if Lydiard is sooooo right...

HRE wrote:

Take 100 people and train them like Craig Mottram trained and if you're lucky one or two might get results like Mottram did.

HRE wrote:

Arthur never believed nor claimed that anyone who used his training was going to become another Snell or Baillie. He often wrote about how people who didn't have the abilities to be world class runners could still improve tremendously and get a lot of satisfaction from the sport. The only coach I can think of who turned 100% of the athletes he coached into world class runners was Peter Coe who only ever coached one athlete

HRE wrote:

The only coach I can think of who turned 100% of the athletes he coached into world class runners was Peter Coe who only ever coached one athlete

state of mind wrote:

HRE wrote:

Take 100 people and train them like Craig Mottram trained and if you're lucky one or two might get results like Mottram did.

The one or two will as good as Craig they will run 2 great seasons and noting else. You see. Consistent long term progress. What a fraude.

HRE wrote:

Arthur never believed nor claimed that anyone who used his training was going to become another Snell or Baillie. He often wrote about how people who didn't have the abilities to be world class runners could still improve tremendously and get a lot of satisfaction from the sport. The only coach I can think of who turned 100% of the athletes he coached into world class runners was Peter Coe who only ever coached one athlete

Arthur says he took some kiwi punks from the block puts on them his training and made them Olympics. Therefore it’s statistic occurrence or an impossibility.

HRE wrote:

The only coach I can think of who turned 100% of the athletes he coached into world class runners was Peter Coe who only ever coached one athlete

Peter coached 7 runners and 5 of them made the olympics and one wins the olympics and 3 others they get the final in the olympics. The last one it´s Marius Bakken from Norway. You need to improve your poor run knowledge of the facts.

Stop to be ignorant.

777 wrote:

Well, to be brutally honest, many runners who set out to follow ANY training program will fail to reach their goals. Many times this is simply due to lack of motivation, or lack of attention to detail--you can't just run your 100 miles a week and say "well, that's that!" Other times, injuries derail and even end careers. Finally, contrary to what you might think, very few posters on letsrun have put in several years of training cycles employing very-high mileage (120+ mpw) base periods. Lydiard was very clear that it will take a LONG time to develop aerobic ability. He mentions having to wait four to five years to get his best athletes (Halberg, Sell, Magee, Davies) to develop to peak form. That's eight to ten training cycles with 10-12 weeks above 100 in singles, plus "supplemental jogging" in the mornings, up to an hour six days a week, which brought the "real" total closer to 130 or even 150 miles a week. Few people can muster that kind of work ethic these days.

Now, let's be clear: There have been elites who have not ran huge mileage and have been successful. Many of them. But I am unaware of any moderately talented athlete who has risen to great heights WITHOUT prodigious volumes of high-quality aerobic running. I suppose Kenny Moore comes close, but can you really call anyone who does 30-mile long runs a "low mileage runner"?

But let's also be clear about this: No training program will ever work for everybody. Some people will fizzle out no matter what kind of running they do. Daniels, Coe, Lydiard, heck even Canova--if the fire isn' there, it 'ain't gonna happen.

HRE wrote:

Whatever Peter Coe did with bakken it was not what he did with his son, i.e. take him from his earliest years to world class. I don't doubt that other athletes sought advice from Peter Coe given the success Sebastian had. No matter, seven is a very small number and I doubt that any of them won Olympic medals.

HRE wrote:

Even if Mottram had only six good months the point remains. You could take 100 runners and give them similar training and at least 90 of them wouldn't get those same results no matter how short lived. Any coach with a large enough number of athletes will have more "failures" than successes if you define success as becoming world class

ilgore wrote:

The best example of Lydiard principles in action is Wetmore's Buffaloes.

The problem people have with the Lydiard way is a lack of patience to see the results develop over years of training. Everyone wants a shortcut.

Another issue is that base work needs to be run at robust levels of intensity. Adding on mile after mile of LSD will bring about some training effect, but you want to push the pace a bit to get the stimulus you need. If you can hold a conversation during a run, you aren't running hard enough. (I think malmo said this once.)

"Quality" is pretty much dead. Lydiard has been vindicated time and time again. Today's coaches are merely slight variations on what that man gave us.

I think it is also helpful to remember that Lydiard advocated a style of racing that was not tactical. With a gigantic aerobic base, you want to put the hammer down early and grind your opponents into dust by maintaining an aerobic pace during a race that others cannot match. This is how Paula races.

I might also add that Lydiard is quite moderate compared to other high mileage philosophies. You must also practice periodization because you can't train well and race well at the same time. Some people don't know when to back off and sharpen up for a race. They grind themselves into oblivion and wonder why they suck come race time. It's because they are still in training mode and haven't gotten into a state of full recovery.

The Lydiard system is easy to grasp. If you keep in mind his key principles and why they work, you will be a believer. But people want shortcuts, but if you don't reach your destination, no shortcut is worth it. Lydiard will get you there. It just takes time and patience.

LSD? wrote:

ilgore wrote:

The best example of Lydiard principles in action is Wetmore's Buffaloes.

The problem people have with the Lydiard way is a lack of patience to see the results develop over years of training. Everyone wants a shortcut.

Another issue is that base work needs to be run at robust levels of intensity. Adding on mile after mile of LSD will bring about some training effect, but you want to push the pace a bit to get the stimulus you need. If you can hold a conversation during a run, you aren't running hard enough. (I think malmo said this once.)

"Quality" is pretty much dead. Lydiard has been vindicated time and time again. Today's coaches are merely slight variations on what that man gave us.

I think it is also helpful to remember that Lydiard advocated a style of racing that was not tactical. With a gigantic aerobic base, you want to put the hammer down early and grind your opponents into dust by maintaining an aerobic pace during a race that others cannot match. This is how Paula races.

I might also add that Lydiard is quite moderate compared to other high mileage philosophies. You must also practice periodization because you can't train well and race well at the same time. Some people don't know when to back off and sharpen up for a race. They grind themselves into oblivion and wonder why they suck come race time. It's because they are still in training mode and haven't gotten into a state of full recovery.

The Lydiard system is easy to grasp. If you keep in mind his key principles and why they work, you will be a believer. But people want shortcuts, but if you don't reach your destination, no shortcut is worth it. Lydiard will get you there. It just takes time and patience.

"Another issue is that base work needs to be run at robust levels of intensity. Adding on mile after mile of LSD will bring about some training effect, but you want to push the pace a bit to get the stimulus you need. If you can hold a conversation during a run, you aren't running hard enough. (I think malmo said this once.)"

I agree with your post except for this part. I know countless people who have trained at the "can't hold a conversation pace" and only when dropping their pace from say high 6's/low 7's to low-mid 8's have they maximized their potential. Heck the example I used was my coach in college and he dropped his 5km time from 15:10ish to 14:20's by running at 8-9 min pace. Is the slow pace solely responsible for his jump? probably not, but after seeing many more examples of this I'm a firm believer in a relaxed pace (not slow, just relaxed). Slow running does so much for you it's not funny. Of course one can't just run slow all summer and expect to suddenly make a jump. Another example: This summer I trained at 8-9min pace, while a friend of mine (similar PR's and age) trained at 6-7:30 min pace, with 8-10 mile tempo runs of 5:50 pace. During our 5km season opener I crushed him by 35 seconds. LSD mixed with strides/drills/...etc can be a nasty combo, but there's got to be a balance to it all.

BTW: My coach basically bases his training method off of rojo's training.