thanks and well outlined
I'm sure we have learned some things about refinement of the training process and have added a lot of complementary aspects to it like with sports med and recovery activities, i'm not sure what else there is that has been actually developed. I think some things may have been lost. To be honest i don't understand this modern complex training. Is it a system that allows you to indulge in interval style training all year round?
As for decathletes since you ask. Think marathon in terms of frequency of main competition. Not quite as low as marathon but 3-4 decathlons a year is solid work. They are either grouped together over 2-3 months or split into two groups of 2 or even 3 (some people do a lot more but i believe at a certain point, which is around 4, any more takes away from preparation time, which is very important in such a complex event and one which requires such a high level of skill training.
So by its very nature there is a focus on preparation. I've done some double periodised years but they are not the majority. more like 2 single then 1-2 double, but i never did get into my peak years which may have reversed that trend. Daley Thompson took 1981 and 1985 off international competition after each Olympics. Full periodised year that you could say had only a minor peak at the end effectively extending this to an 18 months preparation period. So that might give you some idea of my feelings towards over competing and rushing the training process.
I guess in general preparation we are doing long hills and in specific preparation we are doing then with longer recovery and in precomp we will do half the sessions over a short hill and the other half over a medium hill. Short = 15 seconds, medium = 30 and long = 50 for example. In comp phase any resistance effect like this is gained through use of a sled or chute arrangement instead of the hill. All the different training elements will follow this process.
So your natural feeling with children would be to ensure the foundation is developed first. But then for serious training there would need to be a shift over to serious training or modern training. I guess i still don't know what modern training really is. Hoping for a definition.
This next paragraph i need to dissect.
Speaking to nobby, which i am doing at the moment via email exchange, it seems there is a lot of misinterpretations still with the Lydiard Approach. It seems we have so many different versions of what he advocated and what he set as plans, that from the surface it looks like he changed his mind a lot. Personally i just think it was a different version for a different situation. So when nobby shows me Lydiards raceweek/non-raceweek program, which is for periods of competition in the midst of training, we see this complex approach appear. So the modification to account for temporary or unexpected competition is to change to this raceweek programming which appears to follow what the complex approach follows. However, this is a modification program not the main program.
I agree with the latter but i am confused about the former. The mental benefits seem quite clear to me. I'm not only talking about the psychological benefits either, i'm also referring to the motor neuron, skill side of things.
The second point relates to your phrase 'without too much negative physical consequence'. If you are talking about negative in the sense of losing racing condition then i don't see a problem. We have to let that go as we move forward. If it is referring to anything else like form then i don't see that as happening. Not if it is looked after through this period with regular training. If these don't cover it what did you mean by that phrase?
See for me a 4 month competition period with the last two as being the serious ones is plenty. If you double periodised then two by 2 months is enough. I can't imagine 8-9 months of competition. but this isn't my main concern here. Even using the word 'squeezing' indicates that this preparation stuff is not being given its rightful status. To be squeezed in, around the more race related stuff? This is what worries me.
I see what you are saying. The idea is to never be too far from 'race shape' so to speak. I think again we have a misconception. In my soviet inspired version of periodisation you never get too far from race condition at any stage. The explosive element of the program ensures that. In Lydiard terms i will refer to a quote from nobby, from yesterday.
So this is not exactly slow running. This is high effort threshold training. And looking at the marathon program above the time trials pretty much ensure you dont stray too far from peak condition.
The reason i don't like to suppress the system away from peak condition for any length of time is because i believe i am dealing with athleticism as a priority. And since i want to increase athleticism alongside the fitness components we cannot be suppressed for too long. Simply because you cannot develop athleticism when the system is too suppressed. When i say athleticism i mean in the sense of say Snell, Juantorena and Coe exhibiting a higher than normal level of it in the MD world.
I prefer to have a systemic response to overtraining so it is reduced as much as possible by the very content and nature of the system. I only see overtraining occurring when an athlete does too much of the one thing for too long. If change occurs regularly then much of the overtraining is eliminated. I don't think i even suffered from it in my entire career.
On the first point you make, - ok so you don't have to do as much to get back to prime shape if you don't go very far away from it, if you don't go very deep. Agreed. This is a result. I don't know if it is a benefit. Daley Thompson, who followed a similar approach to my own coach. Daley who was around when Coe, Ovett, Cram were around and remarkably a similar influence seems to roll through all. Daley said 'never go more than three weeks from speedwork'. This is a counter to the tendency to go too deep and not keep contact with normality. Lydiard had these counters. It is just too many people are taking only part of his system and overemphasising it. And yes this is a criticism of some, possibly many Lydiardists.
And i agree with you regards physiology. but this does beg a question.
I would like to see more. This provokes thought if it rings true. I wonder what others think?
Is this true? I wonder if there are any comparisons of density with animals, like monkeys or racehorses. How different in density are our fittest from them, if at all.
I agree with this process of first being a stimulant and second being a regenerative element. But i also see it coming back to being a stimulus periodically. I guess i see it as regenerative all year round.
Here is the thing. We have this training quality that is first developed by long running as a stimulus. So it is a trainable quality, obviously. But then gains drop away so it shifts to being a regenerative activity.
And is that it? A few years and enough is enough? Really?
We are talking about elite track and field, Things are measured in fractions of percentages. Aside from any other benefit the long running may have, how can we ignore this?
See where i am coming from?
Me too. how about letsrun runs a multi-year study on a group of current 18 year old runners. We get them or their coach to talk about the training approach. And then we watch what happens over a number of years?
Interesting and would like to throw some ideas about each one in another post. And to wrap this up with something from earlier in your post.
The mistake exists because a study like the one your proposed has never been done. It would show what i believe to be true and yes shortening of careers, failure to reach potential, exactly those.
One mistake is that Modern training is mis-applying and selectively applying the principles of training.
If it wants to apply specificity to the event, then it has to also apply specificity to the training qualities required by that event. If it wants to utilise specificity at all it has to acknowledge the requirement for generality, in its correct proportion and not just an add on.
The other mistake it is making is believing the aerobic and anaerobic are equals. They are not equal. They don't stand side by side. One precedes the other, is prior to the other. It existed before the other was even developed. Every time we are injured we return from the high ground of anaerobic training to the safe ground of anaerobic training. Whenever we are sick we live in the aerobic zone and we find it far more difficult than normal to do anything anaerobic. All of this is true because the aerobic system is closer to our center, to our core. It is where we can retreat to when the going gets tough. I can't see how anyone can give it equal status to the anaerobic system. You take away the anaerobic system and you will complete the 100m albeit slowly. You take out the aerobic system and you will be unconscious before very long. It is more important.
So when modern training de-empahasises it in any way it and relegates it to secondary status, i am concerned. The problem is we don't have your study so we can't show the physiologists in their own terms of this gradual degradement of the base aerobic capacity over time that ultimately leads to a situation that has become so imbalanced, that injury, sickness or psychological burnout occurs.
Just to finish. If modern training wants to 'play it safe' and never get too far away from money making capacity, then fine no problem. If it wants to do this year after year then i do have a problem. The athlete is being duped and his career is being shortened. I feel this as fundamentally unfair. Not only are high peaks not being allowed by this approach, short careers are becoming the order of the day.