I confess to debating this particular point very often. IQ100/Antonio Cabral also debates it, but his wording is very frank and shocking at times. I understand why people get upset at him. But saying, publicly, that he is me, still warrants an apology, and I'm still waiting.
On a basic level, this debate is ridiculous, because we all love running, so what's the big deal? Sheesh! However....
....I am intensely interested, as a student of this sport, in historical accuracy. I cannot understand why, time and time again, "Lydiardism" has been ascribed to something that is NOT Lydiard. Arguments are often made that this or that runner follows a Lydiard Program, when careful srutiny shows otherwise. Arguments are also often made for direct influence of Lydiard, when again, careful scrutiny shows otherwise.
I don't want someone to tell me that the Norman Invasion of England in 1066 is directly responsible for the production of the Austin Mini.
Now, because I debate this, CK, HRE, Nobby, and now Keith will tell me that I am jealous/defensive of Lydiardism, or somehow hateful towards this great man who achieved so much. Keith now wants to say, publicly, that I will pounce on someone if they deviate from a schedule that is written in a book. How he can come to such a conclusion is beyond my comprehension.
So, backtracking a little, we heard that Oz is now a Lydiard Disciple. I don't understand this statement at all. Perhaps Oz will see this, and state that he is indeed a Lydiard Disciple, and I will be the Dumbass. Until then, I'm going by what I know about the Lydiard Principles, and what I know about Steve's training, which was posted on a now defunct UVic Running site over the course of many weeks, a couple of years ago.
I want to know why JB did 6x1600m in 4:48, when somewhat out of shape, and very early in a macrocycle.
I want to know how, as much as I'm very greatful to see him there, 52 x CVRRTNW per year makes Keith a Lydiard Disciple.
Please list the main Lydiard Principles. Does the Lydiard Program have specific ideals and boundaries? I think it does. (If you are brave, read parts of that letsrun thread that I linked.) Why do we keep hearing from some people that Lydiard is responsible for things that other people in history are in fact responsible for? Why do we keep hearing that something is Lydiardism, when another influence would more accurately and truthfully decribe it? Why do we say that some people are following a Lydiard Program when they are not?
I have my own answers to why these things occur, and they jive with the basic premise that Antonio/IQ100 states. There are some very overzealous people who want to overlook history and definitions.
I know this is going to cause some people to have a fit. I try to be respectful in these debates. But there is so much emotion in it for those who disagree with my views.
Over the last few months I've quit a couple of running forums. I spend way too much time doing things like this, which become very draining, hahaha. I don't want this wonderful place to become Letsrun II, and I think my being here, debating the way that I do, will cause that to happen. My email is linked in the CVRRTNW page. I am the club coach, and like any coach, I have a certain style, and a certain belief system.
In closing, Lydiard was a Giant. He did wonderful things, and his influence is monumental. But he was a link in the chain. Many things happened before Lydiard, and many things happened after. There are countless great developments in running history, and Lydiard was a PART of that. Some people want to keep debating that he was much more than just a part, if not the whole. When I talk about training and racing and world events, I like to be accurate in defining influences and methods. To be otherwise is irresponsible and insulting to those who also contributed.
LYDIARD OR DANIELS?
Report Thread
-
-
After much hesitation I decided that since this thread had been gone for a while and came back I'd look and see what was going on with it. There is a lot of nonsense but the last post is reasonable so with even more hesitation I'm going to venture an answer.
My first answer is that I honestly don't believe any answer any of us "Lydiard" guys put here will satisfy you, if only because you'll reckon that we're spouting some sort of unexamined dogma, but also, I think, because in your mind Lydiard training is defined by those schedules that he put in "Run to the Top" and some other books and if you don't see something that looks like that you think it isn't Lydiard training which is hard to deal with when Lydiard himself often gave people schedules that didn't resemble the RTTT schedules.
If you look at any of the influential coaches from Lydiard's era, e.g. Cerutty, Igloi, van Aaken when he eventually became known, you see that one difference between Arthur and these other guys is that they never really published schedules. So if you wanted to train their way you tried to understand training the way they did and then figure out how you're going to apply that knowledge. That's what Lydiard wanted people to do as well. He said thousands of times that the schedules were just "guides."
The principles that he used were nothing that people hadn't messed around with before but I think what really made his ideas seem revolutionary was the de-emphasis on interval work and race paced work and the emphasis on aerobic work relative to what most coaches and athletes at the time were doing and also the emphasis on high volume work even for half milers and milers. I've written before, and you've disagreed with me yet provided no countering examples, that prior to Lydiard it was not common to see track guys doing really long runs or heavy mileage day after day and you didn't USUALLY find marathoners doing what was then called "trackwork."
Cerutty and van Aaken both had their athelets combining the long "aerobic" training. Zatopek was doing high volume work and he was VERY inspirational for Lydiard's runners, Cerutty, and van Aaken. Lydiard was NOT doing anything others didn't do to some degree. He came up with his own way of combining various sorts of training, but Bill Baillie spent some time training with Cerutty and said he didn't see much difference in what either coach had their athltes do. Certainly there are LOTS of similarities between
van Aaken and Lydiard did.
Loads of people have recognized the need for aerobic fitness and to add some race specific wortk. Now almost all of them do.
So what makes something "Lydiard" training as opposed to something else? Really it's just a matter of what and who inspired you. Bob Hodge has always acknowledged a strong Lydiard influence. But not that much of his training diaries look like "Run to the Top." Knut Kvalheim has a quote on the "Renato Canova" thread saying that what he did ain his best years was based on Lydiard's ideas but that he didn't plan to run 1,000 miles in 10 weeks. He just decided tto run lots of miles as preparation for his track work. He ddid no specific hill work. But he was inspired by Lydiard. RRon Clarke has always acknowledged a heavy Lydiard iinfluence although he really only did the base phase. But Lydiard's ideas inspired what he did and Lydiard never said, "He's got it wrong."
So if Steve Osudiak, did I spell his name right, says that his training is influenced by Lydiard I would be inclined to believe him. Really, all of our training is in some respects, our own. But most of what we do is inspired and informed by other people's ideas. -
http://www.lydiardfoundation.org/training/trainingthelydiardway.html
these principles look pretty specific to me. -
http://www.lydiardfoundation.org/pdfs/al_training.pdf
I'm just sayin that the system is well laid out and specific So the argument about what is and what isnt lydiard system influenced should be quite clear. -
---from the cvrr.ca forum wrote:
Over the last few months I've quit a couple of running forums. I spend way too much time doing things like this, which become very draining, hahaha. I don't want this wonderful place to become Letsrun II, and I think my being here, debating the way that I do, will cause that to happen. My email is linked in the CVRRTNW page. I am the club coach, and like any coach, I have a certain style, and a certain belief system.
Can you believe this guy? Is he really that full of himself or is he being sarcastic? Can we get a name here? -
Ok, why don't YOU say what the principles are. I know them pretty well and they are NOT simply a matter of "do this workout now and that other workout then." It's a matter of understanding development a certain way. Once you have that understanding you can apply the principles in different ways.
There was a question about someone doing 6x1600 in 4:48 during the base phase and how that can be construed as a "Lydiard" session. Well, the determinant is whether or not that session was anaerobic running or not. If that particular runner can do that session without becoming seriously out of breath, it would fit into the aerobic phase. It's true that Arthur distrusted that sort of running because he thought there was too much temptation to race it and make it anaerobic. But if that tempation can be resisted and the athlete can run that fast aerobically then it's a "base" workout.
Barry Magee's version of that was a session where he'd run "out" for 30 minutes and "back" in 25 or so. It was the same thing, a very high end aerobic run but you need to understand the principles and motives for doing it. Most runners, by far, can not do 4x1600 in 4:48 without some very hard breathing. A few can.
I am not going to spend a lot more writing long answers to people who reply by saying, "You're wrong" and really nothing more. If you want to discuss something substantial, I will. But if all you're going to do is say that I'm wrong and put up a link to something that I know very well, I'll let you have the last word. -
At least he has finally realized that running forums are a failed personal experiment for him. What's he gonna do now?
-
I have heard a little about Daniels .
The only comment i can make is, how many Olympic medalists and world record holders has he coached ?
Exactly ,end of discussion. -
I have searched through all sorts of things about running. I actaully published an article in Marathon and Beyond about van Aaken. As background for that I checked with his son, Willi van Aaken, with Antonio Cabral who said he knew Harald Norpoth, talked with George Beinhorn and Joan Ullyot, both of whom served as translators for van Aaken on his US tour and for articles he'd written, read articles on the website about him that his family maintains, looked at all the old articles from Runner's World about him, got Track and Field News to send me two very old articles about him from Track Technique, re-read "The van Aaken Method," read most of a German biography about him and two of Manfred Steffney's books.
In all of that I found that Steffney's books were the best sources of schedules. He had some "sample" schedules for marathoners and some actual samples of Christa Vahlensieck's training prior to running the women's world best time in 1975. Outside of Steffney's writings, I found a one sentence description of Liane Winter's training before her win at Boston in 1975, a description of some of the training of a guy called Roland Waschke whom van Aaken coached in the late 50s and early 60s as well as another younger guy from that era whose name escapes me. On some threads here about van Aaken a guy called "vladmir" who trained under EvA has written a little about what he did.
The most descriptive day to day account aside from Steffney's of Vahlensieck's came from Antonio who had a couple month's worth of Harald Norpoth's training from 1962 and from 1964. There was another thread here at LR not too long ago that ghost started about Norpoth and someone posted another couple of week's worth.
The thing is, ALL of those examples are different. If I just typed up those samples from van Aaken's athletes without identifying the athlete, then typed some descriptions of what other athletes who had other coaches or influences did you would be hard pressed to pick out the "van Aaken" ones.
If you have schedules that van Aaken published that are the equivalent of the ones in Lydiard's books, I would be very interested in seeing them. If you're going to send along a list of various titles that I'm supposed to read, no need to bother. -
Ok, I really don't know enough physiology to have an opinion. If I post here again and use either "aerobic" or "anaerobic" I'm using them as Lydiard did, i.e. easy breathing or hard breathing.
-
.....what are YOU gonna do now? ;)
RSO wrote:
At least he has finally realized that running forums are a failed personal experiment for him. What's he gonna do now? -
RSO wrote:
At least he has finally realized that running forums are a failed personal experiment for him. What's he gonna do now?
He's going to do the same thing he's been doing, just with others of his myriad of handles. His stamp is all over this board in recent days. He can't stop, he's addicted to letsrun. -
http://cvrr.ca/forums/viewtopic.php?p=3594#3594
Chris Kelsall wrote:
I don't mind if I get banned, I will take on that risk, with my chin up.
Keith,
It is big of you to apologize openly on your club's website.
It is true that Skuj has played fairly here at CVRR.
But Skuj does not play fair elsewhere and has been banned for it, for life. Additionally, he has moved some very knowledgable people to anger and two to not posting when he is around at Let's Run.
Can you beleive Jack Daniels and Nobby Hashizume!!
He argues others who personally knew Arthur about their experience with the legend...I don't get it...was Skuj a fly on the wall in 1970 when Kiwi Kim Stevenson had a conversation with Arthur?? OR in Rich E's car when he drove Lydiard around on tour or in Arthur's living room when Nobby lived at his house??????
So kill my post if you want, but I think if Darren wants to be as big a man as you Keith, he should go to Let's Run and come on here and humbly apologize AND confirm that he will not act in the fashion he has been - using 100s upon 100s of psuedonyms to pretend faux compliment himself, pretend argue with himself, argue and debate 3 or multiple ways with others in the name of creating chaos at the mention of the name Lydiard.
That would be a great start.
BECAUSE THIS HAS GOT TO STOP.
Again congrats Keith, all the best and anytime you want to discuss Lydiard with me (I will be the western Representative for the Lydiard Foundation soon) contact me anytime. -
If I could have one or the other as my coach (or as my co-coach, since I also coach runners) I would take Lydiard in a heartbeat.
It is the overall impression I have gotten of the man (whom I never met) of someone completely passionate about the sport, who preached that intensity is not a crime and that we don't yet know the limits of human endurance or capacity to perform.
These are the messages I get from Lydiard. The workouts are only a reflection of that.
Hell, I'd bring on Igloi as well on those grounds as well. -
HAHAHA. wrote:
But Skuj does not play fair elsewhere and has been banned for it, for life. Additionally, he has moved some very knowledgable people to anger and two to not posting when he is around at Let's Run.
Can you beleive Jack Daniels and Nobby Hashizume!!
He argues others who personally knew Arthur about their experience with the legend...I don't get it...was Skuj a fly on the wall in 1970 when Kiwi Kim Stevenson had a conversation with Arthur?? OR in Rich E's car when he drove Lydiard around on tour or in Arthur's living room when Nobby lived at his house??????
So kill my post if you want, but I think if Darren wants to be as big a man as you Keith, he should go to Let's Run and come on here and humbly apologize AND confirm that he will not act in the fashion he has been - using 100s upon 100s of psuedonyms to pretend faux compliment himself, pretend argue with himself, argue and debate 3 or multiple ways with others in the name of creating chaos at the mention of the name Lydiard.
You are so right about what you say. Skuj is nothing if not self-centred. The guy always puts himself first. As a coach, this is not a desirable trait. I remember when a local newspaper was doing a story on the club and they sent a photographer around to snap a few candids. Running on the track, Skuj purposely positioned himself at the front of the pack, with a gap, to make sure he was prominently positioned in any photo. There's one on the cvrr web site, so you can see for yourself. He thought the story was about him and not the club.
As for his coaching, I'd say it's adequate but certainly not above average. I used to take everything he said to heart with complete trust. Then I started doing some reading of my own and visiting some of these web sites. After doing that, I realized he's not as capable as he thinks he is. He's probably good enough for our lowly club, but I wouldn't want him working with anyone I knew that had any respectable talent. That's why I just don't get why he argues with the knowledgeable Lydiard folks, and others, here. And I certainly don't understand how he can come on here and group himself with some of the great coaches who post here (yes, that was him using a phony name to tout himself).
There have been some rumblings at cvrr. Let's hope a change in coaches is not too far off. -
nice read on daniels here
http://www.theleadpack.com/2008/02/in-lead-pack-with-dr-jack-daniels.html -
I came across this thread/forum by accident. I couldn't
figure out how to post without replying to somebody else's post. After reading over the last few pages of posts, I figured HRE is a reasonable guy, and won't mind me using to his post, even though I am not responding to his post.
What I want to post is :
In Jack Daniel's 2nd edition of his book, he added a section specifically for the 800 meters. He created two sets of tables showing what times the runner should aim for, depending if the runner was a 400m/800m person, or an 800m/1500m person. He also has a chapter showing trainging tables for a 1500m/3000m person. So in total, there are 2 sets of training information for both the 800m and 1500m runner.
On the Lydiard Foundation web site, there is a PDF file explaining Lydairds system. On page 20 of this file, there is a copy of Peter Snell's training for the 1964 Tokyo Olympics. I compared what Peter was doing to the training information in Jack's book. I compared Peter's times to the training tables created for both the 800m/1500m person and the 1500m/3000m person.
Via the WEB, I found that at Tokyo, Peter ran the 800m in 1:45 and the 1500m in 3:38. So I used those times for the training times comparison.
Defined in Jack's book
F = Jack Daniel's Fast repetitions (created for 800m & 1500m specialists)
R = Jack Daniel's repetitions
I = Jack Daniel's Vo2Max intervals
T = Jack Daniel's Tempo run pace
E = Jack Daniel's Easy distance running pace
Peter did 3 sets of 220's, 1 set of 440's, 1 set of 1 660 followed by 2 100's, 1 set of 800's, 2 3-mile runs, 3 22-mile runs, plus some jogging, 50m-50m stuff,etc. He also took some easy days due to a hurt leg.
Here is the comparison.
** = Closest match between Snell and Daniels
Snell's distances are in yards. Daniel's is in meters.
Jack Daniels Tables
Peter Snell 800m/1500m 1500m/300m
200m training times
20 x 220m avg 27.5 F 26 27 **
6 x 220m avg 26.5 R 30 29
20 x 220m avg 27.8 I 34.5 32
Jack Daniels Tables
Peter Snell 800m/1500m 1500m/300m
400m training times
20 x 440 avg 61 F 52-53 54
R 60-61 ** 58
I 69 64
Jack Daniels Tables
Peter Snell 800m/1500m 1500m/300m
600m training times
1 x 660 1:27 F 1:18-1:19 1:21
R 1:30-1:31 1:27 **
I 1:22 1:36
(The 660 was followed by 2 100 yd runs in 11 secs each.)
Jack Daniels Tables
Peter Snell 800m/1500m 1500m/300m
800m training times
5 x 880 avg 2:13 F 1:44 1:48
R 2:00 1:56
I 2:16-2:18 ** 2:08
Jack Daniels Tables
800m/1500m 1500m/300m
3-miles in 14:48 (4:56 avg) T 5:04-5:08 4:45
3-miles in 14:35 (4:52 avg)
Peter pretty much ran right between the times shown
in the two tables
Jack Daniels Tables
800m/1500m 1500m/3000m
22-mile 2hr 22min (6:27 avg) E 6:02-6:36** 5:46-6:16
22-mile 2hr 33min (6:57 avg) @
22-mile 2hr 23min (6:27 avg)
@ = Ran 3 days after hurting leg
So, Peter's actual training times end up being a mixture of Jack's
800m/1500m and 1500m/3000m training times.
Kind of interesting, isn't it?
Arty -
My previous post did not come out formatted the way I typed it in.
SO I will repost it in the near future so is is readable. -
I came across this thread/forum by accident. I couldn't
figure out how to post without replying to somebody else's post. After reading over the last few pages of posts, I figured HRE is a reasonable guy, and won't mind me using to his post, even though I am not responding to his post.
What I want to post is :
In Jack Daniel's 2nd edition of his book, he added a section specifically for the 800 meters. He created two sets of tables showing what times the runner should aim for, depending if the runner was a 400m/800m person, or an 800m/1500m person. He also has a chapter showing trainging tables for a 1500m/3000m person. So in total, there are 2 sets of training information for both the 800m and 1500m runner.
On the Lydiard Foundation web site, there is a PDF file explaining Lydairds system. On page 20 of this file, there is a copy of Peter Snell's training for the 1964 Tokyo Olympics. I compared what Peter was doing to the training information in Jack's book. I compared Peter's times to the training tables created for both the 800m/1500m person and the 1500m/3000m person.
Via the WEB, I found that at Tokyo, Peter ran the 800m in 1:45 and the 1500m in 3:38. So I used those times for the training times comparison.
Defined in Jack's book
F = Jack Daniel's Fast repetitions (created for 800m & 1500m specialists)
R = Jack Daniel's repetitions
I = Jack Daniel's Vo2Max intervals
T = Jack Daniel's Tempo run pace
E = Jack Daniel's Easy distance running pace
Peter did 3 sets of 220's, 1 set of 440's, 1 set of 1 660 followed by 2 100's, 1 set of 800's, 2 3-mile runs, 3 22-mile runs, plus some jogging, 50m-50m stuff,etc. He also took some easy days due to a hurt leg.
Here is the comparison.
** = Closest match between Snell and Daniels
Snell's distances are in yards. Daniel's is in meters.
--------------------
Peter Snell's 220's
20 x 220m avg 27.5
6 x 220 m avg 26.5
20 x 200m avg 27.8
Jack Daniels Tables for 200m
800m/1500m RUNNER
F 26
R 30
I 34.5
1500m/300m RUNNER
F 27 **
R 29
I 32
-----------------
Peter Snell's 440's
20 x 440 avg 61
Jack Daniels Tables for 400M
800m/1500m RUNNER
F 52-53
R 60-61 **
I 69
1500m/300m RUNNER
F 54
R 58
I 64
-----------------------
Peter Snell's 660 w/ 2 100's
1 x 660 1:27, followed by 2 x 100's 11 secs.
Jack Daniels Tables for 600m
800m/1500m RUNNER
F 1:18-1:19
R 1:30-1:31
I 1:22
1500m/300m RUNNER
F 1:21
R 1:27 **
I 1:36
--------------------------------
Peter Snell's 880's
5 x 880 avg 2:13
Jack Daniels Tables
800m/1500m RUNNER
F 1:44
R 2:00
I 2:16-2:18 **
1500m/300m RUNNER
F 1:48
R 1:56
I 2:08
--------------------------
Peter Snell's 3 mile runs
3-miles in 14:48 (4:56 avg)
3-miles in 14:35 (4:52 avg)
Jack Daniels Tables
800m/1500m RUNNER
T 5:04-5:08
1500m/300m RUNNER
T 4:45
Peter pretty much ran right between the times shown
in the two Jack Daniel's tables.
--------------------------
Peter Snell's 22 mile runs
22-mile 2hr 22min (6:27 avg)
22-mile 2hr 33min (6:57 avg) @
22-mile 2hr 23min (6:27 avg)
@ = Ran 3 days after hurting leg
Jack Daniels Tables
800m/1500m
E 6:02 - 6:36 **
1500m/3000m
E 5:45 - 6:16
---------------------------
So, Peter's actual training times end up being a mixture of Jack's
800m/1500m and 1500m/3000m training times.
Kind of interesting, isn't it?
Arty -
In thinking about training systems that have developed in my lifetime and slightly before, i.e. since the end of WW II I think there have been a few trends and commonalities.
I think the first thing that happened after the War was that volumes went up. Even systems that were primarily "interval" systems had athletes doing large numbers of repetitions. For example, Zatopek's "standard" session involved 12-13 miles of running and he frequently did bigger sessions. Gordon Pirie would run "sessions" lasting for two hours but would warm up for an hour for those sessions. Igloi's athletes did very long sessions of intervals. I believe in his biography Bob Schul talks about morning sessions that lasted an hour and a half and evening sessions that lasted for two hours. But nearly all of the work done in these models was done on the track or on something resembling one, usually a grass field.
The next development was to incorporate high volume but to move away from the track for significant amounts of one's training. The Swedes had already done this but not with really high volumes. It was at this stage that people like van Aaken, Cerutty, and Lydiard turn up. Where I see these three standing together and also apart from the systems that were in place in 1950 or so is that they had their athletes doing extended steady runs away from the track and also, in the cases of Cerutty and Lydiard, incorporating resistance training while still using interval work though as a much lower percentage of overall running as earlier systems had done.
That pretty much brings us to where we are today. There definitely is more than one way to skin a cat, but there aren't infinite ways and where I'm hoping this relates to your post, (that'll teach you to call me "reasonable") is to say that if you are putting together a training system and you aren't going back to constant interval stuff, there is only so much you can do before it looks a good bit like what someone else has done. So I'm not surprised to see that many of Peter's interval times are fairly similar to examples turning up in jtupper's books. One of my memories of looking through his books was thinking that a lot of it looked like Lydiard, though there were some noticeable differences.
If we went back in time to say, 1964, we might think that the big dichotomy in training systems was between those that emphasized almost constant interval work and those that limited interval work while doing more "endurance" work away from the track. Today's dichotomy might be between systems that send people out to run at preordained paces vs. those that are generally not all that specific about pace but that focus more on perceived effort. I'd see the Daniels system as part of the former group and the Lydiard system as part of the latter group, though that's avery broad generalization.
Regarding to the times turned in by Peter Snell, trained in a "perceived" effort system, those times were likely by- products of running at a certain level of effort whereas in a system as I understand jtupper's to be the times might be more likely the result of achieving, or of not ahieveing a particular prespecified goal, though I do not know his system well enough to be sure I've characterized it correctly.
