Peter Snell Interview and his thoughts on Lydiard training

Well done ventolin^3

Might be that some system is more relevant that the other, but no one can deny that both interfeere in the process in 800m as well as in 1500m. However the interchange between both system is something complex and RESISTANCE defines best than everything else that interchange, because resistance is both, run faster and longer.

As you know the physiologist says that 800m is more anaerobic percent relate to 1500m that is more aerobic.

Does this justify why your calcul ratio says that the 1500m points out the endurance factor more than speed ?

But ther´s another reason why the 800m m ight be strongly related with speed. It´s because the split manage of 800m at the best pace demands one fast first lap and positive split run, what points out the anaerobic (speed) but the 1500m don´t because the best pace might be done with negative split.

You say that 400 speed & 1500 endurance in an elite 800 guy are equal importance, and might because this fact actually it´s rare one runner that ranks in the top of the world 800m, be also present on the top 100 of the 400m and/or 1500m ranking.

My conclusion is that actually the 800m is a unique middle distance event that demands high degree of specilisation, and high degree of specific training, the kind of training that doesn´t able to be as good in 400m or 1500m as the runner is on the 800m main event.

physiologists have little clue on quantifying hard numbers for this

there are numerous different ratios out there for aerobic/anaerobic of an 800

it is a waste of time listening to their numbers other than a very ballpark figure

all i think it indicates is that for a superbly tuned 800 guy, equally adept at 400/1500 ( e g coe/cram/ovett/aouita/hicham/morceli/noah ), the 400 & 1500 are ~ equally important to consideration of improvement

that predictor doesn't say anything about running +ve splits for a 800 or -ve ones for a 1500

that's irrelevant

the actual physics of 800 running indicate a

50.00 + 52.00 for 1'42.00 evened out is

1'41.92

a trivial difference between even splitting or +2 difference

i didn't say anything about = rankings at 400 or 1500

46.00 was fastest mentioned - that aint elite

i have little interest in "uniqeness" of 800 guys

bottom line is that the talent pool lies either side at 400 or 1500

i can see youngish 400 guys with 45.00 with endurance training getting them 3'35 with maturation still keeping 45.00 - 45.50

45.00 - 45.50 / 3'35.00 ->1'42.94 - 1'43.41

obviously no wr, but depth lists improve immensely & by implication quicker 800 times are feasible, if for instance one of the 400 guys is capable of 3'32

45.00 - 45.50 / 3'32.00 ->1'42.10 - 1'42.57

similarly if a youngish 3'30 guy ( plenty of kenyans past/present ) with 47 speed worked on his 400 & maybe with maturation not drifted out much beyond say 47.00 - 47.50

47.00 - 47.50 / 3'30.00 ->1'43.44 - 1'43.92

there is potential there to work a lot on speed & again, get into 1'42s

bottom line is that there woud be a big increase in 1'42 guys if the young 400 or 1500 guys believed it was the "glamour" event

Arrow head wrote:

J.O. wrote:

I'm sure thought that Snell was a better middle distance runner than anyone since El Gerrouj.

Nonsense. You can't compare Snell & EL G as "middle distance" runners. Snell did nothing over a Mile, and EL G did nothing under 1500m.

EL G was possibly the greatest 1500 - 5000m runner, along with Morceli & Aouita.

Snell was the classic middle distance runner over 800 - Mile. In that respect the only athlete as talented was Coe. He held all the WRs (Snell never had the 1500), and was consistently in the top 2 at both distances simultaneously over a much longer period. He also had the likes of Ovett and Cram to contend with.

Of course different periods, so hard to compare, but Coe is Snell's peer rather than EL G.

I don't think Coe was more talented than Ovett.

Ventolin,

Do you have any facts to back this up or are you just pulling these numbers out of your ass? All I see is a bunch of speculation that may or may not have anything to do with the real world.

Antonio,

No disrespect intended here, but I am having trouble with some of your English. I am sure you speak and or read several languages and I just one....but this is the case anyway.

I noticed you mentioned "most of the year" or something like that in reference to so-called, "slow running". Surely you jest!

Slow is relative of course. The marathon phase, as Lydiard called it, included slow running if you compare it to doing intervals or times trials, but it was strong-paced, putting constant pressure on the heart. When in the marathon phase or aerobic phase, as I am sure you know, it is more effective to have sustained pressure on the heart, rather than running aerobic or quazi aerobic intervals, where the pressure is off between those repeats.

The "most of the year" comment, I don't think is correct. I am pretty sure the top Kiwis ran the aerobic phase 8 - 12 weeks.

As Snell has said numerous times and Nobby said here in this thread, Snell's aerobic condition from running high miles 9for an 800m runner) and the long runs too gave Snell the strength to handle more anaerobic training during the quality phase.

Dan Moriarity wrote:

Ventolin,

Do you have any facts to back this up or are you just pulling these numbers out of your ass? All I see is a bunch of speculation that may or may not have anything to do with the real world.

Please don't get him started. Search the forum for his name and you will find a wealth of entertainment on the subject.

Antonio,

You are familiar with the work of O. Karikosk?

Regarding 800m:

http://www.serpentine.org.uk/pages/advice_frank52.html

Marathon:

http://www.coachr.org/evolution_of_marathon_training.htm

http://brage.bibsys.no/nih/bitstream/URN:NBN:no-bibsys_brage_15371/1/Enoksen%20IntJSportSciCoach%202010.pdf

http://www.britishmilersclub.co.uk/bmcnews/2006spring.pdf

More for perusal:

The training of Finland's great distance runners

KARIKOSK, O.

In Modern Athlete and Coach v28 (2), apr 1990, p.11-14

NSIC Article ID: 9005127

[PDF]

Running & Science

File Format:- Block all ku.dk results PDF/Adobe Acrobat - View as HTML

One of the most interesting recent phenomena in athletics has been the rise of East African, ...... Benchmark Press, Inc. ISBN: 0-93615700-3, 85-121, 1986. ...... Karikosk, O.: Training Volume in Distance Running. Modern Athlete and ...

www.ifi.ku.dk/formidling/.../boger/.../running_science.pdf/

Sport & Science:

http://www.ifi.ku.dk/formidling/Udgivelser/boger/Running_and_Science_-_in_an_Interdisciplinary_Perspective/running_science.pdf/

Thank you Antonio, Hodgie, HRE and others for all of your thoughtful input to this discussion that took off as a result of my interview with Peter Snell. Many of the respondents did get one of Peter's main points which was his opinion that the volume of weekly training and long run allowed him to do a great deal of race-pace training without destroying himself. As a sidebar, I find it interesting that swimmers training for 200 meter races that last less than two minutes - about the same time as an 800 meter run - spend waaaay more hours on long swims than do average 800m runners - much more like a Peter Snell plan. Yes - the lack of impact allows them to do so, but maybe there is something to the notion that a huge volume of training and long training sessions work for a 200 meter swim race or a 800 meter running race.

Gary,

The interviews are always good. I appreciate the effort you put into them.

There was a guy in Christchurch who was killed in the earthquake called Brian Williams. He was a Lydiard disciple who wrote a very lengthy series of articles in the old "New Zealand Runner" magazine. He made the same point about swimmers as you did.

Trailrunnergary wrote:

I find it interesting that swimmers training for 200 meter races that last less than two minutes - about the same time as an 800 meter run - spend waaaay more hours on long swims than do average 800m runners

I've not heard of that.

Michael Phelps, for example, does no long swims at all.

Ralph Doubell, Australia

1968 Olympic 800m champion 1:44.3 world record

From "How They Train: Middle Distances" Fred Wilt, 1978

Mon

am- 4 miles easy

pm- 3 miles faster than in morning

20x 440 with 110y slow jog, no time (estimate 68s)

Tue

am- 4 miles easy

pm- 3 miles faster than in morning

10x 880 with 440y slow jog, no time (estimate 2:16)

Wed

am- 4 miles easy

pm- 50x 110y on grass, walk 30y fast (25s), 32 minutes

Thu

am- 4 miles easy

pm- 10x 660y, jog 440 in 2 1/2 min (estimate 1:35-1:40)

Fri

rest

Sat/am

2-3 miles slow jog,

5 minutes calisthenics

4-5x 100y fast striding, walk 100y after each

time trial of 220, 300, 440, 660, or 1320y

Sun/am

same warmup

time trial of 220, 300, 40, 660, or 1320

then 20x 300y with 140y walk after each

This training is done the year round.

PM workouts area usually run in flat soled shoes on a cinder track without timing.

The Sunday time trial is omitted if there was a race on Saturday.

A substitute workout of 10 miles in 55-60 minutes is done when it rains.

He does no warmdown following workouts

During winter he does light weight training twice weekly.

Doubell races 25 times outdoors and 5 times indoors each year.

Every time we speak about Lydiard, we find a lot of interpretations, and many times they are fruit of personal ideas, but not of the essence of the project.

Nobody deny that, when we want to build a strong 800m runner, we need to increase the specific endurance. This is what Rudisha does today, what Coe did yesterday, what Snell did 50 years ago, what Whitfield did 70 years ago.

The point is : in order to develop this quality, according to the specific characteritics of the athlete, which kind of road have we to use ?

Start for considering some points. These are facts, not opinions.

a) In the typologies of 80om runners, we can find athletes with high percentage of Fast Twich Fibers, and athletes with good (but in any case not too high) percentage of Slow Fibers. We need to design their training according to those differences.

b) Top champions, in every event, need to exalt, in their training. their most important characteristics, rather than spending time in trying to fill in the gaps. We don't say that improving where you are more weak is useless, but to spend to much time in that direction is ALWAYS a methodological mistake.

c) We have, sometimes, clear typologies that can indicate the right way of training. For example, if an athlete has 60% of Fast Fibers, 20% of Slow Fibers and 20% of Fast Fibers Type II (also called INTERMEDIATE, because it's possible to steer them in one or another direction according to the type of training), it's clear his training MUST be in direction of speed, so he can reach a level equivalent to 80% of Fast (practically). On the contrary, if the athlete has 60% of Slow Fibers, it's better he looks at a longer distance.

Where we can have some problem in chosing the right way, is when the percentage of Fast and Slow fibers is equivalent (for example, 40%, with a 20% that can work as Fast or Slow).

d) Cases as Rudolf Harbig (46" / 1'46"6), Tom Courtney (45"7 / 1'45"7), Alberto Juantorena (Olympic Champion in 400 / 800), Luciano Susanj, Marcello Fiasconaro, Billy Konchellah (45"1 / 1'43"), David Rudisha or, among women, Jarmila Kratochvilova (47"99 / WR 800) and Fidelia Quirot, are very obvious : THEY STARTED AS LONG SPRINTERS (400m) AND DEVELOPED SPECIFIC ENDURANCE IN A SECOND TIME, INCREASING THE VOLUME OF THE INTENSITY.

Cases as Peter Snell, Sebastian Coe, Steve Cram, Jim Ryun, Dave Wottle, Van Damme, Bucher, Steve Ovett and, among women, Kazankina, Melinte, Decker, Dorio are the opposite : THEY STARTED AS MIDDLE DISTANCE RUNNERS (with some Cross Country when young) AND IN A SECOND TIME, USING THEIR SUPERIOR AEROBIC POWER, DEVELOPED SPECIFIC SPEED ENDURANCE MOVING TO SPEED, INCREASING THE INTENSITY OF THE VOLUME.

The problem is HOW TO IDENTIFY THE TYPOLOGY OF THE ATHLETE from the beginning of his career. Under this point of view, is easier to identify the athlete FAST, because he's able to run REALLY fast when still young in 400m.

Instead, is more difficult to understand, in the case the young athlete doesn't show particular attitudes in 400m, if the best way is to move DIRECTLY to long distances, or if is better to try to develop his speed, that in any case can allow him in running 800 and 1500 at the same time, after some year 3000 and 5000m too.

I had a personal experience with Marcello Fiasconaro. In 1971-73, I was the assistant coach of the Italian responsible for 400m / 400 hs / 4x400 (Salvatore Morale, in 1962 winning European Championships in 400 hs with the WR of 49"2, and in 1964 bronze in Olympic Games), and I was the first working in Italy with Marcello, coming from South Africa. He came Italy on 28th June 1971 with a PB in 400m of 45"9 (Italian Record) in South Africa, and ran his first Italian competition winning, on 1st July, his 400m during the meeting "Notturna di Milano" (in the same occasion, Marty Liquori beated Franco Arese in the fastest 1500m of the year, 3'36" vs 3'36"3). After few days (we had a training camp in Viareggio) we had a match against Cuba, and he ran 400m against a new Cuban (Alberto Juantorena, very young and in Europe for the first time). Marcello bettered the Italian Record with 45"7.

Morale sent me as responsible for a period of 2 weeks in altitude (Abetone, 1800m) without any track, with the athletes of the relay. One day, I went running 30' fast with March (nobody of the other 400m runners in Italy was able to stay with me) and he was very comfortable with my pace. I remember I told him "you must try 800m, you can become the European Record Holder", and he told me "I never want run 800m, are too long".

In European Champs (Helsinki) March won the silver medal in 45"49 (NR) behind Dave Jenkins, and in the relay Italy won bronze medal for the first time in its history.

In 1972 March had a stress fracture in the navicular bone of his left foot, and in OG he couldn't run. This happened because of the first syntetic tracks, so at the end of September he went to Johannesburg, and in December started training on grass under the programs of Stewart Banner,a coach owner of a chain of restaurants.

Increasing his long run till one hour 3 times per week, and using long intervals (400-600m) during the other days, he bettered 3 times the Italian Record of 800m (1'45"7 / 1'45"2 / 1'44"7) in epic duels against Malan and Botha. He came to Italy at the end of March.

I organised for him in Turin morning training sessions on the Golf Field in La Mandria, and March went there 5 times per week, running every day 10 km between 35' at the beginning of the period and 33' at the end of May. On the track, his program was very easy : twice per week (Tuesday and Friday) alternating this type of workouts :

a) 10x150m in 18" with 2' recovery

b) 6x300m in 36" / 36"5 with 6' recovery

c) 3x600m in 1'21" / 1'19" with 8' recovery

d) 6x150m in 16"5 with 5' recovery

e) 3x300m in 33"5 / 34"5 with 8' recovery

I remember that the week of the WR (he ran 1'43"7 in front from the first meter with splits of 50"1 / 1'16"5) he ran, 5 days before, on the track (earth) of the Club Fiat, 3 times 600m in 1'18"7 / 1'19"2 / 1'18"8 with recovery of 8' between the first 2, and 10' between the second and the third. I remember also that after the second he was very tired, so I advised him to run slowly (about 1'23"), and I asked to another runner with a PB of 1'51" to pace him for the last 300m in 41". But this athlete, fearing to run too slow, started when March was still 15 meters before the line of 300m (he ran the first 300m in 42"), running very fast. March, that didn't want to lose also in training, started to increase his speed, and overtook the other athlete with 10 meters to go, running the second 300m in 36"8 !

So, we must to establish some things :

1) What does it mean "HIGH MILEAGE" ? Because it seems that, when you speak about 100 miles per week, this is a very high mileage. For me, it's a normal mileage for a specialist of 800m of the second type, and in any case NOBODY runs 800m fast with less than 70 miles per week, if we consider ALL the miles they run. For example, I followed PERSONALLY in the Winter of 1986 Seb Coe (in Tirrenia, Italian Olympic Venue for middle distances) when he ran 30 km at 3'22" pace (1 hr 40') on the road, with the car of the Center, so IT'S NOT TRUE HE DIDN'T GO FOR LONG RUN. However, the big difference between the Lydiard system and the Peter Coe system was that, ALREADY IN WINTER, Sebastian used high speed, going for a competition/test every year in Loghborough at the end of April of 800m (if I well remember, his best was 1'44" alone), running also a 3000m indoor (his best around 7'51").

2) What does it mean "TO INCREASE THE VOLUME OF THE INTENSITY" ? It means to put in training some test longer than before at the same intensity, and to run more tests at an intensity a little lower, but reducing the recovery time. For example, if Billy Konchellah used 3x300m in 34" with 10' recovery when ran 400m, when he moved to 800m he started to use 600m (twice) in 1'21" with 10', and 6x300 in 36" with 5', DEPENDING ON HIS LACTIC POWER LEVEL. More than before, but very far from the volume, the speed and the recovery of, for example, 10x300m in 39" with 30"/40" recovery, workout used by Steve Cram, depending on his AEROBIC POWER LEVEL.

3) What does it mean "TO INCREASE THE INTENSITY OF THE VOLUME" ? It means to try to run faster in the tests normally used, and to put some shorter distance in order to increase the speed. Sebastian Coe while junior ran 1500m in European Junior Champs, Steve Cram in 1979 won 3000m, Andrè Bucher beated the Swiss Junior Record of 10000m in 30'10" and ran steeple, Olga Kazankina beated the WR of 3000m.

4) Which is the function of long and slow run for the 800m runner of type a) (coming from 400m) ? It's to enhance the "general efficiency" in order to train better in the "specific area". So, it's clear that doesn't have any DIRECT INTERVENTION in the performance, but can be considered "TRAINIG for TRAINING".

5) How long must this long run last ? We must always remember that TRAINING IS NOT THE PROPOSAL, BUT THE ANSWER TO THE PROPOSAL, and the effect of SUPERCOMPENSATION can exist only if the STIMULUS is adequate.

We can have stimula in two different directions : INTENSITY and EXTENSION. This means that, if at the beginning of the preparation EVERY TIME WE RUN LONGER AT THE SAME SPEED WE PRODUCE A NEW STIMULUS, when we reach an ultimate duration WE NEED TO INCREASE THE INTENSITY, otherwise we create adaptation that is the best way for DECREASING the effects of training.

So, the best way is to increase DURATION and SPEED, alternately, during the same period.

6) For how much time this long run must be done ? If we accept the idea that LONG AND SLOW RUN is the fundation of the training, AFTER THE FUNDATION THERE IS THE FIRST FLOOR, AND AFTER THE FIRST THERE IS THE SECOND, and so on.

This means that TO REPEAT THE SAME TRAINING EVERY SEASON IS A MISTAKE, BECAUSE DOESN'T HAVE ANY EFFECT. So, going ahead in the career, WE HAVE TO REDUCE THE LENGTH OF LONG RUN INCREASING THE SPEED. Supposing, for example, that an athlete can arrive to run 2 hours of long run at 7:00 per mile (that is really very slow), the evolution can be 1 hr 30' at 6:20 for moving to 1 hr at 5:30, because this intensity can have an impact on the Aerobic Power, but slower long run cannot have. Of course, we can use (for example, in 1999 Christopher Koskei, winner of the only gold medal for Kenya in WCh, when we were in St. Moritz, went running 3 hours easy, and when I asked him why, he told me "after running 3 hours I feel better") some time long run as regeneration (expecially when we don't have masseur working with the athletes in systematic way), BUT THIS CANT BE CONSIDERED ANYMORE PART OF TRAINING.

I repeat : during a career, we have to build the SPECIFIC HOUSE of every athlete, and for building a house we need to ADD FLOORS TO FLOORS, not to destroy what we already built, resting too much or ending to stimulate the body.

At the end, I don't agree with the idea that, after the long and slow run, there is depletion of glycogen, because at the speed Peter Snell speaks about (7:00 per mile), an athlete of his level used ONLY fatty acids. We can have depletion only running LONG AND FAST (for example, a HM at the speed of the Threshold), because really the turn-over of the fibers doesn't exist in athletes trained with a mix, in the same period, of Aerobic and Lactic workouts.

And, in any case, the depletion of glycogen doesn't have any importance in competition lasting 1:40 / 4:00.

My final idea, only for speaking, is that Peter Snell could run faster, especially in 1500m (where he could have the same attitude of athletes as Morceli, if cultivated), and that, if the organisation of the general activity in 1960-1964 was similar what we have today, Lydiard (that had a great ability in managing the reality) probably changed the structure of his plan, in order to give the athletes the continuity in competing for all the season, cancelling the systematic use of long and slow run for long periods of time.

ventolin^3 wrote:

all i think it indicates is that for a superbly tuned 800 guy, equally adept at 400/1500 ( e g coe/cram/ovett/aouita/hicham/morceli/noah ), the 400 & 1500 are ~ equally important to consideration of improvement

that predictor doesn't say anything about running ve splits for a 800 or ve ones for a 1500

that's irrelevant

the actual physics of 800 running indicate a

50.00 + 52.00 for 1'42.00 evened out is

1'41.92

Since every middle or distance event the main perfrom ability is RESISTANCE, and resistance is the result of SPEED VERSUS ENDURANCE, every predictor that says that one factor (speed or endurance) is less important that the other is wrong. We don´t need no calculation or formula or predictior to get there. This is like Colombo´s egg. Everybody knew what the studies will say.

Might be you miss what i want to say by different split pace between 800m and 1500m and the consequence. As you confirm, all the best 800m event is run in positive split and the best 1500m event s run in negative split. Positive split (the 800m) requires more anaerobic than negative split. For me it´s so obvious that ten reason you can speed up in the second parts it´s because you get more anaerobic.

It´s like Sir de la Palise sentences the man that on his epitaph reads: "Here lies Sir de la Palice. If he wasn't dead, he would still be envied”

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

J.R. running hard uphill either sprinting or in a 22 mile run uses both fast oxidative and slow twitch fibers.

Stop arguing about things you don't know.

Some people think they are training for performance but in reality what they are doing is nothing but just use USING HIS SHOES, TO WASTE HIS SHOES !

Frequent, systematic long runs are very benefic but to use the shoes !

I´m not physiologist but if the long run had one rich effect in fast fibers, as it does on the slow fibers for long distance events) then we will see in middle distance events, like the 800m, an high runners percent on the top of the rankings doing long runs, but we see that high percent just on long distance events like the marathon.

Arrow head wrote:

J.O. wrote:

I'm sure thought that Snell was a better middle distance runner than anyone since El Gerrouj.

Nonsense. You can't compare Snell & EL G as "middle distance" runners. Snell did nothing over a Mile, and EL G did nothing under 1500m.

EL G was possibly the greatest 1500 - 5000m runner, along with Morceli & Aouita.

Snell was the classic middle distance runner over 800 - Mile. In that respect the only athlete as talented was Coe. He held all the WRs (Snell never had the 1500), and was consistently in the top 2 at both distances simultaneously over a much longer period. He also had the likes of Ovett and Cram to contend with.

Of course different periods, so hard to compare, but Coe is Snell's peer rather than EL G.

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

My point is pretty obvious. I don't know why you missed it?

Once again and with all respect also indeed, but i guess it´s not one problem of language misunderstand, it´s one problem of different concepts, that with all respect I think that is natural, that you have a PRE-CONCEPT or might I call it a PREVIOUIS CONCEPT or might be a DONE CONCEPT or BUILD CONCEPT that I have a different one.

I know something about the best Kiwis namely that one’s of the 70s-80s. But I don´t want to focus my opinion in runners, but more in concepts and in runners only when I know it all.

After this previous introduction I open my opinion with one Renato´s sentence I read some minutes ago on this same thread that might resume what I wanted to say and that I think it´s the question of this your post reply to me.

Renato that the English isn´t is mother language writes “ the best way is to increase DURATION and SPEED, alternately, during the same period”.

This Renato sentence is done to comment the long run but I might use resume my comment about “most of the year”. In my opinion for runners we are discuss, top runners, experienced runners with some seasons of training behind them, the SPECIFIC TRAINING SHALL BE INTRODUCED SINCE THE INTRODUCTORY PERIOD, namely “fast training” that what is done by the Lydiard runners on the aerobic block/period. This is why I characterize the aerobic period “slow training namely”. For example, one 800m runner might run on 10K, 5K, 3k whatever pace intervals on early season, what you name aerobic block. This is what in my opinion is modern training. We shall train at every pace, every speed everytime, including race pace, what is the top of specific endurance, changes is the percent of that large range of pace zones/stimuli and not divide the season in block of periodization. Aerobics and anaerobics can “live together” in the same period, in the same phase. I don´t know what is done actually in the name of Lydiard training. Snell says that some 50% don´t know what´s Lydiard training, I guess this is true for the non-Lydiard as for the Lydiard one.

What I know is that Peter Snell, for instance, someone that I prefer to comment because being the icon of the Lydiard training we all know what we are talk about supposedly.

Peter Snell did 10 weeks before Tokyo Olympics as preparation for Tokyo from 9/9/1964 to Tokyo olympics. But prior that 10 last weeks, Peter Snell did 10 weeks (4/18~6/28) of marathon conditioning (averaging 100 miles a week—1012 miles in 10 weeks); followed by 6 weeks (6/29~8/9) of hill training where he averaged 90 miles a week. This 10 weeks of marathon training and another 6 weeks of hill training is what I consider “slow training” or done with no specific workouts, despite that hill training is quite anaerobic. Or this is what I think is outdate training. For example one case I know quite well. The Portuguese Rui Silva, he is a 1:44 and 3:30 and 13:16 with one serious attempt and recently 27:53 as debut on the 10000m distance. But he is known to be fast on the final. He is not the world best, anyhow I use it as example that what I think it´s is more actual as modern training. He starts to run intervals in October November the year before the Olympics that will be run late July-early August of the next year. The training zones, training intensities aren´t as compartmented as in the past training.

Do you remember one discuss that was been deleted on this same forum ? – I guess it was you (excuse me if you don´t…) the one that did discuss with the one that posted as Ö nickname and when he said that nothing can replace the interval training during the aerobic phase you (?) deny that Lydiard omitted the interval training during the aerobic block. I never heard about Lydiard prescribe intervals or every form of “fast training intervals” (once again fast is relative, because on sprints you go fast) during the aerobic block.

FInnaly I finish this post with Renato sentence also on his last post on this thread. Renato says “…Every time we speak about Lydiard, we find a lot of interpretations, and many times they are fruit of personal ideas, but not of the essence of the project.”

This is what I think and what I can´t avoid. If we want a serious, clean, transparent debate about what is Lydiard we need both to agree what´s define Lydiard training and what doesn´t. I try that my source is closer/near Lydiard as possible, what he wrote, what is writtent by him. If we go expand what the disciples they say, what the revisionists they write or do, we have no boundaries of what´s Lydiard training. For example, what I know, what I read about Jon Brown doesn´t Lydiard training, just a poor mimic.