The Light wrote:
I'm not against avoiding recent research. I just wonder if we should attempt to couple it to the Lydiard system. Is science a necessary part of Lydiardism, or is it superfluous? After all, Lydiard developed his system with only the science knowledge available in the 1950's, using the age old scientific method of trial and error, ignorant of some modern terms like aerobic and anaerobic. In the last 50 years, science has changed, but the Lydiard system has not. Science might help some understand why it works, for those who need to know, but when the science evolves, independently of the system, then some people start getting confused. New science is not contradicting the Lydiard system, but rather the old science.
That´s not just the modern science knowledge that contradicts SOME aspects of the Lydiard system. That is the modern trial and error done for the last 3 1/2 decades. To be a long period of months with aerobic runs and without intervals, to train the anaerobic for some 6 weeks that´s all outdate.
When do you realise that Lydiard is outdate and is innadequate in many aspects ?