other types were used? In my thinking first i like to establish the steady ability and then start to break it up. Hills break it up as does the 30mins out /faster back. Where there any others used?
The third is more general and relates to Zatopek. I've heard two versions of this and would like to know the truth if it exists. It relates to his 40x400 session. One version says he started at 75/75 for each 400 and gradually lowered his times until he was running 60/75 and the other version says the reverse, that he got slower as the session progressed. Maybe he did both versions? HRE, do you or anyone else know?
cheers
Pete
midwesta wrote:
Isn't this basically how Mottram is trained? If I remember right, he said he's almost always 2-3 weeks away from being able to run really fast (in a race). I know there's a link to his coach's philosophy that was posted on here awhile back. Anyone have it?
I think Mottram follows an interpretation of Lydiard, which i guess is all any of us is doing. There is this link to Mottrams' coach's approach although it is a bit of a sell and another link of David Campbell talking about his experiences training with Mottram.
http://www.sports-fitness.com/article/sf/uk/read/108and
http://www.runtrackireland.com/davidcampbelldownunder.htmlRIP: D3 All-American Frank Csorba - who ran 13:56 in March - dead
Great interview with Steve Cram - says Jakob has no chance of WRs this year
RENATO can you talk about the preparation of Emile Cairess 2:06
2024 College Track & Field Open Coaching Positions Discussion
Hats off to my dad. He just ran a 1:42 Half Marathon and turns 75 in 2 months!
adizero Road to Records with Yomif Kejelcha, Agnes Ngetich, Hobbs Kessler & many more is Saturday