Antonio Cabral wrote:
There are people that´s hard to made them belive in facts. With al, respect you are one of them. you still insist in a Lydiard over emphasis that actually it exists only in America and in a few located parts mainly because english language influence.
But obviously what you say is fact is opinion. It is not a "fact" that Lydiard is unimportant. This is your opinion.
Come to mey country. We are 50000 that do running. Among them how many train by Lidiard method ZERO ! Go to Spain. They did lots of top class runners in distance events since 1992. How many they did train or actually train based in Lydiard method: ZERO ! Go to France, ther´s a large tradition in distance running despite last decades they decay in international context: How many they train by Lydiard principles ZERO ! Go to Germany. How many: ZERO. Go to England (ah...that´s a english language country) How many a very slight minority that we can´t consider. Go to Italy, Finland, Norway, All east european countries, go to Morocco - ZERO, go to Kenya (a second english language) a so shor minority that you can´t consider, and go to Ethiopia, in Africa eventually just in South Africa that is done but not too much - recently i received an e-mail from a south African runner that told me that top south africa coaches don´t know who is Lydiard.
I cannot imagine you can classify an entire country of runenrs. Do you know each of the million distance runners from all of those countries and you have asked every single one about Lydiard? Of course not. As for all the countries you mentioned, I am certain there are good runners from many of those countries who employ aerobic base building with high mileage, hill sprinting phases, and peak work along the same lines as Lydiard recommended.
You are right, he did not INVENT these concepts, but they were key to his program. Can you find me a top runner who does not build his base, run some higher mileage in the non-competition phase, use hills (you said yourself Rui uses them in a strength-training fashion; this was a HUGE portion of Lydiard's program), and lighten the load to peak.
Of the millions of runners from all those countries, "zero" use this program.
Now tell me about America ? How many like you think that Lydiard is dominant. What´s the Lidyard influence among america runners. Large one than in almost any other country. Thus i come to my original comment - american mistakes they come from the use of Lydiard training. Long runs for short distant events, 100 miles for everyone, 6 week peak season. The use of hills JUST in the "transfer" phase. I don´t see that use no more...among a larger world runners community. Just in America and a few more folks.
How is running 100 miles per week a "mistake?" And this is still not correct. Lydiard never said everyone should run 100 miles per week. Some did more, some less. And how can you argue with the results? Peter Snell ran 1:44 on a grass 350 meter track (equivalent to 1:42 on today's tracks) using these Sunday long runs at a FAST pace.
Not for everyone, but for some, and maybe many, it can work. And again, hills are not ONLY used for 3 weeks. There are hilly long runs at all phases.
That you don´t want to see the facts and the reality (by the numbers or range of influence) or that you to follow a an opinion that´s a reality distortion that´s up to you, in that point we will never agree, but we still are friends and people that respect each other.
We are friends and I respect you but I cannot agree. Because I do not agree does mean I follow a "distortion of reality." I have shown examples above. A "distortion" is to say that no one in any country other than America employs some of Lydiard's concepts. Maybe they learned it from their own coach and never heard of Lydiard, but it may still be based in some GENERAL principle of Lydiard's work. Distance running training is not THAT different even today.
That´s hard to get you out from your preconceived ideas. It seems to me that you are in a postion that you have an American hipnotisation that don+t made you think clear by the facts.
No, I am not a nationalist. I am Irish by origin but I live in America. This does not mean I dislike other countries and I do not embrace all things American. There are many things I disagree with that occur in America, even with running (such as the poor development of young runners in the high schools).
The main issue that´s not you - that American coaches and runners that still insist in your point of view and they don´t improve. And the results thet are there. For such a large population and so many interest for all athletics you did poor results in distance running evenst that what we may expect. In my opinion this have to do with the use of wrong training concepts.
But things are getting better and the ones who are getting better are using higher mileage and long runs--like Lydiard's athletes.
Meb Keflezghi medaled running much more than 100 miles per week, Deena Kastor medaled and approached 130 miles per week, Alan Culpepper was 12th, ran 2:09:41 recently, and beat Paul Tergat in the Olympics running high mileage, Bob Kennedy ran 27:37 and could have gone to the Olympics except for injury and will run the New York City Marathon, Dan Browne ran well in the 10,000 and ran 13:16 for 5,000 running high mileage, Tim Broe ran 13:18 and made the Olympic final, Dathan Ritzenhein ran 27:38 at age 22 and runs high mileage, Alan Webb has performed well winning in Ostrava beating Lagat and Heshko with 3:32 and running 3:50 twice with more mileage than he ever ran before, still low by world standards, Charlie Gruber broke through running 3:34, David Krummenacker won an indoor world championship and has run 3:31 and 1:43, Paul McMullen ran 10th in the World Championships and has lost all his toes in one foot.
Not all of these are high mileage runners but many are and look at the successes of the past few years.
I agree there is a bad lack of talent for such a big country but things are improving.
As Bob Hodge said, there is a return to the 1970-1980 type training (a Lydiard emphasis) when American running had the best success it EVER had--using Lydiard's methods!!
No generation has come close since. Salaazar, Hodge, Pfitzinger, Rodgers, Shorter, Meyer, Malley, and many others I cannot name ran much faster than people 30 years later, almost all using a Lydiard-based program.
How can we argue with these results?