NobbyH wrote:
In my own ethic and behavior I follow one principle of transcendence that says everything is cyclic, nothing is the same forever and nothing is immutable up to the eternity. Consequently, I, you, everyone of us, the human kind, we can begin again and again, all together once again. Every new challenge does the opportunity of a new start once again – together. The human species shall live in peace. However but don´t forget that is blood what runs on our veins, blood is hot, not cold, this is the first step to the human controversy…
Nobby wrote:In regards to Lydiard training, I found your comment about “progressive specificity” very interesting – actually totally agree with you and something we should address. Arthur, in my opinion, whatever you may want to call it, sort of like cut corner when it came to explaining track workouts. I personally like the hybrid of old “Run to the Top” schedule and new stream-lined schedule. I think Arthur sort of fed up with people emphasizing “interval” too heavily and, in later years, simply said; “Do intervals every other day or so, run one fast and jog one…” In a way, that’s the way he did it but, with his original idea, to bring the effort down from ¼ effort to ½ effort and finally ¾ effort. The whole workout schedule seems to be orchestrated carefully.
One more thing I want to say, before my training comment. I´ve been with Renato Canova once, i´m not closed to him, but I knew him, I respect him as a man of character first and I respect him as a coach second, and I wish him the best. In my scale of consideration, to be a man of character is more important than the very good and passionate coach that Renato Canova he is.
But i´m an adult, I have no idols, or someone to follow, I have my own individual training ideas, i´m not a “clone” of Renato, I do esteem e but not surrender, and also the range of the runners I coach it´s different than what he coaches. If you want to debate with me, quote me in what I said, don´t quote him or his training, say what you think about some subject and I will reply with what I think by my own.
I don´t want to go back to the past. But long before the Renato Canova posts, I did try to be understood about my opinion that Lydiard is somehow outdate, almost everybody turn against me, no one makes a try to understand me, people asks “what are the main reason of this guy obsession ?”, they don´t understand my posts. Now because Renato says something that might be similar to what I said in the past about Lydiard training, you all start to think that might be that from all that I say something can be right, that I might be not fool. How things are…
In regards to Lydiard training. In the modern training approach, normally, the right moment to start the specific training process is differently to what Lydiard does.
The reasons for this are several. First the methodological one: more importance done to specific training and specific workouts with right connect with performance enhance than it used to be in the past; second, the modern training sees the training as from generic to specific and not as Lydiard sees it, from aerobic to anaerobic. Third, the modern methodology sees interest in sparse the specific workouts and not condensed, as Lydiard did.
The sparsely specific workouts permits the runner to recover properly from hard workouts and in the “beaks/ holes” or the days in between hard workouts he can do effective overcompensation. With such sparse of the specific workout management, each single workout can be harder and intense and extended (longer distance and more sets).
Lydiard did one strong condensed anaerobic period (that we might relate with specific training, (but in my opinion isn´t really) in the final phase, right before the competition phase and this Lydiard procedure is outdate somehow.
Look for modern schedules of modern coaches ! Sincerely, these days I don´t see nothing as Lydiard the way he approaches the specificity. Might be from some Lydiard modern coaches and that´s all. Most of the modern distance training approaches they do some kind of aerobic power, anaerobic s and even specific training early on than what I see in the Lydiard training. Meanwhile they keep on the quite same aerobic volume on every training period. Most of todays´s modern training of the top class runners, their coaches uses intervals during the winter/conditioning season. This was been tested during the last 2-3 decades with success. Are they all wrong and the old Lydiard school is right ? I don´t think so.
The modern coach introduces some kind of specific workouts during the early stage of preparation. There’s also one more effective reason to use a longer period of specific training with specific workouts. Is that, while doing so, all that weeks with specific workouts, but only with 2-3 of that workouts on every week , AND IN THE MEANTIME the coach can continue aerobic stimulus to continue or stabilize the AEROBIC TRAINING PROCESS improve AND in the meantime that he does the specifics.
In the Lydiard training and during the anaerobic phase (let´s name it specific) and out of the long run, ther´s no major aerobic training by daily runs. The reason for this is what I early said. It´s influenced by the Soviet-East German Matveiev scholl that this training periodisation is specific for weight, sprint, every other training discipline of strength and explosive activity, when that requires to be fresh and strong and you can´t do a high training stimulus if you want do well on the
Basically what Lydiard did with Peter and Pekka is one STRONG period with ANAEROBIC training of 10 weeks (1 1 /2 months). If you have the 1964 Peter schedule you see 10 weeks prior the Tokyo 800m first. In the 1964 Peter Snell schedule he begins to do fast workouts after 10 weeks of aerobic training/marathon conditioning followed by 6 weeks hill training, but out from the weekly long run, decresess the daily aerobic runs to zero.
To be helpefull to our readers. Lydiard's Track Schedule for 1,500 meters. Peter did 10 weeks - from April 04 to 28 June of aerobic marathon conditioning training (the kind of 100 miles aerobic training - followed by 6 weeks (From June 29 to August 8) of hill training and only after the last 10 weeks before the 64 Tokyo games he did introduce 10 weeks of anaerobic training, by intervals what could be understood as Specific block.
Modern training doesn´t go like this. I agree with Lydiard and to what you say that Renato also do agree. It´s the AEROBIC FOUNDATION. Who doesn´t agree with this ? I hope we all agree.
The question is “how introduce and SUSTAIN the AEROBIC TRAINING the important one variable of ALL distance events ?”
Modern training doesn´t consider the Lydiard kind of “linear-periodisation”. Consequently the anaerobic training, when reaches the aerobic plateau – be 80miles, 100miles, 140miles whatever, can´t be removed or sensible decreased during the every period of season periodisation. In the modern training ther´s not such thing as decrease or minimize the aerobic mileage volume to introduce hill training, or decrease the aerobic mileage volume to introduce the anaerobic interval training. In the modern training every training variable might be enhanced and sustained in a “non-linear training aproach, as it´s the aerobic one variable, shall continued and protect and sustain during every part of the season process. Eventually, the need of each different distance event require different manage of that variables. Eventually the need of different training INDIVIDUALISATION require different manage of that variables. But the modern training methodology doesn´t exclude or radical reduce no one of that variables during one part, to exalt other variables.
Nobby wrote:
Of course, Peter (Snell) had a different opinion. He believes that it’s all in the Marathon Conditioning and Hill Training that builds strength in you. After you do that, he doesn’t think it really matters much what you do. He always uses the example of 1963 when he set 3 world records after only 6 or 7 weeks of track training.
It´s not surprise that peter Snell had a different opinion. The same training pattern of stimulus doesn´t produce the same training enhance on every runner.
This is why might exist the TRAINING INDIVIDUALISATION. Look for Peter Snell individual characteristics of talent . Very fast relate to some other 800m-1500m/mile runners from his era. The individual case of Peter he possesses very good anaerobic but not so good aerobic condition. It´s a FT runner relate to other 800m-1500/mile specialists, namely his teammate Ron Davies. What peter needs to train to enhance? Aerobic condition, aerobic power, what he gets from mileage volume, from the hill training, from the LONG RUN – see how i´m think that the long run is useless but in the special case of Snell I agree that is benefic ! I knew that Peter did some disagreement with Lydiard because Lydiard wanted that he will do long run every week, and peter didn´t agree. But in the case of this Lydiard-Peter dispute, and despite I think that the Long run can be skip, I guess that Lydiard was right. Peter might benefit from the long run for the enhance of his aerobic condition.
I ask why you don´t understand that´s normal that Peter said so, that “the job is done with the marathon conditioning”. He is right. But the mistake is to think that one individual example, in this case the individual case of Peter Snell, might constitute one rule of training methodology. I see the same kind of problem with HRE and some of the Lydiard adepts. Because one type of training does work on him or in a few fellows that they train, they think that the what they did shall be the training mainstream.
The training methodology remains what it is, despite one or another individual training combo might dismiss the methodology concepts due to specific training individualization need of that runner.
I might continue to comment your post , but today I need to stop and refresh – some aerobic training eventually ! I guess that tomorrow with a second post I will end to say everything I want to comment from your post.
Actually, I try a way back to the question of page 12. Very interesting question. I don´t want to forget this question.
Hodgie-san wrote:
[quote]Kadaffi out of power wrote:
I write in one paper the top class runners that i know very well their training method, their schedules and each one Pb´s. Hundreds of top class runners, olympics, WR, titles, top in the word rankings. Then i sign what from all that runners what are the ones that do long runs and the ones that don´t. The conclusion is that, with one or another exception, for same distance event, most of the top performers don´t do long runs and they are on the very top of rankings.
Might be that the top performers do best because several training approaches, but obviously it´s not for the miss of long run.
What paper was that? published?