You are reporting the following post to the moderators for review and possible removal from the forum

IQ100
RE: LYDIARD OR DANIELS?

CraigMac4h wrote:

The Lydiard system is not outdated or inadequate.

What's outdated about Lydiard's actual training?



About the aerobic need as build-up this is common sense training, nothing revolutionary or new either. 100miles is outdate. Every top class runner do 100miles if not more but this wasn’t by the use of Lydiard method but common sense physiology. The Lydiard training blocks that’s outdate. Most recent methods have best season periodisation than what Lydiard used. Most methods did a huge success while use intervals during the aerobic/build up phase. That’s a evidence that intervals with parsimony frequency and progressively, adjust to the runner needs and not done all out flat, because all flat out would too much anaerobic, that helps the runner to improve his aerobic condition. Therefore as the Lydiard method it interdicts repetitions and intervals during the build-up phase is outdate. Also the fact that the racing season have different needs the training structure that doesn’t continued with the aerobic condition during the later period before the peak that’s outdate. Weekly long runs for short-middle distance runners as 800m-1500m/mile that are overrated and outdate.
Lydiard that’s as perfect as other method. That’s no logic or rational evidence that Lydiard is the perfect combination of aerobic and anaerobic training.


CraigMac4h wrote:
Do athletes not need a finely tuned aerobic system? Do they not need to improve their capacity for performing at race pace? Do they no longer benefit from hills?



The need of a finely tuned aerobic system that is common sense. Every good method says so. So this is nothing new really. The fact is that each different method try to improve the aerobic condition by different training schedules. In that aspect Lydiard is similar to all the rest.
The aerobic condition is very important. That’s first step to improve. Simply Lydiard he was wrong because the runner improve by the aerobic condition is as limited as the anaerobic improve. I can prove it.
Hills in the Lydiard style that is Lydiard genuine training really like the Lydiard way to lace the shoes..


CraigMac4h wrote:
Craig Mottram is a great example of an athlete whose coach has successfully adapted Lydiard principles to the modern demands and needs of his athlete.



By the way Craig is a runner that does what I said. He does repetitions/intervals during the build-up phase which isn’t Lydiard at all.


CraigMac4h wrote:
Face it, IQ100- you're wrong. The Lydiard Cult doesn't exist, Lydiard was a training revolutionary, and his methods are still relevant and viable today.


Yes. Lydiard was a coach revolutionary in the 60s. But it was some 30 years ago.
All revolutionaries have their followers that they build up the man and the man’s idea into a cult.

Hit the submit button below if you want us to review the post.

If you feel this is urgent or want a reply, email us at [email protected] about the post and please include a link to the thread the post is on and what page number/post on that page it is.