Peter Snell Interview and his thoughts on Lydiard training

Yes. I remember the "Pekka Vasala" thread. You had no evidence at all of any of the nonsense you wrote. It seems to exist only in your mind or in some book written only in Finnish that is out of print. I wrote a quote about Lydiard from Vasala attributing all of the success the Finns had in the 70s to the influence of Lydiard. Go ahead and get a real quote about this from Vasala in English and then we'll talk.

Oh, and if you can't understand why training needs to be adapted constantly you have no place in any discussion on the topic.

Antonio,

Thanks for the reply. I really enjoy what you write, so don't take anything negatively. Lately, I've seen some funny things come from you (Lady Gaga - We were born that way; NZ is antipode and everything is upside down). Since you say so many things to me and offer opinions about me, I will try to explain more about me, and what I want.

But first, it was HRE who said "that Lydiard in private he did interval training during the aerobic block".

I don't think I'm self centered in Lydiard training. I don't expect you to answer all my questions, but will always accept recommended readings, e.g. books, websites, journals, symposiums, whatever.

I don't prejudge Lydiard as the best, and in fact, I'm sure he's not. But besides Renato's insights, and a few other threads, like your thread I really liked in "Intermittent Training", I haven't yet seen much outside of Lydiard or Daniels.

You talked about Lydiard invariants. I'm not the expert, but my understanding is that there are only these invariants:

- The right balance of "aerobic" and "anaerobic" training (whatever that means)

- Weekly Long runs

- Time the training to peak for the big race

Right or wrong, this shapes my thinking as to what is Lydiard and what it is not.

The problem with interval training in 1960s, wasn't the interval training, but the lack of attention to "aerobic" development. Same thing with the US in the 1990's. No balance, just burnout, or underdevelopment.

Everything else is just implementation details designed to optimize the balance. 100 mpw? Detail. Periodization? One solution to strong aerobic development, followed by strong anaerobic development, timed for peaking at the right time.

You wanted some Lydiard evidence of addressing the individual athlete. Again, I'm not the expert, but I found a couple things, and I have an opinion too. In the "Osaka Lecture" (April 1990) posted at the Lydiard Foundation, when describing why "anaerobic" interval training details can not be pre-specified: "The key to training is to train to your individual reactions to the training." His philosophy was to explain to the athlete what the goal was, then let the athlete say when he's finished.

I found the "race week/non race week" in another training article at the Lydiard Foundation, from "Training the Lydiard Way". I don't have a date for that, but I guess it was written by Lydiard when he was alive.

But in his 1978 book, he says (in the US training section), that peaking three times a year for three seasons is not a problem. Lydiard says, take some simple precautions to keep fresh and sharp, and "I see no real problem associated with the three racing seasons".

I also find in his 1978 book a description of runners with more "white" muscles versus runners with more "red" muscles, so he was aware that different runners have different muscle types. This helped determine their "200m speed", and their targeted event. I never saw a "2 types of runner" distinction, in his description of his concepts, or an explanation of how to build specific schedules from the principles, but it is clear from his many published schedules that, although the general training (marathon and hill training) was the same for everyone, after that, the training was tailored for the athlete's event, and in the 1978 book, was tailored for age, and gender too.

And like HRE said, the only claim that I ever saw that Lydiard was the best came once from Nobby. He declared he honestly believed Lydiard was the best -- a bias which is somehow understandable, considering his current role.

Of course, concepts have been improved in the last 50 years. For example, when Renato says things like "build your aerobic house, then add furniture", I think to myself "I could do Lydiard for 5 years, then call Renato to buy some furniture". Lydiard's approach to interval training? I can see potential for improvement. 2 kinds of runners? I can see that too.

But what I want to see is the training methodology that can train Europeans, Americans, or Oceanians, to routinely compete with East Africans.

If you want to know what Lydiard says, let's follow Antonio's recommendation. Shall we ask Lydiard clowns? Pekka? Ö? Why not find out from Lydiard? All of the firsthand books and presentations contradict your third hand interpretation of what Pekka said Lydiard did.Can you give an example of a more perfect method that doesn't adapt to the athlete, and evolve over time?So when Antonio talks about antipodes and chopsticks and All Blacks and martians, what is the subject again?

HRE wrote:

Yes. I remember the "Pekka Vasala" thread. You had no evidence at all of any of the nonsense you wrote. It seems to exist only in your mind or in some book written only in Finnish that is out of print. I wrote a quote about Lydiard from Vasala attributing all of the success the Finns had in the 70s to the influence of Lydiard. Go ahead and get a real quote about this from Vasala in English and then we'll talk.

I didn´t write nonsense. And yes it does exist in a book called "Pekka Vasala Mitalin Toinen Puoli".

Why I would have to believe anything that you write about Arthur, always without evidence? I have my book, welcome to Finland and you can find it quite easily from some old books store.

Open your eyes, Arthur wasn´t a great coach.

Because much of the stuff we write about Arthur can be found in print or verified by other posters. And it's in English.

If you honestly believe that hypothetical book is readily available on used book sites or in anyone's local used book shop you definitely are writing nonsense and again, even if we found it we'd have no idea what's in it. But you seem to think this settles something. Nope, no nonsense there.

Antonio,

It's been a pleasure doing this with you but the idiots are evidently locating this thread so I think I'll leave. There's a link to my e-mail in case there is actually something you'd like me to respond to.

(I want continue. Remember that i just did some true stories and i just did comment on one Nobby´s paragraph. But i promise i will comment about training methodology, namely what seems to be a major problem the question of the "2 kinds of runners" and FT and ST types. I will come. One of the main problems of the distance runners is to be anxious. I´m not.) POST NUMBER THREEEven before I go to school and someone teach me to read and to write and count, when I was 5 years old my father teach me to play chess, what are the 16 pieces of each player, how each piece moves, the chess rules and eventually what´s the chess game target. I did play quite well since young kid, I did win some matches against older players than me, some adults that were regular players that did took part in competitions. One day I knew the history of the outstand chess player Alexander Alekhine (October 31, 1892 – March 24, 1946). 4 times world champion – 17 years as champion, first title -1927, last title he regains in 1946 to lost in 1949, what makes him champion 20 years after his first world title. He did live and died in Portugal. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_AlekhineHe did something new and original the way he played chess. The classic opening in the chess is for the white as for the black pieces to move ahead the king paw as opening play. Then he tried with success his own new and different opening. When he played with the black pieces, instead of the traditional open he opens with the knight. This unconventional opening causes a chess revolution the way the world chess top players they use to consider the chess. This unconventional chess opening variation is named after Alekhine Defense. As Alekhine did live in Portugal I knew how unconventional he was. He sits down in one restaurant and he eats only with his hands because he was from Muslim tradition. Most people used to fork and knife did imagine he was an idiot when he was genial in fact.Alekhine fits quite perfect on Nobby comment.

NobbyH wrote:

Now, I would NOT be surprised at all, after all that we had tried to explain, that some people may still come back and say, BS. It ain't gonna work.

Sometimes because someone does something different doesn´t mean that doesn´t work. But if this is true, then it´s true for Lydiard training as it´s true for every other kind of training.

No one can say that his training is better training that the other training. What we can debate is what is the basis of each one training method. We don´t need to accept the other training method, but we shall accept that the other individual might have different opinion about my own training, as I might have a different opinion about other kind of training different than my own.

Other individual might have some comments on my own training and one different opinion about my training. But the refuse to listen other than my training and the refuse to understand the other comment is not proficient. Sometimes what seems inadequate (B.S) gonna work.

Ö wrote:

why you Lydiardists write so long posts of BS that doesn´t relate to the subject at all?

thank you for that great summary!

Also, for those people who like to do aerobic intervals during the aerobic conditioning phase are not getting the optimum aerobic development. Why do purely aerobic intervals and take pressure off the heart? Better to run aerobic, steady state runs and to maintain that pressure.

I like Nobby's line: Doing intervals or racing during the aerobic phase is like pulling up a sapling to see if it is growing - of course damaging the roots doing so...or it goes something like that.

Antonio,

Interesting that for an 800m runner you do not prescribe Lactate Threshold efforts. Why is that? I would assume that those paces are in a dead zone?? Not fast enough for anaerobic and nuero-muscular stimulation? And obviously too fast for longer work and recovery work....hmmm. Thanks ina advance for your answer.

I take 2 main conclusions:

1/ Ther´s not a quite complete clear, objective, accurate definition of what is Lydiard training and what is not, what fits into the Lydiard method and what doesn´t. I don´t mean details, I mean the major lines of define.

One thing is the “adaptation” other different thing is the tuff structure of the method define. In the name of adaptation/need, the structure of the method define can´t be missed or ignored or denied, or changed, that will cause the upside down of method , the take the method out of characterization.

When the number of questions about what defines the Lydiard method goes up and expands, more vague and undefined the Lydiard method seems to be.

Nobby is right. We need one definitive and one final statement, one book, one voice only , or the Lydiard debate is quite impossible, we are sailing in the sea of incertitude instead of the sea of tranquility.

2/As far as the doubts and the Lydiard undefined gets bigger and bigger, something new and inclusive comes out of the dust that never been identified with the main core of the Lydiard training, that shows one different Lydiard that we early Lydiard we supposed and suspected, and the range of the Lydiard method contain grows up quickly.

The “universe” of the Lydiard training define seems to be a big-umbrella that covers most of the training that is stated and attributed to other methods – some of that methods that Lydiard also challenged.

With all respect to the Lydiard adepts and to the religion spell also, some of this Lydiard "grow" of training "alternatives", it seems to be like some "sacred long books/texts" of some religions. What is said on that books is so extended, that for every doubt or every attempt to refuse the religious principles, ther´s somewhere on the Book, one answer, one story, one lesson, to answer about the doubt.

With all respect to Rekrunner, but I really think that your reply is typical of what I want to say.

You quote one not well know (I would say quite obscure) part of one 1978 Lydiard book, “he says (in the US training section), that peaking three times a year for three seasons is not a problem. Lydiard says, take some simple precautions to keep fresh and sharp, and "I see no real problem associated with the three racing seasons".

So what we early did imagine about what´s one key element about the Lydiard training, what most Lydiard adepts were been spread about “the need for a strong early aerobic block”, was been a lie ? Or what the others were been said, like I do, that we can be in-shape for 8 months of every season, if you don´t follow the block of linear training but instead you follow the non-linear periodisation, am i right ?

You say “Everything else is just implementation details designed to optimize the balance. 100 mpw? Detail. Periodization? One solution to strong aerobic development, followed by strong anaerobic development, timed for peaking at the right time.”

I´m not so naïve that I think that 100miles shall be done like “made it in-stone”. But in the same Japanese conference that you refer , at some part Lydiard says “the aerobic improve in quite unlimited”, what is not either, as you might know. The wrong statement that “the aerobic improve is unlimited” is what is the core of problem, not the 100miles volume.

The Lydiard relationship with the Finn runners and his influence on the finish training of that period, would be a good and long subject of discuss, but as Rekrunner said “if we inflate the issues about Lydiard” they are so many that we get out of the main subject.

However I want to confirm what Ö says. Pekka Vasala was very deceiving with Lydiard when he 74 he travels to NZ for one long stay to be coached by Lydiard directly. The expectation and the hope of Pekka totally gonne after that stay. Pekka early on was been coached by his Finn coach that refers the Lydiard influence and with this Finn coach training he did win the 72 Munich 1500m Olympics. After been coached by Lydiard directly he did just 6th in the 74c Rome European champs with a deceived result.

If we want to consider one coach just by success or unsuccess, this time with Pekka, Lydiard was not “the maker of champions” as some often say, and on Pekka he doesn´t seem to possess “the art of training” that some do say Lydiard did.

Ignoring that asswhipe better known as the symbol resembling zero is the most effective way of dealing with him.

rekrunner wrote:

So when Antonio talks about antipodes and chopsticks and All Blacks and martians, what is the subject again?

[/quote]

Figure of speech

Wetcoast wrote:

Antonio,

Interesting that for an 800m runner you do not prescribe Lactate Threshold efforts. Why is that? I would assume that those paces are in a dead zone?? Not fast enough for anaerobic and nuero-muscular stimulation? And obviously too fast for longer work and recovery work....hmmm. Thanks ina advance for your answer.

Yes it have to do with the "dead zone" somehow. But it´s more extense that just the dead zone, it also have to do with my unconventional LT training prescription. I don´t think that the effective way to enhance the LT is on the LT pace Zone.

As you might understand i´m very focused on this Lydiard debate. Since Nobby was been so generous this time, and so open, that finally, after 7 years of my insistence, with his previous refuse to understand my comments on Lydiard training that i try to write on our past e-mail share, i can´t reply to your question actually.

However i want to say 2 things about not prescribe LT for 800m.

One is that the recent post that I wrote it, I could write other aspect with more consensus that might define “my training”. But I wrote that because i want to be polemic intentionally.

Second. if you are interesting in know my opinion about this same LT 800m subject , you can search my past posts on this LR.com board, because not long ago i did several posts about this your question when I detail the reason of my opinion. I hope that while read it, helps you to understand my opinion about the subject. I don´t need to repeat myself.

I just want to add that I’m an unconventional LT training prescriber.

After that you read it, if you have additional questions I will reply.

ps - i think that my posts are on one thread that the subject is "LT paces…” or "...LT pace zones..." something with that title (i quote by memory). Might be someone of you might search and locate those my posts because it´s signed Antonio Cabral precisely.

Glad I can help. I just want to reclarify one thing, and then I'll try not to interrupt.The "invariants" I gave are my own over-simplification, how I interpret all I've read and experienced, just to illustrate why I think many adaptations are not problematic. They are by no means definitive. I should defer to Nobby and Lorraine's "5 principles" (that he gave a few pages back) as a better set of invariants.Although I never saw it explicitly anywhere, my assumption with "race week/non-race week", and "peaking three times a year" is that it's only possible after a strong aerobic base. I assume you are building that back the "fourth" season.But please carry on...

HRE wrote:

Antonio,

It's been a pleasure doing this with you but the idiots are evidently locating this thread so I think I'll leave. There's a link to my e-mail in case there is actually something you'd like me to respond to.

HRE

Please stay !

Why do you take such an emotional decision ? You tried to quit out a few times, Nobby said the same, some others they said that from that moment on they just post on the Lydiard Foundation site, but the willing of come back and post I think that with all respect is like a compulsion we can´t resist.

I´m the kind of person that is indifferent to trollism, to personal offense, everything else. But i´m also decided to say what I think at the level of freedom.

Why do you go out ? Please stay. Change your opinion. Be a winner. The real winner is the one that sometimes he wins, but sometimes he is defeat.

I was teach to be able to listen everybody even what it doesn´t pleases me. I did write my 3 introductory posts about the difference among people, different opinions, different cultures different styles, the interest of the debate at the level of equal opportunity of express each one opinion, the interest of to be faced with different arguments, and the interest to understand the other despite the disagreement.

We will lost all something if we quit out on this debate. It´s not that I agree with you or that you are my team partner in this debate. You are from the other team :O).

Also you don´t know, as I don´t either, the reason why O did reply as he did. Might be he felt offended somehow with something out of the LR.com board but we need to consider this probability.

In the past - as a troll - my iown strategy - i was the bad guy, now i don´t need that you said it´s a pleasure dong this with me, i just want your participation.

One more thing. I´m not on the Lydiard Foundation forum, but let me guess that this debate is as good as the Lydiard Foundation forum. Juts my bet ! (kidding)

I guess i understand and it´s not me that i want to disagree with the "invariants", that would be incoerent with everything i´ve been saying ! (kidding).

Might be the problem have to do with something quite different than the "invariables" to cover the trainig needs or adaptation. Might be it have to do with the theory (the principles defined) is quite different than the pratice (what is done in the field terrain, on the operative situation).

However in this case the Lydiard theory (the principles of definition) still remains the same, quite untoutchable and the focus of our comments shall be focus in the theory and not exceptions. This is why i do insist so much on the principles, because i think it´s what really matters after all, the principles are the main core of the method. It doesn´t matter me much that Lydiard did something different than the theory somehow in 68, 75 or 95. Otherwise the pratice done in the terrain or few trial-and-error singular exceptions, can´t contitute the argumentation for the critic of the method.

Do you see my point ?

You know what? You're right. Thanks. I'll stick around. I'm not sure that I have too much more to say but I'll read your most recent posts later.

Thanks again.

I have returned from Wellington and have started to catch up with everything here. I had some 'ideas' I thought I would throw in, but I see the discussion has moved on. Antonio, I understand what you are trying to "extract" and I have to admit I struggle a little as unfortunately I am one who has talked from "experiences" (running with "old" Lydiard athletes .. Bill Baillie mostly) and discussions with Arthur .. usually along the lines of what I was trying to do with my athletes ..... I did the same with Arch Jelley (John Walker's Coach) who was a near neighbour of mine one time (3 houses away) .. So I probably did not get into "methodology" in the strict terms of the word. I just wanted to know ... "Am I on the right track with this athlete !!"

So I may sit back a little and watch and "listen" as I am not sure I can make worthwhile contributions at this stage. Nobby is by far the expert in terms of what we Kiwis say " The nitty gritty" (The detail) .. Sorry Nobby !!!

HRE wrote:

Because much of the stuff we write about Arthur can be found in print or verified by other posters. And it's in English.

If you honestly believe that hypothetical book is readily available on used book sites or in anyone's local used book shop you definitely are writing nonsense and again, even if we found it we'd have no idea what's in it. But you seem to think this settles something. Nope, no nonsense there.

only an idiot woud expect a book by a long forgotten finnish champ from long ago to be available in english today

it exists & if you are so interested in proving the finnish poster is talking nonsense rather than the drivel you spouted, you coud find a way to obtain it - make an offer to one of the reviewers & then get someone at local uni or babelfish to translate the passage on lydiard