posted May-20-2007 11:57 AM            

..yes much like lydiard Chris keeps it simple.....which is why i enjoyed him when i lived there....no nonsense kind of guy.......sorta like some little squeaky hyperactive kiwi coach you knew....

.....like many others he has tweaked lydiard concepts to be more in line with modern day information (or more specifically used some modern day concepts of threshold and vo2 max) to IMHO make lydiard more relevant and efficient...

egs lydiard would say (at lest in running the lydiard way) to do a 5 and 10km time trials, while chris says do 3-4 x 2km and 4-5 mile tempo....interspersed with easier days and lydiard's mid week and weekend long run) ...really quite identical

....was Paul Hamblyn in boulder when u were there????

...what i found interesting is that robbie johnston was coached by arch jelley (more speed in buildusp), yet his training ideas almost seem more Lydiard than Chris....

IP: Logged

posted May-20-2007 02:01 PM               

Did you see Robbie Johnston's description of his training with John Walker that he posted at Letsrun?

IP: Logged

posted May-20-2007 02:28 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nobby:
Yay! Another excuse to take a break from cleaning! ;o)

They (Nakamura school) used to call it "sandwitch system"; you might do 40k tempo followed by 3X5k followed by 60km "easy" run; or 20X400m followed by 45km followed by 12X1000m...something like that. Sort of like Hansen's philosophy but a bit harder and followed by lots of "recovery" days. You never want to do two days of speed in a row.

I don't know exactly what kind of training Chinese were doing except for their base building phase when they just simply run a lot. Here's the thing; as we ALL know, running a lot at relatively slow speed BUILDS BASE. What is that base? It is the ability to handle more race specific work, or faster work, or harder work, or races themselves, without risk of injuries or psychological staleness. Seko didn't just jump on and did that type of hard-hard-hard sandwitch training. He would do tons of "leg-building" months. Could he have run "fast" when he was doing that base phase where he would just jog a lot? No. Once he started doing lots of faster runs, would his mileage have come down? Yes. So what's the statistic show ya? "Less is better"?

For the injury factor; you have to remember, his coach was always there. Yesterday, we did 800m time trial (me and my girl). I only ran first 400 because I can't keep up with her any more! Afterwards, her speed wasn't quite back yet so I told her to do 3X100 fast. 30m into the first one, she said her legs are cramping up. I stopped her. I may or may not have given her those 3X100m even but I'm there. I asked Nic Bideau one time how often he sees his runner's training (Mottram and Johnson and all). He said he'd be there ALL THE TIME when they do track workouts. He knows what he's doing and he knows why.

---

I too will always be there on an athletes "faster' days. Especially with the younger ones who will push too hard if not minitored.
I too can no longer run those workouts with them but I run to the training area (Flat trails) with them (15 -20 minutes) and then run back and forth to meet them as they run the workout, I can keep an eye on "pace", form etc.
I do this with Trevor Ogilvie as he is "notorious" for ratcheting up the pace when no one is around.
I have a couple of "short cuts" I take which can bring me out to an area where they maybe only halfway through a Time trial or rep and can check what they are up to. A la Percy Cerutty !!!. First time I did that with an athlete he got a fright as I was standing on the side of the trail and he could not work out how I had gotten there ahead of him !!
I find if I do all that I can be out for up to an hour and a half.
Many times in that will be some reps at 'my pace' as I run back and forth.
Touch wood ! But we have never had an injury because I am able to monitor.
How many workouts have we bagged when things have not been right or injury a possibility ?. Heaps !!!!!.
Because we run up to 20 minutes to get to the area and up to 20 minutes back plus whatever is done, even on a 'bagged'workout day the athletes are going to run no less than 40 minutes.

Nobby : I did not know that Docherty had gone to Chris from Mark Elliot but then Mark picked up a CEO job with NZ Winter Sport so may have not had the time to Coach.
I note though that the Tri guys co operate a lot with training and are generally good mates.

Cheers ; Kim

------------------
Run easy, Run long

IP: Logged

posted May-20-2007 02:32 PM               

minitored : Whoops Spelling !! >>>>>> Monitored

IP: Logged

posted May-20-2007 03:48 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by denton:
....nobby...did bevan leave mark williams (at least running wise???) to work with Chris......???

..yes much like lydiard Chris keeps it simple.....which is why i enjoyed him when i lived there....no nonsense kind of guy.......sorta like some little squeaky hyperactive kiwi coach you knew....

.....like many others he has tweaked lydiard concepts to be more in line with modern day information (or more specifically used some modern day concepts of threshold and vo2 max) to IMHO make lydiard more relevant and efficient...

egs lydiard would say (at lest in running the lydiard way) to do a 5 and 10km time trials, while chris says do 3-4 x 2km and 4-5 mile tempo....interspersed with easier days and lydiard's mid week and weekend long run) ...really quite identical

....was Paul Hamblyn in boulder when u were there????

...what i found interesting is that robbie johnston was coached by arch jelley (more speed in buildusp), yet his training ideas almost seem more Lydiard than Chris....

---

Denton and Kim:

Well, actually that's what Chris told me... ;o) When I visited Chris, Paul was in Europe, traveling and competing. I did get to meet him later on; must have been in Christmas time or February. He was working on Lorraine's back-yard... He learnt that interesting healing technique from Lorraine and Harlan and he was later working on Sarah Slattery (that lucky ba$tard!).

I didn't see Chris' approach that much different from Lydiar'd's original program. I, too, could not really do things like 10 miles at 55 minutes; I had to break it down and used to do repeat 1200m (or so...that was done on the road). I still think, if you could do it in the sustained effort, it's better. Both Chris and I agreed on 5k tempo. He said he would include tempo run of some sort at 5k pace (or effort) almost throughout the season.

I'd be interested to konw Robbie Johnston's approach. Of course, Arch Jelley is pretty much straight Lydiard perhaps except for hill training phase. I met Robbie and his brother at Atlanta Olympics where I sneak up in the NZ Olympic villege with Dick Quax. In fact, I might have used his ticket to sneak into the official/athlete seating (right by the finish) to watch the heat of men's 10,000m.

IP: Logged

posted May-20-2007 07:21 PM            

rengle.....to answer your question yes...and no..... while i was in NZ robbie wrote the article for VO2 max magazine (phil clode's mag) that looked at walker and el guerrouj's training (while he trained with walker when he was 39/40)....one of the better training article's i've read.....he was actually quite a good writer....

....nobby....based upon robbie's article i would actually say that jelley seemed to be quite different than lydiard..... more in line with what alan storey and nic bideau structure thinsg like.....of course that might be more due to walker's limted ability to train through his calf problems

....i can't give u an exact replication of robbie's training as a coach, except that it didn't seem to resemble what he did with walker/jelley...he mostly followed a just get out and run approach.....in the buildups they did the 'X games' loops (15-16 miler around auckland), sat morning 4-5 mile tempos and the 'st helier's' loop (22-23 km run where u roll the last 1/2 hr)...... in transition periods repeats 1000's at the akld domain, 20mins of short 20-sec hill repeats (along with some bounding in the later stages at cornwall park), continuation of tempo runs and the 'deek' (deek's 8x 400 hard-200m float workout).....

IP: Logged

posted May-20-2007 07:43 PM            

IP: Logged

posted May-20-2007 07:58 PM            

IP: Logged

posted May-20-2007 08:05 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Brian McN:

To his credit this is a great thread. It has introduced some great experts to this forum which is a lot more civil than Let's run. The personal attacks are not necessary. We should try to argue just the points. Nobby, Rengle, Kim, and Tinman have taught us that.

---

Brian, I also have come to Richards defense concerning his character. There's no sense in the level of idiocy shown to another person, no matter what the rationale.

The gentlemen you mentioned are people of honor who coach the lives of others as they do their sport.They have shown diplomacy as has Richard to some snotheads on this thread, you know who you are. Grow up!

IP: Logged

posted May-20-2007 09:30 PM               

Richard; when I first joined this thread, I had no idea what this was all about except I genuinly thought this was an interesting debate. At that time, a couple of people asked you how your feeling toward my "real life" experience vs. your "theory" was which you seem to have dodged until MaryT joined in. She claimed, regardless of how hard she tried, she couldn't break 5-hours for the marathon. You seem to have jumped the occasion and claimed that she's the living example of your theory of "if you're not born with talent, you can't train hard and therefore you can't run well." I think your intention was quite obvious, though you denied it, when you asked me, Rengle and Kim how much experience we've had coaching "slow runners". Don't give me this "that's not what I said; re-read my post" crap. Sometimes "tone" and "between the lines" speak louder that actual wording. In fact, you called us "deaf ears". You were fishing around to say that we've only worked with "elites" and don't understand the physiology or feelings of "slow runners". True it may be (and I really meant it when I said that I'd keep Mary's example in mind when I move forward; we'd be talking to a lot of people through Lydiard Foundation, we'll be giving a clinic to Rock 'N Roll marathon coaching group next months to begin with). Like both Rengle and I pointed out; we haven't really "coached" 5-hour runners. Even the novice beginners, almost all of whom we've helped went under 4-hours. So all of those two or three dozen or so of runners whom we've "coached", you can easily say that they are all "talented". We think--and all 3 of us, Rengle, Kim and myself, train along the line of Lydiard principles, as does Chris Pilone--it's because of sensible balanced training program.

Another thing that I'd like to make clear is that, and I'm speaking this on behalf of Rengle and I'm almost 100% certain he's this way as well, we don't go out asking some fast people if we can coach them. Lydiard never recruited anybody; athletes came to him. Level of committment from the athletes has to be such that they come to you and ask for help--and this is what Rengle meant by "their committment". We would NEVER go around looking for fast people or runners with certain standard of times. We'd give help to whomever is serious enought to come to us for help; regardless of their times. That is "Coaching the Lydiard Way".

Let me tell you something; You can go on, promoting this "Run Less, Race Faster" "theory" of yours all you want; but through people like Rengle, Kim, runawayjesse, and I can name a couple of dozen people around the US alone, Arthur Lydiard had helped more people than you can ever imagine. He had saved lives, through his organization of jogging program, of more people than each and every person you have met in your life time put together. For his contribution and accomplishment, he should have been knighted years ago. He is much bigger than life; not something some little chicken $hit or some "PhD candidate" to bad-mouth. I know your contingency plan; you didn't say it, Dave Costill said it, you would most likely counter. But you're the one going around repeating it all over the place. I don't care if you're PhD wanna-be or Nobel Prize winner; Arthur Lydiard was a great man. You have NO right to bad-mouth the Old Man without knowing Jack. If you want to produce another 5-hour marathoner on 3 workouts a week program, go on ahead and do it. We'll go on helping next door Joe to 3:45 marathon and injury-free comfortable running

Now, as far as I'm concerned, this is settled!.

IP: Logged

posted May-20-2007 09:44 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by denton:
....actually let me clarify some parts of robbie's coaching when i say 'structure'.....he didn't have a structured weekly set of workouts, such as the concepts he did when he trained hard (or outlined in conversations i had with him while he was under arch)...... he did use many of the same 'loops' and such that walker had shown him as a grasshopper.......if u know the setup of the 'mile' loop at the akld domain u might know what i mean (u have to go thru a parking lot and have some sharp turns and rough parts on the road and a fairly inclined camber)...i asked robbie why they didn't do the 1500m loop (just one big loop with no sharp tunrs, low traffic and no real camber) instead and simply add 100m....his response 'that's just way it's always been done'......what was i supposed to say!!!????

---

Denton : The famous Domain mile loop. That has been THE loop since Adam was boy !!!
I ran it with Bill Baillie in 1969 for the first time and back then it was as you said "It's always been done"
It has not changed at all over the years. You forgot the occasional Traffic Bollard at the start of the Car Park !!!!!!!!!!
Great History with a veritable who's who of world running having run that course.

------------------
Run easy, Run long

IP: Logged

posted May-20-2007 10:00 PM               

I see you are mad but the truth is you are accusing me of things I have not done, said, implied, etc. Perhaps, since you are mad, it doesn't matter to you that the facts are that I didn't say, do, imply, etc the things you say I've done, but I thought I would at least set the record straight.

------------------
Richard
World's Fastest Slow Guy
www.powerrunning.com

IP: Logged

posted May-20-2007 10:47 PM            

IP: Logged

posted May-21-2007 06:20 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sparrowface:
The anger that comes back at you, Hunkypie, is about you coming at people's body of work (actually training people for years, successfully) with a theory that has no body of work (actually training people for years, successfully) to back it up. You have a basic disrespect for all the hard work that has gone before, because it doesn't fit a point of view you have created without years of experience to support it. It's like a weekend softball player going into a major league batting practice and telling the batting coach, that even though he's been very successful with his batters, they are only batting well because they are talented, and none of what are you teaching is right because of all these studies I read. There is a subtle disrespect that you don't even see, because you believe so much in your one idea. You keep creating the same scenario over and over and over. The you blame everyone else when you are "attacked." That's what happens when you diss people. Not very responsible. You'll have the usual answer for this post. Telling me I am making all this up, and that I need to go back and show you where you dissed anyone. Everyone sees the game. You are either a troll or you are not a very aware person. This will be my last post ever in one of your threads, nor will I ever read one again. I don't understand why anyone else bothers. You have nothing to offer of an real substance. Come back after you've been coaching real people and teams for ten years. Then maybe you'll have something to say.
See you, Hunkypie. Nice to look at. Yum. But......

---

Exceptionally well put.

dg12 talks about "respect" when the person he defends shows none.

Now, can we please turn this *back* into the Lydiard thread and have Richard go AWAY?????

IP: Logged

posted May-21-2007 07:15 AM               

Goodbye, Sweetpie. I'm sad to see you go.

------------------
Richard
World's Fastest Slow Guy
www.powerrunning.com

[This message has been edited by Richard99 (edited May-21-2007).]

IP: Logged

posted May-21-2007 08:44 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Richard99:
There is an interesting article in the May 2007 Running Times magazine, titled on the cover as The Truth About Mileage, by Jason Karp, a PhD candidate in exercise physiology at Indiana University. In this article Jason discusses mileage and performance. Some of the points he made in the article caught my attention.

On Arthur Lydiard's high mileage approach for everyone, Jason quotes David Costill, PhD, "I think Lydiard ruined many more athletes than he helped." That comment is likely to stir things up.

---

IP: Logged

posted May-21-2007 08:48 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Richard99:
maryt,

That is an amazing post.

Unfortunately, I believe it will fall mostly on deaf ears.

---

IP: Logged

posted May-21-2007 08:59 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sparrowface:
The anger that comes back at you, Hunkypie, is about you coming at people's body of work (actually training people for years, successfully) with a theory that has no body of work (actually training people for years, successfully) to back it up. You have a basic disrespect for all the hard work that has gone before, because it doesn't fit a point of view you have created without years of experience to support it. It's like a weekend softball player going into a major league batting practice and telling the batting coach, that even though he's been very successful with his batters, they are only batting well because they are talented, and none of what are you teaching is right because of all these studies I read. There is a subtle disrespect that you don't even see, because you believe so much in your one idea. You keep creating the same scenario over and over and over. The you blame everyone else when you are "attacked." That's what happens when you diss people. Not very responsible. You'll have the usual answer for this post. Telling me I am making all this up, and that I need to go back and show you where you dissed anyone. Everyone sees the game. You are either a troll or you are not a very aware person. This will be my last post ever in one of your threads, nor will I ever read one again. I don't understand why anyone else bothers. You have nothing to offer of an real substance. Come back after you've been coaching real people and teams for ten years. Then maybe you'll have something to say.
See you, Hunkypie. Nice to look at. Yum. But......

---

Sparrow, if you fail to follow your promise and read this, don't walk away. This thread has morphed from the usual silliness into a place where experience is doled out by thoughtful veterans with great stories. Contrary to its original purpose, Nobby, Rengle, Tinman, et al have demonstrated the value of balance and the flaws in gimmicky "run 3x week programs" -- (it strikes me how much that sounds like "eat all you want and lose weight") Heck, I've found Tinman's website and am now trying to follow his guidelines.

Richard, when I implored you to speak clearly earlier, this is exactly why. You have a tendency to speak in mushy technical terms and then, when challenged, go to the "I didn't say that" defense. You seem to struggle with your twin desires to be (1) a "cutting edge" internet running guru and (2) accepted by some experienced runners. Now, in starting this thread you quoted a Running Times article to say: "I think Lydiard ruined many more athletes than he helped." Nobby's right, you'll pawn that off on the source, but you chose to quote it and adopted it. I've gone back and re-read Nobby's post. You say he is "accusing me of things I have not done, said, implied, etc." As usual, you don't provide specifics.

The truth is, you say these whacky things and seem to enjoy provoking responses (and for those who get sucked in to personal attacks, you should know better. My 7-y-o can ALWAYS find a way to start a fight with my 12-y-o, even though the 12-y-o knows that the little kid is baiting him. He just can't let it go). But then, when challenged, you cloak yourself in standard principles, which is why I call you a closet Lydiardite. For example, Tigger mentioned earlier in this thread that his performance has improved year by year with more running frequency and duration "following the principles set out by Lydiard and recommended by the coaches contributing to this thread." Remember what you said? I'll quote: "Your training & performance, so far, seem to be very close to the training/performance guidance in the power running training guide." Honestly, despite your numerous "new" threads, your website full o' stuff, i have no freakin' clue what your views really are and for the life of me I don't understand what drives you. There's a masochistic tendency that you might better fulfill with $100 at a local "club" rather than glom up the internet. But whatever floats your boat my friend.

Nobby, running at 1:45 a.m.? I will shut my mouth the next time I even think of saying that I don't have time to run. Thank you again for your thoughts and for debunking the fad running programs.

IP: Logged

posted May-21-2007 09:23 AM               

IP: Logged

posted May-21-2007 09:25 AM               

IP: Logged

posted May-21-2007 10:03 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by martinjames:
Nobby, running at 1:45 a.m.? I will shut my mouth the next time I even think of saying that I don't have time to run. Thank you again for your thoughts and for debunking the fad running programs.

---

Sorry to break the news but... No, it wasn't 1:45AM, it was "only" an hour and 45 minutes run. Sorry! However, I did use to run 4:00AM when my daughter was first born. That was the time my wife was really into marathon training as well and the only time we could shuffle and for me to run a decent amount of run in was EARLY in the morning. It could get tough when it's -40 outside in MN winter...

I hate to say this and I really hate to put the quality of this whole thread down but you REALLY have to be careful of who's writing and what it actually says. If it doesn't make sense, there's a good chance that it does NOT make sense!

Now this FIRST deal; Mary shared with us her attending to one of the clinics by one of the "inventors" (by the way, I didn't think there was an Olympic weightlifting event for women...???). So according to this, they did other activities like cycling and swimming in between these 3 days!? I'm sorry, I'm exaggerating here but it sounds to me like saying; "I can make you a 2:10 marathon runner by training twice a week on 30 miles a week! Oh, by the way, we don't count anything slower than 7-minute-pace as training." So they were actually doing, what 5, 6, 7 days of physical activities? That's nothing NEW! People have been doing that since early 80s. Even with these cross training, you need to be careful because, and this Mary is right, if you haven't trained your body to take poundings, you'll have hell of a time in the marathon. In other words, you can swim 4 hours a day, everyday, but if you haven't go on for a long run, your legs are going to let you know at 22 miles.

In the other thread he started, our friend Richard said the following:

"In their discussion of the science behind FIRST the researchers write:
"Most people, except for the most highly trained athletes, are limited by metabolic fitness rather than cardiovascular fitness. Highly trained endurance athletes become "centrally limited," meaning they can work at extreme heart rates without severe muscle fatigue."
In other words, the causes of fatigue / limiters of performance are not the same in everyone and are training dependent."

I don't see anything "scientific" about their quote. So they are completely omitting all the "highly trained athletes", without saying what the definition of "highly trained", and generalizing the pattern based on "most people"? What kind of science is that? They also seem to completely ignore the process of how those "highly trained athletes" have become "highly trained". What does this "centrally limited" mean? Is the belly button controlling the performance? And lastly, so what does this statement prove that "cause of fatigue and limiters of performace are not the same for everybody and they are training dependent"? This statement is nothing NEW at all. WE ALL KNEW THAT FOR DECADES. That's why we all train based on principles of adaptation; that's why we train.

When you watch all those informercial garbage on TV, they always talk about science has proven this and according to the research that... So you take some tablets and fat cells shrink? Or rub some ointment and fat burns away like a miracle? You can burn fat without actually "working out" or simply doing some sort of sit-up 5 minutes 3 times a week? And all this happens within 2 weeks? People are suckered into "science". If fancy terms, like "centrally limited" or "limiters of performance", are used and if it's so damn difficult to understand, they think it's highly sophisticated. I've come from a different background. English is not my first language. I read slow because I usually try to understand. If I tried to understand by reading it 3 times and still don't; I usually take it as a garbage. It wouldn't make sense regardless of how many times I read; most likely not because I'm stupid (could be a part of a reason...), but because it doesn't have any point to begin with!

So be careful when you read something, folks. I know I'm bringing this whole thread down to letsrun level and I apologize for that. I hate this "Coke is better than Pepsi because Pepsi sucks" type of commercial and I feel like I'm doing that. But, you know, sometimes things go too far...

[This message has been edited by Nobby (edited May-21-2007).]

IP: Logged

posted May-21-2007 10:30 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nobby:

In the other thread he started, our friend Richard said the following:

"In their discussion of the science behind FIRST the researchers write:
"Most people, except for the most highly trained athletes, are limited by metabolic fitness rather than cardiovascular fitness. Highly trained endurance athletes become "centrally limited," meaning they can work at extreme heart rates without severe muscle fatigue."
In other words, the causes of fatigue / limiters of performance are not the same in everyone and are training dependent."

---

Just to clarify what the FIRST researchers define as metabolic fitness:

quote:

---

Lactate Threshold is a measure of metabolic fitness. Lactate is an organic by-product of anaerobic metabolism, and its accumulation in the blood is used to evaluate the intensity that a runner can maintain for extended periods of time, usually thirty minutes or more. Lactate threshold (LT) and maximal steady state lactate levels (MSSLL) are indications of how well one's muscles are trained to do endurance-type work. Most people, except the most highly trained athletes, are limited by metabolic fitness rather than cardiovascular fitness. Highly trained endurance athletes become "centrally limited" meaning they can work at extreme heart rates w/out severe muscle fatigue. An untrained individual might reach LT at about 50-60% of their Max Heart Rate (MaxHR), whereas a well-trained runner won't reach LT until about 80-95% of their MaxHR.

---

IP: Logged

posted May-21-2007 10:40 AM            

It comprises of 6 workouts per week including 1 interval workout, 1 threshold workout and one long run of up to 20 miles.

The other 3 workouts can comprise of easy runs or cross-training. Compare that to a Pfitzinger plan and its not that different.

IP: Logged

posted May-21-2007 10:41 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nobby:
What does this "centrally limited" mean?

---

Nobby,

The exercise physiology community has long debated a "central" or a "peripheral" limitation in oxygen delivery to muscles. The theory that most runners are familiar with is that limited oxygen to the muscles is the root cause of fatigue. Well, some physiologists promote that the limitation is a "central limitation" - that the heart, lungs, and/or arteries aren't able to deliver sufficient oxygen to the working muscles. Other physiologists promote the belief that the limitation is "peripheral" - that the oxygen absorption & utilization capabilities of the cells is the limiting factor.

Essentially what these physiologists have stated is that basically only well-trained runners are centrally limited - i.e. these runners can run fast enough to reach the limits of their circulatory system's ability to deliver oxygen to the muscles. And they are saying that less well-trained runners are limited by different factors than well-trained runners. That less trained runners are limited by other metabolic processes and not limited by the ability of the heart, lungs, & arteries to deliver oxygen to working muscles.

------------------
Richard
World's Fastest Slow Guy
www.powerrunning.com

IP: Logged

posted May-21-2007 10:57 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by bigapplepie:
Nobby

Just to clarify what the FIRST researchers define as metabolic fitness: Source: http://www.furman.edu/first/lab.htm

---

Bigapplepie:

Thanks for posting the site. Very interesting... But to look at their marathon schedule with "only" one rest day, it really doesn't look anything new to me... People have been doing that for the last 3 decades. Or am I just being prejudiced (being an old timer)???

IP: Logged