Is it true Lydiard used to make his runners run long to get into shape quickly?

So could you apply this to other aspects? For example in this case, doing 3 long runs and then taking some easy days. Could you also do it so say, you do 3 workouts back to back (intervals, hills, etc. so vary that up a little) and then take some easy days afterward?

I have only had experience at doing this for a 7 day period by tripling mileage. It’s a boost from the mileage that raises your performance more than the intensity. One article on this can be found at: http://www.pponline.co.uk/encyc/crash-training-can-be-applied-to-all-sports-where-fitness-is-a-major-factor-743

xcr,

Please understand I am not a Lydiard basher. A word of caution with this approach go slow and be patient. I don't know how old you are but your cardiovascular will take off and your musculoskeletal system will lag behind ( IE tendon). Sorry if this sounds critical but you have already advanced up to 90 minutes daily too fast, if I read your other stuff right.

I had great success with Lydiard approach years old, but it recent years I kept getting injured just trying to build up to base mileage at a rate of 5 % a week and repeating some weeks until I thought I had adapted. This most recent I injured my achilles at it's insertion and have retro calcaneal bursitis which as been painful daily since April that was durnig the hill phase which can be a very beneficial stage but it is like handling nitroglycerin. I have to face the fact I cannot run anymore and am unable to get the necassary surgery it would take which may or may not allow me to run again.

I relate this to you because I don't want to see this happen to you. If you were successful with Daniels in the past use it , or modify Lydiard to suit you, even Arhtur would tell you that. Best of luck to you.[quote]xcr wrote:

Wet Coast and HRE, Thanks for the input. I completely understand that knowing what works far supersedes understanding the science behind it....I was just curious as I had not heard this particular strategy before.

Although I did meet lydiard during my competitive years I only had very generalized knowledge of his training theory. I was trained under a Jack Danials oriented program, and although I ran sub four minutes and sub 3:40, I am beginning to realize the impact that Lydiard and on our sport, and wish I had tried his approach in my youth.

Regardless, I am conducting a grand experiment and have started running 90 min a day(singles) plus a weekly long run to see what happens.........

been there ....... I would not take what you said as Lydiard bashing. I feel what you wrote was fine. Can you relate how you were injured ?

To reinforce what you were getting at. Arthur always said that what he wrote in schedules was to be a guide not gospel written in stone. It is important to find what suits an individual, modify or adjust .... and that was Arthur's strength.

He would be the first to adjust a programme if something caused injury.

Hi Kim, Thanks for taking it in the vein it was intended, there is far too much you know what that goes on this website regarding Lydiard.

Was doing great third week in, did some bounding felt something, took a few days off and iced etc tried again and got worse to the point where I am now. It is both painful and burns all the time no matter what I am doing. Time off, physio, accupunture, chiro ( made significantly worse) I have only gotten worse over time.I can't cross train even pool runing at times can be painful. So it is pretty over for me in terms of any future running and I just don't want to see this guy or anyone else go down this path. I know it will be said it was a training error on my part, but I was very careful and mindful of what I was doing.

So when you did the "3 long runs to come back" strategy, how fatigued were you while doing them? How soon did you see results and how long did it take to recover?

does anyone have actual logs showing this + whatever workouts/races came after that?

xcr wrote:

Also, What is the physiology behind this?

I'm not sure of the phys behind this either, but I recently have come to think of distance running as having an "aerobic pointer". I think of it like a speedometer or tachometer, with pure aerobic at the slow side and pure anaerobic at the fast side. Every bout of running adjusts the pointer according to the type of energy used. And the pointer moves rather slowly, so one workout or race won't drastically move the pointer. Time away from running allows the pointer to slowly drift back toward aerobic, since life is mostly aerobic. Lots of fast running pushes the pointer toward anaerobic.

I believe that this is an indication of the amount of anaerobic metabolism your body will activate while running, even at slow paces. Another way I think of this is that my body doesn't seem to fully activate the aerobic system if my aerobic pointer is drifting too far toward the anaerobic side.

HRE wrote:

xcr wrote:

Also, What is the physiology behind this?

I have no idea and really couldn't care less.

Awesone, if it works do it!!!

yes, this really does work, but like the previous poster said, it's not to "get in shape" it's to combat being stale. lydiard is not the only coach to do this and it's not specific to his program. many great coaches have done this and still do do this. Maybe some got the idea from arthur, but they do it. Daniels did it all the time at Cortland. Girl wasn't running as well as she should be: "go run long for the rest of the week" -- Next week..back to normal. -- It's not some trick like they will come back "faster than ever" or even a strategy that's going to work for everyone, but it does work.

God I love it when an adult thread shows up on LRC. Informative and interesting - thanks!

Never having met Lydiard, I'm wary of jumping in, but as a coach I'd guess his logic would be something like this: If intense, fast efforts are making your runner stale, have them do long EZ running for a while until they aren't stale; if too much mileage is making your runner stale, have them do less mileage and maybe more faster stuff until they aren't stale. As coach, it's your job to figure out which is which. (To quote Boo Shex's greatest coaching advice, ever, 'You da coach, coach!')

I don't think you want to make any more of it than that.

There is absolutely no doubt that Arthur Lydiard was extremely successful. His methods landed him numerous Olympic medalists in the 60s. However, after that decade, he could not produce another Olympic champion. Did the talent in New Zealand suddenly dissapeared? Did they stop using the Lydiard approach down in New Zealand? or perhaps his training methods were not too effective to other Kiwis who tried it later on in the 70s, 80s, 90s? Again, I'll ask the question with hopes of getting some solid and reasonable replies. After the 60s, what other olympic medalist did Lydiard coach?

He stopped coaching by 1965 or so and went to Finland by way of Mexico where he laid the foundation for the medals the Finns won in the 70s. Meanwhile, back in New Zealand Rod Dixon, Dick Quax and John Walker all won Olympic medals, though only Walker's was gold, using training that was heavily influenced by Lydiard.

But by then Arthur was doing very little coaching, the one notable exception was in 1973-74 when he got involved with Richard Tayler's prep for the gold at the 1974 BCG. By then he was becoming fairly jaded towards modern athletes. On occasions when he did start working with athletes he found that they often wanted to change coaches rather than take the time that his methods required to get results.

He was briefly lured back into coaching women in the early to mid 80s when his wife talked him into coaching the girls at the school where she taught and produced runners like Anne Hannum, Heather Carmichael and some others whose names escape me. That all ended prematurely when his wife died.

Another thing you need to remember is that in the 60s Arthur was the only coach using his ideas. Unlike some other successful coaches, Arthur was always completely open about what he did so by the end of the decade anyone who was interested knew what he was doing and could do it.

The advantage Kiwis had in the 60s, i.e. being coached by the Lydiard Method, was gone.

One thing that Arthur believed was that you could only benefit from a particular kind of work for so long and then it was time to do something else. That was definitely true for interval work and all out racing so stopping that sort of running for an over raced athlete and getting him into steady runs made sense.

well..... wrote:

So when you did the "3 long runs to come back" strategy, how fatigued were you while doing them? How soon did you see results and how long did it take to recover?

does anyone have actual logs showing this + whatever workouts/races came after that?

Would you like it notarized as well.

its because im still skeptical... 3 seems like overkill and would just fatigue you more for a while.

Here's a thought. Try it yourself, with proper preparation, and see what happens. Or would that require too much effort?

HRE wrote:

One thing that Arthur believed was that you could only benefit from a particular kind of work for so long and then it was time to do something else. That was definitely true for interval work and all out racing so stopping that sort of running for an over raced athlete and getting him into steady runs made sense.

The same is true for base training, but sometimes you meet people on LR who think they will get better if they spend a ridiculously long time with only steady running.

I wish I'd seen this thread earlier. I'm currently trying out something like this which was suggested by a notable and experienced poster here.

I felt great on my first run and very strong, but did feel more tired on my second run and could feel some fatigue, tired legs and so on. The second run was a fair amount slower than my first run as well (but I'm not doing the same "course" so its harder to measure). I'm doing the third run today before moving on. My legs do hurt a little but it's nothing notable, but I can tell I am tired (sleeping more) but it should pass. Will see how this goes!

well....... wrote:

its because im still skeptical... 3 seems like overkill and would just fatigue you more for a while.

3 was the determined number for only one person. Prescriptions like this are not transferrable. Don't get hung up on these details. Look more to why it was appropriate in that unique situation.