Lydiard Training Advice; the Morning Run

It's interesting how Lydiard threads almost always involve intelligent and intriguing dialogue. No matter how many times this topic pops up, it never gets boring and I always learn something new.

Antonio, I'm not going to read everything you wrote, it's pretty much all off of the original topic, and as always, I'll be done after this comment and you can have your usual last word.

The kid who started the thread asked a question about what Lydiard would advise as a pace for a second run and whether or not it's ok to get some of his 100 weekly miles in by doing doubles. Given that I've had some direct experience from Lydiard and Magee with that topic I decided to write some of what I knew. The comment about using a heart monitor was just an aside. I don't care if he uses one or not. I think he'd probably be better off learning to run by feel as would Lydard but if that's not enough for him he can buy a program that will assign paces, get a heart monitor, or find some formula that calculates his paces for him and still follow Lydiard's guidelines about how hard to run and how to break up his miles.

Similarly, Lydiard did not like orthotics believing they're a waste of money and prevent feet from strengthening as they should. He thought you'd be better off doing exercises that strengthen the feet in place of buying orthotics. But he acknowledged that there was a small percentage of people for whom exercises weren't enough who probably did need orthotics and that those people still could do "his" training.

Finally, like most authors, Arthur wrote some things that lead to questions. If he were alive and good with e-mail we could ask him for clarifications but he's not. Therefore, many of us who knew him and have gotten some clarifications have tried to pass those clarifications along to those who have questions. I've gotten Magee to clarify things about Arthur's writings that I didn't understand. For you and John to decide that an idea only "counts" as Lydard training if the idea is actually in Arthur's writings is silly. He spent his life giving clinics. You can't "count" something he said at a clinic if it's not written in one of his books?

as a junior, i trained under arch jelley, who always said that his methods were based on lydiard. we talked hundreds hours about training. lydiard did a lot of things.

what's most misleading is that different athletes interpreted the guidelines differently. once you get comfortable running longer distances regularly, the buildup is a bit more intense. the successful guys all ran near 5 minutes a mile pace for their 10 milers. and the sunday long run were usually kickass after the first 8 miles.

then there is the hill work, where you work hard. fartlek means running at middle distance pace in spurts.

onto the 1/4 1/2 and 3/4 effort interpretation.

when i was gearing up for a 3:55 1500m i ran this workout.

1 mile at 1/4 effort, 2 x 1 mile at 1/2 effort.

1/4 effort meant 4:50 mile.

1/2 effort meant 4:3x mile.

3/4 effort meant as fast as you can go without "racing"

another way to say this is 1/4 means quarter dead.

3/4 effort means three quarters dead.

at the end of the day, i know of no new zealand athlete of fame that did not emphasize quality work. in fact, as a rule i'd say very few great athletes will run slow despite what coach says. they're ambitious and chomping at the bit.

john walker for example's diet was 12 mile runs over undulating grasslands and roads at 5 minutes a mile pace.

one time i spotted dixon and walker at the auckland domain running together, i can assure that they were going well below 5 minute pace. when the boys got together they did play.

HRE wrote:

For you and John to decide that an idea only "counts" as Lydard training if the idea is actually in Arthur's writings is silly. He spent his life giving clinics. You can't "count" something he said at a clinic if it's not written in one of his books?

HRE. I advice you to read because it´s not Lydiard directly. It´s simply about the any share of ideas and the cross of any argument.

It´s not mine or John´s decision. It´s not mine or John´s prerogative. I hope that would be, but don´t.

It´s UNIVERSAL ACCEPTED that if something that someone says by private conversation and it´s not a proved fact or documented can´t "count" as trustful source and got not debate meaning. The more if what someone says dismisses absolutely what is long documented, what is the case of HRM. Be in US or be in Portugal or be in Mars.

THE NAME OF THE THING

from the internet and i´m not the authour of this conclusion.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypocrisy

Hypocrisy is the state of pretending to have virtues, moral or religious beliefs, PRINCIPLES, etc., THAT ONE DOES NOT ACTUALLY HAVE .Hypocrisy involves THE DECEPTION OF OTHERS AND IS THUS A KIND OF LIE.

(The capital words are done by me)

The individual that says or writes something in one day, in on place, or to one person and one different thing another day in another place or to another is one hypocrite and a lier.

Wow. Somebody has issues.

Good, helpful discussion otherwise.

Wow how did they manage to train pre HRMs?

I don't recall seeing any of the 5, 10 K or marathoners wearing them at the Olympics or the World Championships.

Training by feel what a novel concept.

Hello Antonio,

It was clear to me that the HRM was HRE's advice, and not Lydiard's.

If I apply your and Hadd's standard to John Hadd, and judge a man's beliefs by his writings, then I have to conclude that Hadd was very much a Lydiard-influenced disciple who believed in "aerobic first", and using an HRM to control efforts.

My impression of Keith Livingstone, was he helped add clarity where Lydiard was vague (e.g. his guide to appropriate paces). He also attempts to link it to modern "pop-physiology" terms that runners want to hear, like anaerobic threshold, acidosis, glycolytic, etc. which didn't make it into Lydiard's 1962 book. Unfortunately, this has to be done outside of Lydiard writing's, so there is the risk of misinterpretation or misrepresentation. Yet the Lydiard Foundation endorses it, so it must be close to the original spirit.

Having read Lydiard's 1962 book and 1978 book, I found Livingstone offered a fairly accurate representation of Lydiard's "pyramid" approach to training, rather than deception, while adding some of his own interpretations.

Since no one else answered your questions, let me offer my own. I won't take any position about superiority/inferiority of the method -- it may not be the best, but it is still effective today. Keep in mind, these are MY answers, which may not represent Lydiard's -- my faults are my own:

- Q: What would be interesting was Keith Livingston or any Lydiard disciple to argue “why training by Lydiard pace feeling is more efficient that training by any pace control way of physiology tool control ”

A: Livingstone offered us Daniel's tables to avoid the whole "pace feeling" vagueness.

- Q: Why “aerobics” is infinite unlimited enhance by training ? – as Lydiard said.

A: For distance, and middle distance runners, endurance takes a long time to develop, say 7-10 years, while speed only takes 4-6 weeks.

- Q: Why “aerobic first” is more efficient that other season plan that builds up every kind of stimulus together but in different percents as far as the season goes from early season to late season ?

A: Who says it is more efficient? Looks like both approaches can be effective, with the right coach and feedback.

- Q: Why the weekly regular long run applied to 800m to 10k runner specialist is better training and more effective that just mileage without long runs. What´s the efficiency of long runs for a 800-1500m runner ?

A: Weekly long runs build endurance. Who says it is better training and more effective? I think you are right that it can be inefficient, or even detrimental, for some 800m-1500m runners.

- Q: Why less than 100miles – to all kind of runner specialists - is not the perfect Lydiard training, but however more than 100miles is damage training the way it leads almost certain to injury ?

A: 100 miles is not magic (in 1962, he used that as an upper bound). Lydiard's "perfect" training is one that finds the "perfect" balance between "aerobic" and "anaerobic" development (using his definitions).

- Q: Why different distance events, that science knows it requires different percent of aerobic-anaerobic relationship, and different stimulus qualities, why Lydiard training is blind to that the way prescribes the same kind of aerobic training for different distance event specialists ?

A: In general phases, it doesn't matter. In specific phases (e.g. Lydiard's speed and coordination phases), Lydiard's sample plans (the ones he wrote in his book, and not ones based on private correspondence) are customized for each target event. The percent of "aerobic-anaerobic" relationship will work itself out in the coordination phase. Here's where "feeling" can provide valuable feedback to adjust the planned paces to the individual, helping the coach/athlete find the "perfect" balance.

Rekrunner,

Yes, the suggestion about a heart monitor was just my suggestion, not Lydiard's. Incidentally, I cannot find anything in any of Arthur's writings where he mentions heart monitors at all. The idea at Letsrun that he didn't like them most likely comes from something that some of us who knew Lydiard posted here that was based on something we heard him say. So maybe we shouldn't "count" disliking the use of HRMs as being part of Lydiard training as it doesn't seem to be in his writings.

The idea that running by feel is better than running to a specific pace in Lydiard's mind is because the effort required to maintain a pace can differ a lot from one run to the next. It's near 90, sunny and humid here today. If someone is supposed to do their long run at 6:45-7:00 per mile they're going to have a different experience doing that today than they'd have had last Sunday when it was over 30 degrees cooler and cloudy.

Weather aside, loads of factors can make a particular pace either too easy or too hard at some times and just right at others. And checking your watch every few minutes to see if you're doing something wrong as you run can be a drag. Thus Lydiard's advice to "enjoy yourself," something that's much more likely to happen if you find a pace that feels comfortable whatever it is, pretty much mandates running by feel.

Faux news wrote:

Wow how did they manage to train pre HRMs?

I don't recall seeing any of the 5, 10 K or marathoners wearing them at the Olympics or the World Championships.

Training by feel what a novel concept.

I don't know if you think I'm pushing heart monitors or not. For the record, I'm not. I don't have one. Over fifteen years ago I read John Parker's book about them and got a monitor out of curiosity. I didn't like it or find it helpful. But some people do like them and do find them useful and knowing that, I made a passing reference to them. If I knew that remark was going to generate all this other nonsense I wouldn't have made the comment.

HRE, The sarcasm was not directed towards you.

There is a strong argument to be made for effort or internal feedback type training,and there is evidence base for it. Most current example I can think of is what Wetmore is doing in Colorado.

In my day as an old timer splits were not called in track , road or cross country races, we did not stop to take our heart rates either during training or racing. we trained . we raced, it is that simple no rocket science just run faster than the guy in front of you.

Every time anything Lydiard is brought up on these boards it is attacked as being out of date. Yet the results of people correctly appying it proves otherwise.

There are many training approaches that are effective and Lydiard is one of them.

First thing i want to say - and put that on your brain and memory if you want that i answer to you, is that I respect John Hadd but i´m not able to answer by his training whatsoever. and i got no attorney to defend him. Might be that wansn´t at all - it´s irrelevant to to debate. I know quite q lot This said if you want my opinion I think that the HRM is the best tool to effort run control, better than the lactate meter, better than anything else, but just to submaximal paces - slower than your 10k pace. Second this thread is about Lydiard. Put that in your brain. If you want to debate John Hadd training open one Hadd about his trainingHowever among the people i coach i rarely prescribe it. I got different, more empiric but good enough ways to control the effort zones than the HRM. This is an individual coach option, it´s not that i think that the HRM is useless or that i think that pace feeling is the best solution.You confirm precisely what i say earlier. Keith does nothing to prove Lydiard training idiosyncrasy, he simply takes other concepts and other training ideas and tools FROM OTHER TRAINING METHODS and simply DO appropriates that that to try to make Lydiard more modern, out of the old fashion that Lydiard do prefer eventually to what is suposed go be hippie or modern fashion.First he uses physiology, something that Lydiard never dreamed of, second uses VO2 ideas, lactate, HRM, etc, all training tools to get to the points he wants the way he wants. He uses lots of formulations tghat are put of Lydiard training, as it´s proved by the singular use of HRM. Therefore the conclusion is that most that Lydiard denied as useful as training tools, is correct from the opinion of Keith. However the problem is that the HRM, the VO2, the lactate THAT GOT DIFFERENT TRAINING CONCLUSIONS TO WHAT LYDIARD DIDFor example, just a bit of examples what i want to say, about some but one determinant aspects but i don´t want to be extensive. Coe and Martin in the 80s with the use of several physiologic parameters namely the VO2 max, did conclude that what we define by training intensity (not Lydiard speed, that is vague doen´t define anything) that intensity as method for g shall be done year round and the emphasis on among thl be put e pair extensity.intensity shall be put in the intensity if it´s about to coach middle distance runners, namely 800m. Or Lydiard denies it. He thinks that the 800m runner shall do the same extensive/volume mileage marathon training stuff during the build-up introductory period. That´s the stupid Lydiard "aerobic first" that Keith do insist.Another situation. Actually by the lactate concentration meter we know that i not enough the Lydiard season proposal, the original east german 4 to 6 weeks of anaerobic training (with almost daily anaerobic training during this anaerobic period) done after the aerobic period and the hill period. Actually by lactate analysis we know that do some kind anaerobic training combined with the aerobic training does a more balanced ande effective shape condition enhance.By lactate analysis we also know that most of us can carry on more training intensity that Lydiard did imagine, and consequently the aerobic first is a stupidity.Etc, etc, etc, so and so, e could go on but it really doesn´t matter, more blind that one blind is the one that doesn´t want to see and to admit. Keith does the normal exercise that the Lydiardists do here on LRC or on the Lydiard foundation site. they want to let us trust that Lydiard is the best training, and each detail that Lydiard did miss, they create a new falacia to save what can´t be save actually.Now about your answers to my questions. You just write sentences. You don´t bring any evidence, any prove to hat you say. I ask you PROVE that the aerobic training is unlimited. 7-to 10 years ? what´s that ? 10 years is limited. the Lydiard concept is different to what you say, he thinks that since all distance runs are aerobic and enzymatic mostly the runner got better performance enhance, better performance progress if he trains mostly his aerobic system, what is not true. Again it´s ALWAYS he combination o both systems what is the efficient, therefore we know that the Lydiard kind of periodisation is wrong

This is something you need to discuss with HRE not with me. I´m out of debate with HRE one individual that takes Lydiard to the status of hypocrite and a lier, what would be if Lydiard would said something different to him that he did wrote or what he said in interviews.

Since Lydiard pace by feeling is suposed to be right by Lydiard the man, and there pace by HRE is wrong and out of the Lydiard training, because the HRM breaks the rule of pace feeling. Both co-existence feeling and control only in the mind of HRE.

Funny, actually unlimited and infinite is 7-10 years ? This is a must of the Lydiardism, Einstein is wrong Lydiard is right, the infinite is 10 yerqs maximum. Now infinite and unlimited is 7 to 10 years. OK i´m done.

It is PROVED BY the statistics, the analyse of contain and the training methodology. If you don´t trust in the science just seethe facts

Do one enquire among the world best runners from the last 20 years, and the majority - bigger percent undoubtefull - goes for those who did mix-aerobic and anaerobic training during the same period of time and don´t follow Lydiad stupid aerobic first all that did best than Peter Snell i 800m. Ralf Doubell, Marcelo Fiasconaro, Alberto Juantorena, Sebastian Coe, Wilson Kipketer, and Rudisha. Then move to 1500m, 3000m steeple, 5000m, 10000m, HM and marathon. You will see that aerobic first is not the best training approach.

God sake. I´m right in one point. But HRE, does he really thinks that the long run is the best solution. And Lydiard the man. Was he wrong ? And about Keith. Does he think that Lydiard was wrong or he just wants go talk about the perfect training.

Ther´s only ine reason why the Lydiardism defends that less than 100miles is not enough and that more than 100miles is dangerous. IT BECAUSE LYDIATD SAID THAT 100miles is tne perfect volume. Had Lydiard said that 90 miles ws the perfect volume, the Lyfiardism would say the same about 100miles what they say about 110miles actually. I read often from the Lydiard gurus that more than 100miles is dangerous.

I refuse to debate training methodology into Lydiard stupid and ignortany concepts. What´s the famous Lydiard "speed" and "fast" concept. Every thay moves got speed. What´s Lydiard aerobic and anaerobic ? As far as the Lydiardism continues to use expressions and one lexion of his own, not universal accepted and out of physiology or training methodology terminology meaning i´m out. What´s coordination phase ? One silly concept, since in every type of workout the coordination si present, and one coordination period this is a Lydiard exclusivity. I don´t know about other training rich training method that does one coordination period. Therfore this is one Lydiard exclusive, something inventive. We can´t relate this Lydiard training idiosyncrasy with nothing else, with other universal season periodisation. The coordination period is like the Lydiard way to lace the shoe, what i might say ? One Lydiard exclusive that doesn´t exist in other training methods How can someone discuss the aerobic-anaerobic balance with someone that during one period does the emphasis in the coordination. Aerobic and anaerobi training is trained by run stimulus (nit coordination stimukus) and run paces and zones of effort that mimic both systems, but coordination is something about bio-mechanics !

Then you did comment i run away of the subject of this thread, but you, what you do actually ?

John Hadd said to me that you ask him extensively about the HRM and pace training pace control and you both share lots of emails about that matter. Therefore if it true what John said your searching and curiosity for training pace control by HRM is recent than the fifty years of John Parker. This is a fact or John´s lie ?

Pace by feeling. Despite that in my opinion is still more important than pace control, and it shall be the ultimate decision about the aerobic pace runs, the pace feeling doesn´t exclude pace control as well, be by HRM or other kind of pace control.

Let me explain. I advice pace control to the runner for that aerobic session on that day. Might be he felt comfortable on that estimate pace control I did advice. But might be he feels tired. There he shall not consider my pace control advice as "slavery" and just run by feeling., and in this case slower the pace down to a comfortable pace zone BY FFELING. Might be it happens the opposite, After start the run he felt the estimate pace control too easy, then he shall faster up the pace as long as he feels comfortable, and once again he runs by feeling more than pace control.

I myself use a rule of thumb about aerobic run advice. Since my specific workouts are hard sometimes, the rule of thumb is not go faster than 10k pace + 1 minute by kilo pace at the aerobic daily runs. As to say the runner that is a 30:00/10kilo runs at 3:00/kilo+1min/kilo=4:00min/kilo. However i say "if you feel tired, just run slower and if if feel that the pace on that day is very easy go a bit faster".

However HRE, this is your HRM comments goes out of my main comment about the HRM.

If we go back, my early comment was to say that is absurd that Keith Livingstion uses the kind of tools from others – the HRM. VO2max, lactate threshold etc, all tools that are out of Lydiard training principles basically , and he tries to move Lydiard to the modernity by concepts that are out of the Lydiard method, by concepts as the lactate threshold that Lydiard didn´t conceptualized at all. One rich interpretation to attempt to move Lydiard to modernity would be keep on the search into Lydiard concepts and bring it back from the past to modern by the Lydiard principles, not out of the Lydiard principles.

I gave you some examples. For example "why the Lydiard long run is better to the middle distance runs that just mileage and intensity with the miss of the Lydiard regular long runs long runs ?" Why it´s better to isolate one period with just aerobic training in one early build up phase, rather than combine aerobic with anaerobic in the same phase period like Salazar does, or James Li does, Dr. Kostre does, Jack Daniels does, Peter Coe did, Dr. Rosa does, or Renato Canova does, just to name a few ?

This are the kind of legitimate questions i would love to be answered by Keith book, but he doesn´t.

He prefers to define the Lydiard paces by HRM and lactate. This simly doesn´t answer at all about Lydiard training idiosyncrasies that is said as the “perfect training” therefore defined as superior to any other training. The Keith book is just keep on Lydiard training interpretation, not the answer to the deep Lydiard training options out of the modern training consensus.

is it possible to have a Lydiard discussion without Antonio coming in and ruining it?

Has that ever happened on this board?

Go away, Antonio, you're repeating the same crap you've spewed a dozen times before!

No one is listening!

broken record much? wrote:

is it possible to have a Lydiard discussion without Antonio coming in and ruining it?

Has that ever happened on this board?

Go away, Antonio, you're repeating the same crap you've spewed a dozen times before!

No one is listening!

Yiu are right. I repeat the same craop always, not like YOU that you are always changing of opinion and among all of YOU you say different each one.

I was answering rekrunner, not you.

I was answering rekeunner and Faux News, to be accurate.

António,

I don't want to talk to you or HRE about HRMs, but just pointing out that your premise is faulty.

I don't want to talk to you about Hadd, just pointing out the parallels. By your simplistic logic, through no fault of Hadd's, you both would become hypocrites, and Hadd would become a liar.

I would like to see authentic references, in context, where Lydiard uses the terms "infinite" and "unlimited" and "perfect training". Which attribute or system is "unlimited". I don't believe "aerobics is infinite unlimited enhance" accurately conveys what Lydiard ever said or meant.

And finally, I can't believe it, but you really have no idea what Lydiard's coordination phase is. Bio-mechanics? Really? You think the coordination phase is devoted to bio-mechanics? This is a huge failure of understanding on your part. This is the main reason why you should refuse to debate Lydiard's training methodology.

Agreed. Go away, you are so annoying.