Lydiard Imitations

To the op wrote:

HRE, why didn't Mosop run 2:03 years ago?

How would I know?

Coach Canova:

I do understand that YOU are dealing with some of the fastest human beings in history of athletics. You claim that you have developed a very specific training method that enables human beings to run some incredible fast times, that is different from any other type of training methods in the past, telling us that past training method like Lydiard’s or Gershler’s or Igloi’s are old-fashioned and “6th grade” education compared to your college level classes. On one hand, I do admire your having coaches some of the fastest marathon runners in history and that is the very reason why you are being worshiped at letsrun forum. Some people like Rekrunner suggests Lydiardites to go ahead and coach some Kenyan runners in order to compare Lydiard method and Canova method to see which one is “more advanced”. Of course it’s easy to say when your runners, as you had claimed, live and train as professional and have luxury of training 3-times a day, not worry about earning living by working 8-hours-a-day which is the luxury Lydiard’s runners never had…or shoe contract or feather-light racing flats or a dozen rabbits surrounding. You talk about “professional attitude” and toughest training regime that comes with it—and I’m very happy you have materials (talented or already developed runners) to handle that kind of hard regime. I’m happy for you.

I do however have one question to you, Coach Canova, then. KNOWING many of letsrun audiences are young “developing” athletes, and you even said, if you hadn’t developed your “aerobic house” quite as yet, it is important to work on AEROBIC FIRST; then do you really think it’s fair to talk about how world record beaters train and training principles that made it possible and almost trash-talk well rounded training method such as Lydiard? Do you really think it’s a good idea to encourage those young “developing” athletes to train like world record holders by telling them “Lydiard is no good”? For those young “developing” athletes, is “aerobic first” a good idea or a bad idea? Or are you simply sharing what great runners you had worked with and those young athletes worshiping you and feeling good about it? Lydiard turned neighborhood kids into Olympic champions by doing “aerobic first”. Is it a good idea or a bad idea? Many of the world leading marathon runners from “physically under-developed” countries of America, England, Japan also did alright following Lydiard method, running 2:09, 2:08 or even 2:06, though not quite as fast as some of your Kenyan runners, by doing “aerobic first”. Just because they couldn’t quite make it to 2:03, is “aerobic first” a good idea or a bad idea? So talking about 23-minutes 5k to 20-minutes 5k is stupid. Is trying to get some high school kid to improve 17-minute 5k to 15-minute 5k also stupid? Is it worthless because we are not talking about career making elite runners and, therefore, “aerobic first” stupid because it wouldn’t help dealing with sub-13 runner? Or is “aerobic first” remotely help some young teen runner to get his time perhaps down to sub-15 minute range at all? Or, when we start talking about sub-15, all of a sudden Lydiard is stupid? Is Lydiard “only” good for 15-14 minutes 5k range runners and no use for 13-minute runners? Or, because Lydiard never trained sub-13 runner like you had, his “aerobic first” method is obsolete? Or is your objective here is simply turning the entire thread into “let's look at what the 2:03 marathon runners do and follow that and the hell with 20-minute 5k runners” discussion?

Jackanory wrote:

By the same token, Snowden clearly did not read Antonio's post ... he merely made assumptions based on his own prejudice .... what Antonio was saying was that he would not train an individual for the MARATHON until they were in "best shape" @ shorter distances .... he did NOT say he would not coach them at all .... by insisting that athletes are in good shape BEFORE entering a marathon training programme he is doing the athlete a very big favour!

& Finally, neither Renato or Antonio are saying that the athletes AEROBIC condition is not the most important determinant of success ... what they are saying is that this can be developed by means other than just slow, steady running .... intervals can be AEROBIC (it all depends on the pace run, & length of recovery) ... they do not have to be Anaerobic.

The fact you don't seem to understand English makes me think you are actually Antonio, once again, defending himself as someone else.

Wherever I EVER said I took it as Antonio (or you) NEVER coach them at all? I was simply pointing out what Antonio (or you) had pointed out that you wouldn't coach anybody UNLESS they had already maximuized their 5k time.

Neither Renato or Antonio were saying that the athletes AEROBIC condition is not the most important determinant of success? I thought Antinio actually HAD said this many times over. He never said anything about developing aerobic capacity by doing intervals. He simply and clearly said "aerobic first is stupid." So he's talking about developing "aerobic first" by doing intervals which he CLEARLY and repeatedly said is stupid? Are you contradicting yourself again or you just can't understand what you've written?

Snowden,

Clearly you're the one with the intellectual deficit ... you fail to understand anything about Antonio's training methodology ....

& no, I'm obviously not Antonio .... I write much better English for a start!!!

No you aren't Antonio but you are clearly an advocate for race pace methodology. Since Antonio doesn't appear to understand his own methodology to explain it in enough detail to satisfy many in this thread perhaps you can outline it for him? Renato on the other hand is able to explain his methodology quite clearly which is helpful for all concerned. Still, from my perspective both are on the wrong track, at least if we consider longevity of career something important.

Renato Canova wrote:

And, in any case, today athletes do very much better than in the past. So, where is the problem ?

This is aboslutely not the case in Europe. This is how Lydiard-style trained athletes used to run the 10000m over 30 years ago:

P.S. Almost 50 years ago, Ron Clarke worked full time, did Lydiard-style training (i.e. long and fast aerobic running) and ran 10000m in 27 mins 39 secs ON A CINDER TRACK.

this was pretty good too

and i found this in another thread

.

I'm always looking for connections, for similarities between different things. Lateral connections we could call them and it is really a function of lateral thinking, which can also be called intuitive thinking.

I'm sure i'm not the first person to make a connection between an athletes training process and the market graph of a company, or of the stock market as a whole.

The graph shows daily ups and downs but generally, in a strong company, the trend of the line is upwards.

I see training following a similar pattern. Day to day our performance levels will go up and down but over time, the trend is upwards.

So this may not exactly be revelatory but the next point might. There is a phenomenon that relates to 'gaps' in the price of that company over time. The gaps are when price jumps occur. The phenomenon i'm referring to is 'filling the gaps'. This basically states that, at some point in time, those gaps in prices will be filled. No matter what those price gaps are later filled by movements in the share price.

I see the same 'gaps' in someones fitness profile. If those gaps aren't filled in then performance gains cannot continue. I think coaches well understand this and go about addressing the problem. And there seems to be two directions that coaches tend to take. One involves setting sessions to cover all of the different paces throughout the entire range from slow jog to race pace and faster. The other coach allows for a range for each pace and also allows the athlete to regulate their own effort levels according to their personal feeling. How this might be really advantageous is that the athlete may well go about filling in their own gaps, unconsciously. Over time and with enough training, the response regulated athlete can achieve this by simply discovering where he is weak and spending more time there, until it comes up to speed with the rest of his fitness profile.

gypsy wrote:

No you aren't Antonio but you are clearly an advocate for race pace methodology. Since Antonio doesn't appear to understand his own methodology to explain it in enough detail to satisfy many in this thread perhaps you can outline it for him? Renato on the other hand is able to explain his methodology quite clearly which is helpful for all concerned. Still, from my perspective both are on the wrong track, at least if we consider longevity of career something important.

What's wrong with preparing for races by practising race-pace training?

If you want to become competent in playing a particular piece of Music by (let's say) Mozart, you practise that particular piece, not another similar but different piece, or a piece by a different composer.

By practising race-pace your body & mind becomes familiar with the exact effort, precise rhythm, stride length etc. .... surely this can only be of benefit.

Regards longetivity .... Canova has been training Moses Mosop since 2005/6 ..... & he's still improving 6-7 years later!

Regards Ron Clarke ... he was a high mileage trainer but did NOT use the Lydiard Methodology .... no hill training phase .... did not run anaerobic intervals etc. ... he basically ran mileage out of season, & raced during the racing season ... well documented!

Finally, let's get one thing straight .... Lydiard did not invent high mileage running, & not all high mileage programmes are Lydiard inspired .... before Lydiard, Arthur Newton ran prodigious distances in the 1930s Zatopek ran big mileages in late 40s & early 50s, & the british runners Gordon Pirie ran well over 100 miles a week in the mid 50s. .... the Lydiard System was revolutionary fot its particular linear periodisation NOT high mileage.

& On the matter of mileage both Renato & Antonio's programmes involve heavy amounts of aerobic mileage.

snowden,

I think you misunderstood Antonio. He's only saying that he doesn't start anyone (e.g someone like Joe) with marathon training directly, but only after they have achieved a good condition for the shorter (5K, 10K, and half-marathon) distance (e.g after 6 months to 3 years of training). Antonio was not talking about achieving lifetime maximum potential before moving up in distance.

And Antonio was asked specifically if Hadd had indicated a change of mind about "aerobic first" for Joe, in the course of their private correspondence -- we already know what Hadd said before in the forum. You can not blame Antonio of a "double standard" for directly answering the question.

But even then, we don't need to rely on Antonio's private discussions. In the 6 part "Joe" thread, Hadd himself says that if you already possess a "tight" relation with race times, then Phase 1 is not for you, and it's time for harder stuff.

Good advice. Don't forget to practice what you preach.

Tommy Douglas wrote:

Educate yourself a little bit before arrogantly throwing stones at others.

gypsy,You are certainly bringing a lot of enthusiasm in the discussion, and taking the discussion further and to places that previous discussions failed to go. But yet you keep taking jabs at the "race pace" methodology, attaching a bunch of negative attributes to it that presumably don't exist in a "soviet/Lydiard" like methodology. I wonder if you aren't committing the same mistake of criticizing something you don't yet fully understand (attacking a modern "race pace" strawman methodology).I don't see the linear "developing one quality at a time" periodization and the non-linear "developing many qualities in parallel" periodization as polar opposites. There are important differences in defining the approach and workouts, but in other respects, they are largely the same, sharing similar weaknesses and strengths. When we speak in terms of overtraining, recovery, and meso and micro and macrocyles, I don't see one periodization outperforming another. Overtraining can be managed/avoided by carefully selecting intensity and volume, and proper application of recovery (and regeneration). These concepts can be applied whatever the periodization approach. I don't recall Lydiard speaking of things like meso, micro and macrocyles, but any modifications applied to a linear approach could be similarly applied to a non-linear approach if necessary.Is there some reason you think that a linear periodization lends itself better to avoiding overtraining, implementing recovery and including meso/micro/macro cycles than a non-linear periodization?I'm also curious about your further explanation, when the time has arrived: "I'm not a believer of this approach ("all components should be present at all times of the year") though, and i hope i'm outlining reasons why. Actually i am a believer of this but such a very different way that i can say i'm not. I probably should explain this but the right moment hasn't arrived for it yet."

gypsy wrote:

No you aren't Antonio but you are clearly an advocate for race pace methodology. Since Antonio doesn't appear to understand his own methodology to explain it in enough detail to satisfy many in this thread perhaps you can outline it for him? Renato on the other hand is able to explain his methodology quite clearly which is helpful for all concerned. Still, from my perspective both are on the wrong track, at least if we consider longevity of career something important.

Snowden, also if my Emglish is not very good, I think you don't read all the posts I wrote, or really you don't understand. I already explained my position a lot of time, but I go to repeat again.

1) Everybody needs a very strong aerobic support. The problem is HOW TO DEVELOP THE AEROBIC SUPPORT. You continue to think that the ONLY way for developing aerobic base is long and slow run, with some medium run after long time. You continue to suppose the development of capillar vessels can continue indefinitely. You continue to think intervals are only lactic and can be damageous for the aerobic development. You NEVER speak about the development of the biomechanical engine.

So, also for me is AEROBIC FIRST. But the first level of aerobic is the GENERAL RESISTANCE, and this can be developed during the first 6 months of training, for everybody, starting from NOTHING.

After that period, for developing the Aerobic System we need to increase the intensity, FOR THAT REASON TO CONTINUE WITH LONG AND SLOW RUNS IS SOMETHING USELESS.

Also Lydiard spoke about INTERNAL LOAD, using other words. Practically, if you run with 80% of your effort 10 km in 40', if your training works, after 3 months you can run, with the same level of personal effort, in 38'. So, we need to change the speed, FOR HAVING THA SAME TYPE OF STIMULI, otherwise our training is no more able to give the body the possibility not only to improve, but also to maintain the level already reached.

Ron Clarke was not an athlete following Lydiard. He was the first putting in his training LONG AND FAST RUN (for example, 15 km in 45') THAT LYDIARD NEVER USED WITH THAT INTENSITY. So, you can say everybody used high mileage and mainly long continuous run was a follower of Lydiard.

Also today we use long continuous run : running is the training for runners, such as biking is the training of a bikers and playing basket is the training for basket players. But this is a very simplistic and superficial way to look at training (typical for an amateur, not for a professional coach).

2) The big difference between 40 years ago and today is in the INTENSITY of the training OF EXTENSION. When we speak about the top marathon runners in US 40-30 years ago (from Frank Shorter to Bill Rodgers), we can see the same volume of today (as mileage), sometimes also more, BUT THE INTENSITY OF LONG RUN VERY MUCH LOWER, AND THE USE OF SHORT AND NOT SPECIFIC INTERVALS. Rarely we find long intervals on track or road (3-5 km) that we use today : they used a lot of 400m (if we look at Zatopek, he used 50x400m with 50m recovery), BUT NEVER LONG INTERVALS.

This is a big difference with the past. Of course, the athletes ran in the past, and run today, but because all the athletes run, doesn't mean their training is the same.

3) If I have to develop a young runner I start with aerobic first, but at the same time I work on speed (not under the lactic point of view, but under the nervous point of view), strength, rapidity and coordination. These are all qualities everybody has to develop, and are not connected with the aerobic system. So, if we don't train those qualities, from the beginning of the career, WE DO A BIG MISTAKE.

4) Aerobic first, in any case, is not the right way for everybody. Of sure, if we have Rudisha or Johnny Gray or Fiasconaro or Billy Konchellah, to push too much the aerobic system is a mistake having the only effect to reduce the specific ability of the runners. How already I explained time ago, and Antonio and Hadd explained in the past, NOT ALL THE HUMAN BEEING ARE ANIMALS WITH THE SAME CHARACTERISTICS, and the percentage of Fast fibers and/or Slow fibers plays a fundamental role in the choice of the best type of training for everibody.

Of course, this is not the case of athlete of long distance. If they don't improve using aerobic training, is because their attitude is not in that direction, SO THEY CAN'T SUCCEED IN LONG DISTANCES. Remember that, if you don't have speed, OR YOU HAVE ATTITUDE FOR VERY LONG DISTANCES, OR, SIMPLY, YOU ARE WEAK EVERYWHERE.

5) About the fact to move a young athlete from 17' to 15', I confirm I'm not interested in this action. If you have the hope to become an international athlete, when you are 18, also without any specific training, NEVER YOU CAN START FROM 17'. So, you have the talent and the attitude for running for your fun, and this is not the field where I act. I respect all the runners : simply, this is not my job, and what I do is completely different, BECAUSE I NEED TO EXPLORE THE LIMITS OF MY ATHLETES, IF THEY WANT (because they have the talent connected) TO REACH THE TOP OF THE WORLD. So, I explained many times that the best African, without any coach, are able to reach 90% of their potentiality, RUNNING LONG AND FAST, while European and American don't run long and fast, but LONG and slow, or SHORT and fast, and for that reason they don't reach 90% of their potentiality at the end of their career. And LONG AND FAST is not Lydiard, but the evolution of Lydiard.

6) In this case, WHAT WE HAVE TO DO FOR MOVING FROM 90% to 100% (if possible) is something very much precise, fruit of precise methodology, used with flexibility but having very deep scientific roots, and is not something the athletes can do without specific guide. This is a type of work that is not possible to do for more weak athletes, that in many cases can't work with them, and that in any case is useless if related with the final effects.

7) About the duration of career, I think who speaks doesn't have any statistic knowledge of how long is the career of the best athletes.

Moses Mosop is with me from 2002, and his best was after 10 years. Paul Kosgei beated the WJR of steeple (8'07") in 1997, won WHMCh in 2002, beated the WR of 25 km in 2004. ran 59'07" in HM in 2005 and last year won Carpi Marathon in 2:09. Look at the career of Gebre and Bekele, using HIGH AEROBIC INTENSITY (so, Aerobic First, but not Aerobic Resistance, but Aerobic Power), very far from Lydiard.

Don't tell me that Kenyan or Ethiopian follow the basic Lydiard system. I explain the basic difference of MENTALITY between an African and a European (or a New Zealander), that is also the difference between Lydiard and something different : if I ask to a European and a Kenyan to run in training 1 hour at 3' per km (so, 20 km in 1 hour), and both are not able to do it, THE EUROPEAN LOOK AT THE DURATION, and run 1 hr at, may be, 3'15" per km because is not able to run faster for 1 hr ; THE KENYAN starts running at the indicated speed, AND, IF IS TIRED AFTER 40', STOPS TRAINING WITHOUT ANY PROBLEM.

So, for European and American following Lydiard, the idea is EXTENSION FIRST, and after QUALIFICATION OF THGE EXTENSION. For an African, the idea is INTENSITY FIRST, AND AFTER EXTENSION OF THE INTENSITY.

This is the real difference, and is the reason because I use a different system, in order to combine the methodology with the natural mental approach of African runners. And, if you organise a competition of 3 km for children, for example, you can see their interpretation is like African : they run very fast from the beginning BECAUSE DON'T KNOW WHAT HAPPENS WHEN YOU START TO PRODUCE TOO MUCH LACTATE. They don't fear the distance, simply have the stimulus of running fastest possible.

At the end of everything, I again want to remind that Lydiard had his best successes with athlete of short distances (Peter Snell 800 / 1500, John Walker 1500, Dixon 1500/5000, Quax 5000), and his Marathon Training worked better as preparation for SPECIFC LACTIC TRAINING (used during the last part of their preparation) than as SPECIFIC PREPARATION FOR LONG DISTANCES. So, continue to speak about Lydiard system for preparing a marathon is to waste time : this can be valid during the Fundamental period, but there is nothing directly connected with the performance in the race. Under this point of view, the Lydiard system is the preparation for the High School, propedeutic for the University, but is not the University...

I am totally for race pace training, as long as it is kept in it's proper place and given it's proper importance. I don't agree it is a valuable central issue, it is just one of the peripheral issues that need to be attended to.

So in pre-comp phase we approach and surpass race pace a lot and in competition phase we are playing with race pace at least 3 times a week. Examples of sessions like 10x200/30 and 5x300/4 and 4x400/5 are not only race pace but they are also physiologically correct for the 800m. As long as both pace and physiology is correct it is going to translate into the race very well.

I totally agree to play that particular piece you have to practise that particular piece. But lets look at who is playing that piece. Is it Mozart himself or some top musician or just your run of the mill hobby musician? you could easily imagine a Mozart could look at most pieces of music and play them fresh, with no practise. Possibly the harder pieces for a Beethoven for example might take a little longer. But a Mozart has such a range of fundamental skills at his disposal he can ad lib almost anything. I have a friend, a flautist, very talented. One day i was at his house and encouraged him to play. He took it out and asked me what to play. The radio was on so i said play along with that, thinking i had proposed an impossible challenge. he listened for about 5 seconds, then blew a few notes through the flute to test it and immediately tuned into the random song and played along with it. Kind of blew me away, but illustrates my point exactly. With the fundamentals well understood he can ad lib almost anything. Mozart is just better again.

So to say that we must practise the actual event pace to be trained specifically is correct. To say we need to be doing this all year round doesn't seem correct. Muscisians do scales to practise the fundamentals. We need to be doing something similar.

Yes it does benefit as you already know. But how far and how long are the real questions we should be asking. Also, what if we are on for a 2 second pb this season and we are practising at 2 seconds slower than we are potentially able to run.? I don't want these limitations on the athletes potential peak. I want athletes to be able to sprint at 100% most of the year, but not to train fitness, just to be able to express full capacity, at any given time. Not losing this ability through heavy training is very important to me, but i don't see any need to be training fitness into this pace until closer to the competition period. This pace burns the system to a degree and i just don't see the point in adding this burning to training when all it is going to do is retard and/or limit other training like developing your capacity for aerobic running.

There is a product on the market called Lectric Soda. I haven't seen it outside Australia or New Zealand though. It is a water softener and seems its primary use is for washing clothes. Sometimes i use it for that when i run out of powder. But it has another use specific to recovery principles in sport.

Basically this stuff comes in random sized crystals. It is made up of sodium chloride blended with limestone. It is very alkaline and this is where it's sports function comes into play. I use it for two purposes. One is general. Simply add some crystals to a hot bath and soak in it. Like radox but better.

The other purpose i discovered from a Phsyiotherapist at the AIS in Canberra, Australia. I had a chronic inflammation in my patella tendon and had a major international comp approaching. So this guy, Craig Purdham advised me to place some crystals in a sock and strap it over my knee at night whilst asleep. Every morning i would wake up and there was no swelling at all and i was able to train normally. If i forgot i would wake up to swelling and reduced training. I did this daily whilst overseas and was able to continue training normally and peaked to a massive pb in the competition.

The fact that it draws fluid across cell membranes and the through the skin and the fact it changes the pH towards alkalinity are the two main functions as far as i can tell.

But the alkalinity aspect brings out a major point in all of this training methodology. The Lectric Soda functions to change the acidic environment of an injured site back to a neutral one. So this in itself is promoting healing because healing is harder in an acidic environment. In fact it can be said healing cannot occur until the environment stops being acidic.

#So injured equals acidic and uninjured equals neutral.

#Anaerobic equals acidic and aerobic equals neutral.

#This is a very important connection to make.

Fair point and wise move gong out to the marathon, since pbs at 10k and under had stopped coming. Is there a second example of longevity?

Ok we need to be careful here with Ron Clarke because he was influenced by both Cerutty and by Lydiard. He rejected Cerutty after the initial training for whatever reasons he had but he was introduced to Lydiardism through his own club, Glenhuntly AC. I wish i knew more details to be honest but there was a group of distance runners from this club who went to NZ seeking Lydiard. They returned and we can see evidence of that influence through something like the Ferny Creek long run in the mountains outside Melbourne. If Ron wasn't talking to these other distance runners at his own home club then i would do a Picasso and cut my ear off. How Ron got the idea of the long run probably came from Cerutty initially in Cerutty's form of it but was definitely adjusted by what his club mates had thought of Lydiardism. I plan to ask a few questions of these guys when i run into them again.

Ok, Lydiard didn't invent it, he just refined our understanding of it to a new level and then explained it is lay terms so that many people were influenced, inside and outside of the sport of track and field. That is what is remarkable.

Every coach is a product of what came before. Lydiard credits FAM Webster with leading him to see training can be done 7 days a week. This was a new idea that Webster had had, but it doesn't seem anyone really picked up in it until Lydiard. Yet we can look at what the Kenyans were doing 500 years ago and we probably see an immense amount of distance being covered. We can look at the Tamahumarans right now in Mexico and see this in action today! Surely they were doing this before the 1950s, of course.

There is an attitude in Japanese culture we don't have in the West. It can be exemplified by the Zen art of Aikido. This is a martial art which was founded by a guy called Morihei Ueshiba. Basically he was the best martial artist in Japan and synthesized the five main Japanese martial arts into one form, taking the best of each art and refining the principles of all five into one complete set. In a way this was exactly the same as what Bruce Lee did, but instead of synthesizing only the Japanese martial Arts, Bruce synthesized every fighting art on the planet. He took to Ali and Western Boxing equally with every other art and in fact the basic stance of Jeet Kune Do is that of Western Boxing. I bet the Asian purists hate that. But the important part to all of this centers around the word 'founded'. When asked Morihei would say he 'founded' Aikido. He rejected the idea he invented it. When he says founded - he is saying he found it ... ie it was already there. So i like to think Lydiard found all this stuff and explained it in a certain way that certain people understand. But the key is he found it ... after going in search of it. This is a very key difference isn't it?

Yes but you also say Zatopek did a lot of mileage. Sure he did but the form of it was very different to a Lydiard approach is it not? Zatopek covered his mileage through alternating efforts, whereas lydiard does it through steady efforts. Lydiard even explains this by saying we need constant pressure on the aerobic system to enable development of capacity. Without steady pressure we just aren't going to get the increased capilliarisation that was so important to Lydiard, however we will get to spend a lot more time at race pace. Whatever floats your boat really. Personally, as a decathlete, the greatest gains are 'always' through developing the weakest link. It's a simple fact. I have little doubt the same applies to endurance running. It is what all the yoga traditions are doing, what Joseph Pilates was doing, what all of the healing methodologies are doing. Yet some people in sports coaching still say focus on your strengths.

I'm sure my understanding right now is not what it will be in the future, just as my understanding right now is better than past versions. I think i have a handle on that approach that is sufficient, so lets test that and just cut the the chase.

What i am fundamentally arguing against is really a function of insecurity combined with greed. It is these base human qualities that lead to different approaches to things in life and i see this 'fast' coaching approach as leading to the same long term problems other 'fast' approaches have, like the long term effect on health 'fast food' creates and the long term effect on our economies health that 'fast economics' has produced. It just takes some time for the long term effects to be noticed, and then even longer for them to be recognised broadly because proponents of that approach will fight for its survival. Just look at our world economic situation right now and this is exactly what is occurring. Underneath the economy is broken and enough people know this is a fatal fracture, including those at the top making decisions for us. Yet these people in charge are simply trying to manage the short term situation as it is right now to prevent a collapse. Messing around with short term adjustments just to prevent a crash. But the underlying factors are already too far out of balance and any of these short term adjustments are just delaying the inevitable. Unless the underlying factors are solved the problem cannot be fixed. Same in medicine. We have medicine which treats symptoms and we have medicine which treats causes.

So this is what i'm really arguing against - the short term decision making processes most of us are caught up in. One of the wonderful things about all the sub-cycles of the training cycle is that sub goals we are given. Every two days we repeat a session type, every week we complete a mini pattern, every three weeks another pattern and every 6 to 12 weeks another cyclic pattern is repeated. These are all differing length goals. They teach an athlete to start to think in every increasing lengths of time. It certainly worked for me in this regard and i think is a more effective check and measure against decline in race form than predetermining pace for every session and correcting the program when it cannot be achieved.

I think they are polar opposed in their fundamental approach - in one you add one element to the mix at a time, the other you add them all in together. On layers above this fundamental one, we can see more and more similarities the higher we go. I realise i don't show how much i agree with many elements of race-pace, and i wanted to review an article on Renato to show how much i am in total agreement with, and that my disagreement is really centered around this fundamental factor - do we add to fitness qualities one at a time, or do we mix them all together and focus everything at the goal race pace. Don't they say we should focus on the journey and not the destination? I know i got so lost in the training process that competition never entered my mind for months on end. My need for competition was probably assuaged by a full week of testing every three weeks. From timetrials over 30/40/60m to 150m to 300m to 4km; maximal strength tests in the gym in all the main lifts used in the program, maximum speed/strength tests in the gym; power tests like standing vertical or long jump and overhead shot throws. It was pretty cool to have a crack at your pb every three weeks through heavy training in all of the tests my coach used.

I can't generally disagree and that is what makes you the hardest person to discuss with. This is a good thing in my world by the way :).

Any modifications to either system could be applied equally. Personally i would find it much harder to do so in the free flow chaos of the race-pace method that the cyclical chaos of the linear method. And no Lydiard didn't use those terms but he applied those principles. His phases are the meso-cycles and his week corresponds to the microcycle. In fact it corresponds to the Soviet microcycle in a subtle way i don't see often. He appreciates the overall peak and trough that is created in a mircocycle. So this is a stage beyond hard>easy>hard>easy>hard>easy>easy. This is also looking at something that is building for 4-5 days before taking that particular pressure off for the final 2-3. This thing is usually volume based in preparation and intensity based in precomp and competition phases. And as for macrocyles, in the quoted training schedule from Run to the Top, earlier in this thread, he appears to follow a two or four weekly macrocycle to me. But i do need more information to be more certain, whereas it is already certain he used what the Soviets called micro and meso cycles.

Yes, linear is better in it's intended form because overtraining issues are prevented by inbuilt qualities that the system possesses. The cyclical recovery periods allow for this. So it is damn easy. Easy easy easy. No need to micromanage every little detail constantly. Just let the cycles roll and focus on the training. Is it common knowledge we function better when our sleep cycle is regular? Is it common knowledge when it is cold you train a little slower and steadier and leave the high end to a warmer time? Does our year follow its own distinct cycles? Is not everything we are functioning within simply cycles within cycles?

Heart beat - cycle

breathing - cycle

awake/sleep - cycle

moon/month - cycle (as a man i no doubt dont fully appreciate this one)

year - cycle

beyond a year - all cycles which science is talking about ie el nino, nina weather/ocean patterns. There is even a slight wobble in the earths axis which returns to its original position only once in every 24,000 odd years. Astrology knew about this 5000 years ago, because you can measure this in the relative movements of the stars.

Anyway i shouldn't get too carried away, but my point remains, everything we are involved in is already a cyclical process and we know how things are made more difficult when we fight them. Sleep on random patterns for a few days and feel how out of whack you get.

So why not follow cycles in the training program? The human body is an organic thing. It follows the same rules as the rest of the world/universe. Who are we to be so arrogant to assume we aren't bound by these natural laws. Oh yeah i forget, we are the human race and have indulged in such arrogance for a long time now. We even go so far as to anthropomorphise the god concept. So i grew up thinking of this as an old man with a white beard living in the clouds. Thanks very much for that Sunday school!

[quote]I'm also curious about your further explanation, when the time has arrived: "I'm not a believer of this approach ("all components should be present at all times of the year") though, and i hope i'm outlining reasons why. Actually i am a believer of this but such a very different way that i can say i'm not. I probably should explain this but the right moment hasn't arrived for it yet."

I think i said something about this in that previous post to Jack. I said something like i want the athletes to be able to sprint to 100% of capacity on demand. (lets say 95% to cover all year round). So i want the athlete to be able to express this high level intensity whilst dong heavy suppression training, so as not to lose this quality.

So this is what race-pace is doing by returning the athlete to race-pace sessions as early in the training process as possible. It doesn't want to see a loss in quality from one training period to the next. I want the same exact thing but i don't want to add fitness to it until later in the process.

There was the identification of a problem once athletes began to go deeper into conditioning. Race form was lost and took some time to regain. They got better at regaining it. But not all coaches. Some coaches couldn't manage the timing of the suppression and the peaking and messed it up. So this led to a more secure way of coaching, where race form can be monitored all year round. Now the coach who cannot manage a timed peak has another way to prepare an athlete, a way that is more secure, but this security has a tradeoff - it loses the extremes. - and peaks are in the extremes. So we are now safe and secure, monitoring pace session by session, watching closely for loss of pace which may indicate overtraining. Then we can manage the next few sessions until the athlete is back on the pace 'schedule'. It's very micromanageable in a way that is totally dependent on a stop watch. In my opinion a coach who relies on a stopwatch is not a coach but an accountant. He may be a very good accountant but he cannot be called a coach. A coach is like a sculptor and he is sculpting the thing he can see right in front of him with his own eyes. I think some talk of the coaching 'eye' is going to be useful but it would add too much length to this post to do so now. But this is something a technical coach is far more aware of than a non-technical one so i may have some fresh insights worth exploring.

[quote]Renato Canova wrote:

2) The big difference between 40 years ago and today is in the INTENSITY of the training OF EXTENSION. When we speak about the top marathon runners in US 40-30 years ago (from Frank Shorter to Bill Rodgers), we can see the same volume of today (as mileage), sometimes also more, BUT THE INTENSITY OF LONG RUN VERY MUCH LOWER, AND THE USE OF SHORT AND NOT SPECIFIC INTERVALS. Rarely we find long intervals on track or road (3-5 km) that we use today : they used a lot of 400m (if we look at Zatopek, he used 50x400m with 50m recovery), BUT NEVER LONG INTERVALS.

This is a big difference with the past. Of course, the athletes ran in the past, and run today, but because all the athletes run, doesn't mean their training is the same.

(quote]

Renato, I think that you may be mistaken here, regarding intensities and range of intervals. In Rodgers case he has incorporated many races, very specific intensity. In any case, can you critique the preparation of Charlie Spedding in 1984. What might you do to "modernize" this approach, if anything?

http://www.bunnhill.com/bobhodge/TrainingLogs/Spedding%20Log/spedding.htm

Happy New Year to everybody!Coach Canova:I really enjoyed meeting with you at Boston last year. Congratulations to many of your runners' success. Just wanted to stop by and say hi and clarify a few things here.First of all, I'd be the first to say, and had mentioned this many times already, that Lydiard was lucky with his marathon runners in olden days. It so happened, back in 1950s and 60s, his runners were probably the fastest guys running the marathon or his distance runners were doing more miles than other guys that they could afford to jump in the marathon and did well. I think you, and I believe others--including HRE--had mentioned as well, his weakest event was probably marathon because of this reason as well as they never had luxury of spending enough time for preparation and recovery for marathon. It was very hard for some of his runners, like Bill Baillie who was a carpenter, carrying heavy stuff around all day long on his feet, to run early in the morning as well as late at night in the dark and try to get adequate recovery in between to do kind of workouts necessary to produce decent marathon times. Looking at training methodologies, I really feel Japanese (particularly Nakamura and Soh Brothers) as well as some Italian coaches, as well as perhaps Coach Squires, had "perfected" marathon training methodology which, as you have repeatedly stated, includes lots of long tempo-ish runs. Japanese are known for that and that's pretty apparent when you look at the example of someone like Dave Morris who went to Japan and did lots of long tempo runs, came back to the US and ran 2:09; then, not liking that kind of training regime, came back and started doing more 400s intervals and never ran as well. Signature workout ("point workout", as they call it) of Japanese runners is near-marathon pace tempo run of 20~40k. Squires used to do lots of fartlek-type long runs, incorporating surges and he really started doing a lot of race-simulating long runs for marathon preparation. My understanding, and Hodgie-san can chip in here, is that Rodgers did lots of FCR (Fast Continuous Run) rather than just LSD.That said, however, I don't think it's fair to say Lydiard NEVER did long fast runs. I'm not sure how regularly Ron Clarke did 15k in 45 minutes but he personally gave us this nice words: http://www.lydiardfoundation.org/about/testimonial_ronc.aspx Also, may not be as fast but Lydiard runners had run 10-miles, not just flat area but quite undulating courses, in 52 or 53 minutes. Even Peter Snell had done a very undulating 22-miles in something like 2:10 and that's no "jogging". Even his original marathon program (the last 10 weeks) had lots of 1/2 effort, which is no "jogging" 15 to 18 mile runs. As a matter of fact, one of the complaints about his marathon programs from Japanese coaches is that it's "too hard". Considering the purpose of the final Coordination Phase is to bring your condition to more and more race-specific, for marathon, the more you can do marathon-pace long run, the better. He used to have a marathon Time Trial about 4 weeks before the actual marathon, which he cut down to 32k and then about 25k later on. He basically cut down the distance because majority of runners who followed his program via books were never as fit as his original runners and couldn't handle a full marathon time trial. With corporate sponsors and more professional attitude/situation, elite runners of today I'm sure can handle such hard regime without much trouble. I'd have to admit, I DO have a trouble accepting LONG and FAST as the only mean to the top even today. You should be able to AFFORD taking that approach IF you can handle it. After our meeting in Boston with Toshi Takaoka and, before we left Boston, we went over some of the training methodologies and one thing he was very amazed and had resistance with was too much long and fast runs. He simply said, "If we try that, we'd end up getting injured..." His preparatory phase involves approximately 150-mile a week of 8-minute-mile pace runs for at least a month. I can't remember if it was you or someone else but someone mentioned something about mechanical benefit of interval training instead of looking at it purely "anaerobic capacity development" workout. With the same token, one of the benefits of long easy running is what Japanese would call "leg-building". Some runners, such as Naoko Takahashi, spends first month or two doing lots of mountain hiking (in high altitude of Boulder, that is) up to 5 or 6 hours to build leg strength to withstand marathon training. After all, Lydiard's conditioning and hill phases are to prepare you to do race-specific training. Here's something I've written about Japanese training: http://www.lydiardfoundation.org/blog/EntryDisplay.aspx?EntryID=93 Right or wrong, it seems to work with them.I really enjoyed e-mail exchanges that we had. Your explanation of Finnish hill training is something I will not forget--that was very interesting and educational. Your point on long fast runs is, without doubt, legit. That was a natural course of "evolution" from Lydiard. You'd have to remember, however, in his days, there was no prize money, no big city marathon, no rabbits, not corporate sponsors and professional athletics. I don't think it's as much of a methodology flaw as more to do with environment and situation. I saw Rekrunner stating that Lydiard never mentioned meso, micro and macrocycle. But that is a great example of how Lyidard is being misunderstood. I don't doubt he probably didn't even know those terms; of course you can't find him talking about it. But he was, as far back as 1950s, talking about weekly training, phases, seasons as well as long term training plan. If that's not meso, micro and macrocycle, I don't know what is. With the same token, he may have used the terms "aerobic" and "anaerobic" wrong; but it seems to have worked just fine. If you look a little more closely, Coach Canova, I think you'll find Lydiard even more interesting. I'm sure our paths would cross again and I hope to probably sit down next time and talk more about training methodology. I have been corresponding with Toshi about your training philosophy. We pick what works and take this and that from here and there... After all, that's how training methodologies "evolve", isn't it?

Thanks everyone for the last few postings ....

This is really breaking new ground ... a frank but friendly discussion, rather than throwing insults based on misunderstandings.

Whilst not agreeing with everything that Gypsy or Nobby have said, I respect the level of thinking that each of you has applied in trying to bridge differences between the Lydiard Methodology & the Modern / (Canova) Methodology.

This is much better .... a Lydiard "philosophy" (that we can all buy into) rather than "commandments set in stone". As Renato has said the Modern Methodology is an EVOLUTION of Lydiard Methodology, & generally applicable only to the very most talented athletes. Renato freely admits that the training he applies now (2012) is different from that he applied a decade ago (2002) ... it has EVOLVED as he/we have become more knowlegable ... it has evolved (as it must do) in order to progress.

One final point, I feel that Gypsy's repudiation of race pace methodology (as a central method) is partly based on an incomplete understanding or failure to recognise the PROGRESSION in the Modern Methodology from FUNDAMENTAL to SPECIAL to SPECIFIC Training Phases.

For instance ... for a 5K runner a specific race pace session in the FUNDAMENTAL period/phase may be 10-12 x 600m (90 seconds recovery) @ Target Race Pace ... a few weeks later in the SPECIAL period/phase this might have progressed/developed to 6-8 x 1000m (3 minutes recovery) @ Target Race Pace ... a few weeks later (in the SPECIFIC period/phase), near to the intended competition this may have developed to 4-5 x 1600m or even 3 x 2000m @ target race pace (5-6 minutes recovery) ....

So the principles of progression / adaptation / periodisation is still present (as per Lydiard) but is applied in terms of increased EXTENSION rather than increased PACE.

Hi Renato:

Happy New Year!

In another thread about the Kenyan trials, you wrote:

In the case of Rudisha, he only occasionally runs faster than these times, and his big improvement during the last 3 years is due to a big increase in specific workouts, supported by a very much better Aerobic Power (he was very week under this side, 4 years ago).

Would you mind giving examples of Aerobic Power and Lactic Resistance training for a Rudisha (fast Konchellah-Fiasconaro-Courtney etc.) type 800 runner? Also, how long and how fast would that type of runner do their long run? Thanks.