Did the Beijing WC prove that Arthur Lydiard method is outdated?

800 dude wrote:

Also, the length of a peak is largely determined by the FT/ST breakdown of the athlete. Training can determine when the peak occurs, but FT runners will always have shorter, more dramatic peaks than ST runners. Where non-linear periodization is really helpful is for FT runners who want to have multiple peaks, which is not the same thing as long peaks. A FT runner who practices non-linear periodization properly can build up to a peak very quickly, recover, and do it again.

Ah, the FT/ST bullshit again. Why don't you talk about mid distance runners vs long distance runners instead? That does at least make sense and can be tested against the real world. Those rattus norvegicus based myths have demonstrated as much prediction power as Harold Camping's prophecies.

Lydiard's method had a base phase where he said you don't just jog around. He called it "steady state" and it meant high aerobic running (usually 60+min). This and a long run (usually 90-120min) were the primary goal of the base phase. The long run was intended to be run such that the pace was increased later in the run. He often had his athletes run a hilly loop where the 2nd half was downhill to naturally make them speed up.

He also had his athletes doing strides and drills. Some use the name "plyometrics" for some exercises he called drills. Basic speed? Check.

The hill phase developed power without great chance of injury. It also prepared athletes for the interval phase.

His intervals were a progression from longer to shorter intervals where the athlete would reach a maximum sharpness at the end. So today we would probably call it a series of VO2Max intervals followed by maximum speed with short rest intervals.

It is possible that some WC athletes do parts of each phase throughout the year, but I suspect that EVERY distance runner is doing these things with a primary emphasis on one phase at a time. It is unlikely that they are doing intervals a 100% effort for more than during a build up to a peak race.

In other words, they are all doing a base phase. They probably do plenty of strides to maintain basic speed. Though they may continue doing intervals once a week, the intervals are probably being run at 3/4 effort as Lydiard would say. They are making sure they recover so they can still do long runs and steady state as their primary focus.

SteadyState wrote:

They are making sure they recover so they can still do long runs and steady state as their primary focus.

You say that all WC runners do a base phase with long runs and steady state as their primary focus? HAHAHAHAHA!

Comparing Lydiard vs Canova is comparing two different eras with so many differences that it is an irrelevant comparison.

Tracks are vastly better now. Tokyo 1964 was a cinder track.

Drugs were not nearly as prevalent or as effective.

Coaches have learned through 50 more years of experience (with the benefit of Lydiard's and others writings) and experimentation.

Va Coach mentioned the different style of racing.

Africans were not a significant factor then.

Canova went to Africa and seeked out the best. Lydiard coached those in his local town who came to him. Only later did he coach foreigners, and not at the same hands on level as his locals.

Lydiard did not take daily/weekly blood samples and manipulate the blood chemistry as many coaches do today.

I bet you failed in debate class. Your post is an "F"

stop it now, Lydidiots wrote:

SteadyState wrote:

They are making sure they recover so they can still do long runs and steady state as their primary focus.

You say that all WC runners do a base phase with long runs and steady state as their primary focus? HAHAHAHAHA!

HardLoper wrote:

nope a dope wrote:

No, he didn't and he was gassed at the end and supported by the second and third place guys.

Kiprop pursed his lips and smirked while cavorting about after running way faster.

Okay, it was the other time Peter Snell ran 3:54. 52" final lap, 24.5" final 220y, easing up at the end. What was Kiprop's final 200 yesterday?

About 25.4"

Idiote wrote:

Two biggies wrote:

John Davies was born in England and Dick Quax is from the Netherlands.

They were still from New Zealand, it's not like they moved there to run.

Nah.. Gotta be born and bred in a country before you can really be claimed as a product of said country.

mo medals mo problems wrote:

fadsfasfadsf wrote:

Lydiard's record is pretty pathetic compared to Canova. 6 WRs, 42 medals at the WCS, and 8 Olympic medals. And that's athletes he PERSONALLY COACHED, not just people who were "inspired" by him or "followed his philosophy."

Considering there were no world championships back then, there are way more medals to be had today. 8 Olympic medals is more or less the same than Lydiard's athletes is it not?

Off the top of my head, Lydiard is even on the WRs too - at least if you count the old imperial distances.

Snell:

WR 800m, 880yd, 1000m, 1 mile (twice)

Halberg:

WR 3 mile

Bill Baillie:

WR 1 hour run, 20,000m

Olympic medals are Snell (3), Halberg (1), Davies (1) and Magee (1) - just the ones directly coached by Lydiard. I think Lydiard athletes won as many medals in 1960 & 1964 as all NZ runners have won from 1968-2012.

As for the argument that Lydiard doesn't deserve as much credit because some of his athletes weren't born in NZ, surely the fact that some weren't born in NZ suggests the very opposite? If they were all born in NZ, it would suggest some unusual genetic or environmental factor. Instead, the main thing Snell, Halberg, Baillie, Magee, Julian, Davies and Dick Taylor have in common is Lydiard.

So why didn't Arthur just come up with a new batch of NZ athletes every five years or so? He lived for another 40 years.

By contrast the Africans have been prominent every year since Keino .

Let's also not lose sight of the fact that only Snell actually ran what would be considered really fast today.

Two biggies wrote:

Idiote wrote:

They were still from New Zealand, it's not like they moved there to run.

Nah.. Gotta be born and bred in a country before you can really be claimed as a product of said country.

No you don't. Unless they were recruited for running purposes they are a product of New Zealand and your argument otherwise is desperate.

Idiote wrote:

Two biggies wrote:

Nah.. Gotta be born and bred in a country before you can really be claimed as a product of said country.

No you don't. Unless they were recruited for running purposes they are a product of New Zealand and your argument otherwise is desperate.

No, If you import a cow from one country to another and make it into a great hamburger, the home country still produced it even if you didn't intend to eat it originally.

dfrasfadsfadsfadsf wrote:

GlobalView wrote:

HRE slam-dunked this thread pages ago, when they quite rightly pointed out that it is an aerobic basis and buffer that allows you to access a greater percentage of other energy systems late in a race (like the energy system required to run, say, a 51s 400m at the end of a 1500m).

All I can say to the OP is to ask: "You do realize that the Lydiard principle (and variants...as long as they don't diverge too far from the original template) is now being used by 100 percent of the world's elite endurance athletes, right?"

Again...doing interval workouts year-round is DIVERGING VERY FAR from Lydiard's template. He would tell you that you are doing it wrong. Again, it's like me saying that 100% of endurance elites use Igloi training because they all do interval workouts.

Patently false

A Fresh batch wrote:

So why didn't Arthur just come up with a new batch of NZ athletes every five years or so? He lived for another 40 years.

By contrast the Africans have been prominent every year since Keino .

Let's also not lose sight of the fact that only Snell actually ran what would be considered really fast today.

Because he left NZ not too long afterwards, winding up in Finland for a while - hence the comments about Viren. I don't recall him being the full-time coach for too many more athletes apart from Dick Taylor.

I saw him speak in the mid 90s and he claimed to have advised the NZ kayakers at the 1984 Olympics. They won medals in all 5 men's events at that Olympics including 4 gold so not a bad result for a country with 4.5 million people (now).

I'm not disputing the suggestion that training methods have moved on, but it does seem that the key thing that made Lydiard's training different from his predecessors (long training just below the aerobic threshold) forms the basis of most people's training today. I'm sure Lydiard would have learned from advances by other coaches and in medical science since then and changed his approach - maybe his exact original methods are outdated but from what I gather the key things that made it different from what went before are still intact.

A disclaimer here - my knowledge of how people train today is based only on observation rather than personal knowledge. What would I know - I'm a sprinter ;)

mo medals mo problems wrote:

fadsfasfadsf wrote:

Lydiard's record is pretty pathetic compared to Canova. 6 WRs, 42 medals at the WCS, and 8 Olympic medals. And that's athletes he PERSONALLY COACHED, not just people who were "inspired" by him or "followed his philosophy."

Considering there were no world championships back then, there are way more medals to be had today. 8 Olympic medals is more or less the same than Lydiard's athletes is it not?

You´re being rude here. You´re basically saying that the guy above is an ignorant idiot (which he is). Not very nice of you!

Two biggies wrote:

Idiote wrote:

No you don't. Unless they were recruited for running purposes they are a product of New Zealand and your argument otherwise is desperate.

No, If you import a cow from one country to another and make it into a great hamburger, the home country still produced it even if you didn't intend to eat it originally.

Wrong again!

already fast wrote:

Another fun fact: Some NZ athletes were not actually born there which should limit a bit of the raving about high numbers of elites from such a small area.

No it shouldn't, they were all selected from the same tiny sample. Their birthplace is irrelevant.

Woodsman wrote:

(long training just below the aerobic threshold) forms the basis of most people's training today.

That's plain wrong. You don't know anything about elite training.

And Lydiard's "best aerobic effort" was more related to marathon pace than to "threshold" pace. How many 800 elite runners today would train to be able to run a "fine marathon" 8 weeks before their main competition? I haven't heard of anyone.

stop it now, Lydidiots wrote:

Woodsman wrote:

(long training just below the aerobic threshold) forms the basis of most people's training today.

That's plain wrong. You don't know anything about elite training.

And Lydiard's "best aerobic effort" was more related to marathon pace than to "threshold" pace. How many 800 elite runners today would train to be able to run a "fine marathon" 8 weeks before their main competition? I haven't heard of anyone.

"Aerobic threshold" is around marathon pace, idiot. "Anaerobic threshold/LT threshold" is is generally defined as 1 hour race pace.

stop it now, Lydidiots wrote:

Woodsman wrote:

(long training just below the aerobic threshold) forms the basis of most people's training today.

That's plain wrong. You don't know anything about elite training.

No need for the aggression - I said I wasn't an expert. The use of the phrase 'it seems' would have been a clue to any reasonable person that I wasn't certain.

What I have observed, however, is athletes who are just below elite level, or masters athletes who used to be elite, who do include long running at a reasonable pace as part of their training.

The reason I don't comment very often on this site is because responses frequently seem to include comments like 'you don't know anything' or 'you're an idiot'. We can all be aggressive bell-ends if we want, but that doesn't really get us anywhere.

Please remember, although you may have a penis, there's really no need to be one.