Does the Lydiard/Wetmore system do enough to develop speed?

jono wrote:

http://www.letsrun.com/forum/flat_read.php?board=1&id=2298531&thread=2289921

That thread can be summarized by the sentence:

"jono is neither an accomplished coach nor athlete but someone who has decided since he is a failure at running, maybe he can gain some respect by going anal on nomenclature"

You've been pwned for almost a decade. And not once have you been able to provide any sort of evidence for your ludicrous statements.

Jono, nobody says an athlete with more nervous control doen't run faster than an athlete not having the same level of control, this is not the point.

The point is your idea that metabolic situation can't change with proper training.

For example, the fact top athletes can increase of 25% their total volume of blood, what has to do with the neural pathways ?

We work for recruiting the higher percentage of fast fibers when are full of lactate. For that reason we use circuits, many times uphill, without solution of continuity, where athletes alternate running at high intensity (for instance, short sprint of 60m) with specific exercises, requiring good ability to control the technical execution.

An example, using 400m uphill with a gradient of 8-10% :

60m sprint + 40m skippig fast + 60m sprint + 40m heels-to-buttocks + 60m sprint + 40m bounding + 100m sprint + 10 squat-jump at the end, carried out at the max intensity. We use, with 800m runners during the Fundamental and Special period, from 5 until 7 repetitions with recovery of 5'/6' in between, not enough for maintaining lactate at the same level, every time the athlete starts the next circuit.

For that reason, we have continuous ACCUMULATION of lactate, and we train the nervous system to increase the ability to recruit fast fibers when the fibers themselves become saturated with high quantity of lactate.

The athlete learn how to control his technique under a higher quantity of lactate, in my opinion increasing the TOLERANCE referred to the nervous system, connected with the metabolic system.

I really don't understand a practic workout that can satisfy your thesis only, without inclusion of metabolic changes in the activity of the athlete.

But may be you have reason. Can you give us the example of some workout specific for training neural pathways ?

Thank you in advance.

PS for Fat Master : yes, Leonard is Kosencha, i did the mistake dialing the name while speaking with 4 chinese coaches...

Renato Canova wrote:

Can you give us the example of some workout specific for training neural pathways ?

Obviously, he can´t.

wellnow/jono ALWAYS completely looses his ability to write when it´s time to show all the cards which he fantasizes he has, this is just BASIC PSYCHOLOGY.

Yes, if you want to pretend to be a scientist, you have to show your data when asked.Here's a recent example: "jono": "Increase of 60% VO2 max in elites? That's not absolute VO2 max. Absolute VO2 max increases 20-30% from very unfit, to normal cardiac development."Why are you even talking about "absolute" VO2max, when you just said that Noakes is not? Where does this number 20-30% come from? If you don't give me any reference, how do I know you didn't just make this up because you felt like you had to type something? Is it really some kind of diversionary tactic because you don't want to admit that Noakes disagrees with you that VO2max improves with training?What is absolute VO2max anyway? Isn't it liters/min, instead of ml/min/kg? You always say VO2max can't increase in healthy mature adults -- 1% was too large. What does this mean -- that with training, we increase "absolute" VO2max by 20-30%, but VO2max remains unchanged? This means that athletes routinely gain 20-30% of weight with training from a very unfit to normal cardiac development state.That's pure nonsense. You need to do more work to explain 20-30% and "absolute" VO2max, and how that relates to Noakes observation.But here's my main complaint. You say many incredible things, that often leave me wondering how you came to that conclusion. There has to be some more knowledge behind to lead to these conclusions. These are the things I look for in my questions, and never find in your answers. I don't want you to repeat your conclusions, but give up some of this hidden knowledge that leads you to these conclusions. I admit I often repeat questions, finding many different ways to express what I'm looking for. I'm sure you feel like you explain things over and over, but they always lack some way to independently arrive at the same conclusion.Generally speaking, whenever you say "basic physiology", or "dogma", or "mythology", or "debunked", this tells me you think that you don't have the burden to show what you are saying, because it has already been shown. Why not tell us who showed it, and where they showed it? If Neural knowledge is 150 years old, exactly who discovered what in the 1860's? Give me a name.The effects of interval and continuous training on VO2max and lactate curves are also "basic physiology". Why do you pretend they don't exist?You seem to put a lot of stock in Noakes disproving the Anaerobic/Cardiovascular Model. But when we talk about Lydiard's "anaerobic" training, or Canova's "lactic resistance" training, no one is talking about low or no oxygen states in the muscle, or heart, that cause rigor, ischemia, or heart attacks. Everyone is talking about high lactate, and low pH, and the measurable training effects that this kind of training brings. Lactate, pH, and performance are all things that can be and repeatedly are, measured. Even Noakes agrees with that -- why don't you?It's interesting you admit that your best season was 6 years ago. Aren't you neurologically improving every year?

jono wrote:

Work harder to support my incredible assertions????

rekrunner, it's basic physiology. I have done the explanations over and over and over for several years, but you keep asking the same questions over and over and over.

Are you aware of this? I don't want to sound cruel, but I think you may be having some problems with memory. Often I tell you something and you have completely forgotten the next day.

Anway what about this:?

http://www.letsrun.com/forum/flat_read.php?board=1&id=2298531&thread=2289921

I worked petty hard 6 years ago, and that what when I had my best ever season with 9 wins.

Renato Canova wrote:

An example, using 400m uphill with a gradient of 8-10% :

60m sprint + 40m skippig fast + 60m sprint + 40m heels-to-buttocks + 60m sprint + 40m bounding + 100m sprint + 10 squat-jump at the end, carried out at the max intensity. We use, with 800m runners during the Fundamental and Special period, from 5 until 7 repetitions with recovery of 5'/6' in between, not enough for maintaining lactate at the same level, every time the athlete starts the next circuit.

Is the 400m uphill continuous, or what recoveries are between each exercise?

U.N.O. Your posts are so childish. Grow up.

summarizer wrote:

"jono is neither an accomplished coach nor athlete but someone who has decided since he is a failure at running, maybe he can gain some respect by going anal on nomenclature"

You've been pwned for almost a decade. And not once have you been able to provide any sort of evidence for your ludicrous statements.

I won 9 races in the months after that thread. I was the fastest 45 year Old in Britain at 1500m, second fastest at 5000 and third fastest at 3000. I set a personal best at 800 and won a 5000 two hours later in one of my best times of the year.

I have done a lot of research into exercise physiology and have presented it many times here. I can argue with the best. I am not an internet loser/coward like you. You are a fool.

jono wrote:

I can argue with the best.

Why do you lose every argument then?

That you should be an accomplished runner is as unbelievable as your physiology claims.

Now shut up and show us workout examples as well as references to the nonsense you spout.

Renato, a 25% increase in volume of blood is blood plasma increase. This is only an advantage in helping an athlete to sweat more. Such an increase will slow a runner down in most races because the heart has to work harder to pump blood to the skin for sweat evaporation. You had a debate with Michele Ferarri about this, and you were both right. In the morning a distance runner will have a low hematocrit/high plasma volume if they run a lot in hot humid weather. But for a fast race in cool weather, this would be disadvantage. My plasma volume changes from morning to night. With this decrease, an athlete also gets a higher muscle tension which gives better fuel economy.

When you put these two things together, you are right to say that a top athlete doesn't need EPO to compete with the best. This is a subject I would like to discuss with people who are interested such as yourself. Most people are not interested, they will just say that you are crazy or a liar for not believing in drug enhancement, but I know you are right.

Renato, when you say high lactate concentration, I think you mean acidosis? The lactate isn't a problem because lactate is just a fermentation of sugar, which goes to skeletal muscles and the liver for aerobic respiration or reconversion to glycogen.

Acidosis is only a problem if it affects the breathing.

My point about metabolic training versus neural training is that a healthy athlete doesn't increase aerobic or anaerobic capacity with high intensity training, what changes is the neural response. The nervous system is being trained to develop speed endurance specifically to meet the demands of the race. Most of the fast twitch fibers are being recruited at the beginning of the race, with less and less as the race becomes more aerobic. The first few second are almost 100% anaerobic, and the last few meters mabye 15% anaerobic.

When Rudisha runs 1.41 he accelerates for about 40 meters and decellerates for 760 meters. So it is both a controlled acceleration, not too fast or slow, and then a controlled decelleration. This is the art of 800m running, science just confuses coaches athletes and physiologists. But the art of that contolled decelleration is something that Wilson Kipketer and David Rudisha were masters at. Rudishas fastest pace in the first 100 meters is more than 25% faster than his slowest pace in the last 100 meters, his stride rate goes from 220 in the first 100m down to 180 at the end. It is not his metabolic system that makes him much faster than other runners, it is his control of the nervous system. There is probably very little difference between the training that your athletes do, and what he does, but in a race, his pace judgment is so smooth, this can only come from knowledge experience and confidence.

The only difference that I would make in training compared to other runners is to not push too hard, as Lydard said "Train, don't strain" This advice is gold. And I think this applies to all training including the high intensity/ specific race pace work also. I think we should never ever force the pace, but let the pace come to us and it will.

summarizer wrote:

jono wrote:

I can argue with the best.

Why do you lose every argument then?

That you should be an accomplished runner is as unbelievable as your physiology claims.

Now shut up and show us workout examples as well as references to the nonsense you spout.

You are the one who is making ridiculous claims. I don't know what your problem is, but you projecting it onto me. I have only presented basic physiology which you are too lazy to bother to learn. Grow up and get a life.

I just provoked you to answer, I have grown up a long time ago.

His pace judgment isn´t so smooth because of knowledge experience and confidence, it´s just that he has better speed (anaerobic capacity) than anyone else (800m runners) and his aerobic capacity is high enough that he can use his anaerobic system well in a 800m race. And to have a great speed, you have to have a great neuromuscular coordination ("muscle stiffness") of course, but it´s not enough for an 800m runner if not coupled with a good aerobic system.

So jono/wellnow can write hundreds of posts over a decade about how bad other people's training is, but he cannot exemplify his preferred training with any workouts. Not even a single one! The only thing he's able to do is to parrot Lydiard's one-liner "train, don't strain".

What a joke!

jono wrote:

This is a subject I would like to discuss with people who are interested such as yourself. Most people are not interested, they will just say that you are crazy or a liar for not believing in drug enhancement, but I know you are right.

I am very interested in you views. This last long post of yours was very thought-provoking.

summarizer wrote:

That you should be an accomplished runner is as unbelievable as your physiology claims.

Actually jono is a very accomplished runner. Just check his Power of 10.

How did that pace judgment thing work out for Dave Wottle and Jim Ryun in their world record 800s? Or Kipketer in his 1:41.24?

It worked out just fine.

Thanks, I know summarizer I'm being trolled on this thread, but that's normal isn't it?

There is an optimal blood plasma level for each runner in each event in the weather conditons they experience. Renato's point about blood volume variation of 25% refers to the difference between a very high plasma volume when the athlete runs a lot and sweats a lot and stores a lot of water and the lowest plasma volume they might experience when dehydrated. This might vary from a blood volume of more than 6 liters to less than 5.

When plasma volume is very high, hematocrit is very low, values such as 38/62 a plama volume when hyper hyderated falling to perhaps 48/52 both of these extremes will slow an athlete down in a high intensity effort. With a high plasma volume, the heart stroke volume is very high, but the heart rate low, and more blood will be delivered to the sweat glands. With a low plasma volume, the opposite effects will take place.

For a fast middle distance race, values somewhere in between are ideal, so the heart can deliver oxygen to the muscles more effectively. In an 800m race, the athlete obviously sweats very little during the race, more so afterwards, so a high plasma volume would slow the athlete down.

When we are well trained, our muscle stiffness and plasma volume seem to work together, such that when plasma volume is higher in the morning for example, (as is normal for a highly trained athlete in summer) the muscle stiffness is lower and the reverse is normal as the day cools and the athlete trains hard or races in the cool of the evening.

This means that if the athlete has to race in the morning, a long warm up might be necessary, otherwise he/she will find it impossible to run a the right pace despite working very hard.

I think that this information is very much in line with Lydiard philosophy/Canova philosophy that an athlete doesn't need drugs to beat those ahtletes who use drugs.

Wow that's incredible! Fantastic! Where is all this knowledge coming from? Where can I find out more? This is pure gold!

What I'm getting at is, are you saying that Wottle and Ryun running 53x/51x in their world records supports your theory about world-class nervous systems and the exquisite pace judgment that goes with them? And that Kipketer running 48.3/52/9 in one of his world records also supports your theory?