HRE wrote:
Rather than talk about "outdated vs. modern", it seems what's coming up here is "constantly specific vs. periodically specific" and the assumption made by some is that constantly specific training is more modern and therefore better.
So what ? Ron Davies did the same schedule than Peter Snell or he didn´t?
On this thread Mr. Kim Stevenson confirms what I said.
Please, once in a lifetime, be humble and not arrogant. Do confess that you aren´t the owner of the truth. Be able to admit that you contest me, but you were wrong.
Why do i bring that fact to the discuss ? It´s not simply because it´s a curiosity, but because it reveals that Lydiard training doesn´t respect TRAINING INDIVIDUALIZATION and in this item is outdate as well. As you see it´s not just "constant specific versus periodically specific". It´s also "individualization versus non-individualization” that Lydiard is outdate.
About your comment "constantly specific versus periodically specific, can´t you understand that on this thread. From a certain post on, the focus of the Lydiard analysis is limited to the single issue of SPECIFIC TRAINING, and to able the kind of deep discuss of the method, we can´t go out of this single aspect of the specificity, but Lydiard is outdate in several aspects.
Can´t you read ? We discuss the useless of LONG RUNS as well. We discuss the Lydiard contain of SEASON PERIODIZATION, we discuss the Lydiard wrong version of INTERVAL TRAINING and many more. It´s all more or less outdate, not just what you say. The case of “constant specificity versus periodical specificity” it´s a your attempt to be simplistic and reductionist.
However i may point out several other aspects that Lydiard is outdate.
The Lydiard SEASON PERIODIZATION is outdating. Lydiard based his training by a linear periodization, very influenced by the ex-East German training system and also influenced by the ex-USSR scientist and physiologist Matveiev. It´s not me that create this Lydiard referential of influence. It´s documented. In several interviews Lydiard reveals from where it comes his season periodization concept. Among other aspects I name some that are outdate. The annual season periodization, when some other modern coach methodologists they prove this is wrong. The training that goes from aerobic > anaerobic in season progress, when might be quality > quantity in an extensive and progressive non-linear process. The outdate concept of 6 weeks of taper right before the peak competition. All that Lydiard uses and it´s the result of that ex-USSR and ex-DDR influence. Actually that kind of season periodization is outdating as well. I remember that on this board Renato Canova posts about this question of how outdate is that kind of Matveivev-Lydiard season periodization. Go back and read what he says. I don´t need to repeat.
The wrong prescription of INTERVAL TRAINING. Basically Lydiard considers the interval training of short bouts with short recovery, anaerobic training kind, what isn´t either. From that wrong interpretation Lydiard refuses to use that kind of interval training during the early phases of his season periodization, when this Kind of short interval training is aerobic really indeed and not anaerobic as he says. We discuss this problem in detail. I got many documents where Lydiard says it´s anaerobic training.
I remember that one interest thread on this board about the miss of Lydiard interval training during the aerobic block/phase , is deleted, but i save it ,and i keep it. At some point of discuss, You HRE, you are confronted with the anonymous man that posts with the nickname of Ö, with the fact that nothing can replace the interval use. Ö posts while quote one physiology article, and you said “I don´t know if what you say it´s true”. This is another item where the Lydiard training is outdate.
I can continue, and I can bring more details. Each single this aspects, SEASON PERIODIZATION, TRAINING INDIVIDUALIZATION , LONG RUNS, INTERVAL TRAINING, quantity to quality and not aerobic to anaerobic, etc. I may discuss in detail each one of several Lydiard training aspects that is outdating. Each one can be one long book, so many can be said. But it really doesn´t matter.
Finally, let me say this. I write PROGRESSIVE SPECIFIC WORKOUTS, I didn´t write “constant specific workouts”.
you don´t know what´s the meaning of progressive specific workouts eventually, and it´s why you think that in the modern training the specific workouts are constant, but it´s not constant, it´s progressive, one concept that Lydiard doesn´t respect, and consequently you aren´t able to understand.
From some 6-8 weeks of specific training sparsely on that very short period, to 50-54 weeks that´s the years round, is there several alternatives. To run from 12-16 weeks of specific workouts, what the twice to what Lydiard does, 24-36 what is sensible and 4 times more weeks, but in no one of that modern expand alternatives demands “constantly” or “permanenttly” specific workouts. If youi do the modrn style there you open one gap to do PROGRESSIVE SPECIFIC WORKOUTS, not condense as Lydiard did, but build up PROGRESSIVE STIMULUS.