posted Apr-24-2007 12:48 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by gregw:
If you don't have a specific goal race but just want to improve over the years and run some races along the way, when do you leave Lydiard's marathon conditioning phase?

The guide at lydiardfoundation.org says, "When the marathon conditioning phase is completed, or no further time can be spared, it is necessary to develop speed and start to develop anaerobic capacity to exercise."

I have plenty of time to spare, so how will I know that the marathon conditioning phase is completed? The first aim in the marathon conditioning as I understand it is to get to something like the time schedule given (with the indicated intensities) or even longer he suggests. Then one progressively ups the pace slightly while paying attention to your body. If taking a long-term view, should one go at this until he no longer sees improvement or is it more efficient to move on to the hills and track at some point and revisit marathon conditioning (presumably faster)?

Thanks,
Greg

---

You wouldn't want to keep doing the conditioning phase for ever and ever. Arthur had the phase last for ten weeks. Let's say you've done that or maybe doubled it but you don't have a specific race as a goal.
We'll assume here that you'd like to be able to race fairly well ahenever the spirit moves you. Arthur had a "race week/non-race week" schedule that he gave out. Essentially you'd have
a long run and some interval work or time trials in weeks when you don't race and a race in other weeks. This approach is very much like the "complex training" that Pat Clohessey used with Rob DeCastella and that is very common among Aussies. Clohessey had trained with Lydiard and wanted to modify Lydiard training for people who wanted to race well most of the time and not just for a couple of fairly short stretches of time each year.

IP: Logged

posted Apr-24-2007 01:20 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by AndyHass:
DavidD,
Besides the fact that most of these studies did not pertain to athletes, each and every one of them only showed ASSOCIATIONS. This is analogous to the term correlation. In other words, they didn't prove anything. Furthermore, in none of the ones I could access did any author define this narrow range of 160-180 mg/dL as the only healthy range.

---

OK, one more time...
I agreed with you that these are associations, correlations, but I guess you didn't read that. I never used the word "proof." We're dealing with humans.

160-180 mg/dl? Where did that come from? Not from me.

quote:

---

Originally posted by AndyHass:
There is a decent parallel in this side thread; low serum cholesterol has been blamed for everything from stroke to BO, but no causitive link has been shown to any of it....yet you made the statement that there was a narrow healthy range and we're all on the bad end of the stick. Associations without further support aren't worth the paper they're printed on, yet we're supposed to accept it as fact.[/B]

---

I'm trying to contain myself...
You didn't read the papers, I suspect just the abstracts if even those. End of discussion.

I think if we had a moderator here, these kind of discussion would not be happening.

IP: Logged

posted Apr-24-2007 01:26 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by AndyHass:
DavidD,
Besides the fact that most of these studies did not pertain to athletes, each and every one of them only showed ASSOCIATIONS. This is analogous to the term correlation. In other words, they didn't prove anything. Furthermore, in none of the ones I could access did any author define this narrow range of 160-180 mg/dL as the only healthy range.

If you'll notice, those that argued with Richard and took him to task earlier in this thread have participated in dozens and dozens of other threads where the discussions never turned so ugly. The reason is that Richard made a sweeping statement rallying against commonly accepted principles, but never provided any decent evidence supporting this notion. There is a decent parallel in this side thread; low serum cholesterol has been blamed for everything from stroke to BO, but no causitive link has been shown to any of it....yet you made the statement that there was a narrow healthy range and we're all on the bad end of the stick. Associations without further support aren't worth the paper they're printed on, yet we're supposed to accept it as fact.

I'm not argumentative by nature....Richard deserved it but perhaps I'm sensitive to your line of thinking simply because I've been involved in enough science that was misinterpreted by the mainstream media that it boils my blood when I see such studies being misconstrued or given more credit than they're worth. (I once rushed home to see our work covered on CNN after spending the morning with the news crew, only to see it completely misinterpreted and applied by their "expert"). So don't take it personally, it's more about correcting the interpretation than a personal affront.

Come to think of it, I sincerely apologize for comparing you to Richard. I don't think that particular correlation was strong enough

---

This is rediculous. This guy is just looking for an argument and can't even keep track of what he's arguing about.

Can we get on to some real discussion?

IP: Logged

posted Apr-24-2007 01:39 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by DavidD:
A great observation: aerobic function and cholesterol. Sure, most know that running can often improve cholesterol numbers. If your question is about building an aerobic base in particular and it's affect on blood lipids, this is important. If we measure RQ (treadmill test) and look at aerobic fitness that way, then we tend to see that those with more fat burning (lower RQ) have both a better aerobic base and better cholesterol numbers.

There's a shoe discussion (it got emotional too) elsewhere ("running shoe hype").

---

so, you're tying together aerobic base work (as per Lydiard), and fat burning as measured by RQ? How do most people check their aerobic base? How do we know we've really built a good base? By feel, calander, racing?

IP: Logged

posted Apr-24-2007 06:09 AM               

I have not read the RT article but will be guided by others. But when I see statements that Arthur "ruined' athletes I always ask "Who ?".
To the best of my knowledge Arthur ruined no one. Yes ! He made mistakes. . But as far as "Ruining" anyone I cannot think of anyone in this country (NZ) who he ruined.
Now as far as athletes (and Coaches) ruining themselves and others using what THEY INTERPRETED as "Lydiard Training". I could line them up by the dozen. I would count some as friends.
The problem was most got hold of "100 miles a week" and that is all they did, year round, year after year. I have seen training diaries which have been presented to me with pride that showed in excess of 5000 miles a year. (For years !!)
All run on roads.To what end !!!
Many are now crippled with all sorts of joint disorders and arthritis etc, etc.
I can vividly recall discusions with Arthur where he dispaired at such practice and said "These guys need balance in their work" . He told me of athletes who had never run who rarely ran their "timetrials" properly and had never tackled the hill work as he prescribed (I have to plead guilty on that count for a year or Two).
Part of the problem was he left NZ at a time when we probably needed him most. (A whole discussion on its own !)By the time he returned in the mid/late 70's much of the damage was done.
However, that did not stop him from pushing the message.
In fact that is how I got to meet him for the first time. I asked him to speak to my Graduate Physical Education Teachers class.
He said it was the first time he had ever been asked to speak to at the Trainee Teachers. The year was 1978.

(Much of this is on the Lydiard V Daniels thread on letsrun)

Finally. (This is on the other thread as well) I Coached an athlete 20 years ago who Arthur knew well. We were gearing for our Provincial road Championship. The previous 10 weeks we had averaged around 50 miles a week. Reg ran 50:10.He was 40 years old at the time.
20 seconds ahead up the Road was a guy (a lot younger) who had averaged 120 miles a week the previous 10 weeks..
Arthur and I had a chuckle as we noted who got the best return for their investment !!!!.

The key : Balance your work.

Cheers Team. Thanks for the welcome on board.

IP: Logged

posted Apr-24-2007 08:28 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by DavidD:
I'm trying to contain myself...
You didn't read the papers, I suspect just the abstracts if even those. End of discussion.

I think if we had a moderator here, these kind of discussion would not be happening.

---

I read the ones I could access, which was about half of them. The others I had only abstracts.

"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."

So you reference 180-200 not 160-180, my mistake. I didn't see that range defined in those publications either.

Nobby, thank you for the comments from Dr. Snell. He's quite correct, genetics play a big role and the story is bigger than just the raw cholesterol number. There's much more data showing the harm of 200+ cholesterol and high LDL/low HDL numbers than for the low cholesterol argument, but as he eluded there's current work indicating even that story is more complicated that previously thought.

I find it interesting how focused we get on details more often than the big picture....mpw, precise training paces, HR, shoes, cholesterol, etc etc etc. We really have one of the simplest sports yet we insist on making it so complicated. Though I never followed his recommendations religiously, the one thing I always liked about Lydiard was the balance and simplicity of it. Everything was there.

IP: Logged

posted Apr-24-2007 08:28 AM               

Tinman is a follower and believer of many of the Lydiard principles and in the last 2 years following these principles (other than higher miles) and Tinman's 2 big work outs, I am improving greatly (even on low miles) when the previous 15 years I did not improve doing things "my way".

I also think that cholesterol is a bit overrated. Our bodies make 80% of our cholesterol so much of our cholesterol level we can't control because of heredity. But, our behavior can make a big difference though.

I sold Zocor and Zetia as a pharma rep for 2 years. Certainly there is strong data with Heart Protection Study showing Zocor (statins) may reduce liklihood of heart attack and morbidity but there are so many other risk factors that are important also.....
Diabetes
High blood pressure
Heredity
Obesity
Inactivity
Stress etc

Most everyone thinks cholesterol is most important because it gets hyped up. It is just one of many risk factors important to preventing heart disease.

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

IP: Logged

posted Apr-24-2007 09:06 AM               

IP: Logged

posted Apr-24-2007 09:26 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by JimR:
I'd like to hear a bit about time trials, particularly when they are most useful and how often/frequent to do them.

---

The time trials are commonly at distances like 5km, 3km, etc. Arthur had Joan Ullyot running them at a mile and half when she was trying to be the oldest woman ever to break 2:50 for the marathon. But you can do longer time trials as well. His schedules will have the occasional 10km time trial included and in the marathon schedules he used to have people do the full distance as a time trial 3 or 4 weeks (I think) out. Later he reduced that to 20 miles, 30 km and now even to a half marathon.
The last time I was getting direct advice from him, 1998-99, he had me start doing a time trial during the hill phase. I did one once a week and continued with that right up to the time when I began racing. The classic Lyidard time trial, in my opinion, was the 13:42 done by Richard Tayler at 5,000 meters as preparation for the 1974 Commonwealth games 10,000 meters. Tayler ran 27:46 in that race.

IP: Logged

posted Apr-24-2007 09:32 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by JimR:
I'd like to hear a bit about time trials, particularly when they are most useful and how often/frequent to do them.

---

Ah, just caught my eyes here. I was just putting this very topic on the Presetation last night. Time trials. From my observation and what I read at letsrun (though it's not the "reality", it actually reflects a lot of "attitude"), people throw out the number from God knows where ("I think so-and-so would run this time...) and they do the same with time trial. They pick the number that they hope to run (great example: beginners wanting to run a marathon in 4-hours before they even start training. Where do they get that number?); and based on that, they set the time they "think" they should shoot for for time trial.

Let's say this high school kid decide he would run 1600m in 4:40 (I'm just throwing the number that's easy to calculate) and set out to do a 1200m time trial 10 days before. He would hope to run it in 3:30 (thank God for the number I picked...!). He would come around the end of the second lap and realized he's at 2:23. He would start pressing to run the last lap faster just to make it in 3:30. There! Mission accomplished. He would put "1200m time trial in 3:30" in his log and happily ever after. Or is it?

Time trial is used to gauge where you stand and, from knowing that, gives you direction of what to do next. Do you need more leg-speed work? Do you need strength work? Do you need more pace judgement work? How did you feel after the trial? Did you feel like you couldn't move your legs any faster? Or did you feel like you're dying at the end?

Time trial is not merely trying to meet some bogus number or "feel good" with the effort type of workout. It is a very important tool to measure where you are and figure out what needs to be done. Some times you may need to push it; sometimes you may shorten the distance, or lengthen it. You may need under-distance TT, or over-distance TT. It ALL depends on your own reaction to the previous work and time trial really shows where you are.

More to come on previous question on marathon conditioining.

IP: Logged

posted Apr-24-2007 09:55 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nobby:
Time trial is used to gauge where you stand and, from knowing that, gives you direction of what to do next. Do you need more leg-speed work? Do you need strength work? Do you need more pace judgement work? How did you feel after the trial? Did you feel like you couldn't move your legs any faster? Or did you feel like you're dying at the end?

---

Absolutely. Analyze, adjust, and tweak.

Another question if I may:

These popular internet on-line marathons get you to run for 16-17 weeks. Then followed by a 3-4 week taper.

What do you think?

IP: Logged

posted Apr-24-2007 09:57 AM               

Here's another take on your question. It's sort of "Lydiard revised." You'd just keep doing it (basework) but allowing yourself to run faster as time went on. This was essentially what Ron Clarke did. Clarke was heavily, heavily, influenced by Lydiard but really never got out of the base building phase. He just ran that phase faster and faster as time went on. Eventually Arthur got him to do some short (100-150 meter) repeats. But Clarke raced all the time and that likely took care of his anaerobic training.
I discussed all of this with Arthur in 1977 and he told me that it would be possible to "race yourself fit" by doing base work and racing frequently. He didn't think that was as god an approach as using his full schedule, but he was ok with it.
If I were coaching high school or college runners, guys who race nearly all the time, I'd have them doing something like Clarke did.
The caution here is that you don't want to force a faster training pace onto yourself, you want to allow it to come naturally as you get fitter.

IP: Logged

posted Apr-24-2007 10:20 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by gregw:
If you don't have a specific goal race but just want to improve over the years and run some races along the way, when do you leave Lydiard's marathon conditioning phase?

The guide at lydiardfoundation.org says, "When the marathon conditioning phase is completed, or no further time can be spared, it is necessary to develop speed and start to develop anaerobic capacity to exercise."

I have plenty of time to spare, so how will I know that the marathon conditioning phase is completed? The first aim in the marathon conditioning as I understand it is to get to something like the time schedule given (with the indicated intensities) or even longer he suggests. Then one progressively ups the pace slightly while paying attention to your body. If taking a long-term view, should one go at this until he no longer sees improvement or is it more efficient to move on to the hills and track at some point and revisit marathon conditioning (presumably faster)?

Thanks,
Greg

---

Greg:

It seems Kim Stevenson and Rengl explain this matter.

If' I'm mistaken, I apologize; but it sounds like you are looking at things "forward"; meaning you are starting from marathon conditioning and wondering when you should complete that and move on to the next phases. With the Lydiard program, you usually pick the race or races that you would like to win or have a serious run at; then COUNT BACK. In other words, there are other elements that need to be developed and you need to designate those counting back from the race day(s). Lydiard figured it takes about 1 to 2 weeks to taper; 4 weeks to coordinate; 4 weeks to develop anaerobic capacity; 4 weeks to make transition and prepare your body for race specific training... Whatever is left would be marathon conditioning. Hopefully, you'll have 10 weeks. Upto a point, the longer you have, the better. It seems to be, 20 weeks is as long as you'd want to go without possible adverse affect IF you have some sort of faster runs, be it long reps or fartlek or tempo runs, included.

The problem is; running nice and easily, however "pushing" you may feel, is very comfortable. It's great to see numbers piling up in your training log; 10 miles today, 12 miles tomorrow, 8 miles the next...and so on. But you could easily become a mileage bum, a road junkie.

You need EVERYTHING to perform well. You don't want to eat a cake that's half cooked. Marathon conditioning is not the only "conditioning" you need to do; you need to condition your legs to run fast; you need to condition your lungs to suck air; you need to condition your abdominal muscles to pull your legs high and fast; you need to condition your ankles to flick to cover more ground; you need to condition your hamstring to pull your legs through fast and strongly... And last but not least, you need to condition your body and mind to run the full distance fast and strongly and evenly. All those things are conditioning. And if anything, one set of cycle would be built upon the next and you should be getting stronger as you complete each cycle; meaning, the next time you start the cycle, you should be able to do each phase "better". This means, if you start out as a 8-minute-per-mile runner for regular 10 mile run; after going through the full cycle and train your body to run fast and race a 10-mile in, say, 68 minutes; then the next season, you may start out as 7:45 per mile runner for a regular 10 mile run simply because you are that much better.

"What you do this year is really for next year." You build one program to the next... You don't start out running 100 miles a week at sub-7 pace. They ALL earned it. They ALL built up to it. Even Frank Shorter didn't just jump out the door and started running 150 miles a week with killer intervals. I'd be very curious to know what type of interval training he was doing when he was 17 years old.

IP: Logged

posted Apr-24-2007 10:28 AM               

IP: Logged

posted Apr-24-2007 10:34 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nobby:
Ah, just caught my eyes here. I was just putting this very topic on the Presetation last night. Time trials. From my observation and what I read at letsrun (though it's not the "reality", it actually reflects a lot of "attitude"), people throw out the number from God knows where ("I think so-and-so would run this time...) and they do the same with time trial. They pick the number that they hope to run (great example: beginners wanting to run a marathon in 4-hours before they even start training. Where do they get that number?); and based on that, they set the time they "think" they should shoot for for time trial.

Let's say this high school kid decide he would run 1600m in 4:40 (I'm just throwing the number that's easy to calculate) and set out to do a 1200m time trial 10 days before. He would hope to run it in 3:30 (thank God for the number I picked...!). He would come around the end of the second lap and realized he's at 2:23. He would start pressing to run the last lap faster just to make it in 3:30. There! Mission accomplished. He would put "1200m time trial in 3:30" in his log and happily ever after. Or is it?

Time trial is used to gauge where you stand and, from knowing that, gives you direction of what to do next. Do you need more leg-speed work? Do you need strength work? Do you need more pace judgement work? How did you feel after the trial? Did you feel like you couldn't move your legs any faster? Or did you feel like you're dying at the end?

Time trial is not merely trying to meet some bogus number or "feel good" with the effort type of workout. It is a very important tool to measure where you are and figure out what needs to be done. Some times you may need to push it; sometimes you may shorten the distance, or lengthen it. You may need under-distance TT, or over-distance TT. It ALL depends on your own reaction to the previous work and time trial really shows where you are.

More to come on previous question on marathon conditioining.

---

Interesting. I've never conceptualized time trials at distances other than the target, but I guess it's no different than running a race at something other than your goal race distance.

Thanks guys!

IP: Logged

posted Apr-24-2007 10:57 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by JimR:
Interesting. I've never conceptualized time trials at distances other than the target, but I guess it's no different than running a race at something other than your goal race distance.

Thanks guys!

---

Okay, I lied. One more thing. You can only handle so many time trials and races (basically, the concept is; the more you race, the better you'll get at) IF you have built up good aerobic foundation first so you can handle all those races or race-like stress. Without first building solid aerobic base, all the rest is simply not worth the paper it's written on. Whether you can build it up by running 30 miles a week or 90 miles a week or 120 miles a week, it's up to you.

And by the way, when Lydiard said "time trial" during the marathon conditioning, it's more or less due to his lack of "modern" terminology. It's more like tempo runs that time trials as described by us here.

IP: Logged

posted Apr-24-2007 11:34 AM               

This is quite possible the best summary I've seen posted on any thread in quite some time.

IP: Logged

posted Apr-24-2007 11:37 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by phthenry:
I am absolutely astouned at the stupidity of some of the posts. The study that richard99 posted shows that the avarge miles run per week by the elites in his study was x, and then one of the usual suspects--I can't keep all these dumb macho jerks straight--says something like "But Kastor runs more than x, so the study is wrong." Does the poster even know what average is?

(edited Apr-23-2007).]

---

Here's the claim:

". He found "that the men average 90 miles per week with a peak mileage of 120"

The claim is that the men had a peak mileage of 120. That is
what the argument is about, not the average for the past y
years.

You shouldn't be calling other people stupid.

IP: Logged

posted Apr-24-2007 12:11 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nobby:
And if anything, one set of cycle would be built upon the next and you should be getting stronger as you complete each cycle; meaning, the next time you start the cycle, you should be able to do each phase "better". This means, if you start out as a 8-minute-per-mile runner for regular 10 mile run; after going through the full cycle and train your body to run fast and race a 10-mile in, say, 68 minutes; then the next season, you may start out as 7:45 per mile runner for a regular 10 mile run simply because you are that much better.

---

Thanks all for taking the time to reply. I probably wasn't as clear in my question as I could have been, but I think I have an answer from your responses. What I was thinking of was somebody (like myself) who wants to run the best marathon they can (balancing with "real life" of course) sometime over the next 5 or so years (not just looking at the next race). I've been running one or two spring and fall marathons which often doesn't leave a lot of time to go through a whole cycle between. I was wondering if it were more efficient (as measured against the long term goal) to peak less often and just stretch out the marathon conditioning, running some occasional races but not trying to optimize my performance in the short term.

The paces you mention are pretty interesting to me. You mention a 68 minute 10 mile race. I just ran one 3 weeks ago in 69:49, but wouldn't think of doing a steady 10 mile run at 8 minutes per mile. I know you didn't want to put a pace on it, but would this be 3/4 effort for me?

A little background... I've been running for 28 months. It took me about 18 months after starting from scratch to get to 10 hours per week of 10 min miles with infrequent races. Then I started racing a couple of time a month and that served as my tempo work I suppose. Two months ago, I started doing hills/intervals on Tuesdays (usually something like 8x2 minutes) in the middle of a 10-12 mile run and 25-30 minutes of tempo intervals (say 3x10 or 2x15) in the midddle of another 10-12 miles run. Sundays are 3 hour runs at about 9:10 pace. The rest are 40 minute runs at ~9:30 pace. This total 9 hours per week (You might recognize this as Benji Durden's marathon plan.)

I have a marathon in two weeks that I'm tapering for, but I'm already looking past that. One marathon I'm considering is 17 weeks after that and the latest option for the fall would be leave 23 weeks between. That doesn't leave a lot of time to build to the the 10 hours per week at the kind of paces I think the 1/4, 1/2, and 3/4 effort imply (part of the reason for my earlier question). I don't mind sacrificing my best possible performance in the fall in order to make quicker progress in my aerobic fitness (which is where I think I have the most to gain), so I'd like to get the marathon conditioning right.

Rengle's Ron Clarke example appeals to my sense of aesthetics for its simplicity, which might not be a good reason to adopt a training methodology, but I've heard worse. Where would I start? Would I work to something like the time-based schedule in the guide, varying the paces during the week (1/4, 1/2, and 3/4) and just listening to my body to see what I can handle in term of intensity (i.e., what exactly 3/4 menas to me at the moment)?

Thanks,
Greg

IP: Logged

posted Apr-24-2007 04:19 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by gregw:
Rengle's Ron Clarke example appeals to my sense of aesthetics for its simplicity, which might not be a good reason to adopt a training methodology, but I've heard worse.

---

Just quickly... No, it's not. You have to consider your own strengths and weaknesses; your own environment and situation; your mentality and likes and dislikes, etc. Clarke happened to be one of those people who would just go out and pound. And he seems to have been able to do it day after day after day. If Kenny Moore employed that simplicity method, he would have not been able to even survive! He (Clarke) also raced a lot as Rengle has mentioned. If someone who doesn't have the mentality to push himself day after day after day (I'm not saying you don't) and he wouldn't race as frequently employs "the Clarke" method, most likely he would just go out and jog day after day after day and wouldn't even improve much at all.

I'll try to answer your overall quesiton later but just wanted to throw this comment.

IP: Logged

posted Apr-24-2007 08:17 PM            

IP: Logged

posted Apr-24-2007 08:21 PM               

I want to chime in a bit and say that I am a huge Lydiard fan. For Karp or anyone to say that Lydiard hurt more runners than he helped is absolutely ridiculous and wrong. The truth is, Lydiard was not only revolutionary in developing runners to high levels of performance, he helped myriads of average, everyday, folks get healthy by jogging.

Lydiard's main theme is very simple: run distance to develop cardio-vascular fitness. All racing is dependent upon delivery of oxygen to one's muscles from the heart, lungs, and vascular system. It can't get much simpler than that. But, the beauty of focusing on conditioning by running distance is not just for performance - it is for health too!

For those who are seriously into racing, Lydiard's method was not just "run fast every day and keep doing it every day until you retire." That's what some people like Karp and others portend. It isn't true! Lydiard was about Balance!!!

Balance, Balance Balance!

You start with aerobic conditioning by running distance and do it until you have a sufficient base to include strengthening hill work and then faster training and racing. Once you start doing more intensive work, you still do distance running to retain the aerobic gains you made in the marathon (BASE) phase. You still go for a weekly long run, though it may be a bit slower so that you can absorb your fast training and racing. Again, it comes back to Balance!

Those who screw up the Lydiard method by not following his instructions are to blame for "getting hurt." Lydiard never said, "Abuse thyself, it is a lot of fun!"

Tinman

IP: Logged

posted Apr-24-2007 08:27 PM            

IP: Logged

posted Apr-24-2007 09:23 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by mopak:
Nobby, Kim, Rengle and co.
What do you think of the Clohessy/Wardlaw type of program where the weekly structure stays much the same but the emphasis on various sessions is adjusted depending on the phase of the preperation?

---

My first thought is that using that approach hasn't won any Olympic Golds and the traditional Lydiard approach has won many. My next thought is that the competition at the BCGs when DeCastella and Moneghetti won their golds was probably comparable to what some of Lydiard's athletes ran against when they won their medals.
One of Arthur's lesser known runners was a guy called Don MacFarquhar. Kim will recognize him. He was one of Peter Snell's training partners and later became a coach. He was of the mind that once you've gotten the conditioning phase done properly you don't need to spend a lot of time or thought on the anaerobic work. So I suppose my answer is that it Clohessey and Wardlaw have their athletes do their aerobic work and therefore have the flexibility to do different things with their faster stuff.

IP: Logged

posted Apr-24-2007 10:12 PM               

Clohessy is the first to tell you that his method is based on the fundamental's of Lydiard's method. That is, Clohessy emphasizes a long weekly run, plenty of distance training during the week, some hill work, and either fartlek or controlled interval work, which to be frank, isn't too hard.

Clohessy doesn't hammer a runner into the ground with massive amounts of fast reps, so his prescription of intervals once a week, year-round, works just fine. If one tries his method but distorts it by cutting out the long run and the other distance work, that is, just doing the intervals and hill reps, then form (fitness) will erode. Without Lydiard's distance work, Clohessy's method would not produce the results it has, all due respect.

Tinman

IP: Logged