In your opinion, what is the best training program? Lydiard, Daniels, Coe, etc?

Lydiard

Different programs work for different people. I know people, personally, who have benefited from Daniels.

I coached high school for 20 years, never read hos book, but I met him on a few occasions when he was at SUNY Cortland, NY

I explained my program and he said it was his program simplified for high school kids.

MHO- if you're going to change look to Lydiard, because it won't be a radical change but be careful, do a lot of research- a lot of people misinterpret Lydiard.

The same could be said for Daniels but I think if you have a basic knowledge of training you'll get Daniels right, not necessarily Lydiard.

To be honest, I don't completely get Lydiard. It seems too basic and a bit odd. Heavy mileage with tempo work...hill phase...etc. What is unique other than an entire phase dedicated at hill bounding/sprints?

Why do people think it's over the top amazing?

Most people just don't understand these all methods.

Actually in every single option there is all you need to be successful.

We just think that "Coe" - means low mileage and high intensity, "Lidyard" - means 100 miles of slow running and so on.

In reality Lydiard's program had a lot of moderate and fast running, also "Coe" ran not 40-50 miles at 5:00-5:30 per mile, but

much more and very often slower (for recovery), especially during base phase.

Just don't be so naive and try to understand what should you do for being fast at 800/1500/3000/5000 and so on.

None of the above. Read the works of Arthur Jones, inventor of Nautilus. He discovered the correct basic philosophy of physical training, which are applicable to running as well as every other athletic endeavor. If you saw what an idealized training program for any distance running even really looks like, it would shock as well as probably anger you. It runs totally counter to what everyone believes.

iflyboats wrote:

None of the above. Read the works of Arthur Jones, inventor of Nautilus. He discovered the correct basic philosophy of physical training, which are applicable to running as well as every other athletic endeavor. If you saw what an idealized training program for any distance running even really looks like, it would shock as well as probably anger you. It runs totally counter to what everyone believes.

Know how fast people who use HIT are? Not that fast. Study after study on elite endurance athlete from cycling to XC skiing to running etc. Show they do about 70-90 percent of their training at a easy intensity. If you train for middle to long distance running events like Arthur Jones or Mike Mentzer trained for weight lifting/bodybuilding, you will not go far.

I understand Lydiard pretty good. Here's some good material on him, if you have any additional questions, just ask:

https://beaconhillstriders.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/Marty-Liquori-Conditioning-of-Elite-Runners.pdf

https://beaconhillstriders.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/Athletic-Training-Lydiard.pdf

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=fiUEoTIJNII

https://youtu.be/HSA7nKTHko0

Love Arthur, but this has got to be a troll. A really talented hs kid could probably do pretty well in the 800, maybe even in the 1600, on that kind of training. But wouldn't not reach potential, and it definitely would not work for the aerobically untalented.

Arthur Jones Fan wrote:

Love Arthur, but this has got to be a troll. A really talented hs kid could probably do pretty well in the 800, maybe even in the 1600, on that kind of training. But wouldn't not reach potential, and it definitely would not work for the aerobically untalented.

To be clear, this is about Arthur Jones, not lydiard!!!!!

Also, OP there's already a long AF thread on here about Lydiard vs Daniel. Read it, there's a lot of good info on it. Even Daniel himself post on that thread.

Not a cross fit moran wrote:

Know how fast people who use HIT are? Not that fast. Study after study on elite endurance athlete from cycling to XC skiing to running etc. Show they do about 70-90 percent of their training at a easy intensity. If you train for middle to long distance running events like Arthur Jones or Mike Mentzer trained for weight lifting/bodybuilding, you will not go far.

I'm not saying to train for running competition by using HIT weight training. I'm saying to train for it by conducting running workouts that are HARD, BRIEF, and INFREQUENT. Not by jogging.

iflyboats wrote:

Not a cross fit moran wrote:

Know how fast people who use HIT are? Not that fast. Study after study on elite endurance athlete from cycling to XC skiing to running etc. Show they do about 70-90 percent of their training at a easy intensity. If you train for middle to long distance running events like Arthur Jones or Mike Mentzer trained for weight lifting/bodybuilding, you will not go far.

I'm not saying to train for running competition by using HIT weight training. I'm saying to train for it by conducting running workouts that are HARD, BRIEF, and INFREQUENT. Not by jogging.

I know that's what you're saying. And it won't work. Except maybe for genetic freaks and/or people on drugs.

Lydiard made more contributions to the sport than any other coach, but I wouldn’t want to go backward in time from Daniels to Lydiard.

I would rather experiment a little with newer approaches than to go back to what Lydiard did (and which became the baseline for Daniels and others who followed Lydiard).

I’m an avowed Daniels guy, but we’re into decide to change things up, I’d rather look at Canova or Tinman and see if the very different Canova funnel approach worked for me or if Tinman has stumbled onto the next step of the evolutionary process with his CV and mixed pace workouts.

This

https://beaconhillstriders.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/M-L-Distance-Training-Nic-Bideau.pdf

Smoove wrote:

Lydiard made more contributions to the sport than any other coach, but I wouldn’t want to go backward in time from Daniels to Lydiard.

I would rather experiment a little with newer approaches than to go back to what Lydiard did (and which became the baseline for Daniels and others who followed Lydiard).

I’m an avowed Daniels guy, but we’re into decide to change things up, I’d rather look at Canova or Tinman and see if the very different Canova funnel approach worked for me or if Tinman has stumbled onto the next step of the evolutionary process with his CV and mixed pace workouts.

I'm curious about the new coach JS and his Dancane approach.I'm considering to let him coach me for six months to see what happens.

Arthur Jones' theories and equipment are a relic of days past. Name me a modern professional trainer, not some back at the local LA fitness or some other chain, who uses his hypotheses. They are nonsense.

It’s Lydiard’s world, we’re just running in it.

The best reason to use Daniels is the formula. The others are open to interpretation.