The huge base and great conditioning made the athletes strong and strong through the heats to the final.
The method is too simple for some to accept...
The reason Snell could do all that hard anaerobic work was BECAUSE of all those long runs he did during buildup.
Nothing you say is relevant to the discussion of Lydiard/Daniels.
But of course Lydiard's place is well established and you're just another example of what arthur used to call the "Tall Poppy" syndrome, i.e. people who haven't accomplished anything and make themselves feel better about it by trashing people who have accomplished something.
Of course there is no perfect training method that applies to all runners; if so then no need at all for coaches -- just read the proper way to do it and all do exactly the same training day after day. A coach helps each runner do his/her best by providing the proper training environment for each, the envoronment that allows each runner's ability to be released.
If you type 150 words a minute but misspell them all, you need to work on accuracy, your weakness; another may spell all words correctly, but can type no more than 30 words a minute. These two individuals have to train a bit differently. Certainly there are some basic training principles, for example, if you have never run and you start by jogging 20 miles a week, you will become a better runner. Increase the training load and become even better. At some point increasing the intensity will probably produce better improvement than just going to more and more mileage. Now we start to get into a little different situation -- doing something other than just increasing the amount or the speed of running, and this is where the individual differences really start to show up. And never overlook the psychological sideof it all -- how is the reward you feel from various types of workouts; same performance may be acepted very differently by two different runners. Enough for now.
On the other hand some posts of this same thread it goes a discuss about Hamlet question "to be or not to be" that´s to say "aerobic or anaerobic" or "acid lactic good or bad".
As i never read nothing negative about it from your posts you may agree and Lydiardism too that this Tinman wellnow physiologic interesting discuss it have an huge and a positive contribute to the Lydiard/Daniels discuss. As i see you don´t disagree with Tinman or wellnow but you also you don´t take your personal position or comment on such an important issue for the future of the Lydiardism and for the future of the training distance if not the future of the mankind. I hope you don´t consider each one Tinman or wellnow "Tall Poppy".
This 2 guys they did a major accomplishment in the run sport. In my skuj alter ego I just wait for their superior and specific conclusion about the aerobic anaerobic issue and i hope that they will have time to discuss how the way to lace the shoes it contributes to the perfect combination of the aerobic and anaerobic training.
okaythenIwant to see wrote:
It is too easy to use the success accomplished by Lydiard's Olympic Medallists to justify the need of the long runs.
It is up to you guys to tell us which world class middle distance runners you have COACHED, who have used long runs as a regular, consistent part of their training.
I know for a fact that some posters here speak from THEIR OWN COACHING EXPERIENCE. HRE, Westcoast, Craigmac DO NOT.
I really have almost no idea what you're saying, but you might be asking what I think about the discussion of the way words like aerobic and anaerobic are used?
If so, I don't have an opinion. There's running that makes you breath hard, running that allows you to breath easily and varying kinds of running in between. Obviously you want to be able to run as fast as possible while breathing as easily as possible and you want to train to make that happen.
I don't see how the terminology matters. If you're asking something else I'm sorry I answered something else.
If so what´s the meaning of a Jack Daniels when he writes a book about training ? Is that training book for the running history and simply to let us know who is Jack and how are Jack´s training principles, or is that book for coaches or for runners ? What is that training book for if he need a coach ?
That´s something that the Lydiard method ignores. Lydiard training is quite immutable.
The Light wrote:
... Some have accused Lydiard of being an economist,
I think that the clash between the old science and the new science is detrimental to a runner's confidence.
Does science matter in Lydiardism? Yes, very much because a lot ot runners are worried that others are using science to gain an advantage or an unfair advantage.
So your confidence can be boosted or shaken by knowledge or doubt, just as it always has been.