Serious Lydiard Advice

I think Lydiard's hill sets do wonders for your staying power in the 400. Also, especially if you say you want to run the 800 and mile, the mileage is key. I believe Lydiard's program allows for a session of strides several times per week. These, paired with the hills, will definitely prepare you to run well indoors.

I came from a lower mileage program in high school and ran 50.3 several times. After one 6 month cycle of the Lydiard program designed for 10k runners during cross country, I was able to run just under 50 seconds for the 400m indoors, and even better outdoors.

Of course my body matured in the year since the 50.3's, but I was able to run that time indoors very early in the season. It can be attributed to physical maturation, but the training played a very strong role.

The information i read about Lydiard excluded the hill phase. It stated that it was unnecessary. Could you please describe one of these cycles to me, and tell me when to implement it into training?

If you are truly serious about learning what Arthur Lydiard's training methods are all about click the link below and get in contact with Nobby Hashizume or someone who spent time and trained with Arthur on a daily basis.

You're talking about John Molvar's Lydiard thesis I presume?

Trash it; it's garbage.

Also jump on to current discussion some of us are having on the Lydiard / Daniels thread.

Vendetta,

Your list of reasons for why Molvar's Lydiard thesis is trash was very convincing. I especially liked fact 1 and 2. You have persuaded me away from it.

To the original poster: Part of the point of Lydiard saying that Snell had less speed than those he defeated was to prove that the Lydiard method preserves and even increases spead while pushing your staying power through the roof. If you can stick with it, Lydiard will pay off big time.

Godspeed.

One of the most successful sprint coaches ever was Bud Winter at San Jose State. He actually had his sprinters doing longer runs after talking with Arthur about training. He more or less had to trick the sprinters into longer runs, but that's another story.

The reason Snell was able to finish faster than anyone else in Rome was that he was more fit aerobically and able to run closer to his top speed than the faster sprinters were. That will work to your advantage at the 400 and 200 as well, though obviously the shorter distances require more basic speed.

If you use all elements of the Lydiard program, i.e. hills, sprints, etc., you'll do just fine. But you'll need to adjust the plan to work for the school season and that may require some help from people who know the method.

Not that this is Lydiard, but didn't Michael Johnson do some 5 mile runs pretty regularly?

Is Molvar really no good? What is the hill phase?

Molvar's thesis isn't any good, I contend, because he takes the teachings of Arthur Lydiard and significantly alters them using his own measuring devices, whilst still calling it Lydiard-esque.

Examples:

1. Arthur Lydiard never recommended a 9 week ascension from 0 to 100 miles/week. Nowhere in any of his works, from Running to the Top on, does he write of such an approach. Many, if not most, caring and knowledgeable coaches at all levels would agree that for 99% of the running population such a rapid rise in mileage would almost surely lead to some form of injury. Arthur, as I understand and have read, once said that it's possible to have someone go from no running to a 20 miler in 6 months; Molvar's ascension is his own.

2. Molvar declares that the hill phase is useless and leaves it up to the discretion of the individual runner to implement. Again, I argue that most coaches and those athletes who lived/traveled/ran with/under Lydiard would say that the hill phase is essential. You're better to ask HRE, Kim Stevenson, or Nobby for the specifics of the phase itself as my explanation wouldn't be justice.

My overriding point isn't to deride John Molvar; he's taken an interest in Lydiard's thoughts, teachings, and empirical experimentation and that's great. What I do take issue with is altering such work in important wants that leads it to become more John Molvar than Lydiard.

More importantly he has done what great coaches never do: he has presented a one-size-fits-all, by the numbers training plan. Great coaches, those coaches that understand each individual runner's abilities, history, and goals, will take the time to tailor training to suit such peculiarities. Training at its best level isn't a cookie cutter menu; it's a ritual self-examination of where you have been, where you're going, and finding out what YOU need to get there.

For some thoughts on the thesis, including a defense by Molvar himself, visit this thread:

http://www.letsrun.com/forum/flat_read.php?board=1&id=709272&thread=708947