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

Antonio Cabral wrote:

drivel

You're obsessed and full of hate.

Do i miss something ? What´s your contribution to the Lydiard debate ? Why i´m wrong ? Is the aerobic enhance unlimited ? What´s the benefit of aerobic first ? Isn´t that true that what one Lydiardism individual said on this same thread that Lydiard when n was asked, what is more important in the training he says that Lydiard said " everything matters" and that if he said that sentence answer, that is incoherent with the idea that aerobic is unlimited enhance ? Isn´t that true that Lydiard denies the interest of fast short intervals related to long intervals with long recovery because he taught that short fast intervals are more anaerobic that long intervals with long recovery ? Isn´t that true that once Peter Snell said that he taught that Lydiard hadn´t competence to train him for middle distance the way trained train by himself mostly.

i simply did resume documented Lydiard and peter Snell training ideas. Proved. But yiu might comment in what ii´m wrong.

If all that you have to comments about the facts i notice, that is i´m obsessed and full of hate, i accept your comment with pride, since your comment is inappropriate absolutely about my facts.

I think the same about Keshall one individual without character, that among many adjectives named me as jerk. Come from whom it comes it´s an honour and i´m very proud with what he says about me. The psychology science did some interesting conclusions about that individuals. It´s what the psychology defines as the mirror effect. The see and they express from the outside what they really are inside.

Jono, i think at the base of our position there is some misunderstanding.

Of course, longer is the race, higher is the intervention of the aerobic system.

However, it’s a fact that the lactate accumulation during a competition of 800m becomes higher during the second lap, reaching the top at the end of the competition.

The fact that, during the second lap, the AEROBIC COMPONENT has a higher percentage than during the first lap, doesn’t mean that the second lap is MORE AEROBIC, because the athlete has to face a quantity of lactate growing at every meter.

This is a simple SPECULATION that physiologists can do, but is a USELESS exercise.

The real question is : What we have to do in order to be able to run, without dramatically slowing down the speed, when the lactate accumulation continues to raise ?

Under the methodological point of view, we need to work for increasing BOTH the LACTIC CAPACITY and the LACTIC RESISTANCE.

For giving an idea, about two runners with 1’44” of PB (one fast type, 46” in 400m, the other resistant type, 47”5 in 400m but 3’33” in 1500m, we can have a STAIRS of intensity of this type :

FAST RUNNER :

RIGENERATION SPEED (doesn’t have the mean of training, but is used for recovery only) : every speed slower than 50% of the race speed (race time is 13” every 100m, so this means 26” every 100m = 4’20” per km = 7’ per Mile, and the speed is 27.69 km / h), so slower than 13.85 km / h.

GENERAL RESISTANCE SPEED (developing the aerobic system at low intensity, mainly for the capillarization) : speed between 50% and 55% of the race speed (between 13.85 and 15.2 km / h = 26” >`` 6’23” per Mile)

BASIC ENDURANCE SPEED (developing the aerobic system at medium intensity) : speed between 55% and 60% of the race speed (between 15.2 and 16.6 km / h = 23”7 %%`` 5’46” per Mile)

SPECIFIC ENDURANCE SPEED (developing the Aerobic Power at high intensity) : speed between 60% and 65% of the race speed (between 16.6 and 18 km / h = 21”7 %%`` 5’22” per Mile)

All these speeds are developed using continuous run or, in the case of Specific Endurance Speed, long intervals (not shorter than 2000m).

LACTIC RESISTANCE SPEED (developing the level of Lactic Threshold and the ability to remove lactate in faster time) : speed between 65% and 75% of the race speed (between 18.0 and 20.75 km / h = 20” %%`` 4’40” per Mile)

LACTIC CAPACITY SPEED (developing the ability to PRODUCE Lactate and to sustain a high lactate accumulation in the muscle fibers) : speed between 90% and 98% of the race speed (between 24.9 and 27.05 km / h = 14”45 %%`` 13”3 every 100m)

LACTIC POWER SPEED (developing the ability to produce the higher quantity of lactate during the time of the performance) : speed between 102% and 104% of the race speed (between 28.24 and 28.8 km / h = 12”75 %%`` 12”5 every 100m)

For improving these qualities, we use the system of repetitions : when we speak of the Lactic Resistance, the total volume of repetitions can be from 4000m to 6000m, instead for Lactic Capacity can be between 1500m and 2000m, of course with wide recovery (8’ %%`` 12’).

Instead, if we look at the RESISTANT RUNNER, we can have the following parameters :

RIGENERATION SPEED : same as the Fast runner

GENERAL RESISTANCE SPEED : same as the Fast runner

BASIC ENDURANCE SPEED (developing the aerobic system at medium intensity) : speed between 55% and 65% of the race speed (between 15.2 and 18 km / h = 23”7 %%`` 5’22” per Mile)

SPECIFIC ENDURANCE SPEED (developing the Aerobic Power at high intensity) : speed between 65% and 70% of the race speed (between 18 and 19.4 km / h = 20” %%`` 5’ per Mile)

All these speeds are developed using continuous run or, in the case of Specific Endurance Speed, long intervals (not shorter than 2000m).

LACTIC RESISTANCE SPEED (developing the level of Lactic Threshold and the ability to removcannote lactate in faster time) : speed between 75% and 83% of the race speed (between 20.75 and 23 km / h = 17”4 %%`` 4’14” per Mile)

LACTIC CAPACITY SPEED (developing the ability to PRODUCE Lactate and to sustain a high lactate accumulation in the muscle fibers) : speed between 90% and 98% of the race speed (between 24.9 and 27.05 km / h = 14”45 %%`` 13”3 every 100m)

LACTIC POWER SPEED (developing the ability to produce the higher quantity of lactate during the time of the performance) : speed between 102% and 104% of the race speed (between 28.24 and 28.8 km / h = 12”75 %%< 12”5 every 100m)

It’s clear the methodological difference between the two typologies is in the speed and the volume of the workouts of Basic Endurance, Specific Endurance and Lactic Resistance, since the Resistant runner has the aerobic quality more strong, and for that reason can reach the same speed of the Fast runner using his aerobic system in higher percentage than the other.

One of the problems between the “official” physiology and the methodology is that always the methodology arrives to open new visions of training BEFORE the physiology, which is a DEDUCTIVE SCIENCE, so can only explain what really happens.

But the investigations physiologists make with their tested people using their protocols (always the same) cannot produce a MATHEMATIC TREND. This is a big mistake the most part of physiologists do.

If we test 3 groups of people (one not training, one running 3 times per week for 30’ easy, another running every day for 1 hour at medium pace) of course we have 3 different points, but we are wrong thinking the trend can follow the same graphic when, for example, we test someone running twice per day with higher intensity, or when we can investigate what happens in the body of a top athlete, having different physiological talent at the beginning, different quality in training and different volume of this quality.

This is the big mistake there is, for example, when people speaks about the EPO effects.

If EPO can enhance the ability to transport Oxygen of about 30% in case of people with kidney disease needing dialysis, can, for example, enhance the same ability of 20% in people in good health but not trained, about 10% in athletes with medium talent, and NOTHING in case of top talented athletes, BECAUSE THEIR TALENT INCLUDE THE POSSIBILITY TO REACH PARTICULAR SITUATION THROUGH THEIR TRAINING (for example, to increase the total volume of blood of 25%) THAT MAKE NOT POSSIBLE THE INTERVENTION OF ANY BLOOD DOPING IN ORDER TO INCREASE THEIR AEROBIC QUALITIES.

And another fact : in methodology, we use to give a name to THE TYPE OF TRAINING WE DO, not to the effect.

For example, running 3 sets of 6 times 80m at 98% of max speed with 1’30” recovery between every test and 6’ between every set, for coaches is, obviously, a workout of SHORT SPEED ENDURANCE, considered a Lactic type of training. Instead, the final goal is to improve the ability to use Oxygen in the Fast fibers, since the recovery of the small quantity of lactate produced during one set happens in oxidative way, so we can say this training has an AEROBIC EFFECT.

Last thing : it’s absolutely not true that, with long run, and the depletion of glycogen in the fast fibers, we go to activate them to work better. At first, when we run slowly we use essentially Fatty Acids as fuel, and Fast fibers are not activated. It’s not true that, with the turnover of the fibers, when the slow fibers become tired the fast fibers start to work. Instead, it’s true the opposite : when we use essentially the fast fibers, and they become tired, we start to use the slow fibers, obviously reducing the quality of the performance. Fast fibers without glycogen are not able to work, it’s not that are stimulated to work more.

In the case of the basic Lydiard system, probably there was confusion about the increase of speed, because the athletes used very short sprint and exercises of strength endurance during all the season, and for that reason they were able to maintain a high level of speed, of sure not because their long run.

gd!!!!......

http://www.grasshopper3d.com/forum/topics/sickso

hello??

gd!!!!......

http://www.grasshopper3d.com/forum/topics/sickso

hello??

Antonio Cabral wrote:

The psychology science did some interesting conclusions about that individuals. It´s what the psychology defines as the mirror effect. The see and they express from the outside what they really are inside.

Just like yourself.

Why don't you contribute in a positive way to the thread like ToroToro suggested and shut up about Lydiard?

Learn from Renato Canova.

jono challenged what he said and he came back and replied to jono, BEING POLITE, and explaining in detail why he thinks the way he does and coaches how he does.

António Cabral doesn't like "Lydiardism". Fine. We know that. We have had a decade to realize that.

Now please offer positive and constructive contributions and shut up about Lydiard and your shallow and bitter accusations.

Thank you, António.

Just ignore him. Then maybe he'll stop being an A-hole.

Lactate is the end product of glycolysis++. The more anaerobic the effort, the more lactate is produced. It's the rate at which lactate is produced that determines the degree of "anaerobic" effort.

If you want to fill a suitcase, you start with the large garments like jacket, trouser, shoes etc. The pace at which you fill the suitcase is fast. Soon you start putting in smaller clothes such as T-shirts and a sweater. The filling rate goes down. In the end you cram in a pair of socks and a tie. The rate at which you fill the suitcase is very low.

The same goes for the lactate system. The more "anaerobic" your running is the faster you're filling up your muscles with lactate. 50 meters into an 800m race your anaerobic system produces tons of lactate. At the moment you cross the line a lot less lactate is produced. And if you should continue running you will soon run almost fully aerobically.

Thanks Renato. I'm happy to see you using regular mathematics to calculate the paces. This is easier for me that the way you did it before.

Very interesting that there is such a big jump from Specific Endurance Speed to Lactic Resistance Speed in your system. Could you give examples of Lactic Resistance and Lactic Capacity workouts for the fast and resistant 800 athlete? Thank you again.

Do you know what´s a positive comment for one Lydiardist ? It´s the comment that plenty agrees with Lydiard training, independently if it´s right or wrong in the methodology analysis. Do you know what one positive comment for me ? It´s the one that independently the way it´s expressed contains a truly comment.

In my ethics, moral and behaviour ther´nothing as positive comments as it´s say the truth. If you want to be as positive as you suggest to me to be please, comment my posts and deny that what i say it´s not true and why.

I don´t like Lyardism not because i got some emotional reason, but mainly because the basiscs of Lydiard is wrong somehow: the aerobic fisrt, the log run and what does promotes as Renato does teach you all. I remember you all that long ago i was the first one on this board to insist that the long run for middle distance events as is the 800m is useless, and doesn´t promote fast fiber stimulus of benefit, that is what Renato said on his last post.

One more question to you to answer me, or anyone that want serious and positive debate. Do you really think that what Lydiard said, that "everyone can coach a kenyan" that is a true comment, or is just a silly comment ? If someone thinks that it´s easy to coach one kenyan runner, there when 100 hundred runners did compete one against each other why one wins and the others didn´t win. The winner got just best talent or is also did best training.

To deny that to win at world top level as the kenyans they do often is the result of rich training, is to think that the training method got not no value at all to enhance the performance.

When Lydiard says that "everyone can coach a Kenyan" this is just a silly comment, a negative one, because it´s not true. Do you see what´s one negative comment ? It´s what Lydiard did about coach kenyans. But more. The Keshall and others from the Lydiardism did defend that same wrong thesis, that what Renato or brother O`Colm and a few others they do as training intrevention among the Kenyan runners everybody can do. Just read the past thread "Lydiard or Renato Canova" and you will find there several Lydiardists anda mong them the great Keshall, saying that Renato doesn´t prove to be a rich coach as seems to be at first glance because it´s easy to coach Kenyans. Also the Lydiardism wants to pass often that idea on this board. They are recurrent on that idea.

About be equal to myself ever, thanks, i try to continue to be equal to myself. I´m not perfect, i´m not a angel or a saint, and sometimes i fail and some other times i was wrong.

But if you take a look on the last Keshall post that he refers to me, let me say that all that he says is just lies, every sentence, every idea about me is out of fact and out of prove. But might be that you think that he was generous and did very positive comments about me and he is polite while name me jerk and other adjectives, but i´m negative when i say that all that adjectives is just sees him on the mirror.

Antonio: I agree with you that "anyone can coach a Kenyan" is BS. Here is part of Renato talking about coaching Job Kinyor, where even after 5 months of training he couldn't break 20 for the 5000:

But there are a lot of other runners starting the event in spite of very low aerobic qualities, able to reach good results in short time because their biomechanical engine is really very strong. This is the case of David Rudisha today, but in the past we had Rudolf Harbig, Tom Courtney, Mel Whitfield, Bill Crothers, Alberto Juantorena and many Kenyans, as for instead Billy Konchellah and Paul Ereng.

In this case, they had a very strong biomechanical engine and a morphology like long sprinters : tall between 1.85 and 1.90, with strong muscle masses and very high natural speed.

In this case, we have to continue in the direction of speed, trying to improve in the aerobic direction step by step, BUT NEVER WE CAN FORGET TO TRAIN THE MAIN QUALITIES THEY HAVE.

I give you two examples, with Kenyans, of the current days.

JOB KINYOR came to me for starting his training because his father, Barnabas Kinyor, 48"7 in 400 hs and 1'44"7 in 800m many years ago, introduced him to me (Barnabas is the husband of Selina Kosgei, my athlete winning Boston Marathon in 2009). Job was n. 3 in the National Championships for secondary school in 2006 in Decathlon. When he arrived in the camp, I saw very good attitudes of explosivity and coordination, but completely empty black board for every aerobic activity. After 5 months of training, he was not able running 5 km under 20' (and in LR everybody thinks Kenyans have years of Aerobic activity and are very strong under this point of view....).

In 2007, he ran 1'47" having a best in 5 km of 18'22".

In 2011, he ran 1'45"07 having a best of 15'07".

This year, he ran 1'43"74 at the beginning of the season, when was more ready aerobically.

But, along all these years, we NEVER forgot the training of speed, that was the main dish of his preparation, in every period of the year.

Read more:

http://www.letsrun.com/forum/flat_read.php?thread=4763758&page=6#ixzz2ep0SZ6Zc

Read more:

http://www.letsrun.com/forum/flat_read.php?thread=5385149&page=2#ixzz2kvC2rTrX

SlowFatMaster

What´s your point ? Sorry i don´t understand what´s the link to Lydiard debate or the silly Lydiardism of some they are recurrent to say it´s easy to train a kenyan runner, or as Lydiard said "everybody can coach on kenyan runner" as i prove to you all that he said that.

I guess that the faster and the better and well conditioning the runner is the harder is to make him progress. Consequently only with some sophisticated training methodology that can be done. Lydiard and Lydiardism is wrong once again.

Athleticsillustrated wrote:

Coe did some heavy mileage in Kenya et al

WHAAT?

Hi Antonio:

My point is that Renato said that after 5 months of training under Renato, Job Kinyor could not break 20 minutes for the 5000. So, people who think "All Kenyans have huge aerobic base so it is easy to train them" are wrong, at least in the case of Job Kinyor.

SlowFatMaster wrote:

Hi Antonio:

My point is that Renato said that after 5 months of training under Renato, Job Kinyor could not break 20 minutes for the 5000. So, people who think "All Kenyans have huge aerobic base so it is easy to train them" are wrong, at least in the case of Job Kinyor.

Wait.....is Job Kinyor = SlowFatMaster?

Pondering wrote:

Re reading Running with Buffs today and thinking about Lydiard's quote: (paraphrased) "there are lots of runners in the world who can run 46 seconds for 400 meters, but only a few who can run 1:44 for 800 meters, or two laps of 52 seconds. Therefore it is far more essential to train endurance."

What if the runner doesn't have the 47-48 speed needed at the minimum to go 1:44? Isn't it necessary to train speed? This goes for 1,500-5,000 as well.

With a quick glance over the rest of the thread, I couldn't really see much of discussion on the original question…or is it just me??? ;o)

I'm not sure of 400m time but Lydiard liked to use 200m as a guide for the Basic Speed. 400m would require some level of stamina/endurance. To be a 1:44 800m runner, you would probably need 22.5-second 200m speed. That WOULD probably translate as 46-47 second 400m speed. If you don't have 22.5-second 200m speed, it would be very difficult to be a successful international 800m runner. If you are shooting for Olympics or World Championships and if you don't have that sort of "speed", it would probably be smarter to concentrate on 5000-10000m events. Barry Magee had 25-seconds for his PR for 200m and he was trained as a marathon runner in mind from the get-go. Lydiard figured 25-seconds 200m is good for "only" 1:52 800m. Peter (Snell) gave me a chart for 200m-800m equivalent and he figured you'd need 22.5-second for 1:43-1:46 for 800m. 23-second for 1:46-1:48. If you don't have that sort of speed, would you spend tons of time and effort trying to improve your 200m speed; or would it make more sense to move up the distance? Toshinari Takaoka, Japanese national record holder for 3k, 10k and the marathon, has a tad faster than 24-seconds for 200m and his 800m PR is 1:50. He was the first non-African in the final of 10000m at Sydney Olympics.

Bear in mind; the faster speed that you have, the more advantageous you'd be even in longer events which is quite apparent with the examples of Debaba or Bekele. It is not a matter of how fresh you may be at the finish line; but how fast/quick you are in the final 200-400m. All the stamina in the world won't get you the gold medal if you don't have superior leg-speed; a good example is that Turkish girl who presses the pace in the second half but never beaten Debaba; or Radcliffe who could push the pace but never won major title in 10000m when up against runners with superior kick.

It is important, however, that you work on your speed to maximum first before you check your Basic Speed. Today, with so many recreational runners hitting the roads; when they say, "I'm not fast," and I ask them if they ever actually worked on their leg-speed, 9 out of 10 times the answer is no. You cannot gauge your Basic Speed if you never work on developing it. This is what I call "No Need For Speed" syndrome and has to be retaught otherwise.

Coach Canova: It was good to see you in London in April for the marathon. I was just back in Japan for 10-days (a week in Tokyo) and came home sick. Lorraine (Moller) teased me that I got exposed to radiation too much!! (;o)) If you're in China for long, be careful with their pollution!!

PS: By the way, for the record, I think Chris Kelsall is a good guy.

Antonio,

Calling something stupid is a pure emotional statement of opinion, rather than statement of fact.

Despite your firm conviction about "aerobic first", Lydiard, and his followers, demonstrated by many examples, that he can produce world class athletes, by applying his training concepts. Assuming you are correct, and it's not the best approach, it's not far.

Your "aerobic first" reduction is only one part of the Lydiard approach, and arguably not the most important part. Besides the sequence and timing of training, overall balance is important. The "aerobic first" sequence is one way to ensure that by race day, you have sufficiently trained many systems in a balanced way. Of course, it is not the only way (not even the only Lydiard way), and may not always be the best way, for everyone (e.g. your 800m runner).

A much more value added comment, assuming the truth in "aerobic first" stupidity, what (and how much) does "an aerobic first" linear periodization approach cost us:

- do we just take longer to arrive at our potential?

- or do we just never reach the same result, always falling short of our potential?

Did you ever answer the question of the thread, "Does the Lydiard/Wetmore system do enough to develop speed?" This is a question directed, not at "aerobic first", but "speed last".

JCTW wrote:

Just ignore him. Then maybe he\'ll stop being an A-hole.

^this

Don\'t feed the troll. He hasn\'t produced any readworthy material since Hadd (R.I.P.) left us.

jono,For an exciting weekend, I re-read Noakes "physiology" section in "The Lore of Running", and I couldn't find any obvious or glaring contradictions between Noakes and Canova's training descriptions of improving LACTIC POWER, and LACTIC CAPACITY and LACTIC RESISTANCE. Did you have something specific in mind?Some interesting points coming from Noakes confirm everyone's common understanding of basic phsyiology -- at least what was state of the art in the 1990's. He seems to agree that performance improvements come from 3 sources:- With training, VO2max typically improves from 5-15%. This is an expected range. Some athletes don't improve at all (0%), while others (elite athletes) can improve by as much 60%. When oxygen improvements stop, VO2max training still leads to performance improvements (for other reasons described in economy). VO2max training still remains relevant, when measured by the stopwatch, even when oxygen measurements have maxed out.- With training, the lactate curve also improves. He doesn't like the word threshold, but concedes that trained athletes can sustain a higher intensity (expressed as a percentage of VO2max) for longer periods, thanks to improved abilities to produce and consume lactate and shuttle lactate elsewhere for consumption or conversion.- Remaining improvements come from many sources, and are grouped into the third category of economy -- e.g. the ability to run faster without increased oxygen use (or run the same speed with less oxygen).I think it's a good thing to stop the same explanations over and over and over. I've long thought you need to find better explanations, especially when your ideas seem to contradict, not only common beliefs, but measured experiences. Instead you shield your arguments with the claims of "debunking mythology" and "ignorance of basic physiology".

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.