That doesnt seem to make sense, isn't it better to do intervals to get into shape quickly?
That doesnt seem to make sense, isn't it better to do intervals to get into shape quickly?
Arthur was never interested in getting people into shape quickly. He always asid it would take time if you did it his way but in the end you'd be faster.
well i just read a big document on lydiard's training. supposedly he was trying to get a runner in shape quickly and made them do long runs the week before? how does that work?
I don't know what you read but Arthur was always adamant that his system took time and he wasn't aiming for fast results. Either your big document is wrong or you didn't understand what you read. If you were to post or link to it someone might be able to explain something.
be careful when you use someone's definition of "shape".
From what I understand Lydiard sometimes increased mileage relatively quickly but with a easier pace. Maybe your perceived definition of "shape" is defined by how many miles they ran in one specific week.
Though he may have increased mileage quickly, he kept them at a high mileage for a long time (several months for each season) to gradually increase their aerobic capacity.
Then when they were aerobically ready then he started them on a anaerobic plan which at the end of Lydiard would consider them "in shape."
ok i read more carefully, it was when his runners were stale, he would make them go run a lot of miles?
That's different. There was a time when Barry Magee was struggling in the later part of a racing season but still had some races to do. Arthur had him run the Waitairua course, 22 miles, three days in a row. I think he did the same thing with Ray Puckett. But that's different than getting them into shape quickly. They'd already done the whole cycle by then.
ok yea thats what i meant. not getting into shape but rebuilding. my question is that does that really help?
and how this it make sense to do such a long run x 3?
Yes. It really helped. Barry told me it brought him right back.
see thats what i dont understand, how does running long or doing 66 miles in 3 days help you "come back"?
HRE wrote:
Yes. It really helped. Barry told me it brought him right back.
HRE, Just curious what your background is? (if you don't mind sharing) Your posts are insightful
doesnt make sense? wrote:
see thats what i dont understand, how does running long or doing 66 miles in 3 days help you "come back"?
It doesn't really matter whether you understand it or not. It worked. Arthur's idea was that a lot of hard racing had eroded the aerobic fitness and the three long runs would bolster it.
HRE wrote:
Yes. It really helped. Barry told me it brought him right back.
Also, What is the physiology behind this?
Thanks. I've just been around for a long time. I was never anything special but was lucky enough to get to know Lydiard in 1977 and got advice from him and later from Barry over the years. I was a horrible runner in high school and early college but ran tons of miles and got much faster than I'd ever believed I could.
In the old days it was easier to get to know the top people. The sport was less stratified then so I made a point of hanging around with people who had done well and tried to find out what they did.
xcr wrote:
HRE wrote:Yes. It really helped. Barry told me it brought him right back.
Also, What is the physiology behind this?
I have no idea and really couldn't care less.
It does bolster the aerobic fitness somehow. Puckett and Magee were not the only ones to benefit from this advice from Ldiard. I know 2, back-to-back very slow long runs were used on other athletes that were completely fried from racing.
I'd have to dig up the story -- or if someone else knows.
xcr....problem with the physiology is the language. Arthur was not exactly accurate with his terminology - he only got a layman's understanding AFTER he had practical success at the international level. Like Olympic GOld and world records.
He just knew what worked. So I think that is what HRE is meaning by not knowing or caring - plus there have been some people (2 probably) that have raised quite the stink here, because they don't understand the holism of the training, but understand the meaning of a few fizziology terms and argue pointless arguments.
How slow we talking? 2 min above average 5k pace/mile?
curious runner wrote:
How slow we talking? 2 min above average 5k pace/mile?
Not to be rude, but read what some of the Lydiard folk have said in this thread. Do you honestly think Lydiard proscribed a pace? Easy is easy, slow is slow.
What I meant was what pace did their runs turn out to be (that was slow for them)..