who has tried lydiard's 200mile/week marathon schedule?

I've clearly struck a nerve, must be hitting close to home.

HRE wrote:

"again"

Read my post again and again until you will be able to understand, something you don’t, because Lydiard didn’t told you that way.

What a pity that Lydiard didn’t said "Instead of quote me, and put as the main reason of doing that training or don´t do my sentences, try to understand something ou of my training paradigm, because i may not be right in what i say".

Don’t understand either ? I see you don’t. Your intelligence doesn’t go out of “Lydiard says….”

Read what you wrote over and over until I understand? I'd have to spend the rest of my life doing that and it still wouldn't happen. Why would ANYONE spend more than a few seconds glancing over your constant irrelevant babbling?

I used to go really high a few weeks and then an extremely low week, then I started doing one week extremely high and then a week extremely low to recover. The highest week I did was 187, and the low weeks were down to really low, even down in the 20s sometimes as I would just cross train every other day on the down week. I had really good success doing this as I could go 7 days running up to 5 times a day knowing there would be 7 days where I could do whatever I wanted afterwards. I later found out this is similar to Peter Snells "crash training" program.

It was a cobination of Lydiards and van Aakens program at the time.

Didn't John Campbell bang out that kind of mileage as well?

Campbell definitely did big miles. He got near 200 but I don't know if he ever got to it. I also don't know what connection, of any, he had to Lydiard or his Method.

Chuckster wrote:

I used to go really high a few weeks and then an extremely low week, then I started doing one week extremely high and then a week extremely low to recover. The highest week I did was 187, and the low weeks were down to really low, even down in the 20s sometimes as I would just cross train every other day on the down week. I had really good success doing this as I could go 7 days running up to 5 times a day knowing there would be 7 days where I could do whatever I wanted afterwards. I later found out this is similar to Peter Snells "crash training" program.

It was a cobination of Lydiards and van Aakens program at the time.

How fast did you run?

Rodgers had many weeks near 200 and a couple - I believe - over. Or, at least 7 day periods in which he was over 200 (see his logs at Hodgie-San's website... love to see 76 and beyond though :) )

Jerry Lawson was over 200 lots. He told me this personally. He was also injured lots.

I broke 200 twice. I'm a big advocate of long slow distance, but I will admit that, in my case, 200 didn't help me run faster. Just the opposite happened, actually. Both times I got sick the next week and missed many days of training. My interpretation of Van Aaken is that he believed that a runner should always be striving to increase his endurance, but that this was a years long, heck life long endeavor. What I found in my own racing is that it was better to have 10 straight weeks at 130-150 than it was to run 200 then 20 then 180 then 0 then 0 etc. Consistency was more important. I was never able to build up to doing anything over 150 very consistently. In principle, though, it should be possible.

In fact, there's some guy, I'll look him up, who supposedly had several years over 9000 miles; there was a RT article about him 10 maybe 15 years ago now. He must have been around 200 pretty consistently. He wasn't all that fast though.

Hiya Chris Wetcoast Kelsall.

HRE wrote:

Try that agin, but this time coherently.

It was quite coherent to me, HRE. In fact it was a very good post. If you want to make fun of someone because english is not thier first language, then go ahead and show your intolerance to anything that is not white and lydiard and 'what lydiard did/said'.

HRE wrote:

Read what you wrote over and over until I understand? I'd have to spend the rest of my life doing that and it still wouldn't happen. Why would ANYONE spend more than a few seconds glancing over your constant irrelevant babbling?

Again thats your opine not mine. His posts are clear, logical and concise. Nice try tho.

Call me ignorant but i thought Campbell did LOW volume, nothing remotely near 200. More info please?

Maybe you're new around here, but HRE is known for worthless input on this forum.

Lydiardisma! wrote:

HRE wrote:

Try that agin, but this time coherently.

It was quite coherent to me, HRE. In fact it was a very good post. If you want to make fun of someone because english is not thier first language, then go ahead and show your intolerance to anything that is not white and lydiard and 'what lydiard did/said'.

You guys are so freaking stupid, it is mind-boggling to me that you have managed to stay alive this long. All of these Lydiard threads follow the exact same pattern:

OP: "What did Lydiard say about XYZ?"

HRE: "Lydiard said ABC about XYZ"

Weird guy with broken English: "Blah blah blah, why do you think Lydiard is the only way, blah blah blah broken English."

Why is it so hard for you to comprehend that ALL HRE IS DOING IS ANSWERING THE QUESTION ASKED. It doesn't matter if Lydiard was wildly wrong, or if a thousand different current coaches have better ideas about training, if the question is "WHAT DID LYDIARD THINK". If Lydiard thought tiny gremlins inject lactic acid into your muscles during races, or something similarly stupid, you still can't criticize HRE for relating this information. READ HIS DAMN POSTS BEFORE SPLATTERING YOUR NONSENSE ALL OVER THE BOARDS.

I don't have his "Masters Training" book. What does Lydiard say, exactly, on page 15 of the book?

100 mpw wrote:

... But you kept right on insisting "it's there in black and white" when, of course, it wasn't.

Maybe you could translate this "very good post" into better English, for the rest of us who don't share your perception of clarity.Besides incoherent, here are the main weaknesses I found:- It's off point, neither addressing anything HRE said, nor addressing the main question, nor any question in previous posts in this thread. It's as if the mere keywords Lydiard, HRE, or Nobby trigger Pavlov's dog to salivate.- For such a brief post, it's full of baseless assumptions and conclusions, and otherwise generally lacking substance. Perhaps if HRE actually said "I shall do" or even "You shall do", or if anyone actually ever specified concretely, what the "wrong training conclusion" is, rather than re-hashing an illusory, never fully developed conclusion, it would start to make sense. And then, only if it appeared in a thread about the merits of Lydiard's training.Exactly what for you qualifies it as a "very good post"?And how do you know that "#"'s first language is not English?

Lydiardisma! wrote:

It was quite coherent to me, HRE. In fact it was a very good post. If you want to make fun of someone because english is not thier first language, then go ahead and show your intolerance to anything that is not white and lydiard and 'what lydiard did/said'.

Chuckster,

I too have had some good success using the 3 high weeks, 1 low week. I am interested in hearing more about the 1 very high week and 1 low week system you used. Were the results of the 1 very high week / 1 low week significantly better than the the 3 high / 1 low system?

I's not his English. I've taught many grad students for whom english is not the first language and can make sense of what they write in their papers. It's his inability to stay on topic. He writes about me, not 200 mile weeks. There is no logical connection between many of his sentences. Ifhe's coherent to you that's wonderful. Maybe you could explain what he's saying then?

As to Campbell, he typically did 140 or more miles a week with two sessions fit around his work shifts at his dairy store.

Thanks, edumacator and rekrunner. I'm guessing the post is coherent because they're the same person but if not a translation would be nice.

I'll try to dig my copy of "Distance Training for Masters" up and double check, but I'm pretty sure there is a comment about total overall volume that Arthur would recommend ideally and he says something like, "Ideally an athlete would run 160 km a week at his best aerobic speed and do up to another 160 km of easy jogging."

There is also a page in "Running the Lydiard Way" where he recounts a discussion with an Australian exercise physiologist who told him that 100 miles a week is not enough volume to develop your maximum aerobic capacity and that you needed to be closer to 200 mpw. Arthur says there that he told the physiologist that when he talked about 100 mpw it was what his guys did in their main session and that their second runs brought them "closer" to 200 mpw.