In a nutshell, my opinion of Lydiard Philosophy is that most runners can, through proper training become awesomely competitive, and that there is no limit to how well trained we can be in endurance capacity.
This phiolosopy is what marks Lydiard out as a unique figure in athletic coaching because it is an unusual concept. Most coaches place immaginary limits on what they think the average runner can achieve. They have a lack of vision.
Discuss.
Fred Wilt did a series of How They Train books in the 60s and 70s. The earliest one I have was written around the Rome Olympics and focuses on athletes running the 880 to six mile. Nearly all of the athletes profiled were at the peak of their careers by 1960 or before.
Very, very, few of these guys did any sorts of extended steady runs. The exceptions to this that I can recall were some Australians and a British guy whose name I can't recall.
Total volume was pretty low by current standards. Almost everything was interval type work.
There are no marathoners profiled in that book but training profiles I've seen of marathon runners from before 1960 show training that was virtually ALL steady, extended, running. Zatopek is the only exception I've seen. But Clarence DeMar, Jim Peters, Wally Hayward, etc, did not do repetition work.
The second oldest of Wilt's books that I have came out in the early 70s and profiles people who ran "Long Distance."
The dichotomy that you see between marathoners' training and track runners' training is largely gone. The track guys do lots of steady, extended runs and the marathoners, except for Clayton, do intervals.
What Lydiard did with his athletes was to get trackmen to do "marathon training" and also to get marathoners to do the sort of work that had previously been done only by track racers.
That change may have happened eventually without Arthur's influence and there may have been others who combined the two types of work for everyone. But none had the success that Lydiard did and none were as willing to let everyone know what they did as he was. I don't think it's a coincidence that you see the change in approaches in Wilt's pre and post Lydiard athletes.
I think one of the things Arthur learned from his own running and then from athletes he coached was that you couldn't assume from an athlete's early career that he had little or no talent and that it may be that the athlete just hadn't developed his cardiovascular system sufficiently to know what his capabilities were.
The recent breakthrough of Ritzenhein is testimony to the value of marathon training for shorter distances. I might also add that triathletes imbibe a great deal of the Lydiard philosophy in their training for the bike and the run.
Lydiard threw in the towel on significant development of anaerobic running. This is largely genetic, and the best you can do is sharpen it a bit.
For aerobic development, Lydiard had it right. Aerobic development is virtually limitless. There are limits, but they have more to do with injuries than anything else. Someone less injury prone will be able to log more miles than someone who is injury prone.
Lydiard's methods have been applied to cycling with similar results. One observation is that runners and cyclists didn't get really good until their 30's when all that accumulated mileage made a big difference. There is nothing magic about that age, but Lydiard says it took about 7 years to really get the full benefit from his methods. A guy who starts running at age 40 can expect to set new PRs by age 50.
I think the reason East Africans do so well is because they start training hard at a younger age. Living at altitude provides additional stimulus. The result is that they hit peak fitness at a younger age.
The problem with US runners is that they get their training from coaches who don't see beyond the current high school or college track season. This is understandable for the career of the coach but not for the career of the runner.
The advantage Kenyans and Ethiopians have is patience. What else are they going to do? But for a runner in the US, being a loser is a tragedy, so people abandon running to pursue real careers and start families. In a world of options, making it as a pro runner is not unlike going to Hollywood to wait tables while waiting for your big break. Why take the risk? For a Kenyan with nothing to lose, they are willing to get good at running. The same thing goes for inner city youth that do well in football and basketball. For a middle class white kid, a career as a dentist makes more sense.
Out.
weIInow wrote:
In a nutshell, my opinion of Lydiard Philosophy is that most runners can, through proper training become awesomely competitive, and that there is no limit to how well trained we can be in endurance capacity.
This phiolosopy is what marks Lydiard out as a unique figure in athletic coaching because it is an unusual concept. Most coaches place immaginary limits on what they think the average runner can achieve. They have a lack of vision.
Discuss.
Has somebody stolen wellnow´s name?
1. This goes against everything wellnow claims (aerobic capacity can be maximized in only 8 weeks).
2. Several words are misspelled. Wellnow rarely does that.
3. Wellnow never ends his post with "discuss".
HRE wrote:
I think one of the things Arthur learned from his own running and then from athletes he coached was that you couldn't assume from an athlete's early career that he had little or no talent...
This is the part I'm interested in.
troll alert wrote:
Has somebody stolen wellnow´s name?
1. This goes against everything wellnow claims (aerobic capacity can be maximized in only 8 weeks).
2. Several words are misspelled. Wellnow rarely does that.
3. Wellnow never ends his post with "discuss".
I measured my words very carefully, but sorry for misspelling imaginary, that was just wrong, and the other was a typo.
I used the term endurance capacity, not aerobic capacity. They are not the same thing. We have to consider the skills of running as being distinct from cardiovascular development.
I ended the post with discuss as a kind of joke, which I think most posters on the recent lydiard truth thread would get.
But thanks for bringing these issues up.
Wellnow,to some extent I agree with you on this. I dont think though that he is the only coach who has done this - its just that he has also proposed a training system that is relatively 'safe' in that if you do as he suggests (and dont just blindly copy the published schedules) then you are unlikely to hurt yourself. His ability to write and talk about his method with such confidence is likely also very effective in making some athletes believe that they truly can dramatically improve their own performance.
I'm actually much more interested in the writings of Percy Cerutty. I read two of his books (Middle Distance and How to Become a Champion) numerous times in the University library years ago trying to eaxtract his real message. Although I originally took the books to be the writings of a mad man (maybe he was), I am becoming more and more convinced that he was also a true genius. I think he really was trying to achieve what you propose, its just that most athletes lack the intuitive ability to truly read their own bodies to train in the manner he suggested (I seem to recall reading a thread about Cerutty on this site several years ago where one of the contributors actually trained under Cerutty at Portsea - people were asking for a typical week etc. They entirey missed the point, to follow any 'schedule' would be completely contrary to Cerutty's teachings).
Although I'm sure if I went back to his original writings there would be some glaring errors, I've come across nothing in the contemporary sport science literature that would suggest he was 'wrong' - to some extent he was ahead of his time.
wellnow,You do like to live dangerously don't you?As usual, let me start by avoiding your discussion, and challenging your assumptions. Do most coaches place imaginary limits on average runners?I guess it's true, there is a bias in coaches to focus their attention on developing "talented" athletes, and not wasting their time with those perceived as untalented. I'm thinking of what's called the "Matthew Effect", where the gap between "talented" and "untalented" athletes tend to grow, because the "talented" ones get better training, because they were initially perceived as, well, "talented".I understand that Lydiard applied a different filter (when he was training athletes). He would train any athlete, who did not waste his time, or theirs, as long as certain human principles such as respect, loyalty were observed. He demanded a certain amount of respect and loyalty, and in return, he gave the same attention to all levels of athletes.Of course Lydiard is well-known for his training principles, combining periodicity with general base-training, hill training, and specific speed work, in his unique way, going against the grain at the time.It seems to me that a lot of focus on why Lydiard succeeded on the Olympic and world stage surrounds his training principles, and sometimes mistakenly focuses on details of individual training plans.Of course, the principles, radical as they were at that time, were an important part of his success, but in my opinion, are only part of the story.I think other important reasons, not often discussed, are something intangible. For example, one was his ability to motivate athletes, and make them feel they were doing all the right things for all the right reasons.Another important aspect was his keen sense of observation, seeing what works and doesn't with an athlete, and when things are going wrong in the training. This allowed him to make corrections to address specific training problems.A lot of debate focuses on minor details such as the correctness of avoiding speed work during base-building, or how steep the hills need to be.But I think that, armed with motivational skills, and a keen sense of observation, a good coach with any set of "mediocre" training philosophies will always produce superior athletes.It's these "intangible" skills (and not training schedules) which separate great coaches, from good coaches.Just my own speculation.
weIInow wrote:
In a nutshell, my opinion of Lydiard Philosophy is that most runners can, through proper training become awesomely competitive, and that there is no limit to how well trained we can be in endurance capacity.
This phiolosopy is what marks Lydiard out as a unique figure in athletic coaching because it is an unusual concept. Most coaches place immaginary limits on what they think the average runner can achieve. They have a lack of vision.
Discuss.
I think that one part of being coached by Lydiard that comes up infrequently in these discussions is the personal impact that came from working with him. Nothing about an athlete, in his way of presenting, was ever negative.
If you were "too big" he'd tell you that you were muscular and could hold up under more training than a smaller runner. Halberg's withered arm meant that he wasn't overly muscular. If you thought you were too old to run fast he'd tell you stories about Jack Foster and Tenho Salakka. (Let's see if our Finnish pal is following this thread.) You always heard the reasons why you could accomplish what you wanted to and never heard about why you couldn't. It was just a matter of doing what he told you. That was the feeling you had.
Even when he'd do workshops and was dealing with large and fairly impersonal groups there was always that feeling that here was the guy who'd figured it all out and now he was going to explain it to you so you could do what others who'd worked with him did. "Champions are everywhere. You just have to find them and prepare them properly." He proved that time after time.
On the other hand he certainly recognized that while champions were everywhere not everyone had the makings of one. He'd talk about young girls taking up running and showing tremendous potential but then getting too wide in the hips during adolescence to run fast ever again. He'd talk about how he sort of preferred working with people who were never going to be champions because you could improve them tremendously and they'd be grateful but not get big headed and forget how much he'd helped them.
PS. I did get the "discuss" reference.
weIInow wrote:
I used the term endurance capacity, not aerobic capacity. They are not the same thing. We have to consider the skills of running as being distinct from cardiovascular development.
I don´t think Lydiard did that distinction.
I'm making that distinction, that cardiovascular developments and neuromuscular development are different issues.
But most people put the two together as 'aerobic development' or aerobic capacity so to be more accurate, I am putting the two together with the term 'endurance capacity'.
UW wrote:
Wellnow,to some extent I agree with you on this. I dont think though that he is the only coach who has done this - its just that he has also proposed a training system that is relatively 'safe' in that if you do as he suggests (and dont just blindly copy the published schedules) then you are unlikely to hurt yourself. His ability to write and talk about his method with such confidence is likely also very effective in making some athletes believe that they truly can dramatically improve their own performance.
I'm actually much more interested in the writings of Percy Cerutty. I read two of his books (Middle Distance and How to Become a Champion) numerous times in the University library years ago trying to eaxtract his real message. Although I originally took the books to be the writings of a mad man (maybe he was), I am becoming more and more convinced that he was also a true genius. I think he really was trying to achieve what you propose, its just that most athletes lack the intuitive ability to truly read their own bodies to train in the manner he suggested (I seem to recall reading a thread about Cerutty on this site several years ago where one of the contributors actually trained under Cerutty at Portsea - people were asking for a typical week etc. They entirey missed the point, to follow any 'schedule' would be completely contrary to Cerutty's teachings).
Although I'm sure if I went back to his original writings there would be some glaring errors, I've come across nothing in the contemporary sport science literature that would suggest he was 'wrong' - to some extent he was ahead of his time.
How much did Cerutty influence Lydiard, and how much did Lydiard influence Cerutty?
Cerutty was certainly an eccentric, but perhaps most of the best coaches were in those days?
If people lack the intuitive ability to read their own bodies, maybe it's because they don't give enough time and thought to their running, due to the pressures of modern life, which were surely great in the 1950's just as they are now. The pressure to conform to society's rules was perhaps greater then, and today we have different ideals which we are expected to follow?
Also, the idea that a 'talentless' runner can become a 'talented' runner goes against the accepted idea of genetic predisposition, a subject full of dogma. I think people look on us as having certain gifts and lacking in others, and many runners accept this judgement laid upon them at a young age, and don't have the confidence to believe that becoming a 'talented' runner requires a different mindset.
Voice of Ray-san wrote:
wellnow,
You do like to live dangerously don't you?
As usual, let me start by avoiding your discussion, and challenging your assumptions. Do most coaches place imaginary limits on average runners?
I guess it's true, there is a bias in coaches to focus their attention on developing "talented" athletes, and not wasting their time with those perceived as untalented. I'm thinking of what's called the "Matthew Effect", where the gap between "talented" and "untalented" athletes tend to grow, because the "talented" ones get better training, because they were initially perceived as, well, "talented".
I understand that Lydiard applied a different filter (when he was training athletes). He would train any athlete, who did not waste his time, or theirs, as long as certain human principles such as respect, loyalty were observed. He demanded a certain amount of respect and loyalty, and in return, he gave the same attention to all levels of athletes.
Of course Lydiard is well-known for his training principles, combining periodicity with general base-training, hill training, and specific speed work, in his unique way, going against the grain at the time.
It seems to me that a lot of focus on why Lydiard succeeded on the Olympic and world stage surrounds his training principles, and sometimes mistakenly focuses on details of individual training plans.
Of course, the principles, radical as they were at that time, were an important part of his success, but in my opinion, are only part of the story.
I think other important reasons, not often discussed, are something intangible. For example, one was his ability to motivate athletes, and make them feel they were doing all the right things for all the right reasons.
Another important aspect was his keen sense of observation, seeing what works and doesn't with an athlete, and when things are going wrong in the training. This allowed him to make corrections to address specific training problems.
A lot of debate focuses on minor details such as the correctness of avoiding speed work during base-building, or how steep the hills need to be.
But I think that, armed with motivational skills, and a keen sense of observation, a good coach with any set of "mediocre" training philosophies will always produce superior athletes.
It's these "intangible" skills (and not training schedules) which separate great coaches, from good coaches.
Just my own speculation.
Very good post Ray-san, I agree with all of your points.
The one thing that puzzles me the most about coaching is how do I influnce someone to be more confident? If I tell someone to believe in themselves, does that often come across as me belittling their achievements so far? As though they are not really trying? When in fact what I am trying to say is that they have reached a false plateau, above which they will inevitably rise if they keep their focus?
Many runners don't seem to want to hear that kind of message, because they fear what they perceive as being put under extra pressure. What is the best way to allay that fear?
HRE wrote:
I think that one part of being coached by Lydiard that comes up infrequently in these discussions is the personal impact that came from working with him. Nothing about an athlete, in his way of presenting, was ever negative.
If you were "too big" he'd tell you that you were muscular and could hold up under more training than a smaller runner. Halberg's withered arm meant that he wasn't overly muscular. If you thought you were too old to run fast he'd tell you stories about Jack Foster and Tenho Salakka. (Let's see if our Finnish pal is following this thread.) You always heard the reasons why you could accomplish what you wanted to and never heard about why you couldn't. It was just a matter of doing what he told you. That was the feeling you had.
Even when he'd do workshops and was dealing with large and fairly impersonal groups there was always that feeling that here was the guy who'd figured it all out and now he was going to explain it to you so you could do what others who'd worked with him did. "Champions are everywhere. You just have to find them and prepare them properly." He proved that time after time.
On the other hand he certainly recognized that while champions were everywhere not everyone had the makings of one. He'd talk about young girls taking up running and showing tremendous potential but then getting too wide in the hips during adolescence to run fast ever again. He'd talk about how he sort of preferred working with people who were never going to be champions because you could improve them tremendously and they'd be grateful but not get big headed and forget how much he'd helped them.
Thanks HRE. How did he influence runners in the time before the Olympic medals?
The point about girls/women and hip width is controversial though. There are plenty of top women with normal women's hips. We alll have to point our legs inwards for balance on footsrike, but I think the womens' Q angle issue is exaggerated.
Now here's a bit more civilized and intelligent "discussion"! Hey, thanks, wellnow! Get a pay-back for being nice, huh? ;o)
As far as I'm concerned, along with many, many, many advocates who joined Lydiard Foundation either as a member OR advisory staff such as Dixon, Steve Jones, Watanabe, Sakaguchi, Koide, Nic Bidea, Jon Brown...; Lydiard training principles are spot-on. It works (if applied correctly). But, in regards to his runners success, there is a HUGE gap between the program (written on paper later on) and the way he applied it. When I was in Flagstaff, there was a little joke whenever Greg McMillan came across some "zen-like" phrases, he would take notes. One of them was; "The way you deliver the training is just as important as the training itself."
I'm in the middle of putting together Lydiard Certificate Program Part III where we deal with what we call "X" Factors. Equipment, diet, tactics.... Yes to all, but also coaching psychology. If you read Joe Romano's "Arthur's Boys", it actually deals A LOT with how Arthur applied coachng psychology. He probably didn't even know that term but he executed it beautifully. Some of the things HRE shared are dead-on. Be positive; but not in a way it sounds like a lie... I, for one, got such energy boost when he spoke some of the things when we were both running through the streets of Auckland or through the bush track or along the iron sand beach. Anybody watched "Miracle"? Coach Herb Brooks was another one of those coaches. Love how he drew psych out of the athletes; how he waited an waited and waited until the athletes say it; or how he "insulted" that one guy to get his "psych" up... He must have been a master of that. Of how coach Carter developed "dignity" and "honor" in his players and, in time, "respect" for one another. Lorraine Moller one time said that; "It's 100% physical and 100% mental." I know it won't add up; but I love this phrase. You just cannot be good with one and not with another.
Okay, maybe I digressed a bit. To your question, wellnow, first of all, I think it's not a smart idea to limit athlets in any way at all. It's kinda like that movie, "Gataca". If science advances so much that we know what our limits are; then what's the point of even trying? It might be fine in the medical field; but not okay in the athleic field. I hate it whenever I see that thread saying "predict my time". Why limit yourself? Another thing is that we are just tapping into real human science now. Years ago, scientists said that if you are 40 years old, your body deteriorate so much that your performace would decline by so many %. Even in high school, I questioned that. That was the time when Jack Foster ran 2:11 at the age of 41. How do you explain that? Now with so many masters runnrs running, they would probably have to change the number. Scientists, as Arthur used to always said, are driving a car by checking the rear view mirror. I think they do a better job explaining what had been than what would be or what could be.
That's not to say there's no limit. Even Arthur had said that not everybody can be a champion. There's a limiting factor like basic speed for one. I mean, Poor Paula! She's great; but no way she can beat some other competirors in the final sprint. So what did she do? She moved up. So what is talent? You can be fast--that's talent. You can endure; both physically OR mentally like Reiko Tosa who excel in adverse condition. It's just a matter of knowing what you've got and apply it in the best suited event. There's this young girl in Japan (pretty one too) who has been the best 400m runner in the country. She may have gone to Beijing; Berlin for sue. I can't remember what her PR was but something like 52 seconds. I've been telling Nabe that she should move up to 800. She finally did. She just ran her second ever 800m in 2:02. She had satisfaction of running the Olympic (or WC) 400m heat when she probably could have moved into the final of 800m. Her speed was not good enough in 400m in the world scene to place.
The women's hip thing was just something he mentioned once. I have seen many young girls who look like they'll be phenoms at say 11 or 12 who really never get much better. Whether it's puberty, lack of motivation, burn out, I can't say. Obviously the same thing happens to boys. The point was that Arthur never thought everyone had the same potential.
I assume your question is aboput my reference to the Fred Wilt books. If so I'll do more on that later.
I marked this date on my calendar.Regarding how to influence someone to be more confident, I'm afraid I'm the last one to help out here. This kind of psychology is certainly an art that comes to some people naturally. I always think that people will be swayed by facts, and sheer logic, yet that often fails. There are other pitfalls, like patronizing, condescending, belittling, etc., to avoid.I once took a course on persuasion. The key was to speak to the other person, using their terms, rather than yours. Get them to describe their problem, and talk about solving it on their terms (hopefully with your solution, if you are a good salesman). If pulled off correctly, the other person will arrive at the conclusion you want, thinking of it as actually their idea, because you've skillfully pulled them through the thought process, while at the same time, they will have the feeling you really understand them, their problem, and come across as an expert.Good luck with that.
weIInow wrote:
Very good post Ray-san, I agree with all of your points.
The one thing that puzzles me the most about coaching is how do I influnce someone to be more confident? If I tell someone to believe in themselves, does that often come across as me belittling their achievements so far? As though they are not really trying? When in fact what I am trying to say is that they have reached a false plateau, above which they will inevitably rise if they keep their focus?
Many runners don't seem to want to hear that kind of message, because they fear what they perceive as being put under extra pressure. What is the best way to allay that fear?
Thanks Nobby. For me the Lydiard Philosophy is the greatest part of his legacy. I am a natural optimist, and so that is why it appeals to me so much. I wonder how other people feel about this? Do they feel this positive psychology in the same way, or in their own way?
As to the question: what is talent? I think it's a word that is perhaps applied only in relation to how much someone gets noticed?
HRE, Why do so many kids quit the sport? Hmmm, I feel that many of them feel in their mid to late teens that they are missing out on having more fun partying etc. Perhaps a few of them also feel that they are expected to fulfil their parents wishes by being champion runners, but it is not what they really want. We have all seen a lot of that haven't we?