Lydiard anaerobic phase

wellnow:

What's wrong with the energetics model of 1923? What is the new energetics model today and how is it different than before? Are old, outdated models always bad? Why do we still teach Newton, when Einstien's model is widely considered more accurate? What words would best describe Lydiards Anaerobic phase of training? What words would you use to describe his repetitions? How would you fix what seems to be to you the biggest problem with Lydiard?

As posted on the aerobic/anaerobic definition thread in reply to you:

http://www.letsrun.com/forum/flat_read.php?thread=2289921&page=2

What I am trying to do here is point out that the commonly held bioenergetics model, largely attributable to the work of the great physiologist A.V. Hill and dates from the early 1920's, is wrong.

This model which Tim Noakes M.D. refers to as the Cardiovascular/Anaerobic model is now recognized by physiologists to be incorrect. Noakes has proposed his own Central Governor model, partly based on Hill's original Central Governor proposal of 1924.

Noakes states that a healthy heart cannot become anaerobic, otherwise it will cause angina or worse symptoms.

I have assumed thus far that most of us know the meaning of the words Aerobic, meaning with air

and Anaerobic meaning without air.

In physiology terms, this means with or without oxygen.

These ideas cannot be compared to the Physics genius of Newton and Einstein. Sir Isaac Newton wrote his laws of physics 300 years ago, which are accepted as scientific fact. The same is true of Einstein theories.

A.V. Hill was the father of modern physiology, a brilliant man in many ways, but he expected his ideas to be challenged. Unfortunately, after he jointly won the Nobel Prize for Chemistry in 1923 two years after Einstein won his Nobel Prize for Physics, most people accepted Hill's ideas too readily without challenging them, and this largely continues to this day.

Regarding the different terminology and ideas, between what is known now and what was known 20+ years ago. Good training is good training, there are no new ideas in training, BUT, the more we learn from other people's knowledge, the more we can add to our own. It's an ongoing debate and always will be, but it's true that the best coaches are always ahead of the best physiologists.

What is Hill's model? What's wrong with it? What is the Central Governor model? What's right with it? I just don't yet see what the important distinction is.

Newton was a genius, as was Einstein, but sorry to say, Einstein basically disproved Newton's old model, pointing out that Newton's assumption that time is absolute, is incorrect. Newton is still accepted, but not as scientific fact -- his old models are still useful for most everyday physics. Just because a model is old, and wrong, doesn't mean we have to discard it.

Hello Mr. The Light

Thanks for your post. Up to this point I think that you did serious arguments and serious comments really indeed, something no one is able yet as far as i understand. If you are a Lydiardist your arguments don´t seem so. I guess that you aren´t a Lydiardist at all even if you think you are. No Lydiardist that I know discuss as you do and argues as you do. You don´t refuse my arguments. You are able to analyse and reply to it something Lydiardism isn´t. Therefore may be you love Lydiard quite a lot and you consider that´s perfect. But for what you saý your speach that´s not Lydiardism looks like.

Just by this your post I consider that I didn’t lost my time with so many post on this thread.

May be I will try a deep comment of your post later. Now I just want to comment not about Lydiard “per si” but around logic and understand of things and facts and subjectivity and objectivity..

For example. You say “"Father of Jogging", we must eliminate any literal interpretation. Facts are facts. Take a look in the monster thread about Lydiard and the “Son of Lydiard and owner” Mr. Nobby– of course Son not in Literal sense – he wrote that Lydiard did invent and he was the first to use and prescribe the jogging for not talent-non-competitive people, for wealth purposes. (I quote by memory but I guess that I don´tt violate the idea). So take a look and read what he says and may be you and Nobby don´t say the same. If that´s true what I say, than that´s wrong what you say, or do you interpret differently that from “The choose son of Lydiard”. Someone please search it and post it – I have no time to search but i´m sure mr. Nobby said it, please.

But this was just a detail, nothing relevant in the whole package of Lydiard method. Something like the interest of lacing shoes as Lydiard prescribes. Or the inclusion of the Lydiard way to lace the shoes as a Lydiard requirements on the Lydiard method is also not literal. If so, for every aspect or detail of the Lydiard method as spread by the Lydiard Foundation we need to ask them what´s literal and what´s not literal. What´s real and what´s fantasy. After all from all that Lydiardism they say how do we know what’s really important effective and objective and what´s subjective that we may neglet, and . not consider. Do you have that magic hand tool to discriminate it ? We don´t. If exists something that I love that´s accuracy and objectivity. I love athletics and running because it doesn´t matter what you say. If you claim your training perfect or good or my training poor or bad. I love running because that day in the finish line the best wins, not moral or training method supremacy. In that issue that your or Nobby subjectivity about Lydiard it means nothing. Lydiardism they claim victory many times. Peter Snell. Murray Halbert. Dick Quax. Dick Taylor. What may we say against that facts ? Simply they aren´t able to understand that sometimes they did lost. No way they claim Dick Taylor would win in 10000m Montreal 76 Olympics with no sickness. No way that they claim Dick Quax would win in that same 1000m 76 Montreal Olympics with no stomach sickness or may be in the 5000m. No way. They didn´t. they would have done. This is pure subjectivity, no valid argument. This is the Lydiardism excessively. No logic, not true. Of course who wants believe in Lydiard and train like Lydiard they do it. I´m nothing against Lydiard method myself. I´m against Lydiard Lydiardism lies and illogic – call it “not literally” if you wish. I´m against Lydiard authorship. I´m against Lydiardism as their own private interpretation of the running history of the running facts and the running performances.

For example. The debate about how much anaerobic training, how long and so. The question isn´t about it. The question is about the undefined and lack of consistency of that statement and the contradiction with all the rest. For the same method that says “until you get tired” that same method can´t state that if you miss that hills in that style you are not under the Lydiard method as they say. Why they don´t say – Do hills until you drope, or until you get tired, it doesn´t matter how you do it ? Incongruence is what it is. They have different logic for the same training method.

Finnaly I see someone that despite you disagree with me – i´m glad you disagree – you understand what I say. Happily I just start to made my comments about the Lydiard method. You will see how many are the contradictions I will point out.

The Light wrote:

What is Hill's model? What's wrong with it? What is the Central Governor model? What's right with it? I just don't yet see what the important distinction is.

Newton was a genius, as was Einstein, but sorry to say, Einstein basically disproved Newton's old model, pointing out that Newton's assumption that time is absolute, is incorrect. Newton is still accepted, but not as scientific fact -- his old models are still useful for most everyday physics. Just because a model is old, and wrong, doesn't mean we have to discard it.

I agree 100% with Light. Science that´s dynamic, no ultimate definition. Science it´s simply a a experimental method to TRY to understand the reality. Besides according the new research of the fragmental physics Einstein isn´t right about his own model.

Running we all know what it is. But no one will know the all aspects/elements that includes the running activity. Running is a composite of aspects and the physical impact of that act of run no one knows all his implication. No evidence that the physical aspect is more determinant than the mental. No one really catch what the running is all about. All definitions about training zones, training affects are limited and confine to realate to the totality. If we consider the oxygen we may name it aerobic or anaerobic but if we consider the lactate or the exerced perception (loading) we may name the 10X400m interval with a different name than anaerobic. The target and bottom line of running are time and distance and to be fast. How many time do you run and what´s the distance that all is all about.

America is wrongly named, because Americo Vespucio had been in south America and we are doubt if he is the first one navigator to arrive in that place. Japan is wrongly named. Thr´s no sun that ascend in the east more than in europe, The winter as the cold season it´s only right for the north hemisphere. Everything is incomplete or wrong in it´s definition. the problem that´s not about the name. We all know what we are deal with the name of anaerobic or anaerobic workout, despite the name may be it´s inadequate or wrong. What it matters is if Lydiard prescribe it right or wrong that type of effort.

One more detail. I also agree with your statement about anonymity of the posts. Bt most of the Lydiardists they don´t understand. HRE he doesn’t understand. They felt offended for nothing.

IQ100,

I can't figure out why you've taken it upon yourself to "expose the supposed cult of Lydiardism." You seem to have many interesting ideas and useful information. Why not direct your energies toward more positive discussion, rather than let yourself get sidetracked with this (seemingly, to me anyway) irrelevant and unnecessary expenditure of negative energy battling the people who like Lydiard? Is there some fundamental offence that you're seeking to right?

I quite enjoy reading the exchanges in this discussion, except for the squabbling bits. Lots of interesting information and perspectives behind the emotion.

IQ100,

I am sorry, you seem so arrogant, I do not understand your 'position'.

Please get help with translating what you mean into clear English, it is very difficult to understand exactly what you mean.

Running, the running community, the health aspect, goals, competition, training (together) and ALL that IS running, is a beautiful thing and brings people together with a common interest. Why are you driving a wedge between what one person says, versus what another person says or beleives with such an arrogant approach?

Let's take away everything which Lydiard learned and taught for a moment, put it aside.

Let's also put aside everything you have learned and taught, for a moment.

Stripping Lydiard and IQ100 down to it, you I am certain would not motivate anyone to run with your atttude in communciation, it seems like your ego stands props your intent, grossly telling others how they are wrong.

Lydiard was a great motivator.

You sir, are a wining child, who must have been ignored growing up....or left off the football team.

IQ100,

I'm happy I can express my disagreement, and still maintain your respect.

I can't say I am a Lydiardist, because I don't really know what that means. I won't try to convince anyone about who Lydiard coached, or did not coach, or which athletes trained by his methods, as I don't possess a deep historical knowledge. I do believe that running coaches meet and share information with each other, so I find it plausible that Lydiard influenced many coaches and runners whom he did not actually train, nor who followed his methods and principles. But if some others are turning weak links into strong links, and you want to call that "illegitamite", or outright "lies", I don't want to put myself in the middle of that discussion.

When I say interpret "Father of Jogging" figuratively, I thought it was obvious that humans can not be parents of sports. I interpret "Father of Jogging" as a kind of honorary title, and leave it up to everyone to decide for themselves if he is worthy of the honor. Surely man has been jogging since the dawn of man, and certainly before the 20th century.

As for separating facts from fantasy, and possessing a magic hand for deciding when is Lydiard literal and figurative, I read a bit of his material and didn't find it that hard to grasp, and not as ambiguous and anarchical as people make it out to be. He describes in detail his principles, and gives the rationale behind his thinking. I think most of the confusion comes from Lydiard not speaking the same language as people want to hear. He describes the efforts by feeling, or by fractions, and people want to know what pace or what heartrate that means. The answer is, it depends on the athlete on the day -- just run within the guidelines. He says hard aerobic efforts, and people want to hear endurance, tempo, lactate threshold, or VO2max intervals. He uses terms like "overcoming leg viscosity", which I've never seen anywhere else, and may not even exist as a measurable physiological phenomena, but sure gives me a clear image of what "leg-speed" running is supposed to achieve. Another part of the ambiguity is that evolution of training depends highly on the athlete, and we are all different, responding differently to training. Lydiard makes adaptations to suit many different athletes, and their training environments, and even race schedules. Adaptation is a strength, and precisely pre-defining workouts, or nailing down every aspect of a training prevents adaptation. Please don't come to me with examples of contradictions, which are really adaptations to different athletes under different conditions.

To further illustrate, with the "Anaerobic" training example, I understood the important element is to maximize the volume of work you do in the repetitions, to expose your body to the highest levels of blood lactate for the longest duration, in order to trigger the right physiological adaptations for better lactate clearance, lactate tolerance, or whatever else happens. It doesn't matter how you maximize it, just maximize it. So although the path to get there may be imprecise, the training objective and the rationale is clearly defined, and there are lots of clear guidelines to bound the training. His method is not as incongruent and anarchical as people pretend, even if it fails to be described precisely in non-Lydiard terms. For "Anaerobic" training, he gives the objective and the guidelines. For "Hill" training, he gives a different objective and different guidelines. But having different guidelines for hills, than for repetitions does not make it incongruent. They don't say "do hills until you drop", because that's not how Lydiard described how to do hill training.

Regards,

IQ100 wrote: pete

(1) do i know you ?

(2) Who do you think i am ?

(1) Only you could answer this one. I don't know if you know me.

(2) No idea. I'll admit your writing style is similar to Antonio's, but the way you're attacking good people on here seems to me to be way out of character for him (you don't seem to think HRE and the like should take your comments personally, but I've read the whole thread, and if I were him or Nobby or Kim etc, I'd be irritated with your posts - perhaps it's a language thing?). If you really are skuj, then you've got way too much time on your hands to have created this character and maintained a consistent writing style. You say you're in Italy, and yet you say you type on a Cyrillic keyboard. Those two bits of information strike me as a little odd (inconsistent) but not impossible I guess.

Anyway, I enjoy reading your perspective, and you do strike me as a knowledgeable person with some passion about our sport. I just don't enjoy, or see the need for, all the negativity.

Once again. In the Lydiard Foundation site you may read that Lydiard is the “Father of Jogging”. If you think that´s figurative, or the real father of sons and daugheters descendence you may continue to speculate.

The fact is that mr. Nobby posts in LRC the Lydiardism interpretation or the meaning of “the Father of Jogging”. He says Lydiard he was the first one to use jogging with non-competitive and average casual runners. Who else than mr. Nobby the legal representative of Lydiard to make the Lydiardism interpretation of that sentence ?

But the true is thatno way Lydiard was the first one. No way Lydiard did a major contribute to spread the jogging all over the world. He didn´t. Lydiard have no credits or the hounours of it. Lydiardism it acts like a thief here and they stole the paternity of the jogging use.

Second. You know as i know and everybody knows that “perfect” or perfection it doesn´t exist. Some they trust that the perfection is a religious credo or The Divinity or Lydiard training. But one thing we know by science evidence that´s not possible. Each ndividual is different than the other. No 2 human beings are equal. Each one of us needs a different training schedule by the rule of individualisation. I may remember that if the perfect combination of training it exists then by the individualisation principle no perfect combination shall be the same for 2 runners. So no Lydiard cook-book kind can be made as the Lydiardism does it.

Despite it 2 Lydiard experts as it is mr. Nobby and mr. Molvar they see the Lydiard training 2 separate ways. One of them is wrong or both are wrong. No chance that the perfection have 2 different approaches.

More intresting than to see if the Lydiard Foundation training version that´s the perfect combination of aerobic and anaerobic training is to interpret why the Lidiardism name it.

They could name that is the good training combination. Simply they name it as the perfect. The best. No chance to exist other as good as that one. Why they say so ? Because they want propaganda, they want to build a cult. Some kind of mystification to the path of The Absolute.

Peter Snell did double 800m and 1500m gold. Many more Lydiard runners did stunt achievements. Lydiard he was a good coach that made good runners. That are facts no one can deny. Lydiard get the credit for all that facts. Despite that in few cases Lydiard wasn´t so sucesseful as Lydiardism the pretend. It would be interesting to report some Lydiard failures as in the case of Pekka Vasala.

Now that Dick Taylor would win the 10000m in the 76 olympics as mr. Nobby thinks and said this is pure speculation by the false logic of the Lydiardism cult. Lots of runners they tried to follow the Lydiard method scrupulously but they haven´t done no sensible improvement by that method. I know some Lydiard fundamentalists that they did end in injuries, they can´t even jogg daily. I know some of them of that type. The Lydiadism wants to pass the message that we can´t question the Lydiard training or the credts of the Lydiard training. They base their arguments in the dogma of the success that justifies the method and that they are the legal representatives of the Lydiard spell. In fact this is Lydiardism, that´s not Lydiard no more.

Mr. Pete

In my opinion the denouce of myths, cults, wrong statements, false or illegitimate authorship, speculation that´s a very positive task. That´s the use of energy at a high level of interest. The need of it that´s for our joy and passion as it seems that you enjoy it.

IQ100,

I'm no longer speculating about the "Father of Jogging" -- I think Lydiard's achievement is in developing athletes to reach their potential, and peaking at the right times. I'm not too concerned about who gets the credit for jogging. I didn't see what Nobby posted in LRC - whatever that is, and I didn't give the phrase much thought when I visited the Lydiard Foundation website. I know that Lydiard was famous in the 60's, came to America in the 70's, and coincidentally, that the jogging movement became popular in America in the 70's. I don't remember non-competitive jogging was ever popular before, but maybe my historical knowledge is lacking. Maybe it was Lydiard. Maybe not. Maybe someone did it before. Maybe it was just coincidence. But certainly this narrow point is easily falsifiable, if Lydiard was not the first.

Regarding perfection, in English perfection doesn't necessarily mean the best, or is exclusive, but means ideal, excellent, complete, or without flaws. Some definitions of "perfect" I found in the dictionary: "conforming absolutely to the description or definition of an ideal type", "excellent", "complete beyond practical or theoretical improvement", "exactly fitting the need in a certain situation or for a certain purpose", "entirely without any flaws, defects, or shortcomings", "accurate, exact, or correct in every detail", "thorough; complete; utter", "unqualified; absolute", "expert; accomplished; proficient".

So perfection is not necessarily exclusive, or the best. It can mean as little as "exactly fitting the need ... for a certain purpose", or even simply "excellent".

And what is being claimed as perfect? If I understand your example, it is the balance, or combination of aerobic/anaerobic training which is claimed as perfect. This isn't the same as claiming the Lydiard system is perfect. This still leaves room for other training systems to be as good or better than the Lydiard system.

And there is room to accomodate your "individualisation principle" within the Lydiard system. There are plenty of opportunities for the athlete's feedback in the Lydiard system, so that, although two athletes may require completely different combinations of aerobic/anaerobic training, the system helps each athlete zero in their perfect combination, for example, by identifying weaknesses with time trials, or simply cutting a workout short if the athlete is tired, based on the athletes judgement.

But clearly this is too much debate over a couple of marketing slogans. You should read these for what they are, and not more.

With respect to Nobby vs. Molvar, I think Nobby outranks Molvar. From what little I do know, I consider Nobby to be an expert on the Lydiard system (as did Arthur himself), but I don't consider Molvar an expert of equal caliber. Nobby's exposure comes directly from the source, on a long-term daily basis, whereas Molvar's information is a consolidation of the books and material he's read -- some by Lydiard, and some not. If there is one flaw in the Lydiard system, it is that it is hard to capture it completely in books. (The books are not perfect). Molvar drew (at least) two conclusions in his thesis, from his Lydiard research that Lydiard did not say, nor would he, according to those who knew him. While his conclusions may or may not be correct, they were not Lydiard's conclusions, or a part of the Lydiard system.

Regarding Lydiardism and failures, I guess every system can have its success and failures. I too would be interested in a discussion of the failures and injuries, for the same reason I argue with its critics. As with anything we should analyze the failures, to improve the system. Were the injured completely following Lydiard, or just applying a subset of the principles, while violating guidelines? For example, you are supposed to run (not more than) 100mpw during conditioning, but you don't start this overnight on an untrained body. During later phases, you should decrease the volume, while intensity increases. The analysis would show if the flaw was in the system, or in the bad or incomplete application of the system. Or maybe the athletes simply lack personal judgement (don't know how to listen to their body), and can only succeed with a qualified coach who gives feedback and direction. I think you can challenge any system, but there is a difference between pitting faith against faith, and bringing forth objective facts.

Regards,

IQ100 wrote: Mr. Pete

In my opinion the denouce of myths, cults, wrong statements, false or illegitimate authorship, speculation that´s a very positive task. That´s the use of energy at a high level of interest.

I would agree with you if the (so-called) cult had a negative influence on the daily lives of people. Like the Moonies, or Jim Jones' followers maybe. But first, I don't see any "cult" following here (I know as many people who have the same sort of allegiance to Daniels or Coe/Martin as to Lydiard, myself). And second, I can't see any harm coming to anyone for being interested in Lydiard's approach and principles.

I think you've made your point (I paraphrase, and correct me if I'm off the mark: you think Lydiard gets, or takes, too much credit for influencing distance training around the world), and I'm not sure what anyone will gain from you giving this dead horse another few whacks.

Mr Pete,

Are the Catholics church a cult? The so called trolls on letsrun? Some are good. Some are bad. Cults may be defined in the many ways and who is to say the right one. I do not pretend to be the one. Also you are right that Lydiard is mostly deified by too many today. His contributions are good but not the answer for all.

lQ100 wrote: Are the Catholics church a cult?

This one's hard to resist....

The answer depends on your frame of reference. To some nonreligious people, all religions can be viewed as cults. To religious people, certain (or all) other religious orders might be viewed as cults (and some so-called religions are nearly universally recognized as being cults).

To me, I can't see how someone could construe Lydiard followers as belonging to a cult, but this is just my opinion, from my frame of reference.

You apparently view Lydiard followers as cult members. I doubt this view is very widely held (or held by more people than I can count with both hands). This doesn't mean you're wrong, necessarily... genius and lunacy are shades of grey, and both tend to generate opinions contrary to popular wisdom.... so are you a genius, or a lunatic? ;-) Kidding of course.

Let´s admit that Mr. Nobby understand is based from what he gets from the source. But that type that’s private info and can’t constitute a training debate. Mr. Nobby private knowledge of Lydiard trough direct contact with Lydiard can’t justify no argument about Lydiard training methodology. What´s been private that´s private. If one day ther´s a debate about Lydiard - the man, the life of that great man Mr. Nobby can do an interview about Lydiard the man. But about Lydiard the training method debate any true, scientific or correct attempt to do so, that only shall be done from what´s public knowledge - books (that are imperfect i agree), articles, conferences all from Lydiard and done by Lydiard himself not from the Lydiard Foundation or mr. Nobby whatever, interviews, public statement, all that’s public knowledge. May be that mr. Nobby info could be one of that total material of analysis, but not be Mr. Nobby or Peter Snell or Lydiard Foundation the owners of the correct Lydiard interpretation.

May be that mr. Nobby or the Lydiard Foundation members or someone else they do have an attorney to represent Lydiard and in all that’s legal about Lydiard. Simply everyone like me or you or Molvar he are free to express a different opinion and that opinion can be more correct than Lydiardism.

the Lydiardism in what concerns the public knowledge it have no Pope or exclusivity of interpretation. So, i don’t know why mr. Nobby he gets so emotional and offensive when someone disagrees of him about the Lydiard issue. May be the one that disagrees he is write or wrong. Simply the people from the Lydiardism they think they are the owners of Lydiard interpretation.

Finally. That’s right that Molvar drew (at least) two conclusions in his thesis, from his Lydiard research that Lydiard did not say. But how many conclusion from mr. Nobby that Lydiard never said ? Many times.

Lydiard method is not a cult. That´s a very good method. The private and confined version of Lydiard that is named Lydiardism tends to be a cult when they say that they are the unique and the best if not the only one legitime interpretation of the Lydiard method.

OK, then let's confine my comment to public knowledge and not private anecdotes and opinions.If there is any confusion between the two Lydiard experts, Nobby and Molvar, about an interpretation of what Lydiard published publicly about his system, in my opinion Nobby outranks Molvar, by direct association and by divine appointment. BTW, I understood that Nobby and the Lydiard Foundation are the rightful owners of the correct Lydiard interpretation.This should completely resolve your concern about the supposed impossibility of perfection because of the apparent contradiction caused by when two experts agreed on perfection but disagree on interpretation of the system.Regards,

Seriously, IQ, give it a rest. No one cares.

Lydiard's a cult, Lydiard's a cult, wah wah wah. Why don't you stop crying about it?

You're the only person on this stupid little crusade.

If it'll make you shut up, I'll admit it: Lydiardism is a cult. When I wanted to learn more about running, HRE and Nobby blindfolded, beat me senseless with copies of "Run to the Top" and then burned my copy of Daniels Running Formula and Better Training for Distance Runners right in front of me.

After that, they branded me with the fern of NZ and explained to me how Arthur Lydiard actually invented the act of running (no human ever ran a step before 1950) and let Bill Bowerman take credit for the Waffle Sole.

There, you win. We're a cult and we're converting people by the thousands every day. In the next presidential election here in America, Nobby has already rigged it so that he will be elected from the Lydiard Party. Thousands of coups are already in place. You cannot stop us. You cannot save the world from Lydiardism.

Soon you'll be rotting in a secret prison in our Lydiocracy. Enjoy your last moments of freedom while you can.

muhahahahahahhah

1. It's all Skuj's fault.

2. Wetcoast you are funny.