Lydiard Imitations

Gypsy,

If you wanted discussion with "like minded people", perhaps you could post something similar at the Lydiard Foundation forum to see if that parallel discussion produces more fruit.

When you say "principles", what are you looking for? I think of high level things like super-compensation, recovery, and specificity and things like "stimulus-response". You might even say there is a "suck it and see" principle that says do what works, and stop doing what doesn't work. These kinds of principles are generally agreed upon by everyone, and the main disagreement is when to apply them and how much. The principle of specificity is perhaps the main reason to describe and structure training in general, special, and specific terms, relative to the desired race event distance and pace. As an example, you might argue that the long run is so non-specific to the 800m runner, he could ride a bicycle without any negative performance penalty. Or you could argue one step further, that in some cases it would be counter-productive. But just because you chose to define things in general, special, and relative terms, it doesn't mean that this modified approach has to stifle what looks like aerobic and anaerobic development. I don't see these approaches as polar opposites.

When you argue for a Soviet style periodization, what principles determine the "one thing at a time" approach to training, and does any principle help you determine the lengths of each period? What principles are violated when attempting to combine different training elements in the same period? You mentioned something interesting before regarding passive recovery, and active recovery (by alternating training which rests one part, while training another). This active recovery concept seems like something that lends itself to creating "complex" periods.

When we speak of physiology, I think it's also limiting or confusing to comment only on "aerobic" or "anaerobic" developments and benefits, because, for example, aerobic training can provide other benefits like neuro-muscular improvements. When Antonio highlights the "stupid and wrong" Lydiard concept of infinite aerobic progression, I think of the physiology link I provided earlier, which illustrates the timeline of the main sources of improvement. Am I wrong to conclude that the "aerobic development" training can still bring in improvements by improving efficiency and economy, even after any true measurable aerobic developments have plateaued? Is the training wrong, or just the physiology description?

I cannot share so many of the "why's" of my own historical decision making, except that first it was largely unguided, with poor results, and then it was guided by a general principle that you first work on your weaknesses, then build on your strengths. I already mentioned Hadd and Joe several times, and perhaps what is often overlooked is in the introduction, when Hadd says something like "if you have a tight relationship already, then this Phase 1 is not for you". This kind of extended one-shot aerobic development phase is only meant for those who are really weak in endurance (which might be the case for most kids in US high schools). When you are not weak, you can afford to do much less, planning for aerobic maintenance rather than development. Carry this idea a couple of steps further, and we have the case that Renato describes, where we can finally start reducing overall mileage (from 160 miles, to 120, to 80), while we increase the ratio of specific aerobic training to general aerobic training.

I want to say something more about the English language influence.

I did share some correspondence with Ernest van Aaken in the early to mid 70s. I got some letters from him, he didn´t know English very well (once again…) but I ask some portuguese friends to translate me from German. At that period I was very interesting by his method and I also did read many interviews from him on the Swiss magazine Spiridon runned by Noel Tamini.

He was a scientist, as well as a coach and methodologist and he did work at home with private investigation about distance training and with the experience of ones he did coach.

Van AAken built up his training method by his own research and investigation and by his own experiment as a runner as well and in this aspect he is similar to Lydiard that was a runner also.

As you might know Ernst Van Aaken did stress the interest and the importance of the aerobic system to the distance run performance and thus the importance of the aerobic training.

Therefore my conclusion is that he did conclude something similar to Lydiard about the aerobic interest but did it in parallel without Lydiard influence or Lydiard influence. Might be he knew about Lydiard . of course that he knew – but their training method was built by personal experimentation and scientific research and lab tests and not by reading other methodologies eventually.

Therefore, like van Aaken did, many other coaches and methodologists did similar conclusions how to approach the distance training without no Lydiard influence. This is something that is hard to the Lydiardist to understand, that like the sometimes referred to as the physics Boyle-Mariotte law. It´s proved that both Boyle and Marriotte living in different countries at that past century, and without the modern means of communication, they discovered the same law the way one didn´t knew the existence of the science work of the other, one without the influence of the other.

If you think that most of the today´s distance training methodology of universal acceptance as is the aerobic training for the distance approach was done by Lydiard or Lydird influence you are wrong.

But it's not Lydiard revisionism after your insistence. You can rightly take credit for a history on intermittent training, and for highlighting different needs for "2 kinds of runners", and even for helping explain modern methods and the main differences with the Lydiard methods and concepts, but with respect to Lydiard, I think you've added more confusion and perpetuated Lydiard myths, than illuminated any flaws. Many of these ideas already existed in the 60's and 70's, as we have seen from quotes and real life examples. For example, if you want to say Lydiard was always wrong about periodization, you cannot ignore Lydiard's own alternatives with different periodizations that still implement his basic idea of a balanced training that leaves you race ready on race day. (NB: Roberto de Castella was also known as "Deek" and coached by Pat Clohessey)And when I look at the LF site, I don't see, and never saw any evidence of revisionism, and I don't really see any inconsistency with the 5 bullets of Lydiard, and any authoritative Lydiard book or document I've read. Maybe my interpretations are too generous, but my initial ideas about Lydiard training did not ever have to be modified by any new evidence. Maybe a better way to understand "perfect combination" is to describe imperfect. An imperfect combination of training would result in peaking early, then stagnating or degrading, or in being under-developed on race day. Maybe you want to argue that a Lydiard approach leaves athletes underdeveloped, but I think that this is not yet conclusive.I understand why and accept that you cannot answer for Hadd or about Joe, for the reasons you give.

I´m verybused to not expect nothing new or different from one Lydiardist.

My key to dualism and deny as negative obstinacy is compassion.

Thnaks for your compreension.

Another John issue that i can confirm is that he was the first to resume Lydiard training to "aerobic first" and that he taugh it is not right approach. I may say something more, with some constrain becasue he is no more among us. We both planned to write one text that would be titled "Running Manifesto" and part of that text, it´s my first post on this same thread. Unhapply John died before our plan be done. This our text signed by both would clarify the late john training concepts as well as our critics to the Lydiard method.

Antonio,

I am not sure what you mean about "verybused" to not expect nothing new from Lydiardists.

For your information this thread was started by someone else, not you and this is the original post:

Can we discuss Lydiardism through the eyes of coaches and athletes who follow his methodology?

I have experimented at length and researched thoroughly and would like to bounce my thinking around with other like minded people.

gypsy

Read more:

http://www.letsrun.com/forum/flat_read.php?thread=4290090#ixzz1h5to1us2

Buy your shoes from LetsRun and save 20% everday

http://www.letsrun.com/save

Like several people have said to you already, why don't you start your own thread. derailing all Lydiard threads the way you do is veyr childish.

We can use bits and pieces from many theories of yesteryear while improving it and adding to it as you go. We learn new things through the years, but also should give kudos to those from the past that got some ideas going.

Although flight has progressed well beyond what the Wright Brothers ever could have imagined, we certainly should commend them for what they have done and sometimes even look back to their knowledge in order to discover something for the future.

At the same time, when developing a new jet, we are best to look at the most current science. This does not mean we should bad-mouth the Wright Brothers, as the new science was built on and improved from what they knew.

With no disrespect intended to John, given their relative accomplishments, if Ron Hill tells me "Here's how to train for the marathon" and John says, No, he's wrong, train this other way," I'm listening to Hill.

Tommy,

Thanks for the free healthcare, appreciated. I only waited 6 months for my surgery.

Your statement is very Liberal of you.

No one is knocking Boeing here and no one should be knocking the Wright Brothers either.

Hows that for Liberal?

Now again read the original post. He was asking for like minded people to discuss Lydiard.

That's like Cessna staff walking into Lockheed Martin and putting them down in a deafening roar, uninvited.

...marching orders...

Sorry - a little too Conservative, right?

True but these are open forums, so you are going to get open debates. There are no private rooms here.

Yes they are open forums, good point. So he should accept the fact that people who come here to discuss training with like minded people are going to not take kindly to him.

If the original post said:

Good or bad, right or wrong, old or current, lets discuss Lydiard trainig, warts and all, come one, come all....or something to that affect, then he would be welcome, you'd think.

Mind you, no matter what the dozens of long Lydiard threads say, he is there...uninvited.

I don't know how much of the other threads you have followed, but he has spent vast amounts of his time (I guess he has nothing going on) talking authoratative about a method he knows nothing about.

It's an obsession for him.

[quote]Renato Canova wrote:

So, if it's true that without talent nobody can become a Champion, it's also true talent is not enough withou a good training plan, and all the results of the "self made men" of the past (like my friend Hodgie-san) could be very much better, if they could channel their right mentality in a modern type of training.

quote]

Renato, I would be interested for you to point out what exactly is more "modern" about Rodgers Rop schedule you have provided for me here:

http://www.bunnhill.com/bobhodge/Rodgers/traininglogs/br76traininglog.htm

As opposed to this schedule of Bill Rodgers, coached at that time by American Bill Squires:

http://www.bunnhill.com/bobhodge/Rodgers/traininglogs/br76traininglog.htm

What is Rodgers schedule from 1976 lacking from your "modern" type.

Hodgie-san wrote:

[quote]Renato Canova wrote:

So, if it's true that without talent nobody can become a Champion, it's also true talent is not enough withou a good training plan, and all the results of the "self made men" of the past (like my friend Hodgie-san) could be very much better, if they could channel their right mentality in a modern type of training.

quote]

Renato, I would be interested for you to point out what exactly is more "modern" about Rodgers Rop schedule you have provided for me here:

http://www.bunnhill.com/bobhodge/Rodgers/traininglogs/br76traininglog.htm

As opposed to this schedule of Bill Rodgers, coached at that time by American Bill Squires:

http://www.bunnhill.com/bobhodge/Rodgers/traininglogs/br76traininglog.htm

What is Rodgers schedule from 1976 lacking from your "modern" type.

```````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````

That's easy. Most (not all) of the guys nowadays don't run as many slow long mileage runs (especially early in the year)

The marathoners build from the bottom up, running at specific marathon pace. Also Rodger's interval training seemed rather random, without a plan, building to a marathon.

.[/quote]

That's easy. Most (not all) of the guys nowadays don't run as many slow long mileage runs (especially early in the year)

The marathoners build from the bottom up, running at specific marathon pace. Also Rodger's interval training seemed rather random, without a plan, building to a marathon.[/quote]

"Everyone builds from the bottom up"??

I would say everyone starts somewhere.

He ran 22 races including 3 marathons. Is that not specific enough for you. He prepared to race by racing and not all of his runs were particuarly long or slow.

In terms what he actually did each day and what that accomplished in terms of race preparation it is certainly equal to "modern" type training.

In other words, it covers all the bases, requirements.

My question for Renato is, What does it lack?

This thread has some incredible interpretations of things that were said. According to Canova, Gaston Roelants said something along the lines of:

"When I'm able to run 10 times 1000m in 2'48" recovering 1 min, for me is very easy, in short time, running 20 km at 2'58" and full marathon at 3'10"".

However, Roelants' pb for a marathon was "only" 2:16-30. If we go by the results, running at 3-10/km for a full marathon was not "very easy" for Roelants to do, in fact he was quite far off being able to manage it.

In the same era as Roelants, Ron Hill ran 2:09-28 for the marathon, and ran 12 sub 2:16 marathons over a 15-year period. He also ran sub 2-20 a few times when he was into his 40s, after over 25 years of competitive running. From these results, Hadd and/or Antonio conclude that Ron Hill "DIDN`T KNOW HOW TO TRAIN PROPERLY” and that Roelants (who seems to have completely overestimated his capabilites at the marathon distance in relation to his training) had a much better method of training than Ron Hill.

I am struggling to understand how they could arrive at that conclusion; maybe Ron Hill should have been a sub 2 hr marathoner?

I see now. Old is bad and new is good.

I'm glad we have stopped following the Ancient Greek thinkers - Plato, Aristotle, Socrates. They are old and outdated of course.

I'm glad the physics of newton are outdated and don't apply to us anymore. And all of the other mathematicians. They are all outdated now.

Old is bad and new is good. I personally find the opposite to be true in many areas of life.

Hi Hodgie-san:

I'm not Renato but I notice some important differences.

In Bill's program, there is no quantification of "easy", "OK", "slow", "slower", "better", or "good" pace that I can see. In Rop's program, "easy" is 14 or 15k per hour, "moderate" is 16k per hour, etc.

In Bill's program, there are no hill sprints except perhaps the 8 x 300 yd hills on 6/26. In Rop's program, there are hill sprints on 2/17, 2/19, 2/24, 3/12, 3/16, 3/20, and 3/27.

In Bill's program, there are not many intervals with short rests specified. In fact, the rest period is often 6 minutes or unspecified. In Rop's program, he did 12 x 1000 in 2:58 on 2/17 and on 2/25 in 2:54, with 2 minute jogs on both occasions. The longest rests I see in Rop's program are 3 minutes between 2000s on 3/6. When Rop does 2000s again on 3/15 he does more of them, he does them faster, and his rest between is down to 2:30.

In Bill's program, there is no fartlek. In Rop's program, there are several different kinds of fartlek. One kind that Renato stresses for his marathoners(alternating fast 1000s with "recovery" 1000s that are not really "slow") is done on 3/21, running 20k in 1:02:26, alternating kilometers in 2:56 average and 3:18 average.

In Bill's program there is no altitude training as near as I can tell. In Rop's program, at least the track workouts at Kapsabet are at an altitude of about 6500 feet. Maybe the whole program is at altitude.

I'm sure there are other significant differences, but those are the ones that stand out for me.

PS Nice to see John Vitale mentioned in Bill's description of Falmouth on 8/15. I see John at his shop The Run Inn in Rocky Hill, CT from time to time.

I was using this link as a reference for Rop's training:

http://www.bunnhill.com/BobHodge/TrainingLogs/rodgers.htm

I thought calling them "Bill" and "Rop" would be more clear than using the name that they both share.

Rek

i joined the Lydiard Foundation a few years ago thanks to an invite from Nobby. I would purchase a new membership if i wasn't in a money squeeze right now waiting for an two operations and unable to work much. This site is great though. The freedom is very special. You don't get that elsewhere. It means people are more willing to speak their mind truly and this is a very good thing. Of course you get the bad side with it, like when Antonio doesn't take the hint from most people in this thread and leave or at least change the direction of his spieling. He didn't learn when it's time to shutup obviously. So he ruins the game for the rest of the children. In real life he would just be ejected from the game, yet in here, with the rules of this site, he can continue to be painful. In a social networking site this would be seen as bullying.

Principles:

For me a principle is an unchanging quality that can be found without exception in the natural world.

It is unchanging in that it is stable, so we can apply it knowing it will create expected results. It is without exception because it is never found to not apply. It is to found in the natural world because it is the natural processes of the universe/nature that we are interested in, of which we are not separate, so they apply to us as well.

You mentioned a few of your own: super-compensation, recovery, and specificity and things like "stimulus-response"

Can we look at these for starters? Lets forget specificity for now as it is somewhat the exception in that group. I think we can accept that each activity in training has relative proportions of specificity/generality depending on the the given athlete situation and it's place in the training process. Each activity has its own proportions ranging from very general to very specific but it is hard to say an activity is 100% one way or another.

The other three are more tightly bound together and I think the relationship could look like this:

>>>>progessive>>>>>>progressive>>>>>>progressive>>>>>>progressive>>>>>

STIMULUS(overload) > RESPONSE(compensation) >

STIMULUS(overload) > RESPONSE(compensation) > SUPER COMPENSATION.

STIMULUS(overload) > RESPONSE(compensation) >

......................................^^Appropriate RECOVERY^^..................................................

I'm sesitant to delve into each element so as to make posts too long. So instead i just wonder what responses in yours and others brains does the stimulus of that diagram create?

Antonio, I just have to correct you again.

See, when one Lydiard runner wants to search something out of the Lydiard training, they name Deek the coach of Robert Castella why ? Why Dekk among hundreds of coaches that are alternatives to Lydiard, why this one precisely? The answer is because Deek is from English language.

Deek is 'one' example of an ATHLETE who was coached along Lydiard lines. Please show some respect. Pat Clohessy was Robert De Castella's COACH. See where the Deek comes from? De Castella!

Clohessy was coached by Lydiard, albeit mostly by correspondence and when Clohessy became a coach he followed the 'same' process the Lydiard coached him by. Then he modified it because of the short attention spans of the children he was working with and now complex training is justified because of the need for frequent racing. Fact is Clohessy went that way due to children's attention spans. Now you do it for the same reason believe it or not.