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

I like your style.

If I ever insinuated I thought we should strictly adhere to exactly what Lydiard did, my mistake. Of course training should evolve and be adapted- even the best training isn't good at all if it isn't flexible to adapt to an athlete's particular needs.

I just disagree with you that "modified Lydiard" is no longer "Lydiard."

The simple acid test I use for determining the "Lydiarditude" of a training program? (I lol'd at that word).

1) Does the athlete/coach describe it as Lydiard?

-pretty self explanatory. I'm not talking about some high school coach here, I mean world class guy's coaches. If a guy like Nic Bideau says "I base my stuff off Lydiard" I tend to trust his word. If Greg McMillan says "yup, I agree with a lot of Lydiard's ideas, and use them" then I would quite correctly say "that athlete trains along Lydiard principles.

Likewise, if Frank Shorter says "you know, Nobby, I always considered myself a Lydiard man- I did a lot of volume and based my training off feeling." Then I tend to think "ok, by his own word, Shorter trained according to Lydiard principles."

2) Is there a lot of (relatively) high volume at steady speeds for long periods of the year?

Ovett's training follows this model- he did a long base phase of aerobic running. Now, his coach was Harry Wilson, and I'm not sure to the degree that Wilson was influenced by Lydiard, but they certain have a lot in common in terms of training structure. So, I would look at an athlete like Ovett and go "he trained like a Lydiard guy would. . . whether or not his coach was a Lydiard guy, there's similarities there. El G did quite a bit of volume during his aerobic conditioning phases (though he also did a lot of race pace stuff in his A.C. phases too). I would look at El G's training and go "there are a lot of similarities to Lydiard here, but the structure is different and there are differences too."

3) Did the coach in question spend a lot of time with Lydiard himself or guys mentored by Lydiard?

This would apply to guys like Nobby or HRE or Bill Baillie. I would figure that guys who studied with Lydiard and tried to learn his coaching method probably coach along these methods. Now, I could be wrong, as not EVERY guy who studied with Lydiard would become a believer (the Russian coaches who studied his method and then discarded it are a good example) but again, it's a good question to ask.

So those are my three questions I ask if I'm determining the Lydiardity (or Coeity or Ceruttity) of a program. I'm more interested in the similarities between world class athletes than adhering to anything real specific.

This may be more appropriate for another thread, but these are things that interest me in running, as I'm not very familiar with them:

*gaining endurance by doing a lot of short reps at a relatively slow pace with a short recovery. Tinman wrote an article about this and it fascinated me- I had never really heard of that before in mainstream coaching.

*circuit training, as described by George Gandy. Is it a lot of fluff or really helpful? Anyone with experience?

*How much can distance runner improve pure speed? We've all heard the truism "you either have speed or you dont" but how true is it? How much can a distance guy affect his ability to accelerate, or his top-end speed, or his 40 yard dash?

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.