Thanks for the info, 800west. Please give Barry my very best regards. I think that would be a nice tradition and someday I'd love to join (got get back in shape first!). I was talking to Garry (Lydiard) and I told him the only image I have of him is in Run to the Top that he's running Waitak with 3 other youngsters...when he was 14! He laughed and said that that's when he could run it "freely".
Glad you tapped in, Tom. You're certainly one of the most thorough students (or should I say "masters") of the sport. I remember one time Jeff Johnosn asked you what's going wrong; what's the answer to the problem; you said "Squires"; something like that (not that Squries is the problem...you know what I mean!).
Years ago, Marathon & Beyond listed something like top 20 most influencial people in running world. From K.V. Switzer to Don Kardong to Phil Knight to Frank Shorter to Dave Costill... They listed Lydiard the second most influencial indivicual. The first was...us, all the runners. I couldn't help but think about that. At the end of the day, WE are the ones who create that tides. None of those guys, be it Shorter, Squires or Lydiard, didn't come out, wanting to lead the pack. They just happened to be there and we followed.
I guess some people complain about Runner's World or letsrun thread; but these are nothing more than the reflection of who we are...
Seeing 800west mentioning Bob Harvey, he is part of a gruop who are lobbying to keep the Waitakere's a Park. I have said this before but I believe Arthur was asked if he would like to be part of that group. I understand he did.
Can you enlighten us Nobby ?
I don't know about that one and I don't recall Arthur saying anything about it though I fully agree that it should be done. In fact, I remember Roger Robinson telling me something about it--whether he said it's going to be done or people trying to do so, I can't remember. Hope they realize that Waitak is as much NZ's finest athletic history as anything else. I always felt this way with Boston marathon as well--without tradition...I don't know; somebody please come up with some cool saying here!
Can you share, (I apologize for missing this, if it has been indicated already, somewhere deep in this thread)...if the blocks or phases of Lydiard's are blended, so we don't abruptly change to another, or if there are transition phase(s) between each.
Also, I notice your comparison with Daniels, that Lydiard has a cut and dry seperate hill phase. Where I thought, he liked hills throughout all phases of the program anyway. - There was an athlete on here (do not remember who) who indicated that he did not do a specific hill phase, but did run many hills all the time, throughout.
I live in a hilly/rolly/traily area and avoiding hills would be like avoiding rain in the Amazon.
Kim & Nobby --
What is the status of the Waitakare (sp?) these days? Is it still there, or all chopped up with detours and roadwork? I keep thinking I'd love to run it someday, although the kids are a wee bit too young for lots of travel these days. It seems it would be a logical course for a commemorative marathon ( . . . I know a lot of marathons are pancake flat these days, but I think there is still a place for challenging courses like Boston and Seattle -- had to put in a plug for Seattle, it's this Sunday).
When Arthur started working out how to train, he too could not avoid Hills. West Auckland is HILLS.
The Hill phase of his training was to utilise the biggest asset he had in the next phase of his training as he went from a "Buildup phase" to preparing for "faster" work.
So as moved into that phase he built in workouts that SPECIFICALLY used hills. The whole idea is the training would FLOW from one phase to another.
The fact that we met Hills in our daily runs that were/are part of our routines was/is just part of "Running" life.
Where many athletes in this country went wrong is they raced up hills all the time and then they wondered why things would not work.
One of the biggest lessons I learned from Bill Baillie is to Run "OVER" a hill during normal training. Not "race" up and use the Downhill to recover. We always ran up the hill at the pace we ran on the flat,. Our arm action maybe slightly more exaggerated than normal but our pace did not increase. At the top we did not back off but maintained our rhythm, on the descent we once again maintained our pace but 'lowered' our arms a little and used that time to regain our breathing patterns.
I have used that idea with young athletes I train currently.
I have a hill we run up on our normal training sessions and we do not race up but maintain our rhythm driving our arms slightly. This has been so successful that no Mountain Biker has beaten us up the hill. HRE can verify this hill, I took him up there when he was visiting.
There is nothing like passing a Mountain Biker who has run out of Gas on the hill and saying "Get rid of the $10000 technology mate !"
A slight aside to this. When we ran Waiatarua with Bill he was so 'practiced' at this method he would not stop talking as we ran up the hill. In the early days as I was concentrating on tryning to get up the hill without killing myself I would be thinking "How does he do it !"
Some years ago a young athlete made the same comment to me as I used to talk to them as I went uphill.
What goes around comes around !!
...and that's also a proof that it's a long-term development program. You cannot turn yourself into a superhuman like Baillie or Magee or Halberg over night...or even in a couple of months. It takes years of practice--continuous systematic practice and you stick with it to see through the real benefit!
It will become too detailed to lay out the transition from phase to phase. In general, macro transition is already laid out--with hill phase being the transition from conditioning to "faster" stuff as Kim explained. You will have some windsprint during the hill phase which serves as a preparation for track workout. Lydiard liked to say that his runners used to perform easy hill exercises (bounding, springing, etc) during the morning jog during marathon conditioning. But I think the truth is, as Kim said, hill are unavoidable running in (most part of) NZ that Lydiard runners really benefited from.
Similar story as Kim's, I remember running with Ray Puckett one time, and I can't remember what we were talking about but I do vividly remember him telling me, "See, even now, I'm getting up on my toes slightly more and lifing my knees a bit higher (going up the hill)." And this was during the Sunday long run. That's how you prepare yourself for the next phase and you're lucky that you live in the hilly area (not like MN!).
Dr E: I Totally agree with Nobby and Kim on the transition into the hill phase. Here in NZ where Lydiard developed his training philosophy you just cant help but run over hills. So its definitely a good thing in your case to be living in a hilly area so when the time comes to do the more specific hill work you will make the transition easier. Or if you are an athlete who competes over the longer distances 5km up and you feel more comfortable not doing the hill springing/bounding phase, it might be good to do Hill Circuits (long runs over a very hilly course, repeated to get the desired effect). But in saying that I think the hill phase is more specific and beneficial.
Spider: Not a huge deal has changed about the Waitaks (I think, im only a young fella). The only things I can think of that would have changed would be tarsealed roads, although they are still very windy, steep and narrow. Theres been a bit of urban sprawl with subdivisions opening o the foothills. But a government bill has just been passed to stop the development and protect the ranges. The also used to hold the lynndale half marathon over the course, but with the dangerous narrow roads it would cost ridiculous amounts of money to be hold because of the new law regarding event safety. But they do still hold the Legend race in memory of Arthur, hence why it costs a lot of money to enter(because of the road safety law).
I don't know if you caught this when I posted it a long while back, but Gary Lydiard told me they sprinkled Arthur's ashes at that spot - the little waterfall grotto after THE HILL. So, when you pass by, tell him "hello" for me.
Sure.... I can be nasty and just leave it at that!? Just kidding!
But seriously, yes, I don't see too much problem shuffling workouts like that providing (!) we have a clear understanding of what's it doing to the athletes. Second and third generations of Flying Kiwis; John Walker, Rod Dixon and Dick Quax in the 70s and Allison Roe, Ann Audain and Lorraine Moller in the 80s; all did variation of the Lydiard program. Both Dixon and Walker did lots of hills (can't avoid them!) but I don't believe they did specific hill phase. Quax, while again included lots of hills in his runs, never did hill phase as Lydiard laid out. If anything, Quax was probably closest to what you're describing (though personally 10X1000m in 3:05 is a heck of a workout for young athletes, considering Seko, with PR of 27:45, did 10X1000m in 2:55). So in that sense, Quax might have been the furthest out from the original Lydiard scheme yet he probably was the biggest promoter of the Lydiardism of all (till now with Lorraine and I). Again, hill training is just transition in most part. Whatever you feel sufficient to cover that purpose should be good.
Now I'd think you're not just talking about hill training. And, fine, there are many different ways to satisfy stimulation of all the necessary energy systems and other developments. I believe Lydiard program covers all that and he laid it out in such way that it makes sense (to me) most. There are other ways to do it. But if we're talking about simplest terms to make youngsters understand; I was watching "Leagues of Their Own" last night (good movie!), that drunken coach played by Tom Hanks, I would think a coach like him would go; "Hey, coach, how should I run a mile?" "(spit, spit) Go out and run a mile as hard as you can...(burp)" That would be quite simple. I believe Lydiard laid out a very sound training progam; from A to Z--in a very make-sense-sequential way to train and develop athletes. And it would be a coach's job to explain what to do, how to do it and WHY they are doing those particular workouts the way they are; and athletes understand why we are following this particular program.
Frankly, though, if we are talking about a less confusing way to train for young athletes, what's all this mumbo jumbo of LT run and AT run and lactate level and all that? I think 1/4 effort, 1/2 effort and 3/4 effort is much more simple and easier to understand.
Now whether doing mile repeats is waste of time and effort for someone who can run fast 400m or not, that's another discussion topic. I don't think they are; but I also know that some people feel that the speed of training should be the same as what's expected in the actual race. Again, this would bring us all the way back to whether running 100MPW at, say, 6 or 7 minute pace worthwhile for running a 4-minute-mile. I guess I would answer to this the way Lydiard would have probably answered (which actually agree with your point); it's all important. If you train at slower pace, regardless of how tough it is to do 1k repeats or mile repeats, that's not going to be enough. You need to work on faster speed. "You will not try a cake half cooked."
Am I answering your question at all, or am I just mubling?
umm yes, I mean no, I mean Lydiard's information is easy to misunderstand, because there is so much of it. We have to do so many different things to run fast, so it is best in my opinion to keep our advice as simple as possible. Hopefully, a good coach will teach runners not to have too much tunnel vision - which we as runners tend to be guilty of, because we need a certain amount of obsession to be succesful.
I read somewhere that one of Seko's final workouts before a Marathon victory was 10 x 1000 in 2.36 with one minute recovery, but I am sceptical.
My point about the mile reps was that there is no point doing them at a steady pace. Either run steady during base training, or do short reps at goal race pace. However the runner in question was in my opinion, underestimating his ability, which is a common fault which a good coach will recognise.
As for Arthur's 1/4 1/2 3/4 effort, I find that more confusing than anything. I try to instruct a system based on percentage of race paces.
What I’ve been trying to do with this thread is to share what I’ve learnt from Lydiard, or myself learning about the Lydiardism over the years; with help from knowledgeable people like HRE, Kim and Glenn. I’d be the first to admit, that I’m no position to “share” insight of the Daniels formula but that does not mean I hadn’t studied. I’ve read his book and I’ve read what’s posted on internet that someone so kindly shared on much earlier page. The problem today is that there are just SOOOOOOO much information out there. Particularly with the explosion of internet, there are 100 times more information available than 20 years ago. I probably shouldn’t call that a problem but really we are totally bombarded with wealth of information.
The real problem is that you lose focus. I actually felt that way in 1980, just reading running magazines. That’s when I decided; that the Lydiard program made a perfect sense to me; many programs follow the same patter though it may not appear the same; why not study THE Lydiard program and get down really deep into it? Too many young athletes and coaches have way too many choices today. They are sitting in front of a dinner table with 30 different small dishes; from Chinese to French to hamburger and French fries to seafood salad to pasta to rice. All they’re doing is try this a little bit and try that a little bit… They have no time to continuously stick to one decent program to really see the benefit of it. They would try high mileage for 3 weeks and when they don’t see a drop of 20 seconds in 1600m, they’d try out something else like 20X200 with 200 recovery jog. And even if that showed marked improvement, when they hear some argument that the recovery should be shorter, then they try out 20X200 with 50 recovery. They there comes scientific study that “continuous” tempo run would produce better result (“3.6% more efficient…”), then they’ll move on to tempo runs… Does this sound familiar? The Japanese marathon book I referred to earlier, whether intentional or not, kept talking about “…when Morishita ran his breakthrough marathon, it was 3 years after he joined Asahi-Kasei…” or “…when Taniguchi won his first marathon, it was 4 years after he came under Soh brothers coaching…” things like that. And here we’re talking about THE SAME TRAINING PROGRAM. Here in the US, some kids would post a message, saying, “I’ve been doing high mileage (40MPW) for the past 2 weeks. What else do you guys think I should do?” and the reply comes 7 different directions from run more slower to run less faster to include LT runs to include AT runs to include BS runs to go sprint up short hill till you vomit to running backwards… God knows what’s next!
My whole intention here is to share what I know about the Lydiard program—a sort of a strip-tease (sorry, Tom!) of what to come once the Lydiard Foundation is up and running (knock on wood!). I’m in no position to explain in depth anything else. In fact, I was hoping someone here who “studied”, not just “read”, the Daniels’ formula to tap in and share their experience. But when it really comes down to it, I really don’t think anything is that vastly different. I’m not insinuating at all that Lydiard invented everything. It is true that some other coaches were doing high mileage base building before Lydiard; hill training before Lydiard; peaking before Lydiard. All that is so true and, with all fairness, some people accuse him of taking all the credit, that is a bunch of BS. He always mentioned that 50/50 sharpeners is also called Igloi training. He didn’t invent that and he never took credit of inventing it. But I truly believe that he perfected putting it all together in a balanced way. Anybody who came after him is pretty much application of that. Nakamura never said he invented the Nakamura system but it’s the application of Lydiard program. And Lydiard never came down on him and accused him of stealing his idea. If you want to argue that, start a new thread; I don’t think our topic here is not that level and we’re not interested.
Another problem with the wealth of information, particularly internet, is that you never know who really knows what. You can just come out, pretending you know everything and throw some famous names here and there, pretending you’re buddy-buddy with them and so many of us just get suckered in. How do you know what I’m talking about is true? So be careful with that. And finally for God’s sake READ! I’m not the best writer either (what do you expect from a damn foreigner!?) but so many others just don’t read thoroughly. I have never had any intention whatsoever of putting John Molvar’s training down at all. As a matter of fact, I always stated that it seems like a sound program a (except for that 9-week build-up, John…!) and I’d highly recommend young athletes trying out. I had a problem that being called “the Lydiard Program” and I had even bigger problem people considering that as “THE” Lydiard program. John CLEARLY stated at the top of his paper, that it’s his “interpretation” of Lydiard program but when it appears on this message board, it has become “Molvar System = Lydiard Program”. What’s up with that? Where did they get that idea?
Very good post Nobby. So much information causes confusion. But hasn't it always been the same? We can read stuff from any decade in the past 100 years or more, and there was always good info and bad info.
When Seko did 1000m intervals; usually it's either for 10000m when he would do, in general, 10 repeats in 2:40~50; or 20~30 repeats for the marathon when he would do it a bit slower, somewhere around 2:50~55. Seko was a speedster and personally prefered faster training like repetition despite popular information about him going some rediculously long distance. Surprising thing is training for Nakayama, Seko's archrival who was basically faster than Seko. One of the national coaches of that time told me that his main menu was to run 10X1000m at around 3 minutes or only slightly faster.
I totally agree with your point on steady state run. Frankly, I feel it's much more benefitial to do 3/4 effort steady state continuous run than long reps. I personally liked doing 3~4 X mile repeat with short recovery like 200m jog just to get myself up and going. It worked for me at the time when I wasn't doing enough higher level aerobic runs. But either way, I still think people are hooked with intervals way too much.
When you look at Japanese running books, they tend to view Lydiard and Cerutty in the 60s as someone who "freed athletes from number-games with stop watch. They got their athletes out and running on the road and trail." I believe "training by how you feel" is actually more important to the Lydiardism than it has been stressed.
My family watched "Pleasantville" tonight. I couldn't help but think about this topic (now, this ia bad...). When the guy at the coffee shop didn't know what to do because what's his name? The main charactor who also played Spikerman, didn't know up on time. "I didn't know what to do so I just kept wiping the coutner..." he said. On the day of repetition, what would you do if you couldn't figure out the speed? What if you feel really really good and felt like just blast away; would you still have to stick to the predetermined pace? I remember talking to Bob Sevene about the Lydiard training, he said something like he (Lydiard) didn't particularly need any specific speed training during conditioning because he "just let his runners go when they feel good."
True meaning of Lydiardism, as the philosophy (I don't mean to start a cult here!) of it, is "enjoyment". I remember numerous runs I had with Kiwis, in particular Ray Puckett and his buddies; we would run hard, up to 3+ hours, in the rain, through the mud, and we'd come back and said, "Man, that was a lot of run!" We'd feel that way if we are truly "fit" or "at tireless state" as Arthur would say. That is the core of Lydiardism; and you really can't enjoy the activity if you're so hooked with numbers or pace or what's going on in your blood or heart rate or whatever, can you?
PS: I meant to say "Man, that was a lot of FUN!" Well, 3 hours is a lot of run too...
Will say gday for ya as I go by. You just cant help but think of him when you run that course can ya. But I really hope something does come of the memorial plaque at the waterfall.
"and you really can't enjoy the activity if you're so hooked with numbers or pace or what's going on in your blood or heart rate or whatever, can you?"
Many are attracted to this aspect. Lydiard for artists, Daniels for engineers?
Just wanted to clarify; when I said above comment, by no mean, I was insinuating "Daniels = numbers". I think he, if anything, certainly made training effort accessible to the mass and this may be the main reason why majority of peolpe like his formula but Jack Daniels, the coach, in my opinion, is a lot more than just that. I don't think he could have achieve what he had acheived by bing a number guy alone and Tom's story confirms that.
With the same token, I don't think you can classify Lydiard as simply "artist". Cerutty might have been more of an artist in that sense. Lydiard was very meticulous and calculating. Same thing with coach Nakamura. Someone way back somewhere mentioned that Nakamura was a spirit man; a Zen master and mental guru. That only tells half of the story; for he was probably one of the first "very scientific" coaches in modern Japanese athletics. Very meticulous and calculating... You cannot afford to be mental alone and that good of a coach.
In the end, perhaps they are all pretty much the same after all. It's only the way they presented themselves; or the way general population interprete them are different.
That said, I want to share this story from my previous life. I was working on this project that involves "coating" (not "coaching"). This small coating company in Tenessee did a great job finalizing the coating method. My boss wanted to know all the details; coating weight, pressure of the roller, etc., for the documented record purpose. Phil (if you ever read this, I want you to know that I still think very highly of your contribution) simply said, "You just can't pin point the numbers. Coating situation changes all the time and you just have to adjust it in order to get the consistant coating weight (end result)..."
Sort of going in a different direction, here's a sort of numbers question. It's especially up your alley, Nobby, but Kim or Glen or Hotlanta might have an example.
We've mentioned several times here that Arthur's principles can be followed by people who don't run near 100 mpw. Kim is a good example here. But most of the athletes we know of who use Arthur's approach do get to 100. So my question is, can we think of any fairly successful athletes who used Arthur's methods but who didn't get near 100 at times? Obviously, Peter Snell was on the low mileage end of the original group, but do we give Peter and Kim the titles of Most Successful Low Volume Lydiard Folks?
I know you know it really doesn't matter... I guess if you insist, perhaps Baillie could be one of the low end guy (clarify, Kim)??? He was always "if in dount, do less" type which worked well for him. Dick Tayler was a high mileage guy but Heather Thompson (Matthews) was relatively low mileage person. She said she really couldn't handle high mileage. Lorraine was possibly low end for a marathon runner (when she went to Japan for a clinic one time and she had a hand-out of her training. All the Japanese coaches and runners were flipping it over, thinking there's more on the back of the paper...) but I think she was still getting close to 100MPW for build-up. Maybe Rod Dixon was a low-end but Nelson is very very hilly! Same with Jack Foster.
I remember Barry Magee saying something like "...we would condition ourselves by running SOMEWHERE AROUND 100 miles a week for 6 to 10 weeks...this is for SENIOR athletes..."