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

Well now, I didn't really talk about Daniels himself, or his contribution to science, or about his running formula. But since you wonder what he recognized, beyond oxygen uptake, he:- recognized that measuring VO2max was not enough to be able to predict performances- recognized the important role of lactate, and the importance of lactate threshold training to build stamina- recognized that economy is an important factor- used VO2max measurements, and statistics (and a mathematician Jimmy Gilbert) to develop a series of tables to help us predict race performances, and identify a broad range of appropriate training paces (E, M, T, I, and R)- wrote a general practical guide that combines these suggested paces into a 4-phased periodized training plan, that can be used by everyone- offered a broad range of often needed advice ranging from how to periodize your training when you only have a few weeks, and how long you should expect to take to recovery after extended time off (e.g. due to injury)- became a successful coach in his own right, working with athletes who went on to become world classI could write a book, but I don't have to, because he did. He wrote two.Maybe you are more artist than scientist, given the skill and grace with which you have danced around my simple question about two common training workouts. In the modern era, where anaerobic training is really high intensity aerobic, what shall I call "anaerobic interval training"? What shall I call "aerobic interval training"?

jono wrote:

Let me just make one statement that you absolutely have to realize about running.

All movement is regulated by the nervous system. So why do so many coaches and exercize physiologists ignore this?

Because they haven't bothered to learn basic physiology.

I realize the importance of the nervous system, but for example, does an 800m runner have to do lots of race pace work in order to get better at 800m? Or the same for 5k runner etc? The race pace work is often overrated based on my own experience, I did my best races with very little race pace work, and lots of training done on basic qualities.

Thanks for the info considering your nickname.

U.N.O. wrote:

I realize the importance of the nervous system, but for example, does an 800m runner have to do lots of race pace work in order to get better at 800m? Or the same for 5k runner etc? The race pace work is often overrated based on my own experience, I did my best races with very little race pace work, and lots of training done on basic qualities.

It seems likely. Antonio and Renato and Joe Rubio recommends training in race pace for 800m year round. I assume the resistance training that Antonio talks about is race pace training.

If you want to get a good running economy in a particular speed, say 800m comp. speed, doesn't it make sense to train often in that speed?

Yes it makes sense, and I did some race pace (800m) strides in the warmups and cooldowns of workouts or in an easy run also, and some basic ~8x200m/200m jog sessions before competitions. Once even did running ~10 minutes 50m+50m ins-outs at 800m effort/jog. But I felt that the 800m pace was "in the middle"; when trying to really improve speed it was too slow, when trying to build endurance it was too fast. I knew that I´m in shape for 800m when I can run a fast 400m (for me) and good overdistance workouts/races around 3-5k distances, and that´s why I used also LT training, even though based on A.Cabral I obviously shouldn´t. I think that by racing you also get race pace workout, feeling better race after race. The sprints on hills and flat ground/track, strength training (core work is also very important) and the year round race pace strides is all kind of teqhnique/running economy work that should´nt be forgotten.

Especially the hill sprints is very effective to get a strong, efficient stride with minimal "leaks" of force. 800m pace feels slow after you have the speed, and the first 400m of the race feels quite slow also. All of the endurance work is for the second lap of the 800m. Of course I could have done more race pace 100-200m´s with short recovery for endurance/economy etc, maybe then I could have run faster (than 1.57), but I´m not sure.

Thats the problem. How to incorporate race pace when it until the last few months until comp. time isn't fast enought to be sprint or hard enough to be endurance?

I think you can do it on easier days to begin with as Rubio recommends:

Gradual increas from 8x100m w/300m jogg in race pace October until 15x100m w/300 jogg in race pace in december.

After New Years: 10x150m race pace

....and then progress to 8x200m in race pace (hard) and later on do the longer and fewer reps with long rec in race pace (400s or similar).

I dont think 8-15x100m in race pace would destroy an easy day. Have it after the morning run and do a shake out later in the evening.

Thoughts Antonio?

It seems you don't want to be specific (I can understand, hard to give exact workouts to athletes you dont know) but perhaps you can take an example?

e.g: Runner A with 1.52 goal, 1.54 PB and 49.8 400m speed.

I'm in China at the moment, and one hour ago I went in LR for the first time in the last three weeks. When I read the title of this thread, I was interested, since we have Always something to learn, and I went to read every post.

I found something, in my opinion, right, and something very strange, especially from your side (Jono).

1. How can you say that the first lap of 800m is anaerobic, and the second aerobic ? Due to the accumulation of lactate, which at the end is higher that at the beginning, I really don't understand how it's possible to think "this is something of basic physiology". I think we speak about two different physiologies...

2. You have reason speaking about VO2 max as "natural baggage", of course when a person is mature (about 20-22 years of age). But you can't really think that the strong improvement athletes can have from a situation of "no training" to a situation of "full specific training" is only due to the increase of efficiency and running economy.

The best athlete in the World in Marathon (now Wilson Kipsang) if doesn't run for 1 year preserves the same VO2 max (or loses only a little under this point of view), but is not able running 2 hours at a pace of 3:30 per km, when his WR is at the pace of 2:55.

And Rudisha, with one year without training, can run 1:53, if lucky, probably 1:55 or slower.

So, to think the the metabolic and bioenergetic situation doesn't change with training, but every improvement comes on the biomechanical side only, in my opinion is something impossible, and show little practice in real coaching.

3. And also it's a methodological mistake to put the "anaerobic capacity" before the "anaerobic power".

When we speak about lactic system, we have 3 different situations, also if in many books of methodology we can find 2 levels only :

1. The Lactic Power, that is the ability of the Lactic System to have the higher production of lactate divided per the time of the effort. We can see this with a maximal effort on a distance from 300m till 600m, depending on the type of runners we test. If he hs the characteristics of a 400m runner, his LP reaches the highest level in a time between 30" and 45" (equivalent of a race of 300 - 400m). In the case of an 800m runner, he can reach his highest value in an effort lasting 1:00 - 1:30 (500-600m).

2. The Lactic Capacity, strictly connected with the LP, that is the ability of the Lactic System to produce the higher amount of lactate. This can happen running efforts near the max intensity (for example, 98% of LP) resting bout 8' - 10' in between, for a limited number of times (for example, 3 x 600m). This lactate produces high accumulation in the muscle fibers, and this type of training is necessary in order to increase the TOLERANCE of lactate in the muscles.

3. The Lactic Resistance, strictly connected with the Aerobic Power, that is the ability to remove quickly the lactate in the fibers. There are specific workouts for increasing this ability, that physiologically speaking provoke an increase of the permeability of the membranes.

Methodologically speaking, this can be, for example, 10 x 600m at 90% of LP with more short recovery (2'-3').

In this case, the first tests produce a level of lactate UNDER the Lactic Threshold, but, because the recovery doesn't allow the full elimination of lactate, the final level is higher than the LT : for example, the athlete starts with one test at 3.5 mml, the second is 4.5, and at the end can reach 10-12 mml.

This type of training is, obviously, lactic, but its effect is to enhance the Threshold, and is the key of the balance in the training of 800m.

The most important point to understand is that small differences of speed must be considered DIFFERENT MEANS of training, so we have a stair of speed and the athlete has to use ALL the stairs for building his performance.

It's ridiculous to ask "is it better the aerobic training or interval training", "is it better Lydiard or Daniels", "is it better to use speed or long run".

Training is the right combination of ALL this elements, and under this point of view Lydiard had reasons when answered, about the question "which was the most important training", ALL.

Antonio Cabral wrote:

One more example of Lydiard training useless.

António, you should learn that sometimes you are wrong.

Lydiard doesn't work for you? It works for others. At least some of his principles have practical and positive applications and saying his training is useless is denying the FACT that it works for some people.

But no, António Cabral is God and knows better than anyone else...

Renato Canova wrote:

Training is the right combination of ALL this elements, and under this point of view Lydiard had reasons when answered, about the question "which was the most important training", ALL.

And from here:

"Of course, being from New Zealand, Dixon, like others, would use components of the Arthur Lydiard system. As Dixon explained:

"Lydiard had a huge influence on New Zealand running. His "Principles and philosophy" were the very foundation of every runner and coach during that time. My brother was my coach (a very accomplished runner himself) but witnessed in me something "special" that was not evident in his running. He was influenced by Lydiard and adapted his methods of the "P - P" to me, based on our location, mountains, Xcountry, trails, beach, golf course and recovery. Very big on core and X training. John Dixon, knew me better than I knew myself, he was tough, required 100% focus, time and effort in training based on the schedule, with NO short cuts, and he had his vision for the year as well as next year and the future! He had a plan.""

Renato, I respect you as a coach, but your knowledge of basic physiology is very poor. I really don't want to go through the same explanations over and over and over. Read the physiology section of The Lore of Running by Tim Noakes.

Hi Renato:

So nice to hear from you on this thread. If you get a chance, would you mind posting more about the training of the fast 800 athlete such as Leonard Kosencha or Job Kinyor? Also, have you done a Gigliotti-Farragiana test on any of the "new turbo-diesel" athletes? If so, how did the results differ from say, Bordin or Baldini? If the test has not been done, what results would you expect? Thank you.

And you too fats read the physiology section of The Lore of Running. And everyone else here who posts on these type of threads who doesn't know the basic definition of Aerobic and Anaerobic, which is about 99.99% of you.

jono wrote:

And you too fats read the physiology section of The Lore of Running. And everyone else here who posts on these type of threads who doesn't know the basic definition of Aerobic and Anaerobic, which is about 99.99% of you.

I studied physiology in college and I am very surprised to find many coaches using wrong terminology and having some very twisted concepts of the aerobic/anaerobic systems.

I've already read it.Here are quicker sources for basic definitions:http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/aerobichttp://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/anaerobicThese words are adjectives, which do not appear on their own, but qualify some noun.

jono wrote:

And you too fats read the physiology section of The Lore of Running. And everyone else here who posts on these type of threads who doesn't know the basic definition of Aerobic and Anaerobic, which is about 99.99% of you.

jono wrote:

Renato, I respect you as a coach, but your knowledge of basic physiology is very poor. I really don't want to go through the same explanations over and over and over. Read the physiology section of The Lore of Running by Tim Noakes.

Ha ha! You lose again. You can't argue for the ridiculous drivel you spout so you're fleeing like a coward from the discussion. We all know, peabrain, that if you could teach the world's best coach anything at all, you would have explained it over and over again.

jono, I'll read it again. Would you do me a favor and read How to Win Friends and Influence People? Thanks!

The same individual that once says that "everything thing is important " and in the meantime prescribes "aerobic first" as the only way to performance enhance and also wrote and said that "aerobic progress is unlimited" is just an ignorant and his training is just stupid.

It´s recorded and documented, you can´t deny.

Who was this individual ? Arthur Lydiard.

When someone say 3 sentences: "yesterday was monday", "today is wednesday" and "tomorrow will be saturday", one of the three can be right, but then other 2 are just wrong.

Besides "aerobic first" and "unlimited aerobic progress" are two training ideas that is proved and documented that Lydiard said. However "everything is important" isn´t proved that Lydiard ever said that, this is a construction of some Lydiardism dementia.

http://www.internationalbipolarfoundation.org

Antonio, please. Talking bad about Lydiar is not going to do anything good. Don't you realise that? You can say that you disagree with the man, and that you think he said things that are incorrect and oppose what he said at other times...but who cares?

Can't you respond to me instead? Isn't it much better with an actual discussion instead of just pointing at things Lydiard said that was wrong? Its not going to make anyone run faster.

My question to you is in a comment further up.