Does anyone have a link to the New England Runner interview? Or is anyone willing/able to put the entire transcript up?
Does anyone have a link to the New England Runner interview? Or is anyone willing/able to put the entire transcript up?
http://lassestorgaardjacobsen.dk/literature/WATL.pdfSlowFatMaster wrote:
Does anyone have a link to the New England Runner interview? Or is anyone willing/able to put the entire transcript up?
Jono,
I appreciate that Lydiard did not have the scientific language right, according to science. I often preface things I say or write - obviously not always - that the terminology is not actually spot on scientifically-speaking. Remember! Lydiard developed his method before the scientists got interested. Once they were interested in what he was doing, they sat him down and explained why his method worked, in scientific terms.
For practical purposes, I speak Lydiardese because it is fairly common language amongst those that have an understanding of endurance training. If you have an issue with it, that is within you. I do have a little interest in correct scientific language, but not enough to fully re-programme the way I think - to please a few who have an issue with it -- and anyway, you just proved you know what I was meaning, by what I wrote.
Being more of an English geek, than a science geek - one could be both, by I am the former - I will say before science got a hold of the words "aerobic" and "anaerobic" they had a more basic meaning.
When I have my athletes do a 10 miler at marathon effort for example, I have them do it for a purpose, regardless of how accurate (by the science community) the terminology is; the athletes get it.
I coach a couple of physicians and and discuss training with other Phds and have never been corrected, they get it, so why do you feel this need to correct those who know the method well?
By the way, when I say aerobic capacity or aerobic limit and anaerobic capacity or anaerobic limit, how would you write those words?
rekrunner wrote:
And I've been through this with you many times explaining why it's not wrong.
OK, you want something new. Here's something new, from 2006: UC Berkeley's Professor Brooks explaining in the 21st century what Lydiard wants from anaerobic training, and what the desired purpose of high intensity training is:
"The intense exercise (by interval training) generates big lactate loads, and the body adapts by building up mitochondria to clear lactic acid (sic) quickly. If you use it up, it doesn't accumulate."
Do you think Brooks means that extra mitochondria should help us "learn speed endurance with good economy"?
When Lydiard ever talked about anaerobic training, he's looking for what Brooks described -- stimulating the body with high amounts of these anaerobic by-products, to adapt, in order to build buffers against fatigue.
Note, this has absolutely nothing to do with changing ratios of aerobic/anaerobic contributions in the second lap of an 800m race. The ratio of the two energy sources isn't as important as the accumulative effect.
jono wrote:rekrunner I've been through this with you many times explaining why it's wrong. It doesn't matter how many times I post the same answers to your questions, you just keep asking the same questions over and over and over.
I'm not trying to explain stuff to you any more, it's pointless.
But that first part is just not true. The high intensity training doesn't develop more mitochondria. There is no training that will do this beyond normal basic fitness. Aerobic capacity is a combination of genetics plus a healthy heart. If this was not true then (absolute)VO2 max would just keep rising and rising as we train harder, when in fact it doesn't rise beyond normal values.
As for the second part buffering acidosis, another exaggeration/myth. We also have that naturally from general running. Plus the fact that we don't want high acidosis in a race, we want to be somewhat below buffer capacity to avoid hyperventilating. I tried to tell you these two points several times in the past. I always have to repeat stuff to you over and over and over. Why?
Why did you argue the point about bioenergetic efficiency over and over and over last month? Why didn't you just google it if you didn't believe me?
Athleticsillustrated wrote:
Jono,
I appreciate that Lydiard did not have the scientific language right, according to science. I often preface things I say or write - obviously not always - that the terminology is not actually spot on scientifically-speaking. Remember! Lydiard developed his method before the scientists got interested. Once they were interested in what he was doing, they sat him down and explained why his method worked, in scientific terms.
For practical purposes, I speak Lydiardese because it is fairly common language amongst those that have an understanding of endurance training. If you have an issue with it, that is within you. I do have a little interest in correct scientific language, but not enough to fully re-programme the way I think - to please a few who have an issue with it -- and anyway, you just proved you know what I was meaning, by what I wrote.
Being more of an English geek, than a science geek - one could be both, by I am the former - I will say before science got a hold of the words "aerobic" and "anaerobic" they had a more basic meaning.
When I have my athletes do a 10 miler at marathon effort for example, I have them do it for a purpose, regardless of how accurate (by the science community) the terminology is; the athletes get it.
I coach a couple of physicians and and discuss training with other Phds and have never been corrected, they get it, so why do you feel this need to correct those who know the method well?
By the way, when I say aerobic capacity or aerobic limit and anaerobic capacity or anaerobic limit, how would you write those words?
Chris, I appreciate your point of view and thaks for stating it. However, if you want Lydiardism to survive through the twenty first century, then I think that some terminology has to be explained. And anyway, what was called 'Anaerobic training' by just about every middle and long distance running coach over the last 50 years is mostly deifinitely high intensity aerobic. Why do you think it makes you breathe so hard? It's a combination of high oxygen uptake pluse excess CO2 production. Yes the excess comes from anaerobic respiration however it's the slow build up of acidosis plus the high oxygen uptake that causes this.
Now the most important part of the science lecture, you can run even faster for the same distances without this over breathing. A good combination of both methods is ideal.
You don't see the top athletes in any track racing distance getting out of breath in a race these days. Why do you think that is? Sometimes it's EPO but often it's just better conditioning pluse a more extensive warm up. This mean that oxygen can be delivered without hyperventilating. You have run like this sometimes haven't you? We all have. Think about that and maybe you will get an epiphany?
Thanks for the link Antonio. And thanks for explaining your agreement and respect for Nobby.
As I have said here before, I feel that the beauty of Van Aaken training, MUCH different than Lydiard's, was that it consisted predominately of VERY EASY distance running, interspersed with VERY FAST, SHORT maximal bursts with complete recovery. Running short sprints greatly improves running economy in much the same way as LSD, all the while increasing the capacity for power in fast-twitch muscle fibers.
Doing a lot of interval and high-end tempo work causes shifts in muscle fiber types that cause losses of power. Oxygen debt, mitochondrial DNA damage, hormonal/endocrine imbalances,, and oxidative stress on every level are often resultant of high-end aerobic training.
For these reasons, I am really trying to develop a plan based around:
1.) Large amounts of LSD first and foremost.
2.) Power: Very short uphill sprints and high knee and bounding drills of 40-150m, heavy compound lifts with low reps, etc.
3.) Turnover and Flexibility: Downhill sprints of 100-400m, skip drills, dynamic flexibility exercises.
jono:
Are you the same guy who claimed in another thread that top 400 and 800 runners don't get out of breath in races and after races? And that Nijel Amos (taken off in a stretcher after London Olympic 800) wasn't out of breath or suffering from acidosis, just fatigue?
I don't think you can get away from being out of breath or suffering from acidosis if you race the 400 or 800 at high quality level.
Does anyone know if Lydiard actually measured arterial pH to see if the anaerobic workouts that he supervised were doing what he believed they were doing?
Look at the 1.41 runners, are they out of breath?
No they aren't. All racing at the highest level requires better efficiency of oxygen transport and acidosis management. Yes those guys are producing lot of lactate and hydrogen ions, but slightly below their maximum level.
Think about it if you can, where is their superior efficiency coming from? I'll give you a clue, it's not drugs.
wncmtnrnr wrote:
As I have said here before, I feel that the beauty of Van Aaken training, MUCH different than Lydiard's, was that it consisted predominately of VERY EASY distance running, interspersed with VERY FAST, SHORT maximal bursts with complete recovery. Running short sprints greatly improves running economy in much the same way as LSD, all the while increasing the capacity for power in fast-twitch muscle fibers.
Doing a lot of interval and high-end tempo work causes shifts in muscle fiber types that cause losses of power. Oxygen debt, mitochondrial DNA damage, hormonal/endocrine imbalances,, and oxidative stress on every level are often resultant of high-end aerobic training.
For these reasons, I am really trying to develop a plan based around:
1.) Large amounts of LSD first and foremost.
2.) Power: Very short uphill sprints and high knee and bounding drills of 40-150m, heavy compound lifts with low reps, etc.
3.) Turnover and Flexibility: Downhill sprints of 100-400m, skip drills, dynamic flexibility exercises.
Um no thanks, I will continue to advocate hard interval training with adequate recovery done in the right way to avoid excessive fatigue. That's how the best runners have always done it. No wheel re-inventing, no weird cult.
Van Aaken was a crank, Lydiard's philosophy shines much brighter.
SlowFatMaster wrote:
Does anyone know if Lydiard actually measured arterial pH to see if the anaerobic workouts that he supervised were doing what he believed they were doing?
I don't know. I don't think it's necessary. Arterial pH has to be kept slighly alkaline. The acidosis is in muscles not in the blood. rekrunner tried to lecture me on this yesterday... jeeeeeeezussss......basic physiology anyone?????
jono wrote:
Aerobic capacity is a combination of genetics plus a healthy heart. If this was not true then (absolute)VO2 max would just keep rising and rising as we train harder, when in fact it doesn't rise beyond normal values.
You assume that aerobic capacity is the VO2max, but how then we can still improve a lot after the VO2max has been plateaued. Isn´t that because of the rise of the lactate threshold, and maybe running economy. Lifting the LT to a higher % of the VO2max (LT @ 80-90% of VO2max has been reported in elite endurance athletes) means that we can use more muscles "aerobically" than before, and if this is not increasing aerobic capacity then what it is. The higher LT will also lift the running time to exhaustion at 100% vVO2max, etc. If you previously was capable of running 6minutes at 100% vVO2max, and after imroving the LT you can run 6minutes 30seconds at 100% vVO2max, for example, if this doesn´t mean that your aerobic capacity has improved then what does it mean.
Obviously the problem is on the terminology, the meaning of the term aerobic capacity seems to be different to you than it´s to me.
Whether you provided that science lecture or not, Lydiard training is Lydiard training. It is your own prejudice about the terminology that leads you to believe that I don't know what happens when an athlete competes and trains. Sorry, but I'm out. If I want to read deeper into medical stuff, I will seek it on my own. If you want to discuss practical items with me, like why training by effort is needed or how hills benefit, then please engage.
As for your comment about Lydiard surviving going-forward, what in god's name to you think is going on out there at the top? Lydiard training - at least the general template. Lydiard is more than surviving, it is THE method.
Disingenuous at best.You once advised me on a thread that I (as an 800m runner) should be doing 2 hour long runs, that this is the key to success. You didn't bother to ask if I was a 400/800m or 800/1500m type. If I were the former, this would be incredibly damaging; if the latter, it would just be incorrect.Just yelling Lydiard over and over again doesn't make you correct. You behave like a Republican congressman at times. Talk about ideas, innovations, etc, don't call yourself a 'Lydiardist'. You're putting yourself in a box.
Athleticsillustrated wrote:
As for your comment about Lydiard surviving going-forward, what in god's name to you think is going on out there at the top? Lydiard training - at least the general template. Lydiard is more than surviving, it is THE method.
wncmtnrnr wrote:
As I have said here before, I feel that the beauty of Van Aaken training, MUCH different than Lydiard's, was that it consisted predominately of VERY EASY distance running, interspersed with VERY FAST, SHORT maximal bursts with complete recovery. Running short sprints greatly improves running economy in much the same way as LSD, all the while increasing the capacity for power in fast-twitch muscle fibers.
What you say about Van Aaken does sound attractive but I read that Van Aaken recommended that the "easy" running should range between efforts at pulse rates from 130 to 150bpm. This would be quite a range of efforts in an individual athlete -from "easy" to at least "moderate"- I imagine. Combined with the sprinting exercises this would put Van Aaken closer to Lydiard in approach than I first thought. The way that Van Aaken differed from Lydiard, I thought, was the use of regular "tempo" running at close to race pace. These would not be monster workouts; such an example could be 7 to 9 miles easy running in a forrest followed by 2 to 3 x 1000m at 5k pace/effort on a track/measured course.
The use of sprinting is interesting with respect to developing running economy, Salazar seems to have focused on this with his athletes. On the other hand, some coaches disagree with this approach, for example look at Antonio's post in this thread:
"In fact we don´t need pure speed to be faster runners, and we don´t need change of pace and accelerate the pace to win races or win Olympics. Among the Olympics distance events the event that needs less pace change from the main pace event is the 800m related to 1500m, 5000m or 10000m.
Speed, seen as pure speed, accelerate on a short bout distance to maximum speed, it´s not necessary and it´s secondary if you got another resources to run fast as be resistant. To be resistant means that you got a good aerobic condition mixed/combined with a strong anaerobic system.
In fact the training to gain speed (pure speed) got only biomechanics and coordination interest, speed doesn´t allow not direct performance benefit.”
Let get out from The stupid method, THE aerobic first equals to The stupid first, or the The aerobic just = the just stupid.
Besides, slogans pamphletary sentences, advertising and demagogy with no evidence, is not the main intention of this board. Also if someone wants to inform about his personal llfe, for instance, the one who he married, the anonymous ones one he coaches, we got the twitter, the facebook, and other kind of chatting and other vanities, i guess this is not the right place.
Lets´s see if i´m right or wrong about speed (pure speed), the ability to faster the fast to personal maximum during some seconds, at the final of the race for example.
Let´s start with one significative example. The 800m in the olympics.
1972 Olympic 800m Final.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5LHid-nC45k
Can you tell us what´s the runner that the of each one of his 8X100m splits was slower than than the faster 100m of all finalists ? Yes, David Wottle the winner that did win 1:45.86 he did split every 100m in between 12.8 and 13.6sec. 12.8 his fast 100m split is slower than the best of everybody else of the runner finalists. Wottle last 100m were not very fast as we might be betrayed while see the images. Simply he did manage his pace the way he never enter in a pathway related to his condition and he was able to maintain near the same pace event from the start to the finish. He was able to do so, because he was a talented runner of course, but also because he possess best resistance and anaerobic power, it´s not his aerobic condition or lactate threshold that might help him you at the pace they go, and on the other extreme of the kind of run ability, it´s not (pure) speed or biomechanics or coordination that might helped him to win that one. So what´s ? It´s resistance, the ability to delay the pace at a certain high intensity, and that quality is gained directly neither from aerobics, neither from speed. It´s gained and enhanced from specific training first instance.
Let´s move to one recent example. If we analyse the last 800m world record that was done in the last London Olympics what´s the speed that one runner like David Rudisha got that the other runners don´t ?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YKEOjWEzVGs
What the ability that made him run in 1:40:91 ? (short term pure) Speed ?
Of corse don´t. He just leads from the start to the end. Of course it´s not based in stronger aerobics or fast (pure) speed that made him that fast performance, Besides, as it´s stated many times, the second lap of the 800m is slower than the first one and on this Rudisha that was not exception, but the rule. That means that to run with tons of lactate concentration is the main quality that someone that wants succeed in the middle distance might possess. This is conflictual with the fantasy that is to take from the aerobic system the major percent of the needs of distance runs. This means that is not aerobics that able you to resist to the high lactate that you need to resist and carry on during the last part of any distance event.
Conclusion. It´s not neither the aerobics or the speed what makes one runner run fast and get fast performances. It´s resistance.
You might train whatever you pleased, but the main focus, the main interest shall be resistance, and never the prime interest might be aerobics or speed.
Over 2 hours damaging to a middle distance runner?
Next time you hit me with your fragility, bring your purse.
Are the likes of Rudisha and Amman doing 2 hour runs?
No idea. I have seen their quality training and the longest looks around 60 minutes. I haven't seen their non-specific training or base phase training so don't have an answer.
There are quite a few athletes whose detailed training that is available online, tends to be only the quality phase. This is misleading, as people assume that their training is all multi-pace, quality, low-mileage.
Walker did some good mileage. Coe did some heavy mileage in Kenya et al. Many of the old-time Kiwis did high mileage. No there wasn't many 1:4tee-low runners, but there still isn't that many; there is only one Rudisha.
Ovett did 7 10 milers in a week. He did well with it, but before knowing this, I would have taken one of the two double days where he did 10 miles x 2 and make a 20 miler in one run - during the base phase.
And of course Dixon and Snell ran higher mileage, no Dixon didn't have the 800m acumen, but he was solid, he would do long runs of 3 or 4 or more hours. I have a story at Athletics Illustrated where he went boar hunting after a long run, spending half a day out on his feet. Crazy stuff, might not count in this conversation, but he wasn't afraid of mileage.
Of course Snell did 22 miles. His 1:44 on grass is worth 1:42/3 on a rubber track....I know some 1:43/4 guys who run 70 to 80 miles in the off season. The long run was over 90 minutes....not too far from the 2 hour benchmark...
Regardless, if I had a 400/800m runner, I'd probably test over 90 and see what the response is. One of Lydiard's five main principles is "response regulated training" how can you respond, if you haven't tried?