Wow, Lydiard training seems ridiculously hard

Maybe you don't understand me. I understand what you mean with slow 400m times. I only say I am not ready to form an opinion and reach any conclusion, so I am withholding any judgment. This is because there are many things I do understand, and because I understand there are many things I do not understand.If I form a premature conclusion now, there is a risk that some years from now, someone like you will tell me I'm clinging to wrong ideas from the past, and that it's time to let go and move on. So I chose to wait, letting the ideas mature before I form any conclusions.Having said that, I can see how a 1500m who does lots of SPECIFIC training might produce slow 400m times, giving the appearance of better endurance retention.My main doubt though is that the cause and effect relationship has not been shown. Is this demonstrably superior performance, performance enhance, performance progress, caused ONLY or SIGNIFICANTLY by changes in methodology? When I say there are many variables, I have no way of ruling out the improvements from other factors:- Amateur athletes of 1960 had full time jobs, versus professional athletes today who can train full time- Tracks have changed producing better times- Every athlete possesses an individually inherent talent- East African success is not directly comparable to the rest of the world, either in the present, or the past, for many genetic, environmental, and cultural reasons- Psychological contributions from the coachThese is not an exhaustive list, since my knowledge is limited, and I haven't given this topic that much consideration.To address this doubt requires a study with a significant sample size, controlling all the other variables, nulling their effect. I think this has not yet been done, and even have doubts it will ever be done.If some modern coaches could reproduce East African success, or even surpass Lydiard's success, with New Zealand club runners, with full time jobs, on grass and cinder tracks, this would strengthen the hypothesis that methodology is the cause.If a "Lydiard" coach reproduce top performances with Kenyan runners, this would weaken the hypothesis.Otherwise we are just comparing apples to oranges.

Khadaffi out of power wrote:

You don´t understand what i wrote. When i wrote best performance enhance i want to mean performance progress as well. Go back and read my example of the 400m runners and the slow one is the one of best training method.

I show the same data once again. I hope that this time you may understand that I don´t relate performances from different eras and no more doubts subsist about this same issue.

Performance/name/first lap split /second lap split/RATIO

1:41.09 David Rudisha 49.1/52.0 +2.9

1:41.11 Wilson Kipketer 49.3/51.8 +2.5

1:41.24 Kipketer 48.3/52.9 +4.6

1:41.73 Kipketer 49.6/52.1 +2.5

1:41.73 Seb Coe 49.7/52.0 +2.3

1:42.33 Coe 50.6/51.7 +1.1

1:43.44 Alberto Juantorena 51.4/52.0 +0.6

1:43.50 Juantorena 50.9/52.6 +1.7

1:43.5 Rick Wohlhuter 50.7/52.8 +2.1

1:43.7 Marcello Fiasconaro 51.2/52.5 +1.3

1:44.0 Wohlhuter 51.7/52.3 +0.6

1:44.3 Dave Wottle 52.9/51.4 -1.5

1:44.4 Ralph Doubell 51.2/53.2 +2.0

1:44.3 Jim Ryun 53.0/51.3 -1.7

1:44.3 Peter Snell 50.6/53.7 +2.9

1:45.7 Roger Moens 52.6/53.3 +0.7

1:46.6 Rudolf Harbig 52.8/53.8 +1.0

1:48.4 Sydney Wooderson 52.3/56.1 +3.8

1:49.0 Elroy Robinson 53.2/55.8 +2.6

1:49.1 Ben Eastman 53.7/55.4 +1.7

1:49.8 Tom Hampson 54.8/54.9 +0.1

+

Where do i relate times from different eras ? No. I don´t !

I just relate each one SINGLE different performance, the RATIO between the FIRST LAP SPLIT and the SECOND LAP SPLIT of the SAME runner, from the SAME run, on the SAME DAY.

The RATIO calculation is done by take the 800m run the first lap split LESS the second lap split. Example of this kind of ratio: 2:01min performance: first lap in 60.0secs+second lap in 61.0ecs= 60.0-61.0=ratio -1.0. Another ratio example: 1:51.5 performance. First lap 54.5secs. Second lap 57.0secs=ratio -2.5. THE HIGH POSITIVE IS THE RATIO THE FAST IS THE SECOND LAP RELATED TO THE FIRST ONE.

As you might observe, despite one runner is slower than the other it´s him (the 2:01) that got the best ratio.

As the 800m is one particular event where during the second lap the runner needs to run with high lactate, or anaerobic, the RATIO of each performance defines the strength endurance of that runner.

But what is strength endurance ? Strength endurance is the result of the aerobic condition that supports the anaerobic power. Therefore, we might say that under normal conditions, that is the case of each runner 800m PB, we find one rich methodological estimate of the strength endurance of that runner with the calculation of the first/second lap ratio.

In no moment of this ratio analysis or training methodological analysis I consider different performances what´s the fast one, the best one, or the eras. I simply get the ratio of each one. After the calculation the methodological conclusion is that with the exception of Sydney Wooderson the worst ratio from the 800m world records is the peter Snell record. My conclusion is that on that WR Peter Snell and by RATIO calculation Peter Snell doesn´t show to have gain no special strength endurance by the Lydiard training. However, other runners from the same the 800m WR data, be the faster ones or slower ones than Peter Snell, all coached with different training methods than the Peter Snell Lydiard method, all of them were able to get better RATIO what means that all of them did possess best strength endurance.

Mr. HRE. Where do I relate different performances from different eras ? I don´t. Please get some help from Malmo. My poor English is not good to make you understand, but mathematics as well as training methodology both is universal disciplines. I taught I was debating with experts, but I see some of you don´t. I need to write every detail to be understood.

You might agree or you don´t, but I don´t relate different performances the way you did argue with me. The slow performances from the past might get better positive ratios than fast performances, the more recent ones.

You are right either but I´m not competent to answer your question.

I just try to contextualize what you say with my kind of limited knowledge. Everything is objective and subjective at the same time. Objectivity on the context of this training debate is what I try to post, some science (mathematics, statistics, physiology, biology etc), some training methodology, some facts and performances, some statistics. However the other side of the coin it´s subjectivity. The runner goes to take the world record and broke his leg and can´t run, or that day he is in top shape but it rains over the track…we can name it with different names, from destiny, path, doubt, unknown, whatever.

Here we have two procedures. Or we stand up and run with that limitation that´s the constant doubt from the unknown and in the meantime we try to grow up our knowledge, what´s get´s some more doubts, or we sit down and we wait or we give up until we solve and know all the answers to our doubts.

I guess that the kind of person that you are, that posts so many on LRC about training, like you do, it´s not the kind of person to sit down and wait and give up. Just my bet.

Although interesting, looking at the splits from just ONE of Peter Snell's 800m races is NOT a good basis to make definitive conclusions about his "strength endurance" and his ability to speed up or slow down in the second half of an 800m race.

I have no problem with what you say about the worst ratio in terms of the 800m records. It is common knowledge that Snell is the worst. However, when that run was done it was on a Grass track (Just destroyed in Christchurch Earthquake) with a pacemaker who by Snell's own admission went out too quick and left Peter to struggle home on his own, there was no other "real" opposition.

I ask this question ... How much did that time break the then World record by .. 1.4 seconds .. the record has never been taken apart in such a way by any athlete since. The nearest being Coe's 1.1 ..

How about looking at Snell's Tokyo Oly 800 splits ..... something like 52.6/52.5

.. Negative splits .. that run was then the second fastest ever .. How many Olympic 800's have been completed since in negative splits !!!!

Yes !I note Jim Ryun's negative splits ... but not in an International Race.

In addition I think you are looking at very different era's, rather than just training methods.

Really, if you look at the "professional" era ie say 1980 till now.. only 1.2 seconds has been taken off the record. .... Is that Training alone .... ??????

I have no problem with what you say about the worst ratio in terms of the 800m records. It is common knowledge that Snell is the worst. However, when that run was done it was on a Grass track (Just destroyed in Christchurch Earthquake) with a pacemaker who by Snell's own admission went out too quick and left Peter to struggle home on his own, there was no other "real" opposition.

I ask this question ... How much did that time break the then World record by .. 1.4 seconds .. the record has never been taken apart in such a way by any athlete since. The nearest being Coe's 1.1 ..

How about looking at Snell's Tokyo Oly 800 splits ..... something like 52.6/52.5

.. Negative splits .. that run was then the second fastest ever .. How many Olympic 800's have been completed since in negative splits !!!!

Yes !I note Jim Ryun's negative splits ... but not in an International Race.

In addition I think you are looking at very different era's, rather than just training methods.

Really, if you look at the "professional" era ie say 1980 till now.. only 1.2 seconds has been taken off the record. .... Is that Training alone .... ??????

Ok, you now have one post ere you aren't comparing times from athletes of different eras so I suppose that means you don't do it. And of course Snell had no advantage from training with Lydiard. He just thinks he did. You know much better.

HRE wrote:

Ok, you now have one post ere you aren't comparing times from athletes of different eras so I suppose that means you don't do it. And of course Snell had no advantage from training with Lydiard. He just thinks he did. You know much better.

I do compare the first lap with the second lap of the same runner, and the fact that the times are from different eras (it´s an evidence) doesn´t mean nothing to my analysis, because i don´t relate DIFFERENT final times of one each with each other, i relate the first lap split with the second lap of the same performance.

About your idea that Snell had no advantage from training with Lydiard this is of your responsability.

Look, HRE, the other friend might not agree with you, to relate Snell with Coe or JIm Ryan. He says times from diffrent eras can´t be related.

Now my own opinion. What´s correct it´s to analyse thye runner PB and not tactical runs, or runs wit slow start. He know that every PB attempt, be Snell or Rudisha, only works and only can be acheived if you have a correct management from the first lasp to the second lap, therefore all other perfromances from the same runner that aren´t Pbs are weak to this kind of analysis.

I trust in what you say that Snell did a negative split in Tokyo, but this is one of the reasons why Tokyo it´s not his own 800m PB.

In Tokyo, Snell was boxed in coming off the penultimate turn but by 600 he led with a 1:19.4 and was not really challenged from there in. He ran 52.9-52.2 His 1:45.1 was an Olympic record replacing the 1:46.3 he ran in Rome.

Kadaffi out of power wrote:

Now my own opinion. What´s correct it´s to analyse thye runner PB and not tactical runs,

From your data:

1:41.11 Wilson Kipketer 49.3/51.8 +2.5

1:41.24 Kipketer 48.3/52.9 +4.6

1:41.73 Kipketer 49.6/52.1 +2.5

Pretty big variation in second lap times going on there, in three PBs from the SAME athlete.

And all races are tactical.

And Rudisha ran two World Records, 1.41.09 and 1.41.01

It's Snell, not me, who says that he did as well as he did not because he had great talent but because he had good talent but great training. It's in print and it's somewhere in the archives at Runner's World's website's "Brief Chat." But of course you'd know better than Snell would despite the fact that he lived through it and later got a Ph.D in physiology.

You seem to think you've struck the mother lode of evidence with your analysis of split times but data from ONE race doesn't prove much of anything other than what unfolded in the race and certainly nothing about the merits of the training of the athletes involved.

As Kim pointed out, Snell's pacemaker took that race out much too quickly. Peter knew that right away. It's in his "No Bugles, No Drums." He was tying up at the end but managed to hang on and get the record anyway. Despite very poor pacing he had the endurance to keep on at a decent pace.

Barry Magee once told me that every second you run too quickly in the first part of a race costs you two seconds in the second half. Having a professional rabbit, as today's runners have, would have made a huge difference. The final time, using Barry's criteria, would have been a low 1:42 and that was still done on a grass track. A modern track would probably have shaved another second or so.

Pure speculation? Of course it is. But no more so than your evaluation of training methodologies based on a single race run by a variety of athletes.

Antonio Cabral, you are a ranting lunatic. Peter Snell ran World Records and won Olympic Gold Medals. What more do you expect that he could have done? What methodology of superior specificity could produce better results?

All speculation and fantasy. Races will naturally progress to faster and faster times, it is inevitable. There is a limit to how effective any coach or coaching methodology can be. Ultimately the best runners do the best races and run the best times.

Jon Orange wrote:

And all races are tactical.

Thank you for articulating the point that I was trying to make so succintly.

In addition, Rushida's second 800m world record had exactly the same lap differential as Peter Snell's world record back in the 1960s. Such a poor "stength endurance" suggests that Rushida needs to follow a more modern training methodology to improve ...

C'mon Kadaffi. I was beginning to take a lot of notice of what you are arguing. Now with this 800 stuff. Hanging on to the fact that Peter had a huge positive split makes your point. I don't think so. In addition, I think you should look at what HRE is saying as he knows and has interviewed Peter before ......

Thanks Orville for the info on Snell's negative splits. Snell also states that he "backed off" in that '64 Oly 800 Final as he realised he had it won because he knew he had a 1500m heat the next day. Maybe he could have run a World record if that was all he was going to run ?????

Oh yeah ! a double Olympic Gold (800/1500) that has never been repeated since. Endurance factor ????. I have heard Arthur say that Snell was deliberately under trained going into Tokyo so that he could tackle that double. Hence, not a lot of "specific" training.

Now please answer Hodgie -San's question about the paper and where it was presented/published.

In addition, Rushida's second 800m world record had exactly the same lap differential as Peter Snell's world record back in the 1960s. Such a poor "stength endurance" suggests that Rushida needs to follow a more modern training methodology to improve ... "

Love it 800PBs !

This time it´s not “what you did”, or “what Lydiard says” your 2 main arguments. It´s something new, what Peter Snell says, what is one third new version of the same old song.

Did I ever said something about the conditions of Peter Snell on that run ? I don´t think so. For me it´s quite irrelevant what Snell things or says he did on that run. Does it changes the ratio ? No it doesn´t.

If your ultimate argument is that the one who knows it´s because he is a Ph. Doc in physiology, i also got one.

About methodology. If you knew in what point of the the run Rudisha pacers took the lead on both Rudisha WR, you wouldn´t say that Snell's pacemaker took that race out much too quickly. You will see that it was sonner, but that didn´t trouble him to run 1:41 but more important, better ratio for Rudisha. You see, Rudisha was been coached by Brother O´Colm, one modern coach, that among other aspects insists on specifics and doesn´t long runs.

To you all

Some posts ago, some of you said I don´t answer to the questions, i´m not precise in my comments, that I will leave you without say what I think. Actually I send you the candy of more training debate, more of my opinion, data, that are noting but facts of performances, what all competitive training is all about: to win and to perform.

The reaction of some of you ? Some of you can´t stand my opinion. Might be you prefer “the maker of champions”, “the perfect training” or the other version “gestalt training” “intuitive training” or “holistic training”.

Did i say anything it´s wrong about Peter Snell 800m WR splits or every other runner that is not a fact ?

I was not been polite ? Did I offend Peter Snell or everyone of you ?

I´m not free on this board to discuss and got my own methodological interpretation about performance, training what so ever ?

Can´t I comment on training, by the rules of this Forum, be my training comment focus on, Lydiard, Peter Snell, Gebrelassie, Renato Canova, Jonh Hadd, Jack Daniels, Malmo, Brother O´Colm, James Li, Kostre, what so ever ?

I don´t know why so many of you seem to be in trouble. I simply repeat the same data that I did post some months ago.