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?
I don´t know what Rudisha did precisely. But one thing i know about the training of Rudisha after the injury. Is that he didn´t Lydiard training.
He did Brother o´Colm training instead, that much better that the Lydirad one related to world top class runners.
A "little" different than Lydiard:
(Reuters) - Kenyan athletes are in danger of hitting the wall unless traditional training methods are replaced with more modern thinking, according to the coach of Olympic 800 metres champion David Rudisha. Brother Colm O'Connell, an Irish missionary who has coached the 800m world record holder since he was a teen, believes pushing runners to do more mileage or pound the track with greater intensity no longer works. "Sometimes I think maybe we flail our athletes," the 64-year-old, told Reuters in Iten, a small village in Kenya's Rift Valley where most of the country's champion runners train. "Perhaps it happened in London a bit - a lot of our athletes went and underperformed," O'Connell said, referring to Kenya's performance at the 2012 Olympics where Athletics Kenya targeted 12 golds but the east African country won only two. "I felt there was a flatness to our running. We all felt so jaded in London. "You're flailing an area that's already close to 100 percent and the runner is banging his head off the ceiling by doing more and more and more of the same thing." O'Connell's idea to create Iten's first training camp in 1989 is now viewed as the catalyst that transformed the village into a global athletics hub.
HOLISTIC APPROACH
O'Connell, who has coached 25 world champions and five Olympic champions, believes modern running times are so fast that breaking records requires a more holistic approach.
"Look at how many Kenyans (who run 800m) come down to 1.43 and 1.44 and get stuck," he said. "If you want a guy to improve, you must raise the ceiling. You must give him capacity to improve." With these concerns in mind, O'Connell began to alter his coaching philosophy about seven years ago. He wanted to discover training methods that would make a substantive difference rather than bring incremental improvements.
"I asked myself that question a thousand times, day and night," he said. "That's when I started to think: let me look at exercise work, core strength, pilates, the way you run, the way you carry yourself, the way you relate to the ground." About that time O'Connell had started to work with Rudisha, who would go on to embody the new approach. "It has resulted in how Rudisha runs: very much controlled, very much smooth."
Ian Kiprono, a 27-year-old former gymnast who is often seen doing pilates and stretching with Rudisha, became O'Connell's assistant and implemented many of his new ideas.
"I wanted someone with a gymnastics background, someone who can really develop poise, core strength, how you relate to the ground, pushing off the ground," O'Connell said.
"He was able to put into practice things I had worked out in my head."
RELAXATION TECHNIQUES
Gymnasts and runners have more in common than people realise, O'Connell said. "It's not the opposition that makes you tired, it's gravity. Gymnasts just deal with their body and how you handle things in space and (Kiprono) has a great sense of that." O'Connell, who has lived in Iten for 37 years, said relaxation techniques are part of Kiprono's exercise sessions rather than just sweat. Last year in London, Rudisha became the first and only man to run 800 in under one minute 41 seconds, smashing the world record with a time of 1:40.91 in what was acclaimed the greatest race ever over the distance.
Rudisha only ran five races in 2012 before the London Games and in the month before the Olympics, the tall Maasai runner barely trained on the track at all. "I just said to him, let's do just nice, confidence building, quality - not volume - training for the next few weeks," O'Connell said inside his humble home within the grounds of St Patrick's High School for boys in Iten.
"So I brought that concept in to his training and we would only go on the track and just do very short, crisp, high quality interval training. "When he came off the track, I wanted him to feel good."
While I appreciate the clarification, this doesn't answer my two doubts:1) Will 12 weeks of aerobic only development lead to permanent speed loss -- an impossibility to regain this year what you achieved last year, directly caused by many weeks of neglect? Or does the aerobic conditioning make it even easier to achieve the same performance?2) Is it really as hard as you say to recover last year's ability, let alone develop from that.How is it possible to answer these questions? Maybe some concrete examples. Which runners were fast, but got slower each year, due to an "as many weeks as possible" neglect of speed. I've heard lots of stories about runners obsessed with speed, who improved once they stopped neglecting endurance. But rarely, outside of the Japanese, have I heard any experiences about runners neglecting speed.
U.N.O. wrote:
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.
At this point, you are still coming back with "they are basic phsyiology, read an exercise physiology textbook"?The problem I'm addressing is who bears the burden of understanding you. This isn't about "convential wisdom" or "basic physiology". Are you alone, or is there some supporting evidence behind. If it's basic physiology, why are you unable to provide any support, beyond global references to every ex. phys. text book?If you leave it up to me to read textbooks on my own and draw my own conclusions, don't blame me if I actually read them and draw my own conclusions. You've removed yourself from influencing my thoughts by your own choice.But my mind is still open. Just prove me wrong! Here is one radical jono-ism I was unable to find in any description of basic physiology in any ex phys textbook: "Aerobic capacity is fully developed in mature healthy adults." Can you name a single person, book, paper, journal, website, etc., who has expressed this same idea? You said 1% is too much. You told us to read "Noakes", and he said 5-15% expected improvement, and up to 60% for elites. I gave a concrete example of an elite athlete after 17.5 years of healthy mature training, moving from 81 to 88 in 5 weeks, an improvement of 11% (and 7% absolutely).
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.
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.
I never said that 12 weeks of aerobic only development will lead to permanent speed loss, so your question doesn´t belong to me. And to train speed year round with a weekly sprints session or so doesn´t mean that you neglect endurance. Read again; "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."
It´s impossible to give you exact names who followed Lydiard or did only aerobic running for months and "got slower each year" I NEVER SAID THAT EITHER, SO EITHER YOUR SECOND QUESTION IS NOT MY BUSINESS.
I´m done discussing this subject with you, because you constantly twist my words, just like jono said.
What I said earlier about losing speed DURING EVERY BASE PHASE was "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." So there´s a missundestanding, I didn´t say that you will lose speed permanently, I only said that "probably you will lose some speed DURING every base phase", and by this I meant that you will lose some of the level you reached in the year before DURING BASE PHASE, and have a harder time to develop it back again than it would be if you just continue the speed work throughout the base phase.
Possibly you will lose some of the speed ability, which I prescribed before, during the base phase no matter what you do, but not that drastically than by neglecting speed completely. If this is the case then you can focus on this speed development a short period (if needed) after the hard base work, before building the anaerobic power. This would demand a lot longer time if you only did aerobic running during the base phase.
Interesting the arguing/debating going on here but one thing I haven't seen mentioned here and its relevance is Basic/inherent speed of the individual,surely that is never lost but only needs to be developed.How its developed seems to be the contentious issue here.What I find amusing is that this forum is in anonymity so therefore how can any claims on anything physiological/scientific be relevant
U.N.O. wrote:
What I said earlier about losing speed DURING EVERY BASE PHASE was "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." So there´s a missundestanding, I didn´t say that you will lose speed permanently, I only said that "probably you will lose some speed DURING every base phase", and by this I meant that you will lose some of the level you reached in the year before DURING BASE PHASE, and have a harder time to develop it back again than it would be if you just continue the speed work throughout the base phase.
Possibly you will lose some of the speed ability, which I prescribed before, during the base phase no matter what you do, but not that drastically than by neglecting speed completely. If this is the case then you can focus on this speed development a short period (if needed) after the hard base work, before building the anaerobic power. This would demand a lot longer time if you only did aerobic running during the base phase.
rekrunner wrote:
At this point, you are still coming back with "they are basic phsyiology, read an exercise physiology textbook"?
The problem I'm addressing is who bears the burden of understanding you. This isn't about "convential wisdom" or "basic physiology". Are you alone, or is there some supporting evidence behind. If it's basic physiology, why are you unable to provide any support, beyond global references to every ex. phys. text book?
If you leave it up to me to read textbooks on my own and draw my own conclusions, don't blame me if I actually read them and draw my own conclusions. You've removed yourself from influencing my thoughts by your own choice.
But my mind is still open. Just prove me wrong! Here is one radical jono-ism I was unable to find in any description of basic physiology in any ex phys textbook: "Aerobic capacity is fully developed in mature healthy adults." Can you name a single person, book, paper, journal, website, etc., who has expressed this same idea? You said 1% is too much. You told us to read "Noakes", and he said 5-15% expected improvement, and up to 60% for elites. I gave a concrete example of an elite athlete after 17.5 years of healthy mature training, moving from 81 to 88 in 5 weeks, an improvement of 11% (and 7% absolutely).
I have already answered this question earlier in the thread and I specifically addressed that answer to you. You keep doing this over and over and over, post after post, year after year. You have some kind of learning difficulty rekrunner.
eurodonkey wrote:
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?
I am refering to neuro-motor skills, an area of science that tends to be neglected in books about training or just refered to vaguely, when in fact all movement is controlled by the nervous system. Billions of nerve signals happening all of the time when you perform any task. Developing a specific skill involves building and strengthening nerve pathways, an area where development has no known limits. I haven't read Brain Training For Runners by Matt Fitzgerald but maybe it is worth a look?
This concept was something I learned back in the 70's so it seems obvious to me, but very strange to most people on this thread.
jono wrote:
I am refering to neuro-motor skills, an area of science that tends to be neglected in books about training or just refered to vaguely, when in fact all movement is controlled by the nervous system. Billions of nerve signals happening all of the time when you perform any task. Developing a specific skill involves building and strengthening nerve pathways, an area where development has no known limits. I haven't read Brain Training For Runners by Matt Fitzgerald but maybe it is worth a look?
This concept was something I learned back in the 70's so it seems obvious to me, but very strange to most people on this thread.
Thank you. That clarifies your position enormously.
If you are trying to develop strength - say, in a deadlift or press - I would agree that the potential is huge. Most people only can only fire 25% of the fibres in a coordinated manner, which is why a world record deadlift is 4x what a normally fit person can do. So people can improve for years in the slow lifts.
But in running or jumping, they don't. They tend towards a limit, quickly. When Mo Farah goes from 13:09 mid pack in 2009 to 12:57 best in world, thats a mere 1.2% improvement. How can anyone claim to know how much of that was neural, how much was VO2max/lactate/whatever, and how much was maybe dropping 1.2% of bodyweight in fat? (In this case I'd tend to neural, personally, because Al Sal said the strength work did it...).
I read Brain Training and was underwhelmed. The problem is, it's hard to point to any kind of training which solely works physiology, or which solely works neurology. All we know is that some patterns of training seem to make you faster.
If you think there are certain kinds of training session which are particularly effective because of neural effects, please share. That would be a valuable and concrete thing to discuss which might get this on a concrete track. Even if it's about helping other old geezers drop under 4:10 for a 1500, and unhelpful to Kenyans at 3:30.
--
I think running as a whole went way too far into the 'energy pathways' explanations for a few decades and welcome the recent focus on technique and strength. But I'm with Canova - if you get faster, both sides probably improved. I don't think we have done the studies to say it is mostly one or mostly the other, or to say that world class athletes never vary by more than 1% in their VO2-max (which is all you need to jump from semi-finalist to gold).
Sorry -- you are completely right. I misunderstood this part. I understood you to say that we lose speed every time we do the aerobic base phase, that it was too hard to ever get it back, let alone develop, and moreover, that this was common sense.
U.N.O. wrote:
What I said earlier about losing speed DURING EVERY BASE PHASE was "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." So there´s a missundestanding, I didn´t say that you will lose speed permanently, I only said that "probably you will lose some speed DURING every base phase", and by this I meant that you will lose some of the level you reached in the year before DURING BASE PHASE, and have a harder time to develop it back again than it would be if you just continue the speed work throughout the base phase.
Possibly you will lose some of the speed ability, which I prescribed before, during the base phase no matter what you do, but not that drastically than by neglecting speed completely. If this is the case then you can focus on this speed development a short period (if needed) after the hard base work, before building the anaerobic power. This would demand a lot longer time if you only did aerobic running during the base phase.
Your answer was also unsupported. You said you did a lot of research and can argue with the best. Can you supplement your answers with references to some of this vast research?You just told us you learned a lot in the '70's about neuro-motor skills. From whom? Does neuro-science replace metabolic peripheral changes, or complement it?I still recommend Matt Fitzgerald to you, because his explanations of some of your ideas are better. You might not learn more about science, but maybe you will be able to express a few concepts better.
jono wrote:
I have already answered this question earlier in the thread and I specifically addressed that answer to you. You keep doing this over and over and over, post after post, year after year. You have some kind of learning difficulty rekrunner.
jono:
What would it take for you to be willing to post the name of a physiology book and the author of said physiology book (other than Noakes) that contains this information?
Jono doesn't even explain what he's talking about. :)
It is true that the faster one runs the more anaerobic it becomes...but your figures for the 200s are WAAAAY off!!!
Show me the science behind what you wrote.
No my figures are not WAAAAAY off for the 200s. The 800 goes from anaerobic to aerobic. Read what I wrote.
Another great thread with interesting history starting on page 7.
Warning: Will fluff my own content below. I apologize/not apologize.
So, not really reading this full thread, I may be guilty of repeating what others have written.
Lydiard looked at "speed" development as a muscular/neuromuscular function. Raw speed is the mechanical stuff. Muscles et al develop so much faster than the cardiovascular system does. Especially the aerobic system. This is why he focussed so much on the aerobic phase.
However, throughout the year and certainly through the base aerobic phase, fartlek sessions weekly, without straining, enjoying hilly environments if you can and barefoot strides on soccer field or similar, are all ways to keep "in touch with speed",
The common misconception is that 400m, 800m, 1000m, 1600m interval repetitions are "speed" work. Not really, especially 600+ but they will work the anaerobic system. But it only takes four to six weeks to max out your anaerobic system - so that is why less time is spent on the anaerobic phase, HOWEVER, it is just as important to get that phase correct as any other, so it IS important...skip that phase or mess it up and you can time your peak early or fry yourself.
Those above intervals, especially above 800m in distance are run at 3K to 10K pace quite often. Think about the leg swing -plant-toe-off etc and how there is not that much difference in the pure muscular speed than just running a hard 3K to 10K effort anyway, but without the breaks.
I wrote the Five Principles of Lydiard in an article. The principles were created by four-time Olympian Lorraine Moller, who was coached through her career by three different Lydiard-style coaches: Ron Daws, Dick Quax and John Davies.
She proofed the article....
She now teaches Lydiard Level 1 through 3 coaches.
https://athleticsillustrated.com/the-five-lydiard-principles-explained/
...and...I would like to add that the Lydiard anaerobic phase can be pretty intense.
While many coaches today have athletes gather for 1K interval session at 10K race pace with 90" recovery or something similar all year round, one to three times per week, Lydiard's anaerobic phase is four to six weeks and a well-conditioned athlete on his program prepared for the anaerobic phase by doing a hill phase and was prepared for both of those phases with aerobic conditioning that was not that easy.
The idea is to provoke stimulus, not just run fast because athletes were asking for it.....to stay interested.
You nailed it Mate on both posts all those years ago. Your history and conversations at Lynndale align with mine. Few people on here here need to read and really take on board that history.