Thank you for answers Stevenson and Nobby.
One of reason i asked this question about potencial improvment after the ground work is done was because I wonder if I should spend many years whith aerobic work to bulid my "aerobic house" before starting anarobic traing at all. Like Haile who did 17 years of hard life with running 20k aday 5 days a week + walking 15k for water. Maybe he was on a avergage load of 30k aday for 10years without anarobic training. He then do the hard work "Icining of the cake" before competision period at age 18 and in very shortcomes close to 13min 5k and still holding great aerbic endurance in the winter he builds more on his aerobic base reaching enough fondatiion or Aerobic house to reach 12.39 5k after a period of Icing the cake.
Will you recomend me to do that if my goals are very high, so I can hold a contiually improvment in my Aerobic base for 7-10 years running Lydiard base of 200-250k a week x 10 years. Then I maybe can run 13.45 5k with only ground work, then I can reach 12.55 and faster after the "icing of the cake is done".
Nobby, Stevenson and others is this the way to built my training if I want to become international runner in 2015 or should I follow the Lydiard system complete evry season.
I will try to ask my question this way.
Will my Aeorbic house grow with the same speed when I follow this "Normal" Lydiard model or is it best to do the periodization thinking many years ahed in time like I spoke about earlier.
I hope you understand my Question My english is not perfekt
Thank you for answers Stevenson and Nobby.
Nobby basically answered the question for me.
As for saying 200-250 k per week for 10 years you could reach 13:45 is being rather clinical.
I think building mileage gradually over years maybe would be the answer.
Example : I started with an athlete 4 years ago who was then 15 over that time we have built consistency (days per week, weeks per year) then we have built in mileage.
His first year his long runs were 50 minutes, Now they are 11/2 to 1 3/4 hours with the occasional 2 hrs.
Currently he can run his 5k "Time Trials" at 16:30 pace without any undue effort.
2 years ago he was Regional 400m Champ (50 secs) and Regional Road Race Champ 4k (sub 14 mins)
Last Track season he was 2nd in the New Zealand Secondaty Schools 800m.
I also mentioned back earlier in this thread how it took me 4 years of consistent runing to be able to handle a 22 mile Training run at 2:40 marathon pace.
Snell talks of the agony of his first Waiatarua. Something like 3hours. Then in later years he was running them consistently under 2:20.
Consistent training and racing over years is the key.
Nobby wrote- some people take what Lydiard said about "once you stop your aerobic conditioning, your performance level is determined" as "this is it; there's no turning-around." I've read somewhere that someone said, because of this line, say, if your performance shows that you tend to falter in the second half of your race (a sure sign of lack of endurance) that you are SOL (because your base training is already behind you). This is not true. That you tend to slow down at the end reveals that you (1) have developed good speed but need to work on "stamina" (as opposed to "endurance") or (2) need to work on your pace judgment so you won't start out too fast. What Lydiard means is that your base work is done. And this base=aerobic development is what determined your performance level. All the other work; repetitions or speed training or time trials are only the icing on the cake. But you still need that icing on the cake to be complete.
A few pages back you touched on this and other misconceptions with regard to Malmo's thesis on the Lydiard system. I thought readers of this thread might enjoy this from Hodgie-San's homepage. It's Malmo's thesis, with Nobby's comments and John's rebuttals. The "SOL" comment brought it back to me.
Brain fart on my part, replace any Malmo with John Molvar in the above post. Guess I had Malmo on the brain for some reason, sorry.
I often try to think "What would Arthur say?" and think also what would be the best way to convey that message to others. When you go back to the very beginning of Run to the Top, Lydiard talks about "enjoyment" of running. I guess I still go out and run, with my beaten-up overweight out-of-shape body, simply because I still like that feeling. I worry, when people start talking about too rigid of "planning" that this element of "fun" may or may not diminish. I was reading an interview with Koji Murofushi, the first and only Japanese (Asian?) to have ever won the weight event (hammer throw) Olympic (gold) and world championship medal (silver). He said he never plan his day-to-day training. If you do, he said, "you may stop training before you push yourself to the limit; or you may overdo it when your body's too tired." This is the ultimate go-by-how-you-feel approach. But, Bjorn, if you love running and you feel perfectly fine and exhilarated from running 2 hours or more, by all mean, go ahead and do it regardless of what others might say. Why limit it simply because someone else said you’re too young? I don’t think Arthur would have approved it. Just keep it well within yourself and never push the pace or let someone else push the pace for you.
With the same token, I think it’s silly to restrict yourself from doing other types of training or racing here and there simply because you feel you need to just build the aerobic base for the first 10 years. Conditioning, I’ve since learnt, is not just running long distance. All the hill exercises, all the repetitions, all the drills, all the time trials, all the races…all these will “condition” your body and mind for future performance. It’s just that there should be a greater emphasis on aerobic base building in the early years. Also, don’t be fooled by “Africans run nice and easily for miles and miles” period. Consider types of terrain they run and the condition that they run in. They run lots of rugged cross country with lots of hills also barefoot or close to barefoot. It will be quite different if you just run and run and run easy miles on concrete in high-tech thick bulky modern running shoes. Sure you’ll develop great aerobic base but other aspects such as flexible feet and ankles and smooth strides may be sacrificed.
Don’t shy away from races. Just don’t overdo it. Don’t despair if you lose it to someone who’s been doing lots of intervals because they will be sharper. Know that your time will come. Don’t get discouraged by those losses; but understand clearly what you’re trying to accomplish today and what you will be reaching out in the few years time. I’m going to contradict what I said earlier here but map out what you would like to achieve in 10 years time and have clear objectives each year what you need to do. Remember, if your ultimate goal is 5000m, you should be trying to do some shorter races like 1500m. But also jump into some 10k or half marathon for stamina building. Consider your physical attribute such as body type and basic speed (200m) to determine what event you are best suited for and draw a map to reach your ultimate goal. This, I assume, would not be just jogging for the next 10 years.
Since Kim worked so hard to get the thread going while I was on vacation (where even cell phone signal didn't reach), it's my turn to keep this going above Armstrong bashing threads...
One of the things about Lydiard is that he would NEVER have thought any situation as "SOL". He would be realistic and analytic, yes, but never pessimistic. He would somehow find the way to fix the situation. Remember when Richard Taylor got some leg trouble and he had to give him some heavy load of repetition only about a month before Commonwealth Games? He said he would have never usually given heavy load of anaerobic training so close to the competition but he had to do it. Well, that’s him trying to find the best solution for the situation.
Again, I have NO intention on bashing John Molvar’s thesis. I really think it’s a sound program and should be studied respectfully. Where I found it troublesome was that, in my mind, it wasn’t a good representation of the Lydiard program. What is posted really came out rather negative and it really shouldn’t have been that way. I went back and forth with John (with some harsh words exchanged, yes, but I actually really enjoyed our “discussion”!) but I really do respect him, as one of the most enthusiastic students of the sport, for trying to understand the program. I think, and this is just my interpretation, he started out as trying to “solve the mystery” (because he said the Lydiard program is so contradictory and inconsistent. I started out as trying to find out the one true principle (the Truth, you may call it) behind all the pattern of the Lydiard programs.
Here's another argument I hear quite often. Lydiard himself DID say that the longer the aerobic base development phase, the better. I guess in one of his newer books he did state something like 6 months is better than 3 months, etc. Perhaps it's true but don't jump to conclusion that, then, 10 years of continuous conditioning is better still. Because that's what I tried to do myself more or less; and that's what Arthur himself tried to correct. One of Lydiard's original runners, John Robinson, told me that it's how many cycles of the Lydiard program you do. They usually did twice a year; cross country season and track season. So they completed 2 Lydiard program cycles a year. As you put all the other "icing" on the top, you improve as more overall runner at the end of each cycle. Then you add more on to it. Lydiard said that, as you get fitter during the marathon conditioining, you'll get faster. I was stuck at conditioning phase because I was waiting for that moment. Baillie told me that it didn't work out for him that way. I guess it didn't for me either. I needed the "icing" to move on to the next level.
Nobody knows any formula that, if you run so many miles in the first 10 years, you'll run 12:50 for 5k 15 years later or something. If they did, everybody will be doing it. Nobody can tell you what you can or can't do. I guess that's where "faith" comes in. And back to the original question. It's how much "faith" you have in the program and the coach that would determine who you go with and, as far as I'm concerned, ultimately how successful you'll become. You need "faith" particularly with a program like the Lydiard method because you really don't see a spike of improvement until later. It is no quick-fix or magic formula that would transform you into an international runner in 2 months. You go about very slowly initially and it may take 4 or 5 or 6 years till you really see the benefit of it. In "Running with Lydiard" book, he talks about this coach from TX. He switch the program to the Lydiard and, once the track training started, all his runners were running the repeats slower. He thought the Lydiard program ruined the whole season but "decided to stick with it because it's too late to change." Of course, everybody PRed in the end; yaddi-yaddi-yadda. The point is; if he switch the program again, he would have never seen the benefit of it. Sure, it wasn't "faith", but he stuck with it! You won't see the future till you get there. That's what makes it fun though, isn't it?
live one wrote:
well, that's easy since Lydiard is dead
so is jack if you've seen his picture.
Offcourse I understand I can not run easy in flatland forever in 10years. I live in Norway theris no flat place here always I go up and down mountain. I try to push the pace always below 4min/km exept for runs over 1h+ very hilly.
What I wonder is
1) It takes long time to build base many years
2) It takes long time to build max sprint
3 It takes short time to built anarobic endurance
So for 10 months I want to focus on speed an endurance. But in Lydiard he want to go for max speed for time toghether with anaorobic hill training and not in the base I understand is this corect.
What I learn is it takes long time to developp max speed
That is max speed pb, because from 200m in 30sec to 25sec goes in a month but 25 to 23 or 22 will need longterm training I think.
I wonder if it is smart to do short sprints of 30-60m in uphill max and also Short Lydiard hills exercices of 10sec max since they can not become anarobic. Also some short max jomp also rope jomp for ankles. I want to this toghether with a hard base, is it ok since this exercices are not anaerobic becuase they are short max.
I belive this sprints allyear is iportant to have a max speed development.
So I also wonder what Lydiard considerd the need for speed to bevome international runner in
I guess from 22-22-23-24 on track Maybe 25-26 in Marathon
International I think is 1.44, 3.32, 13.00, 27.00
interesting thread, can't believe i didn't notice it earlier... as one of tom d's young bucks, i have to say i'm a lydiard guy at heart, although i have not read daniels cover to cover. i attended lydiard's talk in boston and i thought he was great! i was inspired, but more than anything, i was entertained. i do feel that a sense of humor is lacking in the sport sometimes. just look at all the desperate questions and cynical responses on letsrun! i suppose it is natural to be critical, as we invest so much time into our running and expect results, as we should. what was missing from the description of lydiard's response to the days off question was his bewildered pause before answering, as if his brain couldn't process such information! it was a pleasure to hear him speak. tom, i definitely get a kick out of some of our training partners, who sometimes panic when you send us on some wild goose chase of a workout. track intervals have their place, but in general, variation is key. i don't keep a log anymore, however i know that i'm running more miles and competing closer to my potential than ever. it's not that i'm casual about training, it's just that i've come to the conclusion that if i'm over-analyzing running too much, i can't race to my potential. lydiard even preached "run as you feel." i analyze things all day at work, i use running to take a break from that. i don't believe in a detailed formula to success. life has too many variables. i also don't want to believe in that, that would make things boring. all i know is the more you do something, the better you get at it. cheers,
Your comment got me thinking a bit. Yes, your aerobic development is a progressive thing and it takes years and years of marathon-type training. According to Lydiard, and East German exercise physiologists, you can develop your anaerobic capacity, or your capacity to exercise anaerobically, can be developed to maximum in 4 to 5 weeks.
Now speed… If you meant “speed” by your maximum potential speed, sure, it would take years and years of practice; just like you’d train several years, as everything else, to become a champion sprinter. I don’t know how many years of hard training it took for someone like Carl Lewis or Maurice Greene or Jastin Gatlin to become a champion sprinter but I’m sure it took them at least several years.
Now in the scheme of Lydiard program, according to Lydiard, your speed would “come back very quickly”. In fact, one of the things you would need to watch out during the track training schedule is NOT to sprint full out too early because your speed would come back too quickly if you do. When Lydiard said you need to work on your speed 52 weeks of a year, that means that you should work on your suppleness and technique such as hill exercises or fartlek or sprint drills—particularly hill exercises—pretty much year round. That did not mean you should sprint flat-out every week.
I know coach Renato popularized short hill sprint year round. I guess I have nothing against it to say don’t do it. But if I were to advise someone, I’d leave flat-out sprint work till later; though I would definitely include some sort of hill springing and bounding exercise or easy strides (fartlek) a couple of times a week throughout even the conditioning period depending on what type of “conditioning” you’d do. That was certainly something I should have done more often.
As far as “speed requirement” for various distances is concerned; I don’t believe Lydiard had any specifics at all. He has always kept his stance to that your 200m time is your “basic speed” and this is what determines which distance you’re best suited for. For instance; if your best 200m time is 25 seconds, there’s little chance you can become an 800m champion. Bear in mind if your 200m right now is 30 but you’ve never really practiced your speed, there’s probably room for improvement; but, as Lydiard always said, you cannot make a basically slow person fast though you can make him “faster” by practicing. If you become obsessed with sprinting practice just for the sake of bringing your 200m time down, then you lose balance too. I just went out for an hour jog with my wife the other day. She wants to improve her 10-mile time so we’ve been doing some faster work. I was barely keeping up with her but just wanted to see her speed progression and asked her to sprint (or at least pick up the speed). I’m basically pretty fast even if I don’t practice much and I overtook her easily. But I would have had a tough time keeping up with her if we both ran a half marathon right now. I just hosted this Japanese lady who ran 2:25 at Osaka marathon in 2000. Her 10k time at the time was “only” 33:05. I don’t think it’s a good idea to set a requirement time for shorter distance as an indicator for a longer distance. Everybody reacts differently at different distances.
Does Tom D still think of me when he does the Lydiard hill bounding?
although we have been getting a healthy dose of hills this summer, i haven't done any of the lydiard bounding drills lately. the theme workout of the summer has been a steady, hilly half marathon. i know tom presented the exercises to some newbies last weekend, as they are in their high mileage infancy. i'm currently focusing on maintaining the mileage and increasing my aerobic base, as i have my first marathon in 6 weeks. i will inevitably go back to a leg strengthening phase this winter with the compounding layers of snow.
Nobby seems to have answered everything better than I could have.
I have just had HRE here for a few days (He should be landing back in the US right about now).
Took him on a run in our Forest and Trails (one of Arthur's favourite running areas)and showed him the countryside that Jack Foster ran over. I am sure he will tell you his reaction to that!!!!
Keep it humming Team !
HRE took care of me when I was in Boston this spring. That means now I have to host you! So when are you heading to MN? I'd suggest January or February... You'll see the secret of MN that toughens up so many distance runners in the past.
So did you like the shoes HRE was (assumingly) wearing?
I'd say that any of you who want to run over some fantastic county should head for Rotoroua. The courses Kim showed me that Jack trained over explain a LOT.
I'll also say publicly that Kim is a great host.
I'll also tell Bjorn thatI also spent a lot of time with Barry Magee and if Ihad a couple of bucks for every time he used theword "balance," I could have stayd a year.
Keep all the parts of the program in. You might do bbetter on six months of basework than three, but there is deinitely a time to do other stuff andit's well before the ten year mark.
I like a shot of Jack myself. I never tried Lydiard before... Is it a whiskey? I don't like Jack diluted with anything, served either room temperature or chilled, but not on the rocks and not weakened with anything like soda. Actually, I prefere Lydiard training because I know more about it. I don't really know much about Daniels methods.
Stay away from Lynchburg if interested; it's a dry county where the stuff is distilled
Good to have you back HRE. Glad Mr. Magee is doing well. I remember when Lydiard was in Japan, my friend asked him how you could shuffle training when you don't have time; his reply was "When you don't have enough time, you'll have to cut it short (meaning, perhaps instead of 10 weeks, maybe 6 weeks, etc.), but it still would have to be balanced..." It really is the key.
"Lydiard" could certainly not be whisky. It would either be beer or wine. He loved wine and he loved beer. One time he treated me with supposedly the strongest beer in the world, Danish beer called Elephant with 13% alchole. I was ready throw up as he kept driving faster and faster, yelling at me "Not in my car!" That didn't help.
jtupper: How about some sake?
There is an interesting thread on "lactic acid" which I enjoyed reading. All the scientific talks aside, what amazes me is the simple fact that Lydiard tried to explained more than 40 years ago; that as you build greater aerobic base (if you don't want to use a term "aerobic", fine, "endurance base" then), faster the overall pace you can run and still not be anaerobic--meaning you can delay the flooding build-up of lactic acid in your working muscles; is still very much overlooked.
Dr. Dick Brown said it beautifully: the question is not who's the fastest coming into the last 200m of the 1500m race; but what their body look like inside? Who's the least anaerobic and who's the most anaerobic?" This is the reason why the Lydiard method has been successfully adapted to other sports like kayaking, rugby, swimming and figure skating. The same principle can be applied.