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

Thanks eurodonkey. Summarizer aka rekrunner is just trolling. That's what he does, hours and hours every day every week, month, year on and on and on.

A couple of points about the physiology. Firstly, pyruvate doesn't accumulate in the muscles, it is always immediately converted to lactate, althoug pyruvate is shuttled in venous blood, this is ready for conversion back to lactate in arterial blood and this reaction releases heat which warms the blood.

Secondly, an athleter running in the way you describe is not going to develop either aerobically or anaerobically, these capacities are already developed in a healthy person with good general fitness. This idea of long term aerobic/anaerobic development is just silly mythology that 99.999% of athletes coaches and even exercise physiologists believe in without either questioning the concept or even thinking logically about it. To me ex phys is a joke, the way the most inane collective wisdom like this is accepted as fact. Will it ever change? Not any time soon, the BS just gets piled higher. Strong words yes, but you know, if I don't say this who will?

About my training, I was doing 80-90 miles from april to october, and working full time in a physical job, which probably made me fitter than less physical work. I could not sit in front of a computer for 8 hours a day, it would make me very stressed and frustrated, and probably is not good for anyone?

I prefer fartlek to lots of structured sessions, but occasionally I would do 6x800 in 2.28 with 90 seconds recovery on road or trail to keep the feel of racing effort. I also did 8 x400 with 10-15 seconds recovery, I won't say how fast because no-one will believe me. Sessions like that make me question every coach who ever wrote about how we should train, because something was going on that doesn't get talked about. Very fast recovery without breathing stress, that's what I have been trying to discuss for several years here. Not one poster is interested until my explanation a few days ago finally triggered some interest. Although I am sure rekrunner was being sarcastic when he said that's amazing. This is all really just basic physiology, that gets compartmentalized without being integrated into better concepts of training.

Name and author of the physiology book, please.

If it's all neural, why did you need to run at all in training? Why couldn't you just visualize it and thus light up the same neural circuits?

Renato Canova wrote:

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 ?

jono wrote:

Renato, that improvement is a better running economy yes?

That is neural, better contol of specific muslce stiffness which gives the right power output. All movement is neural, everything you do and everything you think is under nervous system control.

You haven't answered the question, you just say it's neural. When you're driving a car, the electronic system is the neural, and you control the pushing of the pedal, but if you have no gas, oil, water or tires, then the car doesn't go anywhere, and those are not electronic items.

jono wrote:

I also did 8 x400 with 10-15 seconds recovery, I won't say how fast because no-one will believe me. Sessions like that make me question every coach who ever wrote about how we should train, because something was going on that doesn't get talked about.

I think that is nothing new, as I have done the same type of sessions many times; however why not share what you think?

Did you stop training since 2008, or is your body changing and not responding the same way? If the latter, do you feel the neural system is wearing out or some other parts of the system?

Well if you only refer to the base phase, you are not really answering the same question. And to say "he basically gave the same schedule ... for every runner from 800m to the marathon" is factually incorrect -- every book since 1962 gives different schedules.

U.N.O. wrote:

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.

I understand. I wasn't arguing the merits but simply explaining what Lydiard phases can be the same, and which are not. I understand things have changed since then.

Renato Canova wrote:

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

Renato Canova wrote:

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

If you just read what I wrote, you can see that I didn´t say that the aerobic phase can be the same for all the events, I SAID THE EXACT OPPOSITE.

The 800m training program of Lydiard was just an example of a training program that I DON´T RECOMMEND to anyone.

800m runner definitely needs much more variation throughout a year, including sprinting.

When did this ground-breaking neuron fiber/cerebellum research evenutally lead to the formation of the neuro-muscular coordination theory? In the 1840's-1860's? When was it finally linked to exercise, and specifically running? When was it discovered that coordination could be improved with training?So I guess you agree that it's not really correct to say Daniels was "oblivious". I guess he at least knows the role of muscle fibers and the cerebellum."Neuro-muscular coordination" sounds like a very specific and well-defined term. "Running skills" sounds like the general term. Using them interchangeably is a sloppy generalization on your part. Linking all these skills exclusively to "neuro-muscular coordination" is still your unproven hypothesis.All movement is controlled by the nervous system. But this doesn't mean that it is the only source of improvements. That's your unproven hypothesis.The language I don't understand is all of your "original" extensions to basic physiology, offered with no support. You seem to think one part of basic phsyiology cancels other parts, rather than complements them. Don't ex phys books also have chapters on energy systems and metabolic adaptations to training? This is basic stuff.Neuromuscular training is not constantly overlooked. Whenever people talk about improving form and technique, with sprint drills, strength drills, plyometrics, they are talking about this aspect of basic physiology. Here is just one "popular" example from Greg McMillan:http://www.mcmillanrunning.com/index.php/articlePages/page/8"There are two key adaptations that occur from training .... The first is neuromuscular ..."

I'm not summarizer. You must already know I'm well aware of your performances. I don't ever mention it, because running fast doesn't mean you know why you ran fast. Lydiard and Canova seems to have done well training others to run fast, and yet you insist they don't understand the science behind. Apparently that's not even important in a training context.I only ever ask for you to provide references to some of your amazing claims. You are asking us to ignore and discard proven science and basic phsyiology on the strength of your own personal speculation. Is this all just your own original research using yourself and your personal experiences? That's not proof, that's bad science.

jono wrote:

Summarizer aka rekrunner ... Although I am sure rekrunner was being sarcastic ...

Well if you only refer to the base phase, you are not really answering the same question. And to say "he basically gave the same schedule ... for every runner from 800m to the marathon" is factually incorrect -- every book since 1962 gives different schedules.

It´s you who´s incorrect again, rekrunner.

I am really answering the same question, Lydiard programs doesn´t concentrate speed development ESPECIALLY in the base phase, when especially 800m runners should do FREQUENT work to develop speed. So, the answer still is; Lydiard system does not enough to develop speed, especially when speaking about training of an 800m runner.

And I didn´t say that he GAVE EXACTLY THE SAME SCHEDULE TO EVERYONE, I said;

"he basically gave the same schedule (maybe a bit different, but not enough) for every runner from 800m to the marathon"

Be accurate and don´t twist my words over and over again, rekrunner.

OK "he basically gave the same schedule (maybe a bit different, but not enough) for every runner from 800m to the marathon" is still not quite correct. Track training and coordination training phases are way more than "maybe a bit different".

But maybe I missed your point before (and you really were answering the question). Are you saying it's because of neglecting speed completely in the base phase, the 800m runner won't ever develop speed adequately in the later phases?

rekrunner wrote:

Are you saying it's because of neglecting speed completely in the base phase, the 800m runner won't ever develop speed adequately in the later phases?

Exactly, because the anaerobic capacity/speed should already be trained frequently BEFORE trying to improve anaerobic power in the pre-competition and competition phases.

But Lydiard does develop the speed first, in the track training phase, BEFORE the pre-competition "coordination phase" that ties all the raw qualities together (ENDURANCE, STRENGTH, SPEED) in race specific conditions. That doesn't sound very different from your description.What's the issue exactly? Timing? Sequence? Length of training dedicated to speed?It's hard for me to see the relevance of lack of speed during an aerobic phase that ends some 16-18 weeks before the racing begins.

U.N.O. wrote:

rekrunner wrote:

Are you saying it's because of neglecting speed completely in the base phase, the 800m runner won't ever develop speed adequately in the later phases?

Exactly, because the anaerobic capacity/speed should already be trained frequently BEFORE trying to improve anaerobic power in the pre-competition and competition phases.

If you neglect speed work "For as a long time as possible" as it says in the 800m program which I posted, it could mean SEVERAL MONTHS without speed, and you have hard time to develop it even back to the level that it was before. Probably you will lose some speed during every base phase, this is just common sense.

Things will change once there is more supporting evidence:- that contradicts the mythological dogma- that a new "neuro-muscular" model can still explain all the old "metabolic" measurementsYou keep directing us to ex phys books, basic physiology, and Noakes. All of these sources reinforce the metabolic mythology. Is it based on belief, without questioning the concept? No on the contrary, many questions are asked, and experiments are designed from these questions to help bring answers. The mythology is based on many decades of research.I read a "case study" about a Norwegian soccer player, who changed to cycling because of a knee injury. At 12 years old he ran 17:24 in a 5K. But like many kids, preferred playing soccer. After 15 years of soccer training at the elite level, and 9 years playing in the Norwegian elite league, he injured his knee, and decided to switch to cycling. He trained intensively on the bike for 2.5 years. His measured VO2max was 81 ml/kg/min (and 6.8 L/min). This seems to me like a healthy person with a very good general fitness. Was his aerobic capacity fully developed? He changed his cycling training (reducing intensity and doubling the volume), and within 18 weeks his VO2max increased to 88 ml/kg/min (and 7.3 L/min), an increase of 11% (and 7%). Similarly his LT power increased from 375 W to 440 W (14%), and 4.5 to 5.2 W/kg (15%).

jono wrote:

Secondly, an athleter running in the way you describe is not going to develop either aerobically or anaerobically, these capacities are already developed in a healthy person with good general fitness. This idea of long term aerobic/anaerobic development is just silly mythology that 99.999% of athletes coaches and even exercise physiologists believe in without either questioning the concept or even thinking logically about it. To me ex phys is a joke, the way the most inane collective wisdom like this is accepted as fact. Will it ever change? Not any time soon, the BS just gets piled higher. Strong words yes, but you know, if I don't say this who will?

Lydiard main idea of the aerobic block is the same 100mile typical Lydiard marathon block to everybody, and it´s been documented a while. Of course that in the rel field of the concrete application, not everybody that tries Lydiard or that Lydiard advised personally did the 100mile, but it´s Lydiard main concept, it´s well documented and ther´s nothing to contradicts that, except that some folks that talked with Lydiard and said the opposite "He said...i always said to run the marathon 100miles independently of the runner or the distance event, but actually, in private i say differently".

But i may confirm that at least in 3 occasions that Lydiard did coach personally 3 world top class runners he did the same precise interval anaerobic pre-competitive block to that 3 runners. One is Peter Snell, the other is John Davies that did train with Snell during that 1964 period before Tokyo olympics and both did the same every day on, and also 10 years later ( ! ), 1974, Lydiard did coach Pekka Vasala in New Zeland and the training programme during the interval block is also the same for Pekka that Snell and Davies did 10 years ago. Where´s the different training ? In the private mind of some, or that "Lydiard said...".

Eurodonkey

Your question about which on gonna win the race it´s right.

It reminds me the great french cyclist Jacques Anquetil. At his peak season he did win several tours de France. But what the cycle specialists did question at that period was "what is the physiology advantage that Anquetil got that he could smoke, get late on bed even during the Tour the France, and the others with wealthy life more linked with cycling couldn´t win over him" that was the deep question. Actually we know the answer "he was one of the first ones to try blood-transfusions".

We might question the same about Viren for instance or Armstrong.

Why i tell you this facts. To prove that we don´t know, we will never know everything how the several factors do linked one each other and all with all.

You figure it right. We will never know the precise percent, the precise amount each physiologic factor, ad the connection among all that contributes to one performance.

But one thing we know in the running distance. We know the performance the one did and we know who did win and who did lost. That´s the beauty of athletics, that over-exceeds the secret and unknown of some physiology deep nuances.

That's exactly my doubt. Do you have a hard time developing it back to the same level? I don't believe that even several months of aerobic only training causes permanent speed loss. After an off-season aerobic phase, 18 weeks seems like it's long enough. It's not a question of common sense, but experience.

U.N.O. wrote:

If you neglect speed work "For as a long time as possible" as it says in the 800m program which I posted, it could mean SEVERAL MONTHS without speed, and you have hard time to develop it even back to the level that it was before. Probably you will lose some speed during every base phase, this is just common sense.

António,After reading several public Lydiard books, I think I know how to interpret his aerobic block, and when one is ready for the 100 miles/week. I don't need to rely on any private conversations (and I never had any).I hate to comment on your schedules of Snell, Davies, and Vasala, since it is also based on private conversations between you and Nobby. All of my comments come from public information in books, where the track-training and coordination phases are unique for various events. One book even gives different schedules for men and women, and for boys and girls.I'm not surprised if the schedules for Snell, Davies, and Vasala are the same, especially since they shared the same 1500m event (while Snell also ran 800m). This pre-competition phase is Lydiard's "specific" phase, so many of the workouts will be built around the expected race pace, and race distance. From the public books, I know (and surely the athletes knew), how to adjust the schedules based on individual feedback, and any identified weaknesses.