Peter Snell Interview and his thoughts on Lydiard training

Wetcoast wrote:

It would be real kewl, if there was a way to have the thread follow 1 specific conversation that everyone is in on at the same time. Of course that would require a moderator and a controlled, logical deisre for clicking the delete button.

That's because everyone is not Lydiard. Even Lydiard, that he had no time for differing views, than the ones he used that he got from others, but he himself changed his perception of those views over time. So I think it is fine that people exchange ideas in the same place, just like what seems to be different types of training, but that leads to results that are similar. I see no reason to try to make everything the same way.

Sir Lance-alot wrote:

provided that the resistance is large enough that one is running "against", running at a relatively "slow" speed compared to one's max ... could use more fast twitch fibers ... than running a faster pace/with faster leg turnover against much less resistance. Therefore, running "slow" could help you to become fast.

Slow fibers can be trained to be very strong, but that does not make them fast twitch fibers. In face, strong slow twitch fibers are slow twitch fibers, not FT.

Bounding and jumping is different, not the same as running slowly (7:00 pace or slower) up hills, no matter how steep they are.

Yes, no revelation, but still counterintuitive to some, and I don't think JR still buys it.

It's a revelation that is not going to happen.

J.R.

You didn't comprehend what I wrote: Differing conversations within the thread.

That is a different comment than what you are referring to: Differing opinions or differing points of view.

I hope that helps. I wrote 'kewl', meaning nice, not 'there should be'.

W

Wetcoast wrote:

J.R.

You didn't comprehend what I wrote: Differing conversations within the thread.

Wetcoast, that is exactly what I'm taking about.

You seem to want everyone to comprehend the same way, which is the Lydiard way, even though later he changed his own mind. So you want me to comprehend your sole way of thinking, but without you comprehending my expression, or any other expression. Is that right? But I'm not the same as you.

I like the different conversations and ideas.

Sir Lance-alot wrote:

In other words, do you think only the pace of one's run matters for activating one's fast twitch fibers, or is the resistance being overcome, and the force being produced by the muscles to overcome that resistance more important than the pace of the run?

Are you asking because you want to know the answer?

First you tell me I'm wrong, then you ask me some questions.

J.R.

Nope you still don't get it.

Oh well....you can lead a horse to water....

Wetcoast wrote:

J.R.

Nope you still don't get it.

Oh well....you can lead a horse to water....

Because I have my own water... see... I can think for myself.

Thinking for themselves is very scary for some people, and to let other people think for themselves.

This is the very POINT of my first comments on this thread.

Lydiard does not own all the water, and either does anyone else.

I hope I don't sound too cynical, but here's the deal. There are those who don't want to discuss, or deal with nuance, or take into account sources other than the narrow ones they limit themselves to refuting.

There are guys who spoke to Lydiard and get what the guy meant in general. There are guys who REALLY got it and Lydiard said "hey, when I'm dead and gone, please explain what I meant to people."

Likewise, there are coaches who read about different forests and can only see the difference in the different species of trees in each forest.

Here's what an inexperienced youngin' sees as the bottom line: the best coaches are PRAGMATIC. Renato Canova, who I have great respect for, has some incredible posts in this thread. If his athlete who preferred 3hr slow runs for regeneration seemed to thrive off those 3hr slow runs, good for him. While the "why" of that method is interesting to discuss, the efficacy of that method is far more important.

Lydiard was key in that he noted that in his experience, runners who focused on the continuous, high-end stuff he advocated excelled, was very helpful. Thousands of runners since Lydiard have either discovered that as a result of his teachings or on their own. At the end of the day, it isn't important who gets credit- it's important that athletes who focus too much on specific as opposed to general conditioning get the picture, as well as vice versa.

I'd argue that an East Africa who was born and raised at altitude and enjoyed a very active youth has a completely different set of needs when training for a given event than a basically sedentary but talented Westerner.

Maybe I'm being foolish. Maybe I'm short-sighted. However, I don't think training will ever be as simple as "THIS IS BEST; THIS IS NOT BEST." I've had very modest success on my own part, but never once have I thought one training way was the perfect way for everyone. There are a million different paths for a million different athletes.

Arthur Lydiard had an impressive amount of success as a coach. Coaches who followed his ideas have also had an impressive amount of success. Coaches like Dr. Canova have elaborated and built on that success. I'd even go so far as to say that coaches like Dr. Canova are giants in their own right, standing on the shoulders of giants who came before them, allowing them to see even farther.

I respect visionaries like Lydiard with all the deference they have earned. I respect modern-day coaches like Canova who build upon that foundation of knowledge and add to the hybrid of art/science of which good coaching consists.

However, I deplore the nitpickers and critics who prefer to tear down rather than build up. Unfortunately, the Lydiard threads seem to attract both the builders and the tearers in equal proportions.

J.R. when lifting near your maximum weight on a dead lift/squat etc. will you recruit mostly FT or ST fibres?

Wetcoast

It´s true that the way this forums are made we hardly focus on one aspect, on one subject. This thread, like many other Lydiard threads before, is growing at a rate that makes it difficult to follow and discuss each single subject. This is like some television debates, everything can be said but everything that is said it´s superficial, not deep serious debate. It´s normal that people are on different levels of training understand.

However you ask my opinion and I want to reply.

About the art - the art of training. I see “the art of training” as the individual coach talent to built organized training and stimulus and to build individual schedules that fulfill the training target goals: maximize the runner potential, the runner talent to able him/her to run fast, improve the performance.

For example. The art of training is a INDIVIDUAL AND OPERATIVE exercise/act , but as you might understand it´s SUBJECTIVE and SUBJECTIVE kind of IRRATIONAL somehow (or intuitive if you wish). If the art of training it´s not based in science, pure logic analysis, as everything intuitive can be detailed and express by rationalism totally, totally agreement it´s impossible. Think about a art-portrait, about one art-movie. It´s “art”. But for the same oeuvre of art some of us like it, some of us don´t like. Some of us say it´s beautiful, some of us say it´s poor art. The ART IS OF CIRCUMSTANCE and unrepeatable. Ther´s only one Leonardo da Vinci Gioconda, one Bob Dylan song “Blowing with the wind”, one Orson Wells “Citizen Kane”, as only exists one da Vinci, one Bob Dylan, one Orson Wells, one Arthur Lydiard. Some like it some don´t, because it´s art. Ther´s no logic reason to love Lady Gaga and ther´s no logic, objective reason to hate Lady Gaga, or be indifferent to Lady Gaga. She was born that way !

Now think about science, the science method, it´s an experiment method of analysis, be inductive or deductive, it´s one rational method, have nothing to do with art. Think about the analysis of contain. It´s quite OBJECTIVE, RATIONAL, logic. In my opinion the science physiology for example it´s not art, it´s science. On the same class, it´s the TRAINING METHODOLOGY. It deals with objective facts, not just to say the kind of “2 medals” or “the maker of champions” but the TRAINIG METHODOLGY try to discriminate among facts, to analyze at the level of training knowledge, the use of every science as support, from mathematics, from physics, from biology, from physiology, medicine, from history – in this case the distance training history, and the history of the training methods, and take one objective conclusion. Art is of circumstance, but science and training methodology is of FONDAMENT and ca be reproduced (repeatable).

If you appeal to the art of Lydiard the Man, the coach Lydiard, I agree, but someone else might not agree, and by appeal to the art of training, intuition, whatever quite subjective, emotional, feeling, irrational, by the “eye” of the art (the training art) ther´s no way to be in total agreement if one coach – the Lydiard the coach in this our case of debate - if what he did is rich or poor training (art).

Therefore it´s by this kind of my training understand that the debate of Lydiard – or every other coach or every other training system/method - shall be done by training methodology debate rather than an interpretation at the light of the “art of training”. The art of training can be something quite “visionary” out of time, but might work. But works only for this singular coach, can´t be followed or systematized as training method.

For all that I say, and try to detail, every debate focus on Lydiard the man, Lydiard the coach as a training art, is useless and in vain. To debate one method you shall use something rational, not “art”.

Another example. You can´t argue that because Lydiard built one training method with his “art of coaching” that everyone or just one of his followers they possess that same art of training.

Training it´s not an art, it´s one science and is done by methodology. The individual coach process is what can be an art – the art of training. But the art of training is singular, can´t be an argument of methodology debate.

Might be that the way Lydiard build the Peter Snell schedule or every of the runners he did coach he did by his art of training. He did the 22 mile long run, by his own art of training. Might be he taught, this man needs a long run every week or so. Eventually he taught, “this runner he might avoid interval training during the buildup block”, “that other don´t, he might do intervals and some fartlek during the aerobic block”. It´s good, it´s Lydiard geniality, might be that he did it by his strong intuition, skill, experience, but this are all individual talents, can´t be transmitted to other person, his own art of training, his own preventive caution, his way to training improve helps him to do so, to take that training decisions. He have been here Nobby, HRE, Kim Stevenson, what you name the usual partners, and they tell us the true stories how Lydiard deal with every single athlete differently how he manage the training of that boys with his art of training. However these are the aspects of CIRCUMSTANCE. But this can´t be the material source of debate, discussing or arguing, the right source of debate shall be the Lydiard method, the Lydiard training structure and organization, by the eyes of the principles training methodology and support by the auxiliary sciences of the training methodology (mathematics, biology, physiology, analysis of contain, history of the distance training, etc).

For example. Take a look how Renato Canova debates one issue. He is one coach and one methodologist. Some might agree, some might not. He inform about his method, what he thinks it´s right and wrong but he uses logic, mathematics sometime, training methodology mostly. When he uses single cases, single examples, singular situations, cases of circumstance, he does it as examples to illustrate his methodology theory, his methodology principles.

Take a look how Jack Daniels uses to post on LetsRun.com. He teach us about physiology, what he thinks that are the fundaments of the training physiology, and rarely posts individual cases of circumstance to illustrate his opinion. But what I see is that most of the Lydiard defense is done by singular cases fo exception that often violate the principles, cases of exception and circumstance, this is not rich material to conclusion.

Conclusion: in my opinion, the art of training exists, but as the training tends to be more objective than art, and training methodology it´s a science and not an art. We can´t debate or arguing training based on the art of training, intuition, etc, as we can´t take the norm by singular cases of exception. The training debate it´s only possible and sustainable if we stand on training methodology, not by the appeal of training art whatever kiind of subjective expression.

Greetings

J.R. wrote:

First you tell me I'm wrong...

J.R., since you asked; you are wrong.

Consider:

You are running along pulling a weighted sled behind you (a fundamental aspect of sprint training).

And just BTW, why would sprinters want to do this (which causes them to run slower) if it only activated only ST fibers?

Why wouldn't distance runners do this instead of sprinters if (as you seem to argue) it activates only ST fibers?

No need to answer, the questions were rhetorical. Let's go back to our thought-experiment: You're pulling a weighted sled ...

Your argument appears to be that since you are not moving quickly, you can achieve/handle this task with (strong) ST fibers.

Let's assume you are right. At least at first.

We increase the weight on the sled. (bummer)

You keep moving, and you argue that your argument still holds true. ST fibers.

We increase the weight on the sled (ad nauseam). Like those world's strongest man deals where the guy pulls a Boeing 727.

Eventually you pull this weight painfully slowly.

And your argument STILL is that you have very strong ST fibers?

Your argument STILL is that despite desperately needing additional power your body would REFUSE to recruit whatever(stronger) FT fibers you have, which are (in your opinion) sitting around doing nothing. Your central nervous system would refuse to recruit your FT fibers because you are not pulling (e.g.) the equivalent of an aeroplane FAST ENOUGH?

If this is your argument, then, I hate to break it to you, but you are so wrong it's actually sad to behold.

There is ample MRI evidence out there (and it's not my job to direct you to it, although I could do so easily) that clearly demonstrates that fiber recruitment is primarily determined by the amount of force required and has little to do with the speed of the limb involved.

As everyday examples, others have directed you to heavy squats and fiber recruitment. There are countless examples.

Really, your "street-cred" or your "Letsrun-credibility" can only plummet ever further down a bottomless gorge the more you try to argue your point. Do some research. Take my word for it that it exists.

Antonio, that was all well and good, but then you blew your credibility when you wrote this:

Antonio Cabral wrote:... ther´s no logic, objective reason to hate Lady Gaga,

Antonio Cabral wrote:

For example. The art of training is a INDIVIDUAL AND OPERATIVE exercise/act , but as you might understand it´s SUBJECTIVE and SUBJECTIVE kind of IRRATIONAL somehow (or intuitive if you wish). If the art of training it´s not based in science, pure logic analysis, as everything intuitive can be detailed and express by rationalism totally, totally agreement it´s impossible.

Excuse this my mistake:

If the art of training it´s not based in science, pure logic analysis, as everything intuitive IS OUT OF SCIENCE, CAN´T be detailed and express by rationalism totally, totally agreement it´s impossible.

Red Cup wrote:

J.R., since you asked; you are wrong.

Consider:

You are running along pulling a weighted sled behind you (a fundamental aspect of sprint training).

And just BTW, why would sprinters want to do this (which causes them to run slower) if it only activated only ST fibers?

Easy answer, but you don't really want to know.

Same thing again, you tell me I'm wrong, then you ask me a question.

I asked you a question you haven't replied.

I agree

Yes good points.

Again, it seems every dwells on the Lydiard method, but few talk about the man's application, except for those that knew him personally.

Excuse me to insist on comment what you say. If TO COME CLOSE TO THE individual or collective NEEDS (as you name it) means to DO SO MANY ADAPTATIONS, so many changes that the final result is out of the main fundaments of the method, if to come close to the needs means to miss, to forget, to ignore, to betray somehow, the training principles that are the methodological guide of one training method – the Lydiard one, then it´s time to think that the method might be ONE POOR METHOD.

Otherwise, in the case i would need too much adjust out of the method norm, it would better to search for another one that fits the needs better, and to change for that other method, if that other one, it was been doing the kind of methodology principles that are closer to the actual needs.

That´s what i try to say in early posts. Somehow, when i say that some change proposals from the main Lydiard training done to cover the needs (that some of you do start to admit), that is done since long ago by other well known training methods.

For example, one method that i think i know well, the portuguese method. It does the aerobic shape condition by mileage volume, but with fartlek and intervals during the early season but he doesn´t the long run. It uses the non-linear periodisation, it does more percent of specific training than the Lydiard one. It´s adjust to the modern competitive schedule.

Seriously and with all respect. The main reason why some of you characterize/define what you do as Lydiard training is because you don´t know no one else method as you know the Lydiard one, or you don´t want to change from method, or because you have one positive emotional feeling about the Lydiard training, but it´s not one reason of choice for the better methodology.

About Keith Livingston's "Healthy Intelligent Training" book. I like to debate with people side-by-side, face to face, be in physical presence or be on-line as the modern one technology permits.

I wouldn´t like to comment specific texts of one individual. As I did stress too much on the methodology debate, I wanted to keep on the methodological zone of discuss. But as you ask me and with all respect for Keith Livingston then I profit to express my opinion.

I read the book. I don´t say I don´t like it. It´s ok, it does some interest as information. But in my opinion he misses the target to what I wanted to read and debate and discuss. I think that the one main target of the book is to take the Lydiard methodology in agreement to the modern physiology. Might be Keith did so, because we live actually in one world when the distance training approach goes often to the range of physiology, mostly “rocket science” and in some cases just “fuzzology”. Eventually every individual feels the need and the compulsion to put the training principles in agreement with the science. Some of you are just satisfied with the method when you will realize that what Lydiard said and did is in agreement with physiology mostly. Or the physiologists they are in constant disagreement one with each other and in constant change of opinion, as they weren´t been able to build the link to what they know and write with the training methodology, the training link in between training methiodology and physiology fails frequently/often. On this board many times it was been said that the physiology doesn´t fit quite perfect with the training lead, the coach lead and training lead manage.

Consequently, in my opinion the Keith book it´s well done but a bit frustrate. My start point is that Lydiard is a genius coach, very good one, and mostly that Lydiard did by experience, training lead and skill and “art” is well done, might be it´s not in total agreement with “rocket” physiology, but it really doesn´t matter. My main question is “Ok, Lydiard the coach was been very good, but all was done in the past, band I don´t take for granted that the Lydiard method is as good as the Lydiard coach, I know other training methods with some other training fundaments different and opposed to the Lydiard one, but that works better as the Lydiard training one, I want to analyze Lydiard training rules/norms at the light of the modern training methodology, let´s see what in the Lydiard training is in agreement with the modern training methodology”. However I don´t see this my questions answered or debated on that book.

Might be that the book it´s interesting for young US students and others that are in road ofconflit with the Lydiard training and physiology, academic teachers, all those that take the physiology as the front-line of the training method and the training decisions, the training choices, but not me, i´m not of that group that criticizes Lydiard by the physiology. I don´t. My questions with Lydiard training or with every other training method are the methodology knowledge, not physiology knowledge. The kind of questions that were been done on popular sites (not the expert ones or scientific ones) about Lydiard are much more interesting than to get the Lydiard training in-date with the science – that target doesn´t really matter me too much.

You see, as I always stand up. Training methodology might be very basic. Training is an organized of stimulus that the main target is to run faster. To run faster means race pace that is time/distance versus speed, or if you wish is resistance that is speed/intensity/quality versus endurance/extensively/quantity. This is what the training approach is all about. To enhance the resistance/strength endurance is all about. The race pace it´s the goal target, the DISTANCE TRAINING DEBATE is what are the best training variants, what kind of stimulus might be in an organized way to get that resistance enhance that able the performance.

Two years ago I did the IAAF coach level 1 (the high one) certificate. I get it i did several tests of physiology. I did 100% right answers (A classification) or all rigt answers on that tests. I was the best one in the physiology examination, despite some other that did the test they are Ph. in physiology. So, I think i´m in-date with mostly that is the modern physiology related with distance training. The question is that I stand the debate on the methodology range. Renato Canova says he doesn´t know why the marathon runner of today does best resistance ratio than the past ones at the light of physiology. No one knows really, no one physiologist knows precisely. What we know comes from methodology, how they train differently (and better) to improve their performances.

J.R. You are very immature. Several posters have explained with simple examples why you are wrong.

Slow twitch and fast twitch fibers are so named because they can contract at different rates. But what you don't seem to understand is that fast twitch fibers can contract during slow movements. How else would we produce a one rep max lift? It can't be done quickly.

Stop arguing and do some learning.