I didn't say, nor would I, that science contradicts the Lydiard system. Such a statement doesn't make any sense to me. I think science helps us understand why a system works (or doesn't), but I consider it completely outside the system. So modern science only contradicts old science, but for me, both are decoupled from the Lydiard system.I don't know what you want to say by "outdated". Sure the system was developed sometime ago, before I was born, but these things don't have expiration dates, do they? It's not like milk. My PC is outdated, but still does everything I want, as long as I don't have to upgrade anything.And the success of other systems don't necessarily show a failure of the Lydiard system. Will following the Lydiard system fail to bring me to my full potential, or fail to bring me high peaks during important races? Will violating a Lydiard principal bring these things faster or higher?I would realize it was inadequate if someone could properly show it was inadequate. If it's really true, it shouldn't be that hard.Regards,
IQ100 wrote:
That´s not just the modern science knowledge that contradicts SOME aspects of the Lydiard system. That is the modern trial and error done for the last 3 1/2 decades. To be a long period of months with aerobic runs and without intervals, to train the anaerobic for some 6 weeks that´s all outdate.
When do you realise that Lydiard is outdate and is innadequate in many aspects ?