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

Jono, only a part of the increased volume of blood is plasma (this is what happens when there is increase in the globular volume, MCV), but a part is due to the increased number of RBC.

This is a fact not connected with the neural situation, also if the intervention of the neuro-endocrinal system is fundamental for this change.

The other problem is the "capacity" of the container (the cardiocirculatory system), that not automatically is able to host 1 and half liter of liquid more.

That's the reason because only athletes having high "elasticity" in all their tissues can reach the goal of increasing their total blood volume.

So, a consistant part of talent for distance runner depends on the "elasticity" of their tissues. Another important part on their neuroendocrine system.

But a part depends on the variations thy are able to provoke inside their mitocondries and their ribosome inside the cell, and this is due to their training, is not only connected with hereditarial factors.

Abouut the 400m uphill I described above, yes, they must be done without solution of continuity, therefore without rest between sprints and exercises.

Renato Canova wrote:

Abouut the 400m uphill I described above, yes, they must be done without solution of continuity, therefore without rest between sprints and exercises.

Thanks. I wasn't sure what "without solution of continuity" meant.

There was a runner a year older than me in my first year of high school who was in the top three on the cross country team, and I was top six. He started racing a circuit quite often including a wall to climb over, a rope climb, a series of tires to step through, and a few other stations, all with sprints in between, and finishing with a sprint from one corner of the field to the other. He broke the school record for the circuit, that spring broke the school record of 1:58 for the 880 by one second which had stood since 1932, and the next year he ran 1:52.5, still weighing only 127 pounds, the latter achievement in 1963.

Does anyone have a link to Renato explaining marathoners doing ciruits with 72 second quarters, improving to 66? quarters? It was recent but I've not been able to find it.

SlowFatMaster wrote:

What I'm getting at is, are you saying that Wottle and Ryun running 53x/51x in their world records supports your theory about world-class nervous systems and the exquisite pace judgment that goes with them? And that Kipketer running 48.3/52/9 in one of his world records also supports your theory?

It's not my theory. Neuromuscular co-ordination theory has been developed over 200 years or more and conceptualized as a theory from the 1840's to the 1860's. The fact that you and Jack Daniels PhD and Jan Olbrecht PhD are oblivious to this is irrelevant. Y'all should study this chapter in any good ex phys book, like I been tellin ya for years, but y'all just too lazy.

Thanks U.N.O. I agree myosin expression is specific to eahc race, but if you train properly for an 800m race, it is not going to be a problem. But that doesn't mean that Perter Snell's training was wrong for example. His results in the early 60's were as good as Rahsid Ramzi's in 2008 but without the drugs. That is a point which gets lost in all the endless debate, most of it pseudoscience.

If you insist, jono:

What I'm getting at is, are you saying that Wottle and Ryun running 53x/51x in their world records supports THE theory about world-class nervous systems and the exquisite pace judgment that goes with them? And that Kipketer running 48.3/52.9 in one of his world records also supports THAT theory?

Besides Noakes, what are the good ex phys books with chapters on neuromuscular co-ordination theory that you like?

Renato, the best athletes don't need 'extra' red blood cells to be the best or beat those who manipulate illegally. That is my point.

About the fatigue in an 800m race, this is due to the reduction in available ATP not to acidosis, that is just a by-product of the Anaerobic ATP turnover from Glycogen/Glucose breakdown.

Both Ryun and Wottle were racing with a different tactic to Kipketer weren't they?

To illustrate the theory for longer races; in a 2.03 marathon, the muscles have to maintain the right muscles stiffness the run 4.40 miling. For each race the specificity of neuromotor skills is different.

Any good ex phys book should have a chapter on neuro motor skills. I have a book from 1982 with a good description and it was a well developed theory long before that. When I first got interested in cycling races in the mid seventies there it was driiled into me that good pedalling technique was the key to good speed and endurance. Why is neuro-motor conditoning not taugth amongst the running community? Because people give to much credence to the wrong authors and researchers.

PhD's are often very ignorant about research outside of their own tunnel visionary obsession with their own thesis. Why are they so revered? Maybe their reputation is built on self promotion or fads amongst other writers to promote their work at the expense of others?

"I have a book from 1982 with a good description and it was a well developed theory long before that."

What is the name of the book and the author?

This part isn't quite right. The aerobic and hill phases can be the same from 800m to marathon, but thereafter the Lydiard schedules are unique for the different events. And he gave guidelines how to use personal feedback to adapt the scheduled training to your strengths and weaknesses and present condition.

U.N.O. wrote:

... So I can say that Lydiard was wrong on this case, because for what I know he basically gave the same schedule (maybe a bit different, but not enough) for every runner from 800m to the marathon. From this you can figure out my answer to the original question of the thread; Does the Lydiard/Wetmore system do enough to develop speed? The answer is no, at least when speaking about the training of an 800m runner. ...

Your theory was all about pace judgement. Is that the same thing as neuro-muscular coordination?Who were some of the great scientific pioneers developing neuro-muscular coordination theory in 1813?Why do you think Jack Daniels, who made running economy popular in training, is oblivious to neuro-muscular coordination?

jono wrote:

It's not my theory. Neuromuscular co-ordination theory has been developed over 200 years or more and conceptualized as a theory from the 1840's to the 1860's. The fact that you and Jack Daniels PhD and Jan Olbrecht PhD are oblivious to this is irrelevant. Y'all should study this chapter in any good ex phys book, like I been tellin ya for years, but y'all just too lazy.

Sir Charles Bell was making discoveries about Motor Neuron fibers in 1811. In 1823 Marie Jean Pierre Flourens stated that the cerebellum regulates motor activity.

It Was Hill and Lupton who first hypothesized running economy back in the early 1920's. Daniels research offets measurements to support this now accepted as theory, but offers no explanation for it.

Neuromuscular co-ordination is a general term for running skills. These include speed, endurance and speed-endurance as well as pace judgement and avoiding/navigating around obstacles etc etc.

All movement is controlled by the nervous system, so it has to be considered as the fundamental basis of running fitness improvements. This fact of basic physiology gets overlooked constantly by the letsrun experts and writers the world over. When (if ever) it becomes trendy to talk and write about it, all of these experts will suddenly become proponents of this aspect of basic physiology. Until then, I appear to be talking some strange language that they don't understand.

rekrunner wrote:

This part isn't quite right. The aerobic and hill phases can be the same from 800m to marathon, but thereafter the Lydiard schedules are unique for the different events. And he gave guidelines how to use personal feedback to adapt the scheduled training to your strengths and weaknesses and present condition.

U.N.O. wrote:

... So I can say that Lydiard was wrong on this case, because for what I know he basically gave the same schedule (maybe a bit different, but not enough) for every runner from 800m to the marathon. From this you can figure out my answer to the original question of the thread; Does the Lydiard/Wetmore system do enough to develop speed? The answer is no, at least when speaking about the training of an 800m runner. ...

Yes it was right, because I meant the Lydiard base phase, where I can see ZERO speed workouts even for 800m runner. You cannot be so far away from speed throughout the base phase, if you aim to run a fast 800m.

800m base phase training program from the book called "Running to the top - Arthur Lydiard"

"800 Metres

For as a long time as possible

Monday Long aerobic running 30/60 minutes

Tuesday Long aerobic running 60/90 minutes

Wednesday Long aerobic running 30/60 minutes

Thursday Long aerobic running 60/90 minutes

Friday Long aerobic running 30/60 minutes

Saturday Long aerobic running 60 minutes

Sunday Long aerobic running 90 minutes or more"

summarizer wrote:

That you should be an accomplished runner is as unbelievable as your physiology claims.

Actually Jono did run those times. A very impressive year.

This is what we used to call a "category error" in philosophy classes.

Athlete A goes to the track, sprints the straights and jogs the bends, building up from 10 reps to 40 over the course of a few weeks, thereby developing the skill of running fast and coordinating the timing of his muscular contractions.

Athlete B goes to the track, sprints the straights and jogs the bends, , building up from 10 reps to 40 over the course of a few weeks, producing tons of pyruvate and flooding the champagne glasses with lactate and developing his aerobic and anerobic capacities.

Which one will go faster come race day?

I think we would learn a LOT more from this question...

Jono, can you give us an outline of how you trained in 2008?

With the due respect for the athlete J.O., I don't think the examination of a training of somebody 40-50 years old, with PB of 4' - 15'15" - 31' something, can really give some information about the system for reaching the peak when you are a top runner 25 years old.

However, I agree about your neural analysis, but obviously I don't agree with your idea that the bioenergetic system can't be developed.

If the answer of our body is neural only, how can you explain the fact that, when preparing specifically a Marathon (with correct volume and intensity), you go to reduce the produced lactate (running at the same speed), with a clear diminution of glycogen (and increase of fatty acids) in the fuel the athlete use ?

Here there is a set of sets SPEED / LACTATE / HEART RATE, named Faraggiana-Gigliotti test, made with the Olympic Marathon Champion 1988 (GELINDO BORDIN), in the period including the best 15 months of his career.

The test consisted in 5 x 2000m run at even pace (using an acustic rabbit), increasing the speed of every test of 2.5 sec per km, with a recivery of 45" (time for taking blood from the ear).

We can see the results of 5 different tests, carried out in the following days :

12 Jun 1987 (start of the specific period before WCh)

02 Jul 1987

17 Aug 1987 (last test before WCH, Gelindo won bronze)

29 Mar 1988 (fundamental period for Seoul Olympics)

16 Sep 1988 (last test before winning Gold medal)

We can see the times of every 2000m, lactate and HR.

1 2 3 4 5

6:20 1.9 1.3 1.1 1.0 ---

171 167 167 158

6:15 2.5 2.1 1.4 1.3 1.45

175 171 168 161 159

6:10 3.1 2.4 2.0 1.6 1.50

177 175 172 164 164

6:05 3.8 3.1 2.1 2.15 1.75

178 179 174 170 168

6:00 5.9 4.9 3.0 2.85 2.40

185 181 177 172 172

5:50 --- --- --- --- 3.30

173

Speed per Km of Marathon Pace :

3:09 3:07.7 3:05 3:03.5 3:01

How is possible to see, increasing the SPECIFIC VOLUME OF KM RUN ABOUT MARATHON PACE (from 95% to 105% of the planned speed, in case of Bordin from 2'50" and 3'12"),

the muscle fibers learn how to use less glycogen and more fatty acid, and this is not a neural factor.

Jono, running technique can't be developed forever, and surely, if a coach is able to work in this direction, you can have big advantages in the first 2-3 years, but after you have a STABILIZATION of your technique.

In spite of that stabilization, the athlete continue to improve. The question is : WHY ?

And the answer is : BECAUSE WE PRODUCE VARIATIONS IN THE METABOLIC SYSTEM.

So, correct training is a combination of the two factors.

If it's wrong not to give the right importance to the development of neural factors, it's also wrong not to give importance to the development of metabolic factors.

I try to write in another way, because when written in the post the various values are mixed and it's difficult to understand

6:20--1.9-(171)-1.3-(167)-1.1-(167)-1.0-(158) -------

6:15--2.5-(175)-2.1-(171)-1.4-(168)-1.3-(161)-1.45-(159)

6:10--3.1-(177)-2.4-(175)-2.0-(172)-1.6-(164)-1.50-(164)

6:05--3.8-(178)-3.1-(179)-2.1-(174)-2.15(170)-1.75-(168)

6:00--5.9-(185)-4.9-(181)-3.0-(177)-2.85(172)-2.40-(172)

5:50------------------------------------ 3.30-(173)

MP 3:09------3:07.7-------3:05------3:03.5-----3:01

5:50 is a 2000 run only during the last test, that is :

6:15 1.45 (159)

6:10 1.50 (164)

6:05 1.75 (168)

6:00 2.40 (172)

5:50 3.30 (173)

UNO and Rekrunner, I don't agree the aerobc phase can be the same for all the events.

A specialist of 800 (and also 1500) needs to run FASTER and SHORTER (obviously) the continuous run. He can also run sometimes a very long and slow run (we call this GENERAL AEROBIC RESISTANCE), but does a mistake if doesn't run something shorter and faster, BECAUSE THE DIRET SUPPORT FOR HIS ANAEROBIC SYSTEM IS THE AEROBIC POWER, not the aerobic resistance.

Since VO2 max is not very different from the result of a competition of 3000m, THIS TYPE OF SPEED AND THIS TYPE OF DURATION MUST BE INCLUDED IN THE AEROBIC TRAINING OF SHORTER SPECIALISTS.

So, we can think that running 8'-10' at max speed for a 800m specialist, or 15' for a 1500m specialist (or a competition of 3000m and 5000m, in the two different cases) is a SPECIAL training, very useful for increasing the AEROBIC ABILITY of the two runners, while a very long run doesn't have any effect, after a SHORT period of adaptation (of sure not long as in Lydiard's plan).

Another thing : more an athlete has continuity in his training, faster he has to go for his long run, otherwise does something which at the beginning is useless, but after 2-3 years becomes DAMAGEOUS because there are no more stimuli in aerobic direction for his body.

Training is the ANSWER of the body to some STIMULUS, and stimuli can have two direction only : or as EXTENSION, or as INTENSITY.

Since it's not possible to continue to indefinitely extend the long run (otherwise you prepare the race of 100 km...), athletes need to increase the intensity.

But, because also the intensity can't increase indifinitely, it has to be increased INSIDE the volume.

So, at the end of the story, the final key of training is TO INCREASE THE VOLUME OF THE INTENSITY, and this happens for every event.

Renato: How do Bordin's results from the Gigliotti test above compare with Baldini's from 2004?

Also, do you think it's better for reducing the amount of lactate at marathon race pace to train at marathon race pace or at lactate threshold pace?

Thanks.

Hi Renato:

I know this test was later modified so that when Baldini did it, he finished with a 1200 all out to see how fast he could go and how high he could get the lactate. You called this a test of the glycogen in the tank as I recall.

Have you done these tests on the "new turbo diesel" marathoners? If so, how did the results differ? If not, what would you expect to find?

Thanks in advance.