posted Apr-22-2007 12:32 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tchuck:
Nobby,

What is purpose/benefits of Lydiard Lacing?

---

It avoids criss-crossing on the top of your foot and relieve the pressure that could press down tendons and sinews. It was a bit tricky for me to get used to and I resisted for a long time. When I was in NZ, I got this pain on the top of my foot and that was when I finally listened to Arthur and converted to his lacing system. It really helped. I used to get this pain once in a while but I never had that again. I admit that it's not for everybody (meaning, not everybody needs to try it); not for all the shoes out there. But if you have had a problem with a pain on the top of your foot; or if you've had things like Morton's nueroma (I've never had it but I heard people who've had this problem and tried Lydiard lacing and helped), just try it and see how it goes. If it didn't work, why stick to it? But if it helps, try it. I've seen elite runners like Rob de Castella, Dick Quax, Pricilla Welch do this lacing. I could be wrong but Carlos Lopes and those Djibuti runners might have done it as well (it looks quite obfious if they do it). Eriko Asai, a sub 2:30 marathon runner (woman) in the 80s, did it as well. I talked to her coach, Isao Sasaki, and he told me that he and his runners tried it and liked it so the entire team (NEC) converted to this lacing system. If it works, why not?

IP: Logged

posted Apr-22-2007 06:16 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by DavidD:
Are you referring to "over-reaching"? This is an important part of training. But too much over-reaching turns to overtraining. So over-reaching precedes overtraining if allowed to go that far. Overreaching is a great state to go into, but you have to be healthy, and for many athletes, it should be followed by more rest.

Ideally, you can approach this very early overtraining state and perform well, then back off (with lower milage and reduced speed work, and a lot more rest) and you'll maintain your high level of function. This is what some call a "peak" which can last for weeks if done right.

---

David:

So are you saying that overtraining can occur from trying to hold a "peak" too long? In other words, overtraining can--in some instances--be synomous w/ staleness.

It seems to me that runners during a particular macrocycle don't just have one "huge" peak. Ideally, they add stress, recover, adapt, add more stress, recover, etc. (Granted, this only can go on for so long before the body breaks down). In other words, the runner doesn't hit one "grand" peak, but rather a series of adaptations.

I make this observation because it seems that a runner is "mini-peaking" throughout the training cycle, it then becomes incumbent that athlete recognize these moments and make sure he or she does not get carried away and fry the circuits, so to speak. It's very EZ to become excited by progress and then turn your season to crap.

All-in-all, I think it's important to come up w/ a training plan that acknowledges progression. For examples, Brian asks about whether or not Fartlek can be incorporated into base training. I absolutely believe it can. More importantly, I believe it can serve as a backbone for progression.

For instance, I try to hit various paces all throughout the training cycle. So, for instance, let's take 5k effort/pace. Each workout is done 2x per mesocycle:

Mesocycle 1: 16x400m@5kP, 400m R
Meso 2: 8-10x600-800m@5kP, 400m R
Meso 3: 6x1000m@5kP, 400m R
Meso 4: 4x1600m@5kP, 400mR

IMO, meso 1 & 2 are EZ fartleks, IMHO. The length of recovery (in terms of time) exceeds or is = to the length of the 5kP effort. Yet, you're doing the basic work of preparing your body for those more demanding vo2 sessions in Meso 3 & 4. It's all in the consistancy of the recovery.

And then once you get to race season, you add bearish workouts, such as in/outs, oxygen debt workouts, etc.

The point I hope I'm making is that the runner needs to think not about immediate progress, but the overarching arc of a given macrocycle. To my mind, having an overall sense of things really helps the athlete not to fall into the pitfall of overtraining.

[This message has been edited by tuscaloosarunner (edited Apr-22-2007).]

IP: Logged

posted Apr-22-2007 10:04 AM               

You're right, you WERE paraphasing....and poorly at that, in fact it's basically a mis-quote. I am not "sacrificing my body" at all. In my entire running career, I have lost maybe a week's worth of training to actual physical injuries. I've had a couple bouts of overtraining and rough stretches. That's what happens when you're pushing the envelope. It's easy to feel great every day when you are not pushing the envelope.

I have zero joint/muscular issues, my total cholesterol is in the 120s, and I am generally one of the most fit people I know. Where in this am I "sacrificing myself?"

Nowhere did I ever mention the "no pain no gain" philosophy. I've repeatedly talked about training smart, finding what works for you, etc etc. This is training SMART, the exact opposite of "no pain no gain". Now, in finding what works and pushing for extra fitness, there will be bumps in the road and I've hit a few.

And if you think that the difference between 34:18 and 30:57 is "a few seconds" then you haven't been around this sport very much!

However the truth of the matter is that history has shown us that the best long distance runners tend to have high volume training with few exceptions.

Training by time and counting miles are both uni-dimensional reflections of work volume. They are basically interchangeable though they both have pros/cons. Much of it comes down to mind games, if you tend to pressure yourself to hit a pace/mile then go by time for sure. As I said before, it's only one piece of the puzzle and must be taken into context. A discussion on mileage without talking about the content is incomplete.

IP: Logged

posted Apr-22-2007 11:56 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by AndyHass:
" There is no truth. It's individual to say the least. Someone stated (I'm paraphrasing) that he is willing to sacrifice his body for a few more seconds in a race. What? Unfortunately, it's a common attitude. No pain, no gain. Makes me think of football players who become sick and obese soon after retirement. "

You're right, you WERE paraphasing....and poorly at that, in fact it's basically a mis-quote. I am not "sacrificing my body" at all. In my entire running career, I have lost maybe a week's worth of training to actual physical injuries. I've had a couple bouts of overtraining and rough stretches. That's what happens when you're pushing the envelope. It's easy to feel great every day when you are not pushing the envelope.

I have zero joint/muscular issues, my total cholesterol is in the 120s...

---

OK, my generalities got out of hand. And I believe my comments were more directed at fredurie(?) and the general attitude many have about sacrificing their body. I've seen too many no-pain, no-gain addicts that do serious damage out of ignorance.

A 120 total cholesterol? That's a red flag to me even in someone real fit.

IP: Logged

posted Apr-22-2007 12:12 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by tuscaloosarunner:
David:
So are you saying that overtraining can occur from trying to hold a "peak" too long? In other words, overtraining can--in some instances--be synomous w/ staleness.

---

That's one way of saying it. Overtraining and staleness, sure they could be synonymous. I hate to be so vague, but these are terms that mean different things to different people. Race times that are diminishing throughout the season, for example, could be referred to as staleness, and it may be caused by overtraining, so I'd use the latter term. But there could also be, for example, a nutritional problem that affects race performance. And if that problem was due to overtraining, we still have the overtraining as the primary cause. (Sorry to get carried away with these asides.).

quote:

---

Originally posted by tuscaloosarunner:
It seems to me that runners during a particular macrocycle don't just have one "huge" peak. Ideally, they add stress, recover, adapt, add more stress, recover, etc. (Granted, this only can go on for so long before the body breaks down). In other words, the runner doesn't hit one "grand" peak, but rather a series of adaptations. [/B]

---

I would agree. I never liked the idea of a "peak" both physiologically, and philosophically. But one should be racing their best for longer, rather than shorter time frames. One of the keys is to know when to cut back and insure adequate recovery.

quote:

---

Originally posted by tuscaloosarunner:
It's very EZ to become excited by progress and then turn your season to crap.[/B]

---

Yes! And this was the point I was trying to make earlier.

IP: Logged

posted Apr-22-2007 12:13 PM               

Why would this be a red flag??? I have good genetics and take care of myself as does Andy I am sure. I would consider my numbers ideal and in top 1% of population. I am sure Andy has a great ratio also.

When I tested cholesterol years back (as an exercise physiologist) I would find cholesterols under 130. At that time, mine was under 100 for a while. My HDL was lower though. If wasn't the norm by no means but also not totally unheard of in the very fit, lean athlete that of course also had good genetics.

------------------
Todd

IP: Logged

posted Apr-22-2007 01:03 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by DavidD:
OK, my generalities got out of hand. And I believe my comments were more directed at fredurie(?) and the general attitude many have about sacrificing their body. I've seen too many no-pain, no-gain addicts that do serious damage out of ignorance.

A 120 total cholesterol? That's a red flag to me even in someone real fit.

---

Al Sal beat the best in the world. It wasn't overtraining; it was what it took to be the best, period.

Anybody with half a brain takes recovery after a hard workout, a hard week, a hard block of work.

I have weekly discussions with a guy who has a PhD and 4 Masters
degrees. He never brings up his credentials.

You aren't old school.

IP: Logged

posted Apr-22-2007 01:24 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tchuck:
My total cholesterol is 124
HDL 64
LDL 52
Chol/HDL ratio 1.9
Triglycerides 40
Why would this be a red flag??? I have good genetics and take care of myself as does Andy I am sure. I would consider my numbers ideal and in top 1% of population. I am sure Andy has a great ratio also.
When I tested cholesterol years back (as an exercise physiologist) I would find cholesterols under 130. At that time, mine was under 100 for a while. My HDL was lower though. If wasn't the norm by no means but also not totally unheard of in the very fit, lean athlete that of course also had good genetics.

---

1.9 is a great ratio, and 40 tri (if it's fasting) is great too.

I won't comment about anyone in particular but about the notion that low cholesterol could be a red flag.

The healthy range for total cholesterol is typically quoted as 180-200 (mg/dl), and there's a bell-shaped curve with levels above and below that being associated with some aspect of reduced health. Yes, HDL and all the other fractions are very important, but I'll talk about this particular issue of low total cholesterol.

Since cholesterol is so important for health, especially for the nervous system, lower levels can affect us neurologically.

The many studies showing low total cholesterol to be a potential problem have highlighted all age groups and gender if I recall -- from kids (esp. behavioral problems) to the elderly (esp. cognitive dysfunction/frailty).

150-160 mg/dl seems to be the lower limit of normal that I have long used, and that probably came from many of the studies (they are easy to find).

One could not conclude anything only from seeing an abnormally low cholesterol, but it should be a flag for the individual and clinician.

IP: Logged

posted Apr-22-2007 02:41 PM               

IP: Logged

posted Apr-22-2007 03:31 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kim Stevenson:
Nobby has just told me about this site. Any of you want to ask anything on the Lydiard side of things. Go for it. Although Nobby has done well and he would be the premier expert on Arthur's ideas.

---

I talked with Arthur a number of time in the 80s, after meeting him by chance. I was visiting family in NY, and my sister, who was a patient of Maffetone's, was going to his clinic so I tagged along. We were walking into the clinic when out comes Arthur. We chatted a bit (he loved to talk) and I told him I was measuring some runners who were on his program, etc. We talked a month or two later a few times. He was a fascinating guy.

Who has been continuing with his work, "officially"?

IP: Logged

posted Apr-22-2007 03:48 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kim Stevenson:
Nobby has just told me about this site. Any of you want to ask anything on the Lydiard side of things. Go for it.

---

I would like to ask Nobby if he has time to address this;

Middle and long distance running in North America. What the heck has happened in 1984-85? What has triggered this quick downfall over night? Like a light switch. One minute it's on, the next it's off.

IP: Logged

posted Apr-22-2007 04:21 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by DavidD:
Who has been continuing with his work, "officially"?

---

My wife just left for shopping with my daughter, leaving a to-do list for outside work (gotta keep up for my green card!) but it's started to rain so, oh, well... I guess I'll do my other "work"???

Dave, that would be me (http://www.lydiardfoundation.org/about/letterfromarthur.html). Lorraine Moller and myself have started Lydiard Foundation and are now working on restoring the Old Man's legacy. We have been working on the idea of Lydiard Foundation since 2003 and Arthur wrote this letter right before we brought him to his last US lecture tour. I put together the PPT presentation which we presented during the tour which Arthur approved. We only showd 70 pages of it. 30+ pages are available at our website; we are using full scale PPT (160 pages) for what we call Lydiard Certificate Program Part I. Part II, the Application of Lydiard Program is 180 pages.

We also have the script for Lydiard Training Video which Arthur also approved along with Peter Snell and Dick Quax. We feel pretty good with what we have so far developed. Now we need to actually get out and do it. We have people who would endource our programs; Nic Bideau, Chris Pilone, Steve Jones and Frank Shorter. We are also now working with USAT&F. Our website is not quite complete, but it's a start. We'll have some audio and visual pieces as well. We are sorting out our funding right now but hopefully we can direct our effort into video and website and this certificate program in the next few months.

What happened to the US running? I think the biggest problem is how money has started to going into the sport in a wrong direction. It was a good thing to have money into running and athletes now could get some cash as a reward. That definitely was an incentive and many young athletes now didn't have to worry about living on food stamps and they can get out and train. But that also set up a situation where it's too risky to go for a win against Kenyans and other foreign runners. It's safer and easier and makes more financial sense to go after 5th or 6th place and run every other weekend. No money was available on track so most of the middle distance and distance runners turned to become a road runner (which I talked about). Consequently they have lost the winning edge and winning tool (speed). Tons of money is now available in the sport but sponsoring company would give millions of dollars to already great super star athletes. Not much would go to developing athletes. Even for developing athletes, you still have to be fairly good otherwise you don't even get free shoes.

The support system in Japan is completely different. When I got hired by a corporate team, they first hired the team manager, the head; then the coach, me. We had 2 athletes. We went out and recruited (which to me wasn't quite ideal but it was okay) 6 more. We started from coaches and managers who would structure the TEAM. In the US, they seek good athletes first and coaches are glorified volunteer. Lydiard always said that "coaches are who produce champions." In the US, sponsors and promotors and agent rule the sports; not the coach.

If you want to find out who's the best runner in the high school, go to the regional championships and pick the first and second runners and call it a day. Any idiot can do that. But that's what governing people are doing. A good coach would observe what's going on and maybe pick the 8th runner (for whatever the reason). Potential? Attitude? Form? Are they over-raced? Are they enthusiastic? Who has the potential to become Olympic finalist in 8 years? They don't always have the fastest time when they are 17. But that's what we are doing.

I have become good friends with coach Squires over the years. He seems to have had this all figured out. He had coaching education program in 4 different regions; coaching people like Rodgers and Meyer and all... If he was given an opportunity in the mid 1980s and run the program, we would have had a very different picture now.

Then, yes, science came into the sport way too much and they started to caution athletes not to "over-train". Too many people, coaches and athletes alike, try to "predict" what's going to happen on paper ("if you run more than 100 miles a week, you'll get injured; according to such-and-such research") instead of finding out what's going to happen TO YOU if you did it (you may improve dramatically). This, to me, is quite apparent when you read letsrun.com thread and see 1/4 of the threads are like "I did such and such workout; how fast can I run a mile?" (and 1/2 of other threads are non-running related topics) People have become too big-headed (not that they are a snob), too "knowledgeable" so they think, and they think they'd figured things out. They talk about "human limit" and "physical limit". They now don't want to find out because "they know the truth". Well, there you have it; the title of this thread. But what do we really know? This young kid (17) wanted to know if he could run 2:20 for the marathon. I told him, "If you know what you're going to run in 10 years time, would you still train hard?" To me, running is all about personal challenge; to find out what I can do with what I've got. Someone told me that Frank Shorter said he trained so hard so he didn't want to wonder, at 40, what he could have done. There, I was stupid and now I wonder what I could have done. But because of that, I learnt a lot and I don't want other people to do the same. At the launch of Lydiard Foundation last year in Boulder, I said, "I didn't quite understand training and there was nobody to help me. I see a lot of Nobbys out there and I want to be the one to help those Nobbys." That's why I became a coach; and that's why I want to carry on the works of Lydiard.

Here I go again, yapping...! Did I even anwer your question?

IP: Logged

posted Apr-22-2007 04:51 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nobby:
Dave, that would be me (http://www.lydiardfoundation.org/about/letterfromarthur.html).

---

Thanks, it does answer my question. It sounds great, I'm glad someone has stepped up.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nobby:
What happened to the US running? I think the biggest problem is how money has started to going into the sport in a wrong direction. [/B]

---

We saw this coming in the 70s and early 80s.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nobby:
Then, yes, science came into the sport way too much and they started to caution athletes not to "over-train". [/B]

---

The science can actually be very helpful IF it's used correctly (that's a big IF). As I mentioned above (or maybe in another discussion), I spent a good deal of time measuring runners in the lab who were on Lydiard's program and comparing them to others I grouped together. Lydiard's program was familiar to me previous to that, and it was among the more logical approaches out there (then and now). The lab studies seemed to confirm that (I may have had 30 or more runners). Science can help support what Lydiard was saying. He was very interested that I was measuring aerobic function and fat burning, and showing how one can run faster at the same heart rate after a good base period, but he seemed to almost fear the whole idea of laboratory measurements.

I do hope you get some of his stuff edited and republished, which would give it more power.

IP: Logged

posted Apr-22-2007 05:11 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by DavidD:
The science can actually be very helpful IF it's used correctly (that's a big IF). As I mentioned above (or maybe in another discussion), I spent a good deal of time measuring runners in the lab who were on Lydiard's program and comparing them to others I grouped together. Lydiard's program was familiar to me previous to that, and it was among the more logical approaches out there (then and now). The lab studies seemed to confirm that (I may have had 30 or more runners). Science can help support what Lydiard was saying. He was very interested that I was measuring aerobic function and fat burning, and showing how one can run faster at the same heart rate after a good base period, but he seemed to almost fear the whole idea of laboratory measurements.

I do hope you get some of his stuff edited and republished, which would give it more power.

---

Dave:

Yes, I was actually outside, trying to trim the bush in the rain and was thinking, "Maybe I shouldn't have made is sound like 'science hurt the sport.'" Quite a contrary, as you said, Lydiard was always a big proponent of scientific approach. He was the one who said, as early as 1960s, that East German would emerge because they were more scientific (well, of course, it kinda went a wrong way as well...). You need to understand, not only what to do and how to do it, but WHY you're doing it; and scientific explanation always helps. But it's like anything else; if a good thing starts to dictate the whole thing, then the problem occurs. We need to use science, not to be used (and abused) by it.

We have Dr. Dave Martin as our Honorary Advisory Staff, along with Peter Snell. He has seen our PPT and video script and approved them. We both agree that Lydiard "knew enough to be dangerous". We don't copy everything Lydiard said blindly. We add explanation why he said it and why he said it that way.

IP: Logged

posted Apr-22-2007 09:36 PM               

I apologize for asking "newbie" questions, but what's your view of this Nobby? What kind of shoes would you recommend for training (not brands or specific shoes, but just a general outline)? Some advocate "Walmart" bargain basement, others suggest low-heel "training" shoes, and of course the magazines hype the latest and greatest cushioning or motion control or whatever. Honestly, I don't have a clue.

IP: Logged

posted Apr-22-2007 11:33 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by martinjames:
"Shoes are the common cause of sloppy running -- one cannot run properly in most training shoes (among other things they force you to land on your heel which is not a running gait)." -- David D.

I apologize for asking "newbie" questions, but what's your view of this Nobby? What kind of shoes would you recommend for training (not brands or specific shoes, but just a general outline)? Some advocate "Walmart" bargain basement, others suggest low-heel "training" shoes, and of course the magazines hype the latest and greatest cushioning or motion control or whatever. Honestly, I don't have a clue.

---

I can go on and on and on….and on about this topic! Of course, Lydiard was one of the biggest critics of today’s so-called high tech running shoes. He introduced me to proper awareness to running shoes back in early 1980s; then his lacing; then he introduced me to “minimalist” shoes way back in mid-1980s. I went to his house, I believe it must have been around 1987, and I saw a couple of “racing flats” in the front entrance. I said, “Arthur, these are racing flats.” He said, “These are so much better. Today’s training shoes feel like gum boots to me.” I tried to purchase the same shoes that I saw at his house and went all the way back and collected advertisement of his old shoes. In the 90s, I saw a picture of this particular model in the Japanese running magazine and I went ahead and asked my family to get them for me. At the same time, I asked Arthur what shoes he wore and it turned out to be the same model. So I was on the right track! Then I purchase this other model and sent them to him and he liked them so much (and he couldn’t get them in NZ) he asked me if I could get him a couple of pairs for him.

It is very hard to say which brand is the best because ALL the shoe manufacturers do have good shoes and not-so-good shoes. A particular shoe company sponsored his last tour and them and one other newly formed shoe company are supporting Lydiard Foundation. It’s not that they came to us; the fact is that we went to them because we liked their shoes.

Dave is absolutely correct in his statement. There are some individual differences but the running form should be such that you land almost “flat-footed” (as Japanese would call it) or mid-foot striking. Heel to toe is not natural movement (think about barefoot running) and today’s so-called high tech shoes with over-emphasized heel allows, if not forces, you to run heel to toe. Now, the higher off you are from the ground, the less stable you’ll become. Because of that, shoe manufacturers would put those plastic pieces or thick bulky material to “stabilize” the shoe. Consequently this would restrict natural movements of the foot and creates all sorts of problems like plantar fasciitis (Lydiard called it “American shoe disease).

As far back as 1981, I noticed that, depending on the shoe, I either pronate or supinate. Lydiard always said it’s the shoe that pronates or supinates, not you. Now, I actually wouldn’t go that far. There are basically 3 causes of these problems; 1) mechanical, 2) structural and 3) shoe. Particularly for (2), you may require some sort of orthotics. But I am absolutely convinced, more than 80% of today’s running related injuries are due to ill-fitted shoes (and weakening of feet and legs that come from it).

I do stick with the same brand because I happen to like them a lot as well as them being supportive. But I also noticed, depending on which shoe I wear, my form does change. Some people are more sensitive than others. I happen to be VERY sensitive about it. This particular model, I wouldn’t have any problem running trail or treadmill; but if I go for a long run on asphalt, I start to feel some slapping and feel it in my thighs. Same brand, but different shoes and I have NO problem whatsoever. I do switch shoes around depending on the condition; if my calves are sore, I might wear shoes with slightly thicker heel, etc. However, I am more or less minimalist. I prefer Japanese marathon racing flats; basically no special support and the difference between the forefoot thickness and heel is minimal. I’ll send you the image of my favorite shoes separately.

I’ve had a bad case of Achilles problem years ago. It’s actually still there and bothering me; but it really subsided and I was able to run more or less freely WHEN I completely switched to minimalist shoes and started running a lot more rugged cross country terrains. I run up to 1:30 in one of those XC spikeless spike shoes and feel just fine.

Nakamura used to say, “Talk to your feet.” Lydiard used to say, “You put your shoes on and feel any pressure point. Basically, put the shoe on, concentrate on your feet and see how they feel. My right foot is slightly bigger than my left. And I can feel one shoe is bigger than the other. I usually place a very thin extra insole to balance it. Feel if your foot is rolling inward or outward, any strain in your arch, if so-called Achilles protective tab is actually rubbing against your Achilles tendon, if tongue is pressing the top of your foot too hard, if any of those cosmetic pieces are digging into your foot when the shoe flexes… Don’t just go buy a pair of shoes simply because they look cool or because some elite was wearing them or because they were on sale. Shoes are the most important equipment for runners. Don’t take it lightly.

IP: Logged

posted Apr-22-2007 11:38 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by martinjames:
others suggest low-heel "training" shoes

---

Sorry, your e-mail address wasn't listed so I couldn't send you the image of my favorite shoes (the smell will not be included!).

IP: Logged

posted Apr-23-2007 01:12 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by DavidD:
I talked with Arthur a number of time in the 80s, after meeting him by chance. I was visiting family in NY, and my sister, who was a patient of Maffetone's, was going to his clinic so I tagged along. We were walking into the clinic when out comes Arthur. We chatted a bit (he loved to talk) and I told him I was measuring some runners who were on his program, etc. We talked a month or two later a few times. He was a fascinating guy.

Who has been continuing with his work, "officially"?

---

Sorry, I am behind the 8 ball here.
As Nobby has said he is the one carrying out Arthur's work "officially". However, there is nothing 'official' here in New Zealand. Many of us are still Coaching athletes using his methods and ideas.
Examples: Barry Magee is doing a great job in Auckland with some younger Athletes and guys like Chris Pilone are Coaching top Triathletes (Current Oly Champ).
Unfortunately, there is still a number of Coaches who feel that Arthur's ideas are old fashioned and they look for other quick results which of course they get quite often in the Short term but wonder why the Athletes don't improve beyond a certain level. There is also a school of thought which has decided that Kenyan methods are best.
NZ is a Westernised society which does not resemble Kenya in any way or Form. Results have not come form this School of thought for obvious reasons !!!
My main aim with all this is to keep the Lydiard flame burning and pass it on to anyone interested.

IP: Logged

posted Apr-23-2007 09:08 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by DavidD:

1.9 is a great ratio, and 40 tri (if it's fasting) is great too.

I won't comment about anyone in particular but about the notion that low cholesterol could be a red flag.

The healthy range for total cholesterol is typically quoted as 180-200 (mg/dl), and there's a bell-shaped curve with levels above and below that being associated with some aspect of reduced health. Yes, HDL and all the other fractions are very important, but I'll talk about this particular issue of low total cholesterol.

Since cholesterol is so important for health, especially for the nervous system, lower levels can affect us neurologically.

The many studies showing low total cholesterol to be a potential problem have highlighted all age groups and gender if I recall -- from kids (esp. behavioral problems) to the elderly (esp. cognitive dysfunction/frailty).

150-160 mg/dl seems to be the lower limit of normal that I have long used, and that probably came from many of the studies (they are easy to find).

One could not conclude anything only from seeing an abnormally low cholesterol, but it should be a flag for the individual and clinician.

---

The notion that there is a 20mg/dl range that is healthy, and anything outside of that unhealthy, is utterly ridiculous. Taking into account the wide variation in this reading, that is an absurdly narrow range.

The studies you mentioned did NOT look at the total cholesterol of trained athletes. If someone has a total cholesterol of 120 as a couch potato, there is absolutely no way to extrapolate the meaning of this to someone who gets there through serious training. The patient populations are totally different, and the results therefore totally meaningless. It's like the doctor who forced my 24-year-old friend to wear a 24hr halter monitor because his resting HR was 48 and therefore "dangerous". Similarly, if a doc looked at an X-ray of my chest they'd say I'm at risk of chronic heart failure because of my enlarged heart....unless they knew I was an endurance athlete, in which case it would be considered totally normal and healthy.

Studies found a CORRELATION in some cases between low cholesterol and certain health problems. This is NOT the same thing as causation. For example, low cholesterol was correlated with liver dysfunction and a higher risk of death in certain cancers. #1, it's correlated with liver dysfunction because the liver makes cholesterol and if your liver is not working right your cholesterol will be low. Applying this back to running, you can see that the cause for the low cholesterol is compeletely different, and therefore the finding is completely meaningless. Similarly, the study doesn't say low cholesterol CAUSES cancer, but that people already suffering with cancer die more often if they have low cholesterol. Again, context is important!! Many cancers metastisize to the liver when they are more advanced, causing liver dysfunction and therefore low cholesterol through impaired cholesterol sythesis. So the low cholesterol is simply a symptom of advanced cancer, not a cause to worry about. The reason more people die with cancer if they have low cholesterol is that the low cholesterol indicates that their disease is more advanced and/or aggressive.

My point is, context is important. Just as with mileage, where the number doesn't tell you a whole lot by itself

[This message has been edited by AndyHass (edited Apr-23-2007).]

IP: Logged

posted Apr-23-2007 11:12 AM               

There was a failed attempt to discuss the problems of running shoes in another forum (see "running shoe hype" under "Gear"), but no one could believe there was a problem and there was a lot of emotion.

There are many good studies and published papers on this topic. The book Fix Your Feet (Maffetone) does a good job explaining it (his textbook even better with references). Unfortunately, you won't see any of this stuff in the running magazines for obvious reasons. George Sheehan told me long ago that RW (the mag he wrote a regular column for) would not allow him to write on the topic.

IP: Logged

posted Apr-23-2007 11:13 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by DavidD:

The many studies showing low total cholesterol to be a potential problem have highlighted all age groups and gender if I recall -- from kids (esp. behavioral problems) to the elderly (esp. cognitive dysfunction/frailty).

150-160 mg/dl seems to be the lower limit of normal that I have long used, and that probably came from many of the studies (they are easy to find).

---

Sorry David. I specifically asked my very highly compensated company doctors and my primary care physician if there was an unhealthily low level of LDL cholesterol. Both said no.

My current LDL is 67 (down from 79 last year) and my total cholesterol is 151, which both doctors described as extremely healthy.

My HDL is borderline low at 41. As I already have a very healthy lifestyle the only two pieces of advice I was given were:
- exercise even more
- drink a moderate amount of alcohol.

Just an update:

quote:

---

From Dr John LaRosa:
Yet, the concern that was expressed about 15 years ago that low LDL-C might be somehow dangerous to your health is just not valid, and 3 similar kinds of data that support this.

The first is the genetic abnormality hypobetalipoproteinemia, in which people have very low LDL-C levels but don't seem to have any problems.

The second is cord blood, in which LDL-C is 30 to 60 mg/dL; we know that, in fetuses, growth and development take place in the presence of very low LDL-C.

And third, there are free-living populations in primitive societies who eat lots of plants and vegetables and very little meat, and their LDL-C levels are down in the range of 40 to 60 mg/dL without any apparent adverse effect. Now people who don't have any LDL-C because of betahypolipoproteinemia do have problems. They can't absorb fat very well and they have problems synthesizing nerve coverings, but one can have pretty low LDL-C levels and survive.

---

[This message has been edited by bigapplepie (edited Apr-23-2007).]

IP: Logged

posted Apr-23-2007 11:27 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by DavidD:
running shoes...

There are many good studies and published papers on this topic. The book Fix Your Feet (Maffetone) does a good job explaining it (his textbook even better with references). Unfortunately, you won't see any of this stuff in the running magazines for obvious reasons. George Sheehan told me long ago that RW (the mag he wrote a regular column for) would not allow him to write on the topic.

---

My understanding is that Maffetone's book is suited for academics rather than runners. I read that the best way to cure foot problems (according to the book) and related problems was to either do some walking or some running in bare feet. Is this correct? What type of shoe do you use?

IP: Logged

posted Apr-23-2007 11:34 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by phthenry:
My understanding is that Maffetone's book is suited for academics rather than runners. I read that the best way to cure foot problems (according to the book) and related problems was to either do some walking or some running in bare feet. Is this correct? What type of shoe do you use?

---

Fix Your Feet is a book for athletes (I saw a copy recently in a sports store). His textbook (Complementary Sports Medicine) is used in the academic arena for courses on training and care of the athlete, but also for professionals such as sports docs, coaches, etc. It's technical, but more clinical than academic.

IP: Logged

posted Apr-23-2007 11:38 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by bigapplepie:
Sorry David. I specifically asked my very highly compensated company doctors and my primary care physician if there was an unhealthily low level of LDL cholesterol. Both said no.

---

They're right. But we're talking about total cholesterol.

IP: Logged

posted Apr-23-2007 11:39 AM            

Perhaps we should initiate a thread specific to Lydiard's philosophies and methods?

I suggest this for selfish reasons: I have a few specific questions involving hill circuits that have no bearing on this particular thread's focus on mileage.

As for mileage... just some anecdotal stuff: after examining my goals and training over the past decade, starting in December I scrapped all my 2007 "race" plans and decided to devote this year purely to 'steady state' aerobic base building.

Even without any speedwork, my speed has increased and my overall fitness is probably the best it's been in 2-3 years. (I also moved to a hillier area and no longer avoid hills on my long runs.) When I pulled a large 10K PR out of my hat a few weeks ago, I was completely floored when I finished and saw I had PRd by 2 minutes, as I ran it as a fun run, completely comfortable and not racing.

I think that I've spent the last few years in the running doldrums as I had been limited by a few things:
- low weekly mileage
- a misguided adherance to Long Slow Distance, rather than Long Steady Distance runs
- track sessions that really never seemed to pay off
- hills scared me
- I used popular training plans that I now think "aim low" and are geared more for simply finishing marathons rather than actually racing them
- shoes: I stopped listening to the advice at my local running shops and listened to my feet. I'm no longer running in clunky monstrosities.

Miles haven't made me a champion, but they are apparently making me faster.

[This message has been edited by piobaireachd (edited Apr-23-2007).]

IP: Logged