You are reporting the following post to the moderators for review and possible removal from the forum
RE: LYDIARD OR DANIELS?
I'm not sure if you're saying that Daniels's system requires more discipline than Lydiard's or not. I'd argue that each requires discipline. In the Lydiard system you have to discipline yourself to run at a level of effort that is neither too hard nor too easy.
I did look at Daniels's book a few times. My reaction was that it was way too formulaic for me. On every run I'd be checking times at mile markers and thinking "Got to speed up," or "Got to slow down." Everything seemed so analytical and prescribed. On the other hand, the title of the first chapter in "Run to the Top" is, "The First Step; Enjoyment."
I think that's why I was so drawn to the Lydiard system. It is an extremely enjoyable way to train and proven effective time and again. Having spoken with a number of geezers who either trained with Arthur or used the system, I'd say the most impressive thing about the system is how much we've all enjoyed our running. I think that the enjoyment, more than anything, motivated me to do enough running so that I improved more than I'd ever thought possible.
Which leads to the second difference I see between the approaches. I honestly believe that mileage is king. Arthur used to say "Miles make champions." That's not to say that all there is to training is piling on the miles. But I think it's fairly clear that getting a goodly number of training miles in is one of the things that most successful runners have in common and that the decline in western running performances essentially followed the decline in overall training volume done in the west.
Hit the submit button below if you want us to review the post.