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

You are wrong, that is not private either. The scheules of Peter and Davies are published in “Run to the Top” and the schedule of Vasala is published in a Finn book.

This is the part of your post i surely agree. IOI. Absolutely.

It's completely pointless me trying to debate anything with you. Whatever I write you will twist it around, miss the point etc etc on and on and on. I think you either have a very poor memory, or you are just looking to extend arguments for the sake of it.

Where in the 1962 original AL book "Run to the Top" does it mention the ACTUAL schedules of Snell & Davies. All AL published then was a "1 Mile schedule" .. page 96 - 99. At no stage is any athlete in particular mentioned .. The schedules published were 3 month ones and these are the ones that Al said he never wanted to publish. In addition some of the original "Arthur's Boys" in a "private conversation with me", (actually it was over a beer at the Lynndale clubrooms after a run !!!) said they always wondered why he published 3 month schedules when they trained on 2 month schedules !!. The conspiracy continues. LOL !!!

St Judes hill wrote:

Where in the 1962 original AL book "Run to the Top" does it mention the ACTUAL schedules of Snell & Davies. All AL published then was a "1 Mile schedule" .. page 96 - 99. At no stage is any athlete in particular mentioned .. The schedules published were 3 month ones and these are the ones that Al said he never wanted to publish. In addition some of the original "Arthur's Boys" in a "private conversation with me", (actually it was over a beer at the Lynndale clubrooms after a run !!!) said they always wondered why he published 3 month schedules when they trained on 2 month schedules !!. The conspiracy continues. LOL !!!

One more piece of the puzzle what´s true and what´s false about Lydiard.

The relevant part of what you post is that we might take for grant and that goes straight to Lydiard training methodology it that was over a beer at the Lynndale clubrooms that you did a talk with Arthur. This is decisive to analyse Lydiard training !

Also he always said that he hated fish, however in that Lynndale clubroom i imagine that he did eat fish and chips as dish. You see, in private he loves fish, but by the danger of be misunderstood he said in public that he hated fish.

Conclusion. Lydiard is a big puzzle, we never know what is true and what is false.

Within Lydiard periodization, after the aerobic phase, I can have 6 weeks of hill circuits, 6 weeks of track training, and 6 weeks of coordination (practice races and time trials). This is what Lydiard does to develop speed, even for the 800m runner. All of these phases are designed to develop strength and flexibility (helps avoid injury), then develop top speed (6 weeks is more than enough), then coordinate all the qualities before you really have to race. We can start carefully, and we don't do full rounded speed workouts right away.I just can't imagine that a 12 week aerobic phase that ends in January can still impact race times in June.

You cannot debate without arguments. I would just like you to provide some external support for some of your radical ideas.If you want your ideas to gain traction, you have to work harder than telling us to read any good ex phys book, or to read Noakes Lore of Running, or it's "basic physiology". The burden is not on us to try and figure out what you mean.And you have to work harder to address some real world blatant contradictions.Give us a reason to believe your conceptualization and logic skills extend beyond the borders of your imagination.

jono wrote:

It's completely pointless me trying to debate anything with you. Whatever I write you will twist it around, miss the point etc etc on and on and on. I think you either have a very poor memory, or you are just looking to extend arguments for the sake of it.

Love this conspiracy stuff !!!. Truth : (1) AL hated fish. (2) Fish & Chips in Lynndale Clubrooms. Rare .. Most went home after a few beers as usually there was a Party to attend !!!.

rekrunner wrote:

Within Lydiard periodization, after the aerobic phase, I can have 6 weeks of hill circuits, 6 weeks of track training, and 6 weeks of coordination (practice races and time trials). This is what Lydiard does to develop speed, even for the 800m runner. All of these phases are designed to develop strength and flexibility (helps avoid injury), then develop top speed (6 weeks is more than enough), then coordinate all the qualities before you really have to race. We can start carefully, and we don't do full rounded speed workouts right away.

I just can't imagine that a 12 week aerobic phase that ends in January can still impact race times in June.

12 weeks base phase? That´s quite short (in the program I posted it says as long a time as possiple, remember, also in my book the hill phase lasts only 4 weeks), but that´s still unnecessary long to completely neglect speed, if you try to reach optimum results.

Mr. Cabral,

Since Daniel Rudisha has been out for 6mo. with a knee injury, what kind of training do you think he will start off with ? Speed or distance?

Why do people revere Lydiard?

Because he coached multiple Olympic champions and world record breakers.

Of course all these things are subservient to your racing schedule. All these phases can be shortened, and even skipped, to best accomodate your preparation for racing.As long a possible could also be shorter than 12 weeks. In the 1962 book, the "example newcomer" was only 10 weeks of marathon conditioning -- the rest of the year was cross-country, track, road-racing, with lots of weekend club racing.You seem to take for granted that neglecting speed for will lead to sub-optimal development. I could understand arguments that it takes longer to regain your speed, but cannot believe that it is impossible to regain former speed, due to months of aerobic only running. (Actually it's often stated that top speed comes back in 3-4 weeks of track training).Help me understand why it's not just an irrational fear.

rekrunner wrote:

I could understand arguments that it takes longer to regain your speed, but cannot believe that it is impossible to regain former speed, due to months of aerobic only running. (Actually it's often stated that top speed comes back in 3-4 weeks of track training).

Help me understand why it's not just an irrational fear.

I´ll try to help you to understand.

By speed development I don´t mean that you´re only trying to develop/regain your maximum speed. It´s much easier to built the ability to run a single sprint at maximum speed than the ability to run multiple FAST sprints. For example, if you could do sessions like 2-3x200m + 2-3x150 + 2-3x100m in ~23-22.5-17-11.5sec each or whatever you were capable of in the previous spring/summer, it takes plenty of hard work to even regain that level, not to mention developing it. Maybe you will see unnecessary soon that you never reach that level again and possibly you have to move up in distance to set another pb´s.

You know, it´s easier to maintain a certain ability than to regain it. That´s why I cannot understand why let a lot of the hard work done in the previous year, to be wasted for no reason. Hope this clarifies what I meant.

Simple answer wrote:

Because he coached multiple Olympic champions and world record breakers.

So?

Given the reality that one's performance level is strongly influenced by factors other than the nuances of his training plan, why would anyone be stupid enough to conclude that Lydiard training is uniquely responsible for the success of the athletes he coached?

Are runners so stuck in the dark ages that they haven't figured out that genetics > training yet?

rekrunner wrote:

You cannot debate without arguments. I would just like you to provide some external support for some of your radical ideas.

If you want your ideas to gain traction, you have to work harder than telling us to read any good ex phys book, or to read Noakes Lore of Running, or it's "basic physiology". The burden is not on us to try and figure out what you mean.

And you have to work harder to address some real world blatant contradictions.

Give us a reason to believe your conceptualization and logic skills extend beyond the borders of your imagination.

These ideas are not radical, they are basic phsyiology, read an exercise physiology textbook. The problem that I am addressing is the fact that the vast majority of people who talk about ex phys simply don't have enough background knowledge and that includes most coaches and researchers.

The problem is one of conceptualization; conventional wisdom is not the same as acepted theory. The problem you create is to hold up conventional wisdom as fact and challenge basic physiology as if it were some weird language that I have invented.

jono wrote:

These ideas are not radical, they are basic phsyiology, read an exercise physiology textbook. The problem that I am addressing is the fact that the vast majority of people who talk about ex phys simply don't have enough background knowledge and that includes most coaches and researchers.

Jono, please recommend one such book. I am genuinely curious and not trying to start an argument. I have read several and from memory they all talk about what I'd call a "chemical" view of performance - fuels, ATP / Lactic anarobic / aerobic energy systems.

Are you saying that further improvement in elite athletes comes from more finely-tuned timing of muscle contractions and developing a more perfect stride? Or are you talking about the Central Governor idea, that performance could come from getting your brain to accept it won't die if you go faster than you previously though possible? Or something else?

You make a point but lets look at the "old" picture first. AL started Coaching in his neighbourhood. The 3 Olympic medallists from the 1960 Olympics lived within a stone throw of each other. Count in another top 6 runner (5km) from 1964., same answer. Even the athletes who did not run well in the '60 & '64 Olympics came from the same neighbourhoods. On top of that Owairaka and Lynndale clubs through from the 1950's to the mid/late 1990's had 2hr20 -30 marathon runners coming out their ears. All held down "normal" jobs and had families. All lived in the Western suburbs of West Auckland. Common factor to all this was that little man who lived in Wainright Ave, Mt Roskill.

John Davies was the only athlete AL Coached who lived out of Auckland at that time.

Now Antonio that is "TRUTH" !!!!

anaerobic > * wrote:

Simple answer wrote:

Because he coached multiple Olympic champions and world record breakers.

So?

Given the reality that one's performance level is strongly influenced by factors other than the nuances of his training plan, why would anyone be stupid enough to conclude that Lydiard training is uniquely responsible for the success of the athletes he coached?

Are runners so stuck in the dark ages that they haven't figured out that genetics > training yet?

Actually you are on to something. Athletic success depends on far more than only genetics and good training methods.

coachkritter wrote:

Mr. Cabral,

Since Daniel Rudisha has been out for 6mo. with a knee injury, what kind of training do you think he will start off with ? Speed or distance?

When one runner is free of injury, and wants´to start with some training, he might start with both- fast short runs and easy pace distance, of course. But in progressive style, coming back from an inactive period of training, shape condition goes down, and he isn´t able to run at his best distance pace when he is/was in good condition and of course he isn´t/wasn´t able to train as fast speed pace when he is at his best top shape condition.

However he must try something of both types longer and fast at the level of his actual condition. For example or 3 days he does to 40min aerobic run and the 3rd day he might start with some fast pace intervals, and more 2 or 3 days of aerobic runs and the next day do some hill intervals, What´s the problem ?

I don´t say that´s what he did i say what could have been done if what can be done if someone wants an effective enhance of his shape condition. After he did that for a while he passes to the next level of specificity. Everything progressive, not blow up training, but good-sense fast training.

Look, i did coach hundred of runners, not as good as Rudisha of course, and during this 40 years i coach, people of different talent and different level of performance, i did try many types of training periodisation. But the one that takes to runner to best performances is not the one that you got a early period/phase without nothing but aerobic training. The kind of training that leads to individual better performances is the one that since the start of the periodisation includes all kinds of pace intensities and goes progressively goes from from generic to specific, as to say attempts to be faster and longer at the same time and during the same period.

Different people got different talents that leads to different level of individual performance, but no one can take the best of him with a long period with miss of anaerobic training.