lmb wrote:
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.
Jones' theories still run totally counter to everything in the mainstream. His greatness is that he had the independence to say "to Hell with what other trainers are doing, this is the correct way," fully knowing, but not caring, that most people are too ignorant to listen.
This isn't a black and white issue. You should never just follow one or the other. Look at all programs and pull out the good parts.
Ernst Van Aaken
Lydiard brought us distance training methods. Before him, they didn't exist in a coordinated way.
DON'T follow word-for-word his programs that are published in his books. The publisher made him put schedules in because that would help sell the books. He didn't want to do that.
Instead, follow his five core principles and look at the schedules for a general idea.
Coaching is art, science and "other".
Don't hire a coach solely based on their natural talent to run. A prospective coach can be dumb as a stump but may have talent and a great racing resume - who cares! Hire based on coaching knowledge and ability.
Human physiology hasn't changed in thousands of years or forever (depending on what evolutionary theory you subscribe to). And human physiology certainly hasn't changed since the late 1950s.
Keith Livingstone put out the best selling book Healthy Intelligent Training several years ago. It is the best modern interpretation of Lydiard training (written in today's language with heart rate info - there weren't hrms around in Lydiard's first couple of decades, so he never used them).
I was at a coaching conference a few years ago and bothe Coach Li of Arizona (Lawli Lalang's coach) and Salazar got up to speak one after the other. They both said, "I coach by the Lydiard method."
But their methods were polar opposites. One was intimate with every detail, was moderate high mileage, into a high level of quality for longer than Lydiard ever prescribed, the other was a low-ish volume advocate who wasn't sure how much his athlete was actually running in weekly volume. Two methods that couldn't look more different from each other and not like Lydiard either, on the surface.
Most people are actually not quite as familiar with Lydiard as they think they may be.
But regardless, I would choose Lydiard but would use Daniels formulas against "feeling-based" training (RPE) and HR.
Wet Coast wrote:
But regardless, I would choose Lydiard but would use Daniels formulas against "feeling-based" training (RPE) and HR.
Feel over pace.
Tinman
Wet Coast wrote:
Human physiology hasn't changed in thousands of years or forever (depending on what evolutionary theory you subscribe to). And human physiology certainly hasn't changed since the late 1950s.
That's not true, human physiology is constantly evolving. You know how fast the body adapts to training? Extremely fast. Look at the progression of mile or 5k times in just the last 100 years - it's insane. In 1897, the fastest 5k time ever run (officially) was 16:34. Today, many HS kids run this time in a tempo run.
Often the kids of parents who were great runners also become great runners. People talk about "having the right genes/parents" all the time. This is not coincidence, if your mother was extremely sporty or a good runner, chances that you have at least the physiological capabilities to be a great runner are much higher than if your mum was just a couch potato.
I give you some times of the Summer Olympics 1896:
400m
1st 54.2
2nd 55.2
3rd 56.7
1500m
1st 4:33
2nd 4:33
3rd 4:36
Marathon (only 40km)
1st 2:58
2nd 3:06
3rd 3:06
These times are by male runners btw. Today, talented untrained people can already run 3 hours for the marathon and 50 sec for the 400m (Canova set the bar even higher, saying highly talented females can run 35-36 min 10k and males 31-32 min with no training).
Since then, training got better, better shoes but one important adaption is that the parents of my kids have been runners or active endurance athletes and gave them better genes for running.
LateRunnerPhil wrote:
Wet Coast wrote:
Human physiology hasn't changed in thousands of years or forever (depending on what evolutionary theory you subscribe to). And human physiology certainly hasn't changed since the late 1950s.
That's not true, human physiology is constantly evolving. You know how fast the body adapts to training? Extremely fast. Look at the progression of mile or 5k times in just the last 100 years - it's insane. In 1897, the fastest 5k time ever run (officially) was 16:34. Today, many HS kids run this time in a tempo run.
Since then, training got better, better shoes but one important adaption is that the parents of my kids have been runners or active endurance athletes and gave them better genes for running.
No. You still have the basic physiological mechanisms now as before you started running. As far as training getting better. I don't buy that at all. Just the drugs has improved(also mindset, shoes, and tracks). Take Herb Elliott or Henry Rono in their prime and put them on modern tracks/drugs. They'd both be under the current worlds records of their best events.
+1. Was a big fan of Daniels during heavy mileage and racing years. I still recommend him to runners frequently. I preferred his first edition though and didn't like some of the changes he made in training plans and recommendations in later editions.
Ghost of Igloi wrote:
The best reason to use Daniels is the formula. The others are open to interpretation.
Some truth in this statement.
Who really was the last of the clean athletes? Where's Waldo?
Lydiard trained Peter Snell on the dirt and grass tracks to an 800m 1:44 nearly 60 years ago. With rubber providing at least a 1-second benefit per lap that's at least a 1:42. Now, what if he was challenged by a drug-aided athlete???
Snell also didn't fit the supposed middle-distance body type. His 85-100 mile weeks didn't include supplemental mileage, tennis, cricket and other sports that he played.
It’s amazing to me all these programs and books on training when running can be summed up in a paragraph.
Do this year round...
Jog a lot with the longest run not taking more than 3 hours
Average about 6 runs a month that are fast but still comfortable
Average about 2 runs a month that really hurt
Do strength exercises to prevent injury and improve form
Get enough sleep
Eat and hydrate well
Wear decent shoes
Have you figured out which parts work well for you and which don't?
Long term, the point of following a specific program for a while is to learn how you respond to different types of workouts and training styles, so that you can make adjustments to the areas that aren't working that well.
The best training program is the one you can make work for you that leads to consistent, long-term results with minimal injury. It will only be discovered by constant experimenting/tweaking/fiddling. For myself it took almost 5+ years of trying what all my 'coaches' thought would lead to success...finally had to strike out on my own and see what I could do...sampled a bit here, a bit there, and after a year or two on my own finally found what worked for me. Good luck.
Not a guru wrote:
It’s amazing to me all these programs and books on training when running can be summed up in a paragraph.
Do this year round...
Jog a lot with the longest run not taking more than 3 hours
Average about 6 runs a month that are fast but still comfortable
Average about 2 runs a month that really hurt
Do strength exercises to prevent injury and improve form
Get enough sleep
Eat and hydrate well
Wear decent shoes
Good.
Also this:
https://www.letsrun.com/news/2019/08/running-training-101-six-keys-to-becoming-a-better-high-school-runner/Why not Cerutty, Igloi, Bowerman, Vigil, Larson, Wetmore, Centrowitz (Sr.)? Shoot, Tinman, Salazar, Canova, Schumacher, and Powell have all seen quite a bit of success. And I know I’m leaving out dozens of coaches (many better than these) each with their unique approach to getting athletes ready for their target performances. Seems reductive to just argue Daniels vs Lydiard.
:) ~ Coach JS :) he's magic!
chocholo wrote:
I have been using Daniels for the past couple of years, but looking to change it up a bit. Thoughts?
Alberto Salazar training program.
Bullet_Proof wrote:
chocholo wrote:
I have been using Daniels for the past couple of years, but looking to change it up a bit. Thoughts?
Alberto Salazar training program.
You'll need a pharmacy.
Controversial? wrote:
Why not Cerutty, Igloi, Bowerman, Vigil, Larson, Wetmore, Centrowitz (Sr.)? Shoot, Tinman, Salazar, Canova, Schumacher, and Powell have all seen quite a bit of success. And I know I’m leaving out dozens of coaches (many better than these) each with their unique approach to getting athletes ready for their target performances. Seems reductive to just argue Daniels vs Lydiard.
Because very few of them have published their training methodology enough so that you could realistically follow along. You could say the same about Lydiard. The basics are the same but I have seen enough difference to hesitate to say what real lydiard training is. People debate forever what the paces mean (is near best aerobic pace right around marathon pace? Marathon+1 min? ), what miles were counted, and what training was actually done. And some of the sharpening phases I have seen just seem interval excessive. I am just not up for 5 track workouts/week:)
Agree 100%. I wasn't just talking about Lydiard vs Daniels. Just named a coupled in the title.
Some good discussion here. Let's keep it going.
I was using Daniels pretty heavily for mile/mid-d work right after college. Had a good 6 months of training with this which got me back under 4:20 and low 15's in road races. I kept using the training methodology throughout a a few years with light mileage when I was still keeping it going with some road races. I always used the phased approach which really has you touching on all paces (Rep, Vo2, threshold, fast) during each...but with a focus on 1 primary area. I felt the constant threshold work (even for mid-d guy) was really good. I would say that some of the Vo2 work was pretty hard. Even based on my Vdot, the paces were pretty tough at times.
My goals now are strictly looking at training for 5K's or above. I still like Daniels, but really looking at alot more (Lydiard, Coe, Tinman, Kellogg, etc). My mileage is alot more than younger years as my body seems to be handling it better. I think this along with an interest for change has me looking into other training options.