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

Voice of Reezum wrote:

Straight form the horse's mouth:

The more I go to clinics and hear different training scenarios, the more I realize he was a pure genius far ahead of his time.

Athleticsillustrated wrote:

When Lydiard was asked what is the most important part of his training, he said, "everything".

I got one cow from where I can take milk forever. In the same my farm I got another cow that takes just half liter of milk each take and a third one cow from I can take 1 litter each take.

I want to improve my sell of milk, maximize the volume of my milk from the 3 cows.

What I might consider more important, the cow from where I take milk forever or any or both of 2 cows I take just a limited amount of milk each take ?

Now think ther's someone that said this sentence about the aerobic capacity. “Your aerobic capacity has no maximum —it can be developed and improved forever !”

What do you think that the same individual when was asked what is the most important part of his training, he said ?

“Everything" he said.

This guy must be a genius.

To properly understand Lydiard training, you can't just read a document online or have a conversation over a jog at the lakes with someone and then somehow know it intimately.

the clerk wrote:

[quote]Athleticsillustrated wrote:

“Your aerobic capacity has no maximum —it can be developed and improved forever !”

But that is just not true. If your heart is stong and healthy, your aerobic capacity is at it's natural limit.

What Lydiard really meant was that speed endurance, not aerobic capacity.

And Lydiards definition of Anaerobic is wrong too.

These issues should be cleared up by Lydiardists once and for all because this is basic physiology. Nobby knows my thought on this, but he's too nice to confront the issue.

Excellent post.

Yes it's an excellent post, but this anaerobic definition oh dear.......

When Lydiard said anearobic he really meant high intensity aerobic with low muslce pH which causes overbreathing/hyperventialtion/crossing the ventilatory thresold/getting out of breath....whatever you want to call it.

I say this is not a good way to train, and you won't see todays top middle and long distance runners getting into this state because they have learned to run at world record pace or thereabouts without getting out of breath.

Three ways to do that.

1, Inject EPO This is not the Lydiard way

2, Have blood transfusions. This is not the Lydiard way.

3, Control your plasma volume so that your heart doesn't have to work too hard. This is something I would like to discuss with anyone who shares the Lydiard philosophy that top athletes don't need drugs or blood manipulation to compete at the highes level.

Your biggest challenge is to demonstrate that any issue even exists. Until then there is nothing to clear up.Lydiard did not mean "speed endurance". Lydiard meant performance improvements coming from training your aerobic capacity.Lydiard's use of the adjective "anaerobic", as in "anaerobic training", is just fine.

jono wrote:

But that is just not true. If your heart is stong and healthy, your aerobic capacity is at it's natural limit.

What Lydiard really meant was that speed endurance, not aerobic capacity.

And Lydiards definition of Anaerobic is wrong too.

These issues should be cleared up by Lydiardists once and for all because this is basic physiology. Nobby knows my thought on this, but he's too nice to confront the issue.

No, Lydiard did not mean "high intensity aerobic with low muslce pH which causes overbreathing/hyperventialtion/crossing the ventilatory thresold/getting out of breath....whatever you want to call it" (what if I want to call it "anaerobic training"?) when he said "anaerobic".Lydiard was looking for much more than "low muscle pH", he was looking for "low arterial pH". Any connection to "high intensity aerobic" or any kind of "ventilation" or "breathing", or anything else connected to oxygen, is purely coincidental. The important component of anaerobic training is the accumulation of lactate, and lower pH in non-muscular places like the earlobe, that comes with a sufficient volume of high intensity anaerobic efforts. Why look for other terms when Lydiard wanted to call it "anaerobic training". Why try and connect it to anything aerobic, when that's the most irrelevant part of anaerobic training?It was a good way to train, as it achieved the desired training effect for the athletes who did it. Today's athletes do something quite different, so it's difficult to talk about todays athletes who train another way in comparison to Lydiard.To talk about EPO, blood transfusions, and plasma volume is to completely misunderstand what Lydiard wanted to achieve with anaerobic training.

rekrunner wrote:

Your biggest challenge is to demonstrate that any issue even exists. Until then there is nothing to clear up.

Lydiard did not mean "speed endurance". Lydiard meant performance improvements coming from training your aerobic capacity.

Lydiard's use of the adjective "anaerobic", as in "anaerobic training", is just fine.

jono wrote:

But that is just not true. If your heart is stong and healthy, your aerobic capacity is at it's natural limit.

What Lydiard really meant was that speed endurance, not aerobic capacity.

And Lydiards definition of Anaerobic is wrong too.

These issues should be cleared up by Lydiardists once and for all because this is basic physiology. Nobby knows my thought on this, but he's too nice to confront the issue.

That old definition of anaerobic is wrong. Anyone who knows basic biochemistry of exercise will tell you that.

The first lap of an 800 is mostly Anaerobic

The second lap is mostly Aerobic.

That's basic physiology.

James Harden wrote:

Hes trying to say that speed is more important in winning 5/10ks these days than 800s.

52 is what the kick is in your usual 5k and 10k

49 and 52 were the splits in Rudisha's WR

Assuming the guys in the 5000 have a top end speed of 48, how are they going to drop a 52 right after?

The purpose of high intensity training should be to learn speed endurance with good economy. Trying to race at your best in track races of any distance without this is impossible. This is not going to turn into one of your mammoth arguing sessions where you constantly miss the point, because I'm not going to let that happen again.

From what I gather, in recalling what I read from Lydiard's books, the key to understanding Lydiard is being able to read between the lines and the training schedules. It also helps to know what Lydiard did in practice.

Lydiard worked on speed the whole year, but he attacked it from different angles. Speed is developed by stimulating the fast twitch muscles and certain intermediate twitch muscles.

As fast twitch muscle groupings respond to force, the type of workouts/drills that stimulated these fiber groups were hill work, windsprints, and bounding drills. These appeared throughout the training schedule.

Unbeknownst at the time, the long runs also stimulated the fast twitch muscle fibers. After 90 minutes of running, the glycogen stores of slow twitch and intermediate twitch muscle fiber groups would be depleted. At that point, the fast twitch muscles would begin to be recruited and would begin depleting their glycogen stores. I do remember Peter Snell finding this out in subsequent research in the 1970s after he had become a doctor.

jono wrote:

If your heart is stong and healthy, your aerobic capacity is at it's natural limit.

You say that aerobic capacity = the heart?

There´s aerobic capacity in the skeletal muscles also, that can be trained to be more aerobic.

There are a few people who like to say that Lydiard's definition of aerobic and anaerobic were wrong. He was wrong with many things when it came to defining what words and phrases he used, but he was spot on, on the point. He was creating the method before science got interested. It was only after the scientists told him why he was correct with his methods, that he adopted their terminology, right or wrong.

If you can look past that, then you can see that he developed runners of all abilities with his method regardless of our modern-day interpretation of the language. And yes, you do have to read between the lines.

Read Healthy Intelligent Training by Keith Livingstone if you want a good modern book on Lydiard training.

Aerobic originally meant "with oxygen" and anaerobic is "without oxygen". So the science community adopted them and somehow everyone feels THAT that is the actual definition. Perhaps it is, but again, what was his point? That is what matters here.

To do anaerobic speed work or race-like efforts developed that realm, but that realm is limited and can be developed in three to six weeks of training.

The aerobic capacity is limitless or nearly limitless in its development: aerobic meaning running while maintaining the intake and utilization of oxygen without having to significantly slow or stop to recover.

What can we learn from this conversation? Nothing, sorta. The information has been demonstrated since the late 50s. People it seems, just need to be reminded that generally speaking, this is how all the best long-distance athletes train, in rowing, cycling, swimming, nordic skiing, running et al.

Actually, if the rest is short enough you can touch the anaerobic system with 60m sprints.

Yes you can, but longer sprints are more effective (you use the lactic system longer).

Lydiard called running "anaerobic" when it got you out of breath and "aerobic" when it didn't get you out of breath. That was the terminology that was used then and it was the point he was trying to convey. Now the terminology is different but the point is the same.

Thank you for the clear and concise post. Too busy training to read a lot.

slopenguinrunner wrote:

Unbeknownst at the time, the long runs also stimulated the fast twitch muscle fibers. After 90 minutes of running, the glycogen stores of slow twitch and intermediate twitch muscle fiber groups would be depleted. At that point, the fast twitch muscles would begin to be recruited and would begin depleting their glycogen stores. I do remember Peter Snell finding this out in subsequent research in the 1970s after he had become a doctor.

Is this really true? Always wondered about that part.

Barakus Obama wrote:

slopenguinrunner wrote:

Unbeknownst at the time, the long runs also stimulated the fast twitch muscle fibers. After 90 minutes of running, the glycogen stores of slow twitch and intermediate twitch muscle fiber groups would be depleted. At that point, the fast twitch muscles would begin to be recruited and would begin depleting their glycogen stores. I do remember Peter Snell finding this out in subsequent research in the 1970s after he had become a doctor.

Is this really true? Always wondered about that part.

No, you don´t suddenly switch to rectruiting the FG fibers, FG fibers just will "dump" the glycogen to the slower muscles that are working. To really recruit the FG fibers you just have to run faster.