HRE wrote:
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.
Because one lie it´s repeated on and on, again and again that doesn´t change to be true if it´s a lie will keep as a lie.
What in fact from Lydiard main idea is written and is documented, no one can´t deny he got this idea deny is:
Your aerobic capacity has no maximum—it can be developed
and improved forever -Arthur Lydiard
Who is the modern scientist, the great physilogist that agrees with this Lydiard sentence ? Keith Livingston ? Who else ? Keshall the great scientist of modern times ?
The problem is not that what Lydiard calls to what. You might call my pennies a whistle, he might create a his own nomenclature and meaning whatever that´s what he does, Easy it´s not common sense of easy, fast is not the common sense of fast, speed is not the methodology define of speed, aerobic is not the common characterization of aerobic, he might create a his own define of everything a his own new training lexicon.
However the define of aerobic is older than Lydiard was born, and is still correct by that classic and scientific-academic definition.
The problem is not the characterization of one effort. The problem is that Lydiard doesn´t know to typify one effort related to the combo of aerobic-anaerobic systems.
In the New England Runner – The World According Lydiard (I quote) “…They can´t stand a lot of pressure – which comes from the anaerobic work – which is exactly what is being done in the US and the opposite of what the Africans are doing – the Kenyans, Ethiopians, Moroccans. You (Americans) use a lot of anaerobic training without understand anaerobic training and this is your problem, You think that by outing one kid on track and run 20X400meters fast that you are going to make a champion. In the long run, you destroy them. (…) I´ve heard the Moroccans are using my system but they´ve lengthened it , taking even longer recovery between repetitions. They make up to eight minutes
Out of the Lydiard excess egocentrism and vanity he puts in in sentences as “the Moroccans are using my system” …HIS system ? ???? as anything else exists except HIS system, and out of the unproved ideas “I´ve heard the Moroccans” something the Lydiardism loves, to quote unproved concepts by “HE said” and “I heard from HIM”, what is present in Lydiard training idea on the article titled “The World According Lydiard” is absolute misunderstand about intervals related to the aerobic and anaerobic contribution of each kind of different intervals designs.
Lydiard, what he says (and it´s proved, edit, documented, not that he told me in private) is that if you do long intervals with long recovery (up to eight minute recovery he says) is less anaerobic that short fast intervals (20X400m he says), Or simply this is not true eventually,. However this is the Lydiard misunderstand of what is the contribution of each one of the aerobic-anaerobic systems in intervals that lead him to think that intervals (any kind) shall be avoid in what h defines as the aerobic build-up phase of periodisation.
It´s not a question of aerobic (or anaerobic )define. It´s Lydiard absolute misunderstood what´s the percent of both systems do as contribution in the operative training that´s the interval training.
I wanted to know who are the independent scientist that thinks as Lydiard, the genious of science that subscribe that Lydiard sentence “Your aerobic capacity has no maximum—it can be developed and improved forever”, Who do agree ? I want to expand my list of people who got training misunderstand.