Does the Lydiard/Wetmore system do enough to develop speed?

With a PR of 2:03 for the half mile from 1972 when I was 17 years old, I most certainly am not Job Kinyor. But kind of cool to imagine training like him!

NobbyH wrote:

PS: By the way, for the record, I think Chris Kelsall is a good guy.

By tne way, and for the record, i think that Chris Keshall is a poor character really.

But if you want i may say why with facts, not just wit a subjective opinion tha´s what you write.

Haven´t you read my post about this thread question ?

http://www.letsrun.com/forum/flat_read.php?thread=5460433&page=4

Therefore my answer to the question “Does the Lydiard/Wetmore system do enough to develop speed? I don´t know what´s Wetmore but Lydiard training Is “yes it does”.

Now, if you say i´m out of the question please, tell me about this Nobby post:

“Coach Canova: It was good to see you in London in April for the marathon. I was just back in Japan for 10-days (a week in Tokyo) and came home sick. Lorraine (Moller) teased me that I got exposed to radiation too much!! (;o)) If you're in China for long, be careful with their pollution!!”

PS: By the way, for the record, I think Chris Kelsall is a good guy.

Don´t you think that sentences like that one’s got nothing to do with the question “Does the Lydiard/Wetmore system do enough to develop speed?”

Or do you think it´s just me ?

I support you here. Whether Chris is a good guy or not -- I think he did a poor job when he interviewed you.PS: I see you did answer the question of the thread -- I wasn't sure, and didn't want to check.

Antonio Cabral wrote:

By tne way, and for the record, i think that Chris Keshall is a poor character really.

But if you want i may say why with facts, not just wit a subjective opinion tha´s what you write.

SlowFatMaster wrote:

jono, I'll read it again. Would you do me a favor and read How to Win Friends and Influence People? Thanks!

Good, I hope you do. I don't want to win friends on this message board though, internet friendship is false.

rekrunner wrote:

jono,

For an exciting weekend, I re-read Noakes "physiology" section in "The Lore of Running", and I couldn't find any obvious or glaring contradictions between Noakes and Canova's training descriptions of improving LACTIC POWER, and LACTIC CAPACITY and LACTIC RESISTANCE. Did you have something specific in mind?

Read it again. LACTIC POWER, LACTIC CAPACITY, LACTIC RESISTANCE?

Yikes that's just bad science. Think neuroscience if you will, please???

And no elite runner will improve VO2 max by 60% or even 1% if they have a healthy heart. That is the basis of aerobic fitness a healthy heart. An untrained heart is 20-30% smaller and this will happen to anyone who does a minimum of physical work.

'Anaerobic capacity' as defined in general training debate comes from the amount of the lactate producing enzyme Lactate dehyrogenase LDH and these levels dont' change with training in a healthy individual. So 'Anaerobic capacity' doesnt' change during high intensity training, what changes is the neural response.

Neural training improvement is the fundamental training improvement, not metabolic. The metabolic processes are already in place. The nerve pathways develop over years. This is basic phsiology not some new science. Look it up in a good sports science textbook such as we have in schools in Britain.

I also have Noakes' LoR on my desk now. Please tell us which pages you are referring to.

jono wrote:

And no elite runner will improve VO2 max by 60% or even 1% if they have a healthy heart. That is the basis of aerobic fitness a healthy heart.

"The Anatomy of a Medal - Deena Kastor

Previously, she was only running 40-50 miles a week, which certainly was not enough volume to compete at her desired level. We increased that volume to 70 miles per week (MPW) for the next 15 months. This allowed for gradual adaptation without any resulting injuries or setbacks. At this point, she had a VO2 MAX of 70.2 mls. (VO2 MAX is the maximum amount of oxygen in milliliters your body can use in one minute per kilogram of body weight, i.e. the higher the better). We next increased her volume to 90 miles a week over the next 18 months. Her VO2 MAX jumped to 77.5 mls. During this time period, she was making her mark nationally and had won a national championship in Cross Country. Again, we increased her volume to 100-110 miles per week and, not surprisingly, her VO2 MAX was at 81.3 mls. This level of fitness is attained by very few athletes and is one of the highest ever recorded in an American athlete."

The physiology section where he explains that we don't 'Go Anaerobic'

In an 800m race, we start Anaerobic then go Aerobic, the complete oposite of the term 'Going Anaerobic'

If you consider such 200m splits for a 1.41 runner:

23.5 about 95% Anaerobic

24.5 about 75% Anaerobic

26.0 about 50% Anaerobic

27.0 about 20% Anaerobic

So the Anerobic fuel sources are running out and oxygen uptake is gradually increasing peaking at around 600m but it cannot supply enough energy to sustain a high pace so the athlete gets slower and slower. The higher Lactate accumulation at the end of the race has nothing to do with the amount of fuel being supplied Anaerobically at that point, is has accumulated over the course of the race and only some of it is used metabolically for aerobic respiration.

I know about Deena's alleged VO2 max figures. Firstly, you have to measure absolute VO2 max to compare actually oxgyen uptake changes, and secondly, I don't believe that the numbers are always accurately measured.

Look at Paula Radcliffe's measurements, her VO2 max went down between hear early career and her 2.15.25 marathon in 2003

Thirdly, changes in plasma volume have to be measured to assess VO2 max. How many testers do this?

jono wrote:

Look at Paula Radcliffe's measurements, her VO2 max went down between hear early career and her 2.15.25 marathon in 2003

So what?

We all know that marathon performance is strongly related to the lactate threshold, not as much to VO2max. As Paula Radcliffe got older (aging also drops the VO2max), she changed her focus from the 3-10k to the marathon. Naturally her VO2max dropped a bit.

I don´t bother to comment your other hypothetical beliefs.

NobbyH wrote:

Re reading Running with Buffs today and thinking about Lydiard's quote: (paraphrased) "there are lots of runners in the world who can run 46 seconds for 400 meters, but only a few who can run 1:44 for 800 meters, or two laps of 52 seconds. Therefore it is far more essential to train endurance."

What if the runner doesn't have the 47-48 speed needed at the minimum to go 1:44? Isn't it necessary to train speed? This goes for 1,500-5,000 as well.

With a quick glance over the rest of the thread, I couldn't really see much of discussion on the original question…or is it just me??? ;o)

I'm not sure of 400m time but Lydiard liked to use 200m as a guide for the Basic Speed. 400m would require some level of stamina/endurance. To be a 1:44 800m runner, you would probably need 22.5-second 200m speed. That WOULD probably translate as 46-47 second 400m speed. If you don't have 22.5-second 200m speed, it would be very difficult to be a successful international 800m runner. If you are shooting for Olympics or World Championships and if you don't have that sort of "speed", it would probably be smarter to concentrate on 5000-10000m events. Barry Magee had 25-seconds for his PR for 200m and he was trained as a marathon runner in mind from the get-go. Lydiard figured 25-seconds 200m is good for "only" 1:52 800m. Peter (Snell) gave me a chart for 200m-800m equivalent and he figured you'd need 22.5-second for 1:43-1:46 for 800m. 23-second for 1:46-1:48. If you don't have that sort of speed, would you spend tons of time and effort trying to improve your 200m speed; or would it make more sense to move up the distance? Toshinari Takaoka, Japanese national record holder for 3k, 10k and the marathon, has a tad faster than 24-seconds for 200m and his 800m PR is 1:50. He was the first non-African in the final of 10000m at Sydney Olympics.

Bear in mind; the faster speed that you have, the more advantageous you'd be even in longer events which is quite apparent with the examples of Debaba or Bekele. It is not a matter of how fresh you may be at the finish line; but how fast/quick you are in the final 200-400m. All the stamina in the world won't get you the gold medal if you don't have superior leg-speed; a good example is that Turkish girl who presses the pace in the second half but never beaten Debaba; or Radcliffe who could push the pace but never won major title in 10000m when up against runners with superior kick.

It is important, however, that you work on your speed to maximum first before you check your Basic Speed. Today, with so many recreational runners hitting the roads; when they say, "I'm not fast," and I ask them if they ever actually worked on their leg-speed, 9 out of 10 times the answer is no. You cannot gauge your Basic Speed if you never work on developing it. This is what I call "No Need For Speed" syndrome and has to be retaught otherwise.

[/quote]

This is the same individual that a few years ago, 2006, precisely said something totally different the opposite precisely. You may read an old Nooby H post. I still ask myself wjt this individual, that contradicts himself knows about training really ? NIce guym friendly but is knowledge about distance training methodology is nuts.

Nice work, mate. 2/11/2006 8:03AM - in reply to Skuj

Here’s another way to look at the situation; now this is based on fiction so the actual numbers may not completely accurately reflect the real life situation. Number are completely “for the argument sake.”

We have runner A and runner B. They both have 55-seconds 400m speed and would like to run

800 in 2 minutes. And both of them start getting lactic acid when you go 10 seconds beyond

their best 400m time (this is kind of bogus…); in other words, they will still be “aerobic” while running the speed 10 seconds slower than their best 400m time (you wish…). And both of them can sprint 100m flat out in 12 seconds. Runner A decided to work on his endurance; while runner B decided to hone his speed (now this ain’t gonna happen because even doing interval training all the time WILL improve your aerobic capacity somewhat…). By the race time, runner A developed his aerobic capacity up so now he won’t start getting lactic acid until he runs faster than 62 seconds (7 seconds slower than his best 400m effort). Runner B improved his 400m time down to 53 seconds and, as a result, now his 100m PR is down to 11.5 seconds; but his aerobic capacity remains the same so he will start producing lactic acid at 63 seconds per 400m (53 + 10). Now in the race both of them run the first lap in 60 seconds; 2 seconds faster for runner A’s threshold and 3 seconds faster than runner B’s threshold. It’s only a slight difference in second but we know physiologically that, with the slight increase in speed, lactic acid production shoots up (as Lydiard explained as “it doubles, squares and cubes”). By the

time they both come around the last bend, runner B’s legs are full of lactic acid which creates neuromuscular breakdown and it’s very difficult to contract muscles, he struggles to manage only 17 seconds for the last 100m with “wobbly legs” (anybody who runs 800m knows exactly how THAT feels); whereas runner A, while also getting into oxygen debt, the damage is

not as much as runner B, also “because he’s marathon-trained, he does not feel as tired,” he can sprint close to flat-out in the last 100m (as Snell displayed number of times), perhaps 13 seconds.

The question is who’s the least anaerobic coming into the last bend. The question is how much aerobic can you stay during the race; how high is your aerobic level (threshold pace) compared to the speed at which you’re running the entire race. This is why, in the international competition with Kenyans and Ethiopians with very high aerobic capacity, they are not as much anaerobic coming into the last lap that they can sprint flat-out while others, even if their basic speed is actually faster than theirs, barely maintain the speed with “wobbly legs” full of lactic acid.

Somebody mentioned Bekele’s speed. Yes, he’s very fast even in 400m (sure as hell quite a lot faster than me!) but there are others who can run flat-out 400m against Bekele faster, in fact quite a bit faster. But if they get too far anaerobic by the time they reach the final lap, all the speed in the world is not going to help them out-sprint Bekele. Now THAT is the basic concept

of the Lydiard method. And THAT is the reason why you do all those marathon-conditioning to develop your aerobic capacity as high as possible.

NobbyH wrote:

Re reading Running with Buffs today and thinking about Lydiard's quote: (paraphrased) "there are lots of runners in the world who can run 46 seconds for 400 meters, but only a few who can run 1:44 for 800 meters, or two laps of 52 seconds. Therefore it is far more essential to train endurance."

What if the runner doesn't have the 47-48 speed needed at the minimum to go 1:44? Isn't it necessary to train speed? This goes for 1,500-5,000 as well.

With a quick glance over the rest of the thread, I couldn't really see much of discussion on the original question…or is it just me??? ;o)

I'm not sure of 400m time but Lydiard liked to use 200m as a guide for the Basic Speed. 400m would require some level of stamina/endurance. To be a 1:44 800m runner, you would probably need 22.5-second 200m speed. That WOULD probably translate as 46-47 second 400m speed. If you don't have 22.5-second 200m speed, it would be very difficult to be a successful international 800m runner. If you are shooting for Olympics or World Championships and if you don't have that sort of "speed", it would probably be smarter to concentrate on 5000-10000m events. Barry Magee had 25-seconds for his PR for 200m and he was trained as a marathon runner in mind from the get-go. Lydiard figured 25-seconds 200m is good for "only" 1:52 800m. Peter (Snell) gave me a chart for 200m-800m equivalent and he figured you'd need 22.5-second for 1:43-1:46 for 800m. 23-second for 1:46-1:48. If you don't have that sort of speed, would you spend tons of time and effort trying to improve your 200m speed; or would it make more sense to move up the distance? Toshinari Takaoka, Japanese national record holder for 3k, 10k and the marathon, has a tad faster than 24-seconds for 200m and his 800m PR is 1:50. He was the first non-African in the final of 10000m at Sydney Olympics.

Bear in mind; the faster speed that you have, the more advantageous you'd be even in longer events which is quite apparent with the examples of Debaba or Bekele. It is not a matter of how fresh you may be at the finish line; but how fast/quick you are in the final 200-400m. All the stamina in the world won't get you the gold medal if you don't have superior leg-speed; a good example is that Turkish girl who presses the pace in the second half but never beaten Debaba; or Radcliffe who could push the pace but never won major title in 10000m when up against runners with superior kick.

It is important, however, that you work on your speed to maximum first before you check your Basic Speed. Today, with so many recreational runners hitting the roads; when they say, "I'm not fast," and I ask them if they ever actually worked on their leg-speed, 9 out of 10 times the answer is no. You cannot gauge your Basic Speed if you never work on developing it. This is what I call "No Need For Speed" syndrome and has to be retaught otherwise.

[/quote]

This is the same individual that a few years ago, 2006, precisely said something totally different the opposite precisely. You may read an old Nooby H post. I still ask myself wjt this individual, that contradicts himself knows about training really ? NIce guym friendly but is knowledge about distance training methodology is nuts.

Nice work, mate. 2/11/2006 8:03AM - in reply to Skuj

Here’s another way to look at the situation; now this is based on fiction so the actual numbers may not completely accurately reflect the real life situation. Number are completely “for the argument sake.”

We have runner A and runner B. They both have 55-seconds 400m speed and would like to run

800 in 2 minutes. And both of them start getting lactic acid when you go 10 seconds beyond

their best 400m time (this is kind of bogus…); in other words, they will still be “aerobic” while running the speed 10 seconds slower than their best 400m time (you wish…). And both of them can sprint 100m flat out in 12 seconds. Runner A decided to work on his endurance; while runner B decided to hone his speed (now this ain’t gonna happen because even doing interval training all the time WILL improve your aerobic capacity somewhat…). By the race time, runner A developed his aerobic capacity up so now he won’t start getting lactic acid until he runs faster than 62 seconds (7 seconds slower than his best 400m effort). Runner B improved his 400m time down to 53 seconds and, as a result, now his 100m PR is down to 11.5 seconds; but his aerobic capacity remains the same so he will start producing lactic acid at 63 seconds per 400m (53 + 10). Now in the race both of them run the first lap in 60 seconds; 2 seconds faster for runner A’s threshold and 3 seconds faster than runner B’s threshold. It’s only a slight difference in second but we know physiologically that, with the slight increase in speed, lactic acid production shoots up (as Lydiard explained as “it doubles, squares and cubes”). By the

time they both come around the last bend, runner B’s legs are full of lactic acid which creates neuromuscular breakdown and it’s very difficult to contract muscles, he struggles to manage only 17 seconds for the last 100m with “wobbly legs” (anybody who runs 800m knows exactly how THAT feels); whereas runner A, while also getting into oxygen debt, the damage is

not as much as runner B, also “because he’s marathon-trained, he does not feel as tired,” he can sprint close to flat-out in the last 100m (as Snell displayed number of times), perhaps 13 seconds.

The question is who’s the least anaerobic coming into the last bend. The question is how much aerobic can you stay during the race; how high is your aerobic level (threshold pace) compared to the speed at which you’re running the entire race. This is why, in the international competition with Kenyans and Ethiopians with very high aerobic capacity, they are not as much anaerobic coming into the last lap that they can sprint flat-out while others, even if their basic speed is actually faster than theirs, barely maintain the speed with “wobbly legs” full of lactic acid.

Somebody mentioned Bekele’s speed. Yes, he’s very fast even in 400m (sure as hell quite a lot faster than me!) but there are others who can run flat-out 400m against Bekele faster, in fact quite a bit faster. But if they get too far anaerobic by the time they reach the final lap, all the speed in the world is not going to help them out-sprint Bekele. Now THAT is the basic concept

of the Lydiard method. And THAT is the reason why you do all those marathon-conditioning to develop your aerobic capacity as high as possible.

jono wrote:

The physiology section where he explains that we don't 'Go Anaerobic'

In an 800m race, we start Anaerobic then go Aerobic, the complete oposite of the term 'Going Anaerobic'

If you consider such 200m splits for a 1.41 runner:

23.5 about 95% Anaerobic

24.5 about 75% Anaerobic

26.0 about 50% Anaerobic

27.0 about 20% Anaerobic

So the Anerobic fuel sources are running out and oxygen uptake is gradually increasing peaking at around 600m but it cannot supply enough energy to sustain a high pace so the athlete gets slower and slower. The higher Lactate accumulation at the end of the race has nothing to do with the amount of fuel being supplied Anaerobically at that point, is has accumulated over the course of the race and only some of it is used metabolically for aerobic respiration.

jono

Before to say some innapropriate physiology read this that might teach you that you are wrong about aertobic and anaerobic contribution of 800m.

Differential modeling of anaerobic and aerobic metabolism in the 800-m and 1,500-m run

jono wrote:

The physiology section where he explains that we don't 'Go Anaerobic'

There is no such section. Either show us the page numbers or admit you're lying.

Antonio Cabral wrote:

Differential modeling of anaerobic and aerobic metabolism in the 800-m and 1,500-m run

http://www.billat.net/attachments/120_differential_modelling.pdf

You who are so clever, why don't you sum up her findings in a few sentences?

Jono, I have my idea about what happens in the body of a top 800m runner, and my idea is very much more simple than all the physiological hypothesis.

But I’m not interested to discuss this point, in my opinion a speculation not producing any advantage to the knowledge of the real training.

Synthetically : the limiting factor in a competition of 800m is the ability to run with very HIGH ACCUMULATION OF LACTATE. For several factors, when there is a high lactate accumulation in the muscle fibers, the ability to contract and to relax is inhibited.

On the other side, if an athlete doesn’t have a high LACTIC POWER (or Anaerobic Power, what you prefer), he NEVER can reach top results in this event.

For that reason, with training we need to have clear in mind that the three MAIN GOALS to reach are :

1. The DEVELOPMENT of LACTIC CAPACITY, making the athlete able to produce more lactate

(it’s not true we can’t improve this ability, you make confusion between LACTIC POWER and LACTIC CAPACITY)

2. The DEVELOPMENT of the ability to run with high level of lactate saturation, in other words the ablity to run with high lactate accumulation’s tolerance. We call this ability LACTIC RESISTANCE, which is connected with the AEROBIC SYSTEM : stronger aerobically you are, higher lactic resistance you have.

3. The DEVELOPMENT of the ability to remove in short time the lactate from the fibers. This is exactly the role of AEROBIC POWER, and in some way is connected with the permeability of the cell membrane.

All these factors are connected one another, and to forget one of them doesn’t allow any athlete to produce his possible best result.

You can give the name you want to these final goals, this doesn’t change what a coach has to do.

For example, for increasing the final sprint in 1500m, is it more important to work for bettering the SPEED, or for enhancing the AEROBIC POWER and the LACTIC RESISTANCE ?

Our problem is TO RECRUIT THE HIGHER PERCENTAGE OF FAST FIBERS WHEN ALREADY FULL OF LACTATE, and this has very little to do with the maximal speed.

The ability to recruit fast fibers when already saturated is extremely important in every final of competitions, when we speak about 800 and 1500m.

If this is a problem more connected with the nevous system or with the metabolic system, frankly is not in the interest of any REAL coach.

A coach is interested in the SOLUTION of the problem, not in pseudo physiological discussions that are not able to put together different opinion from different physiologists, also because they are not able to do any research with the top athletes.

And do you know why top athletes don’t accept to be objects of any research ?

Because physiologists want to do researches according their protocols, BUT NEVER WANT (OR HAVE THE POSSIBILITY) TO FOLLOW A LONG PERIOD OF REAL TRAINING DURING WHICH THE ATHLETE GOES TO CHANGE HIS PHYSIOLOGICAL PARAMETERS AND VALUES.

So, the only thing physiologists can do, is to have a STATIC PICTURE of a top athlete (for example, all his values at the end of a training period), but not a DYNAMIC MOVIE about what happens in his body, day after day, with his training.

This means physiologists NEVER can give some aid for top athletes, but ask top athletes to be a help for their researches.

And, frankly, nobody among the best athletes in the world is interested in this type of investigation, if the final goal is to write some article with very little signification, compared with the methodology used with the best distance runners in the world.

Antonio Cabral wrote:

But if you want i may say why with facts, not just wit a subjective opinion tha´s what you write.

Talking about facts, what times do the athletes you coach run?

Show us pages

Let´s try to sum up her findings without use the silly “Lydiard said”, sorry “billat said”.

About resume, sorry again, if I want to run one short resume I will copy and past the article conclusion.

In my opinion that are 2 main reasons why to be able to resist to high lactate is the important one factor in 800m as in no one other distance event from 800m up to the marathon.

1/the 800m is the only one run distance that the best performances aren´t done with the last part faster than the pervious , when in the last bouts to win or better classification and/or to get a fast chrono it´s necessary to speed up the pace but it can´t be speed up to faster pace. This is unique among all distance runs.

2/the 800m is the only single run that you can´t do a sensible change of pace out of the final main race pace. Ther´s a data study about each 100m split in the Beijing Olympics, and related to 800m, 1500m, 5000m and 10000m heats and finals. In the finals the faster ABSOLUT 100m bouts among all distances was in the 10000m ! And in 800m not just no one could fast up the main pace in every 100m as well as no one runner could at every 100m split be as fast as Bekele in his fast 100m of the 10000m.

Even the women in the 5000m and 1000m for the fast 1000m split of that both runs did approach somehow the 800m mains splits of the 800m men final !

You can see the data study here

http://www.iaaf.org/news/news/beijing-distance-races-analysed-at-100m-inter

(you can also do the download of the file)

http://www.iaaf.org/download/download?filename=892be278-d7f5-4090-a311-5646bc1b368b.pdf&urlSlug=beijing-olympic-distance-races-timed-at-100m

What this means ? it means that in 800m the main factor of resistance it comes in the fast pace of every olympic flat distance run (faster mean pace than 1500m; 5000m and 10000m of course) but is gained at the level of high anaerobic and high lactate and from FT (Fast Twitch Fiber) demand. Not the speed or dramatic/sensible/ explosive change of pace, from slow to fast.

Of course that it´s necessary to be fast to run 800m. However the ultimate condition or condition “sine qua non” ( it means absolute necessary condition) is resist to high anaerobic demand. Otherwise will be the 400m fats runner the ones that will be the best of 800m.

Not long ago I did a data study hoe many runner from the all time top best 100 in the 800m are also included in the all time 800m rankings. Alberto Juantorena that was WR for both the 4000m and 800m and comes to 800m specialist being a earlier 400m specialist isn´t in the all time best 100 in both 400m and 800m distance actually. Also you have just a few more 800m in the top 100 that are also in ten top 100 of the 1500m, more than in 800m but not more tha just a few runners. What this means ? It means that the fast speed (from from anaerobic system) of a 400m specialist doesn´t feel the need of the 800m event as well as the 1500m rich aerobic doesn´t feel the need of the 800m distance event. It means that the 800m got 3 types of runner, the fast one, the specialist and the “slow one”, but actually the 800m is a distance run that requires a high and specific degree of specialism as no other distance event does. But that high degree of specialism comes primarily from the recruit of Fast Twitches mainly and not from aerobic condition neither explosive speed of pace.