Definiton of Aerobic and Anaerobic, lets get up to date here.

99.999% of people won't care one way or another, they are social runners, and not really bothered about getting the best out of themselves.

I'm just reporting information that was published before I was born. I think it is important that this information is shared and not forgotten. Training programmes can always be improved.

Why should African runners get all the glory? What are they doing that other nations aren't. Why do they appear to be more talented at a very early age?

When we are young we are not bombarded by fizzyology, we just run. Is sports science misinformation stifling natural talent? Lydiard thought so, I think so too, but then Lydiard is also responsible for much of this misinformation, or at least passing on misinformation that was prevalent in his time. If you take the best of his ideas etc.... I think that is what Nobby Hashizume is trying to do, to clarify, I applaud him for that.

I believe that if you always condider the skill aspects of running and how to achieve and maintain them, that is the way to go.

So I repeat the question, how do we optimize power? How can we improve our basic speed? It must be possible becasue in my case, last year I ran a PR for 800m and two hours later won a 5000m in my second fastest time of the year, at age 45. So if I can do that I still have some extra speed potential and some extra speed endurance potential even now aged 46. So what can young white boys do? What do they need to do to run faster than 12.37 and 26.17 etc?

That is what Lydiard would be asking if he was alive today

And what would you answer him?

I don't think he and I would get along. I don't agree with dividing the year into phases, I think it's better to cover all different paces and types of training in the course of a week or two.

The best distance runners are faster at all paces, so the speed development is very important and generally under rated by a lot of runners and coaches. If you train right, you can do an awful lot of speed work and speed endurance work plus distance in a short period of time for the simple reason that all of these paces are familiar and this mean the stress of the workouts can be kept at an optimum level.

The "comfortably tired" mantra of Lydiard's basic endurance training can be applied to high intensity workouts in a well trained runner, becuase they are recovering quickly. So there is no reason why non Africans can't do the same workouts as Africans, but the dedication to that lifesyle is not considered a viable career option. A change that attitude would be a big help.

I don't argue that the role of aerobic development is not exaggerated, nor that form and technique may often be neglected.

All I'm saying is that all the studies you can find will not give you the paradigm shift you want. I'm not convinced that sports science plays that big a role in deciding how to train, or how talent is nurtured. It would take a modern day Lydiard, beating the world with a handful of local club runners, to force a re-evaluation of our thinking.

Putting aside the potential role of genetics, sedentary lifestyles, or even just perceived genetic superiority acting as a deterrent, Lydiard thought that the problems with Americans was the lack of a club infrastructure to promote and encourage long-term development. Americans compete in high schools and at university, where the coaches have short term goals.

Why don't SUVs get 30mpg? Why can't I pull my 5th wheel travel trailer with my Prius? Dedication, lifestyle, proper training(like the Africans?) will only get most people so far...such is life.

But isn't part of the problem that Lydiard's methods have been considered by athletes of all class?

Would a high-mileage schedule of undulating periodization not simply be too demanding of the more casual runner?

wellnow wrote:

For many runners they are already at their peak aerobic development from regular training.

By "regular training" are you saying training without the traditional VO2max workouts? Do you believe these to be unnecessary/redundant?

I remember reading a study that compared the "aerobic development" (ie: increase in Vo2max) through various mileage levels. After 70 miles per week no further increases in absolute Vo2max were recorded. Peak Vo2max was achieved in something like 12 weeks. Improvements in performance (on tests) was still noticed even though there were no increases in Vo2max. Also, keep in mind "absolute vs relative Vo2max". Absolute is the hard value....relative is relative to bodyweight. So...someone who weights 60kg with a peak Vo2max of 5.2L (5200ml) will have an absolute (ml/kg) of 86.6ml/kg. If he gets fat over the winter up to 65kg then his Vo2max drops to 80ml/kg.

Alan

Runningart2004 wrote:

I remember reading a study that compared the "aerobic development" (ie: increase in Vo2max) through various mileage levels. After 70 miles per week no further increases in absolute Vo2max were recorded. Peak Vo2max was achieved in something like 12 weeks. Improvements in performance (on tests) was still noticed even though there were no increases in Vo2max. Also, keep in mind "absolute vs relative Vo2max". Absolute is the hard value....relative is relative to bodyweight. So...someone who weights 60kg with a peak Vo2max of 5.2L (5200ml) will have an absolute (ml/kg) of 86.6ml/kg. If he gets fat over the winter up to 65kg then his Vo2max drops to 80ml/kg.

Alan

I am all Alice in Chains, Kurt Cobain, Soundgarden still and dress like it, look like it, and smell like it. I promised myself back in the day that I would never turn into one of these little bitches who completely changes his image to suit his employer and in-laws. I am still living it and I never stopped. Are you with me?

wellnow wrote:

I don't think he and I would get along. I don't agree with dividing the year into phases, I think it's better to cover all different paces and types of training in the course of a week or two.

The best distance runners are faster at all paces, so the speed development is very important and generally under rated by a lot of runners and coaches.

.

Im not sure what coaches you are refering to. I ran at a JC and then a mid level D 1 school, and both schools had coaches who were all over technique drills, speed drills and weight training year round, ,,,,,and this was over 10 years ago. Most college coaches have been doing all this so called new stuff for decades.

Its not underrated by paid professional coaches. the real problem is the majority of Americans who would make great middle and long distance runners dont participate in track and field.

Voice of Ray-san wrote:

I don't argue that the role of aerobic development is not exaggerated, nor that form and technique may often be neglected.

All I'm saying is that all the studies you can find will not give you the paradigm shift you want. I'm not convinced that sports science plays that big a role in deciding how to train, or how talent is nurtured. It would take a modern day Lydiard, beating the world with a handful of local club runners, to force a re-evaluation of our thinking.

Putting aside the potential role of genetics, sedentary lifestyles, or even just perceived genetic superiority acting as a deterrent, Lydiard thought that the problems with Americans was the lack of a club infrastructure to promote and encourage long-term development. Americans compete in high schools and at university, where the coaches have short term goals.

The paradigm shift that I want to see is for old ideas which are not currently popular, to be recognized. What I am saying about the fundamental importance of neuro-muscular co-ordination, is basic physiology which was discussed adequately in much of the literature of 30-40 years ago, but which is been ignored as the number one determinator of athletic development in current literature in favor of the aerobic development dogma.

I agree that sports science doesn't play a big role in deciding how to train or nurture talent, I actually believe it can often be dettrimental. Athletes become obsessed with training fads supposedly based on proven research which can cloud the big picture. But also the current misguided belief that the best athletes are "aerobic monsters" makes their level of ability seem unattainable for others. If we think instead in terms of the skill of running, then the goal of high achievement seems much more realistic and attainable.

Regarding the problems of coaching development, many of problems in the collegiate system also exist in the club structure in Britain, such as short term goals and high drop out rate of talented young athletes.

African runners consider running to be a career option, but this commitment is lacking in more developed countries where high paid careers are the expected goal for graduates. And why is it that mostly middle class kids (for want of a better description) are doing the sport anyway? It is true that if a young runner puts the real job on hold for a while to pursue a running dream, then chances are that a major breakthrough will NOT be forthcoming. What those runners need is a new guru, a man with a plan a latter day Lydiard. But the guru needs a Snell, a Halberg, young runners with the fire in the belly.

I remain optimistic, those coaches are out there, they may be castigated on this message board, but the fact is, success will make some people jealous. I am sure that positive role models are the answer to this sports problems.

RonnyH wrote:

But isn't part of the problem that Lydiard's methods have been considered by athletes of all class?

Would a high-mileage schedule of undulating periodization not simply be too demanding of the more casual runner?

Yes.

wondering wrote:

wellnow wrote:

For many runners they are already at their peak aerobic development from regular training.

By "regular training" are you saying training without the traditional VO2max workouts? Do you believe these to be unnecessary/redundant?

**********************************************************

I think that the emphasis in refering to VO2 max workouts is wrong. All running is VO2 max training. Training specifically at the slowest pace which will induce a VO2 max response is no better than training at other paces, since the real development comes from improving the skill of holding a pace which is nerual devlepment not aerobic development. When you are fit enough to do these workouts, you are already aerobically developed.

Dr Daniels knows this. Where I disagree with him is in the formulaic approach, which causes people to become obsessed with numbers, and they don't need much encouragement in that department. The latest gadget for them is the Garmin, another device to enslave them into ever increasing fatigue and frustration.

What do you think of this quote (from the USATF Project 30 report):

"Sprints and hurdles are the most receptive to the application of sport science, while the distance events are most resistant to it." In one coach's words, "American distance runners and coaches focus almost exclusively on physiology and endurance training, while it is biomechanics that is the difference between winning a medal and not making a final."

and wejo's response:

My comment- This is totally laughable. We're not on the medal stand in the 10k because we're nearly a minute behind the top guys and this isn't because the biomechanics are off.

I think the word Biomechanics doesn't really convey the message adequately.

When I said that the best distance runners were faster at all distances than their rivals, that statement needs to be qualification. The fastest we have seen Kenenisa Bekele run was in the Paris World Championship 10000m. I believe that the Ethiopians changed the way they trained for championships after Gebreselassie's defeat to Charles Kamathi in the 10000M where the Kenyan ran under 25 seconds for the last 200m. After that, the Ethiopians trained differently for championsips than they do for record attempts, by incorporating a fast last lap. So now we see Bekele running 52-53 and Dibaba and Defar running 58-59. What is most amazing is for them to run at that speed at the end of fast races. So it is assumed by many that they could run much faster. However during that Paris last lap, the fastest pace that Bekele attained was about 8 meters per second, 50 second pace for 400m, but he only held that pace for a few seconds. It looked like he was sprinting flat out.

So we might assume that Bekele could run about 1.45-1.46 for 800m perhaps, and more realistically we see his 1500m pace as being about 3.30. We can be more sure of this since he races 1500 but not shorter distances.

So we can assume that the pace needed to run one minute quicker for Americans requires that sort of middle distance pace. To run 25 laps at 63 seconds each is an extension of that kind of middle distance ability. This requires a lot of concentration on being able to run a lot of interval sessions at 60-64 seconds per lap without getting into difficulty, beign relaxed at that pace. Whilst most runners will see this as aerobic development, the fact is that this extension of fast paces is an extraordinary skill development added to a normal level of aerobic development.

Compare this skill to learning a musical intrument. Do we look at an outstanding concert pianist and assume that they have exceptional fingers, or exceptional skill in moving those fingers? Obviously it's the skill, the co-ordination which takes many thousands of hours of practice. In running however we can easily make the mistake of assuming that the talent development is mostly cardiovascular rather than neural.

Whatever wejo thinks or knows or does not know, he expressed his views on his own development rather well previously;

http://www.letsrun.com/2006/collegesuck.php

Wellnow if you are correct about the importance of neural

training then Emil Zatopek was much closer to the most efficient training model than most that followed him.

Don't know what you mean Bob?

Zatopek trained way too hard.

Everything I've read about him seems a bit vague on the speed of his intervals. Doctor Ernst van Aaken claimed that he trained fairly slow on his 400 reps. Others say he ran his 400 reps at 10K pace.

Take one of his purported workouts of 20 x 400 with a 200 jog.

That's 12K with 8K fast and 4K slow. The first several reps were warm ups and Emil ran the latter reps faster. I don't know if he slowed in the latter reps as either a taper or due to fatigue.

Emil would be hitting a lot of different paces in the course of the above run. It seems like that would provide neural conditioning for the muscles at a variety of paces.

Bob Wildes wrote:

Everything I've read about him seems a bit vague on the speed of his intervals. Doctor Ernst van Aaken claimed that he trained fairly slow on his 400 reps. Others say he ran his 400 reps at 10K pace.

Take one of his purported workouts of 20 x 400 with a 200 jog.

That's 12K with 8K fast and 4K slow. The first several reps were warm ups and Emil ran the latter reps faster. I don't know if he slowed in the latter reps as either a taper or due to fatigue.

Emil would be hitting a lot of different paces in the course of the above run. It seems like that would provide neural conditioning for the muscles at a variety of paces.

I don't know the speeds either, but he ran up to 2x40x400 five days in a row

I think he was obsessed by the idea which was then in vogue that the benefits of interval training happened during the recovery, and he thought that more high/low heart rate training was better.

This was Reindell's hypothesis, but whilst it surely gives benefits to the cardiovascular system, these benefits are surely inevitable from any tpye of training?