HRE wrote :
"... 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"
I agree with that. Also, in the second edition of Jack's book, he says something of the effect that many 'new' just given a new name.
I've read and re-read Lydiard and Dainels; I have read Bowerman, Dellinger and Van Aaken. If you look at them from a higher level, and don't get caught up in the details of the day-to-day workouts, it's fairly easy to find the similarities and differences - with there being more in common than not. Although Lydaird is the one with the reputation of "100 miles a week" for endurance, all of them emphasized the need to develop the aerobic system in order to sustain the speed required for the distance being run.
Something else I thought of while I was comparing what Peter did with Jack's tables, was that a certain level of performance over training distances must be met in order to race a specific distance in a specific time. That may seem obvious, but when I did this thing, I was curious to see if the efforts by Peter were in the same ball park as the efforts published by Jack. So in order to hit a 1:45 800 meter run, an athlete needs to be able to run repeat 440's in around 60 seconds, or 880's around 2:15 or do 3 miles during training at under a 5:00 minute/mile pace. I may be wrong on this, but it makes sense to my mind.
My understanding is that, for the most part, Jack's training tables were published with the idea of presenting the slowest paces needed to bring about a specific training response. Running faster than that pace just made you work harder to get that specific training response, and just left you more tired and prone to injury. So if running 400 meters in 61 seconds is needed for anaerobic development, running at 58 seconds was over doing it, if that particular training session was specifically for anaerobic development. It would be interesting to see how other athlete's training line up with the training paces outlined by Jack.
Looking at what Peter did, and comparing it to what Jack has in his book, Peter was hitting Vo2Max at Jack's
I-pace, anaerobic training with R-pace, and thershold training with the 3 mile runs, all mixed in together during the 12 or 16 weeks of the published schedule. Arthur sure did have a gift of putting it all together.
In Jack's first edition, he does state at least twice, that a runner should try to learn the amount of effort needed to hit all of the paces needed during training and not depend completely on a stop watch. That really stuck
out to me, because before I read his book, all I had read on the WEB was how he emphasized running paces, not effort. Just like reading on the WEB that Lydarid is all about 100 miles a week of LSD.
I don't remember Jack mentioning the part of learning the effort in the second edition. I'll have to go back and dig through it. I own the second edition, but not the first.
And last, I still think you are reasonable. From reading your posts, you just don't tell someone they are wrong or disagree with them and leave it at that. You explain why you disagree or why you have a different opinion/view
point.
LYDIARD OR DANIELS?
Report Thread
-
-
We tend to create "snapshots" of the ideas of a particular coach and then allow that to define that particular coach's approach. So Daniels becomes the guy with the formulas and paces, Bowerman was the "hard day/easy day" guy, Cerutty was the guy with the sandhills, Lydiard was the "hundred mile a week" guy who does everything in phases, etc. I wrote the article about van Aaken for Marathon and Beyond because not many people still remember him but also because so many who still do think of his training as huge mileages done slowly and almost nothing else and there was much more to it than that.
But I think that when you look at all of the successful systems you start to see that they all address the same physiological systems. They just emphasize different aspects of training a bit differently and often explain whatthey do differently. For example, for years most people thought that what the Coes did was to work on devevloping the abilty to run at higher speeds and that they paid fairly little attention to endurance. What we know now is that they did work on aerobic base but didn't emphasize that aspect of their training when they discussed it publicly. Lydiard used to be criticized for neglecting race effort work because people looking at what he did never got past looking at the base phase and the hills.
So I think the real "trick" is to look at what's been successful for various people and then figure out what the common elements are and how to apply them to your own situation. -
I'm glad this thread hase returned to what the original discusson is about.
To concur with HRE and to take further some of what Arty has found.
Arthur did do a lot of "Race Prep" work and his famous 1 to 2 miles of 50yd dashes was the one of, if not the toughest workouts he prescribed.
As a youngster I heard all sorts of times bandied around about what peole did in these workouts but the one I do know is John Walker. He regularly ran 8:40's in this.
If that is not race effort work then what is !!!!.
But it is easy to talk about the great ones.
I have an old friend who trained with Arthur and was beginning to look really good. He was not quick but as very strong.
He had a session of the 50yd dashes to do and Arthur came down to check on how he was doing them. After a few laps Arthur made him shut down and told him (In typical Arthur fsshion) that what he was doing was "crap". He had to SPRINT those 50's and RUN not jog the 50's between.
Fred finished the workout literally on his knees.
A few weeks later he went out and ran 48:10 for 10 miles behind Jeff Julian (47:38. Fred said he could never have run that 10 miles so well if he did not have sessions like that behind him. -
Kim Sevenson wrote:
I'm glad this thread hase returned to what the original discusson is about.
To concur with HRE and to take further some of what Arty has found...
bla...bla...bla
More and more about Lydiard idiosyncrasy. The Lydiard cult goes on without contest. -
I agree with Kim Stevenson. Thanks to Arty for more intelligent questions regarding Arthur Lydiard, an innovator, motivator and possibly the greatest runnign coach the world has ever seen.
Of course Jack Daniels, is one hell of a resource. -
The thread which would not die.
-
Who is the world's best coach for distance running
answered here
http://www.coolrunning.com.au/forums/index.php?showtopic=17511 -
lydiard
-
anyway enough about whoeveritis and can we broaden this a little as i don't like Daniels system at all, not that it isn't a good guide but it isn't exactly a coaching system. What other coaches can be included?
-
Daniels.
-
HRE wrote:
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.
I read the 'Running Formula' very carefully but I only have a basic understanding about Lydiards training principles.
From what I know it seems, that Lydiards training (periodization, the kind of workouts, where he puts the focus on, etc.) is one instance of Daniels' system.
Daniels lets the runner/coach decide, which order of phases or which milage fits best to the runner. You can also see it the other way round, that Daniels' system is a generalisation of Lydiards system, be it coincidently or planned. As Daniels provides more a kind of global guidelines how to train with some sample training programs as realization, it seems to me that Lydiard is focused on a special type of runner (obviously one, who reacts best on high milage).
I think, with both systems you can make a good runner out of a medium one or a very good runner out of a good one.
It will never be possible to make a very good runner out of a medium one. Therefore it makes no sense to compare these two coaches on a level, who made more runners with records or gold medals. Here it is more the opportunity to work already with good runners that counts (the genetic factor, if you like this term). By the way: who said: 90 percent is the runner and 10 percent is the coach? -
Amazing how big that 10% is at the top end though. Actually i don't see those stats as reflecting what is really going on. A coach can add to an athlete that which the athlete doesn't have or a coach can emphasise that which an athlete already has.
Also i see it as the coaches role to attract the athletes. It's part of the job description.
stage 1 - identify
stage 2 - recruit
stage 3 - develop
stage 4 - manage
And finally i don't see it as true that certain athletes react well to big mileage and others don't. In the short term in 'may' be true. In the long-term i don't believe so.
cheers -
Joel Vigil.
-
Igloi
-
LYDIARD
No doubt, Daniels, Vigil, etc. stand on his shoulders. -
bump
-
too good not to bump up.
-
bump
-
Similar Theories wrote:
The theories are very similar. Arthur Lydiard tends to focus on more strength through drills and hills during the base phase. (for example Peter Snell) Jack Daniels would say more strength through altitude and running more miles during the base phase. (for example Jim Ryun)
That is one difference. Both coaches find out what works for individual runners. One runner could need more mileage with minimum speed and another one could need more speed with less mileage. Jack Daniels will say and has experienced runners successful at 35-40 miles who were elite 5K-10K. While Arthur Lydiard would emphasis a need high mileage to be successful. His magical line was 100 miles to be successful for an elite runner. That is another difference. The balance between the two is where the answer lies for a coach. You need a solid foundation to build upon and both would agree speed is only for a short period of time with minimum amount. What is beautiful for both men is you do not need to do tons of repeats and killer workouts with a great base to build upon. It depends on strength in the base phase for what is applicable to your location. It is better to do the same workouts, where you have measureable results as the season progresses. You can simply add repeats or decrease recovery as the season goes on. Both of them agreed on tapering to lessen the amount you run. (mileage and intensity) You do less repeats while keeingp the same recovery along with time. That is one problem with trying to increase intensity and more intervals at the end of a season. You cannot wrong with both of their ideas if applied wisely. -
It's the return of the THREAD WHICH WOULD NOT DIE.
Train by minutes, not miles.
