Jump to content
Peter

Lets talk swimming

Recommended Posts

John did the Cook Strait....between the shaky isles...arguably a harder, colder swim the the Channel on its day

 

My dad missed my birth 'cause he was in England waiting for favourable tides to become the first Australian 'male' to swim the English Channel. Mum still doesn't let him live that down.

 

He held Cook Strait north-south and south-north records at various times. I remember going on a swim when he started off the south island and it was 11 degrees (the water, that is). Got up to around 15 degrees as he got closer to the north island, only 15 miles away. He always hated the cold.

 

Swam 5:15+ for the 400m at the Masters Games last year....at 66 years of age.

 

Can't see myself doing that, can't even do it now. Larfs.

 

Some serious lessons to learn from dad on the value of just doing a bit of something most everyday of your life. In has case, just knocking out a punchy 2-2.5K in the pool or ocean.

 

Fighting the slow-down! Now that I'm nearing 41, it's one of my motivators. That, the school reunion I went to, and seeing how well alot of the 40+ crew are going these days in triathlon over short (Mick Maroney and Adam Radford) and long distance (Brad Hosking and Chris Southwell).

 

As a little aside...I just love competition and testing myself.

 

In that regard...who said this on a tv ad back in the day?

 

"I know what I want out of life...and I know what I want from a watch!!" larfs. Argh, Crofty, where are you, son?!

 

Was that for Pulsar Quartz watches? :-) "Pulsar Quartz...Making the most of every second, "PULSAR!".

 

Someone did say yesterday I've got a memory like an elephant. I think maybe I taped the ad and kept replaying it 'cause I thought Crofty was a demi god.

Edited by MJK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
To my knowledge Lydiard was still advising elite international runners in his consultancy role way beyond the 1960's! Try adding another 20++ years.

 

Sorry mate, you know your stuff on swimming but shouldn't bring Lydiard in because its totally different.

 

The point I disagreed with still stands. They were running much closer to their AT over 160km weeks and the weekend warrior copying the 160km at 6min pace is better doing 80km at 4:30 pace.

 

Even 20 yrs later, which 2:10 marathoners did Lydiard caoch...how many? The 'WR' stood to the 80's at 2:09xx. The world class HM in the early 80's (AT performance) was 63min, the first sub 61min was early 80's and that was 'dodgy'.

 

No-one was running 2:55/km for one hour...no-one.

 

Anyway, as I said its a digression, but you brought Lydiard in, just thought I would correct some mis-interpretation of it as it applies across the board.

Edited by Evil Cadence

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Thats what people don't get. It's much more then saving just 10min off your time, it's about being more efficient and saving energy so that when you do get to the run you can KEEP running.

 

You might be able to take alot more time off your marathon, and I agree with you here, but if your nuked at the start of the marathon, all that marathon specific training will amount to very little.

 

.... Evil, taking ten minutes off you swim for most (because of the company you keep up the faster end) will if you play your cards right possibly pan out to a substantially faster bike and possibly half an hour quicker at the end, once again with the caveat 'if you play your cards right'..

 

I do realise that every minute counts and every bit of effeciency counts...but for whom and at what price in training and mental madness of technique and black line fever?

 

For me as an hypothetical example, where I am at I think that with very little swimming- I like the idea of the 3.8km swim, but absolutely hatre pool training, esp public pools--I could do 1:10. Then with just adding volume to the riding I do and no real adjustments to running I could do a leisurely 6hrs followed by digging out 3:30 -3:45 (ok it has to be sub 3:32 because that's my PW :lol: ). What does that give me ...11 hrs??

 

Ok I could spend my life in the pool and do all the technique stuff to do my head in and I aint going to swim 50min...have you seen me, it isn't going to happen. So lets say its going to give me 59min....so forget about it.

However, I could get my cycle down to 5:30 and run a more comfortable sub 3:30...suddenly I am on 10:10 plus transitions.

 

Now where will I put any extra effort in? How about cycling a bit more so that I still come off bike at 5:30 but I now feel much 'fresher' that I actually run closer to my normal marathon pace...another 10-15 min??? Possible.

 

Now I am scratching my head, I can maybe take 10min off bike or 10min off swim...given what I have said earlier where would I get most bang for buck??

 

I think getting your swimming sorted and getting that extra 10min is very very important, and there is a hell of a lot of stuff here, if I can only follow Matt's way of writing or chucking coaches' speeches together...

 

...but at what cost and for whom??

 

From what I have read here over the years, I imagine there are so many IM'ers looking for that marginal bit of time from the swim, when they are still resigning themselves as 'not a runner' and happy to run 4hrs+ at the end and just get it done, and factor that in their time. It surprises me all the time when I hear "I haven't done a stand-alone marathon" for example.

 

Come on you MOP/BOP'ers happy with "I am going to do 59/5:15/hang on for 4:20 to give me sub 11"... start taking the run seriously too, you have 40min waiting for you with absolutely no rocket science at all....which is thrown around a lot in this thread.

 

cheers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sorry to digress, but which runners ran 20.5km in an hour back in the 60's??? They were much closer to AT pace thn you think. The big mistake that weekend warriors do when they follow Lydiard is that they copy the volume but don't realise what pace those guys ran. When you actually scale it down to a volume with similar quality then it is what most good runners are already doing.

Lydiard didn't re-write anything.

 

Also reference the era of Lorrainne Moller. And even when Masters champion John Campbell made a comeback at 40+ and ran a series of 2:10-2:15 marathons if I recall.

 

Ischam Eel Guerroj did AT training at 2:50-3:05 pace at least 5 days a week but the duration was limited to 30-40mins.

 

With the volume of quality aerobic work a Lydiard trained runner was targeting in a week there's no way it was at threshold. The whole premise of the training was, for these elite runners, 'alot of work a bit slower than marathon pace'.

 

Aka 75-80% VO2 Max. A great place to build aerobic capacity, provided you do enough of it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sorry to digress, but which runners ran 20.5km in an hour back in the 60's??? They were much closer to AT pace thn you think. The big mistake that weekend warriors do when they follow Lydiard is that they copy the volume but don't realise what pace those guys ran. When you actually scale it down to a volume with similar quality then it is what most good runners are already doing.

Lydiard didn't re-write anything.

 

Lydiard died not that long ago and was still advising and on the talk circuit well into old age.

 

Here's food for thought....

 

If your AT is 1-hr race pace, then 'in training' (unrested) the best case scenario it is typically accepted that 40' is about as long as you can hold AT in most instances (true AT!). So let's make that 2/3 of race duration.

 

You run an hour a day at your supposed AT and then tell me if you pull up feeling like you could have gone faster if you had to at the end AND can back it up again tomorrow and do it all over…particularly in a sport as brutal on the muscles a running.

 

Not to mention the potential for over-training.

 

If Lydiards crew were running at least an hour a day, IN CONTINUOUS FASHION, at AT, then I'd even be questioning if that is even 'critical power 90-mins', because in training that's about the best you are going to get out of an athlete in the middle of serious training at that pace for that duration.

 

So you have to back off the estimate of the true intensity of that training even more in this regard because even that intensity for that long is highly unlikely.

 

Ischam El Guerroj did do AT training 5-6x a week in his hay day (+ VO2 max sessions) but the duration was limited to 30mins most often and paces 2:50-3:00/km off I guess a circa 2.48/km or up to 3:00-3:10/km for 40’ durations…not all ‘at’ the AT especially if the duration was extended.

 

My understand is that the Lydiard 3/4 run was closer to AT, but the bulk of the week, not so and closer to 75-80% Vo2 max (not vVo2max) rather than a circa 85%+ Vo2 AT run.

 

You’d be well aware of Frank Horwill, the great British coach? "The Lydiard concept of working up to 100 miles a week at 75% VO2 max certainly does improve the oxygen uptake by about 17 per cent to 75 miles per week".

 

"I was fortunate enough to sit at a post race function with some Lydiard trained runners. the idea seemed to be to run about 160k per week at around 75-80% of MHR in building the aerobic base. the serious competitor(one guy was a 2.10 runner) also puts in easier extra runs. the main training runs were actually pretty solid running- about 3.15-30 per k on the flat (84.76-91.28% AT pace) for a 2.10 runner although most training was on hilly terrain so ave speed was a bit slower.

 

Lydiard ‘everyday’ pace was more akin to Coggan power levels in cycling of High Zone 3 (85-90% FT watts) or Sweet-Spot Training (SST) at 88-93%. Funnily enough, both these intensities will still force threshold, will training Muscular Endurance’ particularly well. Critical Power Level 2.75-3.5 hours….it’s a great place to train, in my experience. High quality aerobic training that brings about some great metabolic adaptations and endurance without killing you.

 

Lydiard was talking more about what is often coined the LT (lactate threshold) as the ceiling speed on high aerobic days instead of the FT/Anaerobic Threshold….aka circa 1Mmol over baseline lactate for most folks. But let’s not start a physiology debate. Larfs.

 

And I tell you mate…if anyone knows, it’s Molina. The guy knows nearly all there is to know about endurance training of the greats and the great coaches. He even adopted NZ as his home.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm sure there's someone really happy with your decision!

 

Out of interest, what changes would you make to your program (if any) if the plan was kona?

 

Cheers

 

Conor

 

Call up Pete Jacobs and get some stroke correction! Larfs.

 

Come to think of it, I did try to reach Pete on that matter 'cause I heard he was doing some technique work in a local ocean pool but he didn't repond to me.

 

I would of course do some work without equipment. Probably in the form of a once a week open water swim in Manly Dam. That water is 'dead as', and makes you strong just trying to stay afloat.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
To clarify.

 

Yes everyone can and should improve their technique.

 

Your videos (2nd video and the Phelps) are not what the average age grouper should aspire to. Too much reliance on kick, glide and catch up style swimming. Unless they become very good swimmers.. e.g. sub 4.45 400m they will go backwards in the open water.

 

Yes people can attain good technique and should aspire to it.

 

But the 'catch up' style technique you promote is not the most effective way for them to improve.

 

From my very first post I have said this. I have never said technique doesn't matter.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=71CN4yNMgtY this is still good technique and is a lot more achievable to the average age grouper and A LOT more effective in the open water.

Sorry to wade in late, but... one of the reasons Janet Evans has to maintain such a high stroke rate is because she is an old fashioned "front on" freestyler. If she slows that stroke rate down to much, then she'll be looking for a new sport like underwater hockey as she'll drop her hips and start to sink! Sport evolves over time, and that is why you can't show a 25yr old video and say "this is how you should do things". Over the last 25 or so years, technique has changed to what we see Phelps, Thorpe and Hackett doing now. It all started with Michael Gross and then through to Alex Popov and on to the current crop who are all using this later catch technique. The benefit of the later catch is two fold - you get more thoracic rotation which basically increases the lever length of your pull (hip to finger tips instead of armpit to finger tips), and you decrease your frontal drag. Interestingly, Gennadi Toureski tried to turn Michael Klim in to this front on, high stroke rate sort of freestyler and it resulted in a huge amount of shoulder injuries and an eventual back operation. Interestingly, Michael swam more with a late catch when he was swimming slowly in training.

 

I actually think there is room for both in open water swimming. You should work on the high stroke rate front on stuff at the start of the race when you are fighting for position, and then once it clears out a little bit, switch to the relaxed/late catch technique. Worked for me.

 

Cam.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Chappo I saw a couple of times as well...training solo. A polite quick 'hi' to me even though I don't think he knew me. Then same deal..massive set of 100's, Chappo would have the buoy, maybe not the paddles if I recall correctly but always the buoy, and I think a band. Real short rest again, quick catch of the breathe and go. Was always something stupid like a 1:20 send off for Trent, but he was obviously not red-lining it, just a moderately hard, tempo effort for a long time with I'd suggest the most value coming from the last 2K when he and this crew are maintaining that effort 'on tired arms' THIS is when the adaptations happens and I bet how Chappo trains up his PISS crew physically and mentally?

 

But in the last 1K or so big Jan would say,"Ok, Matchew...now we do some splints". So he starts smashing something like 15m fast! (buoyed/padded up)/20m slow/15m fast! or 25's, stopping in the middle of the pool. Again, at the end, not the beginning of the session, forcing the body to work hard on tired arms, forcing the recruitment of some deep muscle fibres that otherwise wouldn't be touched on or something like that (larfs).

 

I'll argue with you that the work from which the top pro's are getting their bang for the buck is not all the filler shit they do around their key sessions, it's the key 'harder aerobic' sessions themselves. Aka Crowie's 10 x 1 mile at 6:00>>5:30/mile reps on a 6:30 send off. Chappo's (NOT a pro anymore. He works big-time! could do with some kids,though) big TT's at the end of his long rides and long swim sets. Or fartlek runs on tired legs. I'd hazard a guess that these PISS boys are doing alot of their pushing on tired bodies. So they're too fatigued to totally be red-lining their effort, and instead punching out a high quality 'aerobic' effort on their tired legs. Adaptations 101, and mental farking hardening!!

 

Just go training, don't think 'too' much like I used to, and understand if you want a result you gotta sometimes punch it a bit when you least think you should.

 

Don't give away all the PIS secrets! :lol:

 

You could build a training program just around what you just wrote...

 

You've pretty much summed up the PIS training, all quality is done tired, never fresh so never to hard to compromise the next day, as much volume as possible and even when you think you are tired just do the session best you can and get the aerobic benefit... shit I remember seeing the fast guys at Penrith pool on different occasions, touch turning to make 100s on the 1.40 cycle (or 1.30 in a wetsuit) they were that buggered, but come race day, fit and rested, they crank 1.10/100 pace comfy...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sorry to wade in late, but... one of the reasons Janet Evans has to maintain such a high stroke rate is because she is an old fashioned "front on" freestyler. If she slows that stroke rate down to much, then she'll be looking for a new sport like underwater hockey as she'll drop her hips and start to sink! Sport evolves over time, and that is why you can't show a 25yr old video and say "this is how you should do things". Over the last 25 or so years, technique has changed to what we see Phelps, Thorpe and Hackett doing now. It all started with Michael Gross and then through to Alex Popov and on to the current crop who are all using this later catch technique. The benefit of the later catch is two fold - you get more thoracic rotation which basically increases the lever length of your pull (hip to finger tips instead of armpit to finger tips), and you decrease your frontal drag. Interestingly, Gennadi Toureski tried to turn Michael Klim in to this front on, high stroke rate sort of freestyler and it resulted in a huge amount of shoulder injuries and an eventual back operation. Interestingly, Michael swam more with a late catch when he was swimming slowly in training.

 

I actually think there is room for both in open water swimming. You should work on the high stroke rate front on stuff at the start of the race when you are fighting for position, and then once it clears out a little bit, switch to the relaxed/late catch technique. Worked for me.

 

Cam.

 

Yes but compare her times, still competitive with the 'suit era' ...

 

Yes agree that technique has evolved and improved, but if anything the new techniques requires a higher skill set and phsical capabilities that aren't relevant to someone swimming 3-4 times a week with no swim background.

 

I am not suggesting the Janet Evans stroke is superior for elite swimmers(I wouldn't know, leave that to the cotterels, Popes, etc) but it is the most effective for age groupers. Likewise look at the surf guys, not all swim like Mercer, but not many can swim like hurst with the more 'classic' pool swimmer stroke. The majority swim with a mix of longer stroke but maintain high turnover. They are also big strong guys who do a lot more swimming than any triathlete. To swim well in the open water with a long catch up style stroke you need to be super strong and technically efficient. The huge majority of of age groupers are not.

Also if you are swimming correctly in the open water, it should never 'clear out'. If its a shit fight, good, you are in the race.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Don't give away all the PIS secrets! :lol:

 

You could build a training program just around what you just wrote...

 

You've pretty much summed up the PIS training, all quality is done tired, never fresh so never to hard to compromise the next day, as much volume as possible and even when you think you are tired just do the session best you can and get the aerobic benefit... shit I remember seeing the fast guys at Penrith pool on different occasions, touch turning to make 100s on the 1.40 cycle (or 1.30 in a wetsuit) they were that buggered, but come race day, fit and rested, they crank 1.10/100 pace comfy...

quality when you are tired?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I do realise that every minute counts and every bit of effeciency counts...but for whom and at what price in training and mental madness of technique and black line fever?

 

For me as an hypothetical example, where I am at I think that with very little swimming- I like the idea of the 3.8km swim, but absolutely hatre pool training, esp public pools--I could do 1:10. Then with just adding volume to the riding I do and no real adjustments to running I could do a leisurely 6hrs followed by digging out 3:30 -3:45 (ok it has to be sub 3:32 because that's my PW :lol: ). What does that give me ...11 hrs??

 

Ok I could spend my life in the pool and do all the technique stuff to do my head in and I aint going to swim 50min...have you seen me, it isn't going to happen. So lets say its going to give me 59min....so forget about it.

However, I could get my cycle down to 5:30 and run a more comfortable sub 3:30...suddenly I am on 10:10 plus transitions.

 

Now where will I put any extra effort in? How about cycling a bit more so that I still come off bike at 5:30 but I now feel much 'fresher' that I actually run closer to my normal marathon pace...another 10-15 min??? Possible.

 

Now I am scratching my head, I can maybe take 10min off bike or 10min off swim...given what I have said earlier where would I get most bang for buck??

 

I think getting your swimming sorted and getting that extra 10min is very very important, and there is a hell of a lot of stuff here, if I can only follow Matt's way of writing or chucking coaches' speeches together...

 

...but at what cost and for whom??

 

From what I have read here over the years, I imagine there are so many IM'ers looking for that marginal bit of time from the swim, when they are still resigning themselves as 'not a runner' and happy to run 4hrs+ at the end and just get it done, and factor that in their time. It surprises me all the time when I hear "I haven't done a stand-alone marathon" for example.

 

Come on you MOP/BOP'ers happy with "I am going to do 59/5:15/hang on for 4:20 to give me sub 11"... start taking the run seriously too, you have 40min waiting for you with absolutely no rocket science at all....which is thrown around a lot in this thread.

 

cheers

 

 

It's not a simple take 10 of your total time, its save ten on the swim tho save 20 on the bike and 20 on the run for being no fitter on the bike and run. If you then take your running prowess when you have swum 55, biked 5:20 you are now ready to crank out that sub 3:30 mary and go sub 10

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
quality when you are tired?

 

Short answer yes... kinda. Long answer..re read MJK's post.

 

Hint: 'quality' is not that same as you are thinking..not 'red line'

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also if you are swimming correctly in the open water, it should never 'clear out'. If its a shit fight, good, you are in the race.

 

 

Larfs. Love it!!

 

No wonder I parked myself at the PISS table post Ironman!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No-one was running 2:55/km for one hour...no-one.

1 hour 21,101m Arturo Barrios (MEX)

 

 

So now we are moving into the 90's and Lydiard still gets the credit?? :lol:

 

MJK,

 

You know a lot about swimming and I respect that.

 

Lydiard had a successful squad due to his coaching in general, which includes the mental/motivational aspect more than anything, as most coaches know.

He did not invent running, nor the way they trained, nor the way people are training subsequent to that. He had some ideas on physiology, some of which have since been debunked scientifically.

Pretty much in nutshell they trained hard, had fun and were motivated and had success.

 

 

Evil this is not a running thread so please keep it OT.

 

Happy to do so, but I didn't bring Lydiard in here and I am not the one misinterpreting what he did, and his contribution to running. I am responding to the one continuously bringing it in.

 

For the rest of it I was making a hypothetical example of how the 10min you are all trying to gain overall in an IM requires much harder work and mental madness than taking 30min off your run. The point is that most people just regard the run as a 'hang in there and finish'. What is the logic of estimating a total IM by trying to take 5min off a 59min time and go "I can do 54/5:10/4:00" like I have seen a lot do and they actually execute that too.

If that is the best you can do with all that additional time and squads and technique to do your head in, then go for it.

 

The above is relevant.

 

cheers

Edited by Evil Cadence

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yes but compare her times, still competitive with the 'suit era' ...

 

Yes agree that technique has evolved and improved, but if anything the new techniques requires a higher skill set and phsical capabilities that aren't relevant to someone swimming 3-4 times a week with no swim background.

 

I am not suggesting the Janet Evans stroke is superior for elite swimmers(I wouldn't know, leave that to the cotterels, Popes, etc) but it is the most effective for age groupers. Likewise look at the surf guys, not all swim like Mercer, but not many can swim like hurst with the more 'classic' pool swimmer stroke. The majority swim with a mix of longer stroke but maintain high turnover. They are also big strong guys who do a lot more swimming than any triathlete. To swim well in the open water with a long catch up style stroke you need to be super strong and technically efficient. The huge majority of of age groupers are not.

Also if you are swimming correctly in the open water, it should never 'clear out'. If its a shit fight, good, you are in the race.

 

It's not a shit fight at the pointy end! :lol:

 

MOP (where the biggest shit fight is) swimmers should still be able to find their own room in the water (may be a little wider). For me, the benefit of switching to the more relaxed late catch after the initial frenzy is the energy cost you save by swimming more efficiently.

 

I think if you teach someone to swim efficiently, they can then learn how to swim fast.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
For the rest of it I was making a hypothetical example of how the 10min you are all trying to gain overall in an IM requires much harder work and mental madness than taking 30min off your run. The point is that most people just regard the run as a 'hang in there and finish'. What is the logic of estimating a total IM by trying to take 5min off a 59min time and go "I can do 54/5:10/4:00" like I have seen a lot do and they actually execute that too.

If that is the best you can do with all that additional time and squads and technique to do your head in, then go for it.

 

The proof is there. A faster swim has meant an easier/faster run in a number of athletes I coach. I know what it is like to swim and bike at the pointy end of a triathlon.

 

There are also problems with too much running and it weakening the swim/bike. It is a triathlon and a blanced approach must always be considered.

 

In saying all that, I agree that the run is where it's at. The person who finishes the run the strongest wins. :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour 21,101m Arturo Barrios (MEX)

 

 

So now we are moving into the 90's and Lydiard still gets the credit?? :lol:

 

MJK,

 

You know a lot about swimming and I respect that.

 

Lydiard had a successful squad due to his coaching in general, which includes the mental/motivational aspect more than anything, as most coaches know.

He did not invent running, nor the way they trained, nor the way people are training subsequent to that. He had some ideas on physiology, some of which have since been debunked scientifically.

Pretty much in nutshell they trained hard, had fun and were motivated and had success.

 

 

 

 

Happy to do so, but I didn't bring Lydiard in here and I am not the one misinterpreting what he did, and his contribution to running. I am responding to the one continuously bringing it in.

 

For the rest of it I was making a hypothetical example of how the 10min you are all trying to gain overall in an IM requires much harder work and mental madness than taking 30min off your run. The point is that most people just regard the run as a 'hang in there and finish'. What is the logic of estimating a total IM by trying to take 5min off a 59min time and go "I can do 54/5:10/4:00" like I have seen a lot do and they actually execute that too.

If that is the best you can do with all that additional time and squads and technique to do your head in, then go for it.

 

The above is relevant.

 

cheers

 

When did I EVER say Lydiard was the first to bring something to the table, that he invented running, and the like?

 

Think I put forward enough supporting evidence.

 

I showed you mine, you show me yours.

 

I never intended to come across like I was a Lydiard disciple.

 

But for some reason, the bloke and the support he gets seems to piss you off.

 

Let's agree to disagree. This is a swim thread.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

People (in particular MOP / BOP swimmers) need to find the balance and the point of diminishing returns in light of swim volume and the benefit on race day (eg, 5 less minutes in the swim versus 30+less minutes on the run or more on the bike).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The proof is there. A faster swim has meant an easier/faster run in a number of athletes I coach. I know what it is like to swim and bike at the pointy end of a triathlon.

 

There are also problems with too much running and it weakening the swim/bike. It is a triathlon and a blanced approach must always be considered.

 

In saying all that, I agree that the run is where it's at. The person who finishes the run the strongest wins. :lol:

 

You don't have to run 'too much' to run faster...I for one will be thinking of cycling more to 1) get a fast enough bike time 2) get off the bike fresher because I am already near the limit of my running, just need to do it after a bike.

 

I can understand how cycling near the front will make you move along faster psychologically, but if it is draft-less then the effort will surely be more.

 

When did I EVER say Lydiard was the first to bring something to the table, that he invented running, and the like?

 

Think I put forward enough supporting evidence.

 

I showed you mine, you show me yours.

 

I never intended to come across like I was a Lydiard disciple.

 

But for some reason, the bloke and the support he gets seems to piss you off.

 

Let's agree to disagree. This is a swim thread.

 

Sorry about that. I shouldn't have inferred that you in particular said so or that you are disciple. However, your 'supporting evidence' doesn't stack up.

 

I am a great admirer of Lydiard, just like I am of others, people before and people after as any running disciple should be. And I have actually met and run a training run with him. He doesn't piss me off and he didn't ask for that adulation...and yes that pisses me off, because in almost every thread where running training is discussed someone puts in the Lydiard reference as a thread stopper al la "this is it' whatever else is said doesn't matter". And I cringe every time a BOP runner takes that as gospel, goes out and punches 160km/wk at a doddling pace and then says "I am on a Lydiard program" The bloke would be turning in his grave, because he was more than that.

Sorry if that wasn't your intent, but it came across like that.

 

cheers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The proof is there. A faster swim has meant an easier/faster run in a number of athletes I coach. I know what it is like to swim and bike at the pointy end of a triathlon.

 

There are also problems with too much running and it weakening the swim/bike. It is a triathlon and a blanced approach must always be considered.

 

In saying all that, I agree that the run is where it's at. The person who finishes the run the strongest wins. :lol:

 

The person who finishes first wins.

 

Fixed that last bit 4 u :lol:

 

I always liked this definition of 101% effort - a cardiac arrest as crossing the finish line -(no appologies to the sports commentators out there).

 

People aske me why try to swim 16k a week if the race is 1500 I tell them my aim is to get out of the water after 20~21 min feeling like nothing has happened.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You don't have to run 'too much' to run faster...I for one will be thinking of cycling more to 1) get a fast enough bike time 2) get off the bike fresher because I am already near the limit of my running, just need to do it after a bike.

 

I can understand how cycling near the front will make you move along faster psychologically, but if it is draft-less then the effort will surely be more.

 

 

 

Sorry about that. I shouldn't have inferred that you in particular said so or that you are disciple. However, your 'supporting evidence' doesn't stack up.

 

 

 

cheers

 

This is where you are completely missing the point. An ironman is maybe 'draft-less', but you still get massive benefit from joining a pace line even if it is done legally. A well formed pace line is going to mean you go faster with less effort. This is the key as to why its worth taking 5 mins off your swim time. The faster you swim the faster and more organized these pace lines are. This equals a faster bike time with less effort, which equals the chance for you run easily off the bike. This might give you a psychological boost, but really its not about that at all, its about riding the 180km with less effort.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You don't have to run 'too much' to run faster...I for one will be thinking of cycling more to 1) get a fast enough bike time 2) get off the bike fresher because I am already near the limit of my running, just need to do it after a bike.

 

I can understand how cycling near the front will make you move along faster psychologically, but if it is draft-less then the effort will surely be more.

 

 

 

Sorry about that. I shouldn't have inferred that you in particular said so or that you are disciple. However, your 'supporting evidence' doesn't stack up.

 

I am a great admirer of Lydiard, just like I am of others, people before and people after as any running disciple should be. And I have actually met and run a training run with him. He doesn't piss me off and he didn't ask for that adulation...and yes that pisses me off, because in almost every thread where running training is discussed someone puts in the Lydiard reference as a thread stopper al la "this is it' whatever else is said doesn't matter". And I cringe every time a BOP runner takes that as gospel, goes out and punches 160km/wk at a doddling pace and then says "I am on a Lydiard program" The bloke would be turning in his grave, because he was more than that.

Sorry if that wasn't your intent, but it came across like that.

 

cheers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You don't have to run 'too much' to run faster...I for one will be thinking of cycling more to 1) get a fast enough bike time 2) get off the bike fresher because I am already near the limit of my running, just need to do it after a bike.

 

I can understand how cycling near the front will make you move along faster psychologically, but if it is draft-less then the effort will surely be more.

 

 

 

Sorry about that. I shouldn't have inferred that you in particular said so or that you are disciple. However, your 'supporting evidence' doesn't stack up.

 

I am a great admirer of Lydiard, just like I am of others, people before and people after as any running disciple should be. And I have actually met and run a training run with him. He doesn't piss me off and he didn't ask for that adulation...and yes that pisses me off, because in almost every thread where running training is discussed someone puts in the Lydiard reference as a thread stopper al la "this is it' whatever else is said doesn't matter". And I cringe every time a BOP runner takes that as gospel, goes out and punches 160km/wk at a doddling pace and then says "I am on a Lydiard program" The bloke would be turning in his grave, because he was more than that.

Sorry if that wasn't your intent, but it came across like that.

 

cheers

 

No worries.

 

Let's agree that the Lydiard plan does not involve pissing around and leave it at that.

 

Especially for those with a bit of talent, it's fast up-tempo running, just in a controlled fashion. :-) I totally agree, it's not a lazy 160k a week!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Thanks Pete. Great advice and with some evidence (videos) and cred (results) to back it up.

 

If anyone can beat PJ out of the water I will listen to their advice too.

 

Any takers?

 

Nicely said mate , I agree with you entirely !

 

Terry

Edited by canuck

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×