Peter Snell Interview and his thoughts on Lydiard training

This guy ( However, the well-known coach and athletics writer, Karikosk (Estonia), was saying the same thing in the early 1970's. Nothing really "new" here concerning body typology:

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

Wetcoast wrote:

Antonio,

Lydiard's aerobic phase included gentle fartlek, hilly terrain and alactic strides. You talk of borderline aerobic/anaerobic intervals at times, sprints and hills....this talk between the two methods sound like they could be very much the same with some minor adjustments.

Wettercoast (this week)

I don´t think so. No way can´t be adjust because both training visions are absolutely incompatible with each one training rules. If you compartment the training in blocks/phases of training, aerobic first, hills next, anaerobic later etc. it´s incompatible absolutely with a non-compartmented training periodization. Or is black or is white. Independently of what public, private, legal, illegal whatever supposed authority on the subject might say, I think I know enough of training methodology to see that the adjustment you mean can´t work and it´s incompatible.

Yesterday one friend of mine send me an email and he profits to let me know that he read my posts on this thread. He comments “…I see that you post on letsrun these about training, mainly discussing with the Lydiard guys. A very difficult debate - it is impossible to come to a resolution I think !.

I guess he is right, we hardly come to a resolution.

Look, what you say it´s true somehow. You are right. Fartlek, some sprints, some kind of fast/anaerobic parsimony training you say that can be done during the Lydiard aerobic phase/block. However this is not an argument that solves the incompatibility of both different training proposals.

There´s a “big black whole” between what you say and the main lines that defines the “non-linear multi pace periodization”. Difference in concepts that eventually results in different training schedules. Absolutely, very different way to organize the efforts/stimulus. This is the problem of miss of consensus among us.

Modern training doesn´t restriction to include intervals, race pace runs, strength endurance, specific training, whatever fast kind of training included at the same time that WITH trains the aerobic condition enhance. RACE PACE/SPECIFIC TRAINING AS SOON AS POSSIBLE what it means when the runner shape condition is ready. MOdern training doesn´t omit the aerobic need, aerobic workouts, volume training, in a daily basis, this adds to the aerobic foundation something more that is vital in my opinion. All that kind of fast paces is mostly aerobic, but by chance you reply me with the “anaerobic pace”. I said it might be done, just to include one more variant that you don´t have on the aerobic block, but of course if it´s an 800m runner he needs something of anaerobic probably, but I agree said that it´s hard, I know that requires post easy run recovery, and I didn´t say that is done weekly or twice a week, I just said that it might be done. This your comment about anaerobic weekly “done” take us for another debate. I don´t trust in micro-cycles, I don´t do micro-cycles, I rarely repeat the same interval workout in a couple of weeks. But this is another debate. Renato Canova is very clear about this point, I don´t need to let you know my opinion, just read him.

There´s a “big black whole” between what you say and what defines the “non-linear multi pace periodization”. Difference in concepts that eventually result in different training schedules absolutely, very different way to organize the efforts/stimulus. This is the problem of miss of consensus among us.

There’s a big black whole, no doubt. Your answer about your own method, I might answer about my own. If you say that Lydiard can have adjustments, it´s ok. But I don´t see how can be adjust most of modern training method to some Lydiard premises/norms, like the Lydiard periodization blocks, Lydiard aerobic first, rich efficiency of the long run, etc. It´s incompatible. One thing is white or black, well… sometimes is shadowed (half white, half black).

I guess that my friend is right, sometimes it is quite impossible to come to a resolution, to come to a consensus.

However i remember quite well some early opinions on this board I interpret of the Lydiard triumphalism and the idea of one undoubted superior training, that I felt in the past when I start read LetsRun, com posts on this Forum, is slowly decreasing. Might be you, as a Lydiard expert can justify why.

Ps – Please, forget what I say about Jon Brown. I read some interviews, in some of them he says what he used to train as runner himself, I’ve know a few persons that watch him doing workouts, I myself watch him a few occasions some decades ago, but I can´t debate with proves, so forget it.

All the best for you too.

Hodgie-san

I wanted to comment about your posts. But i got no time yet.

I did discuss many training aspects with the brazilian coach Cavalheiro, that was the coach of Ronaldo Costa, eralier marathon WR - the first man to run the marathon faster tahn 3:00 by kilo pace. Curiously, or not, he is well known to be the coach of sprinters and not distance runners. He coached Robson da Silva, veru fast olympic brazilian in 100m and 200m events. he was been in Portugal, on 2009. In Porto University on Porto city, to speak in one conference about long distance training. One year before,- 2008 - the foreign speaker was Renato Canova !

I just want to say something. You don´t imagine how fast the distance runners they train. I knew all Renato Costa schedule programme to prepare his 2:06 world record. He goes very fast everyday ! I hope i can say something more about Cavalheiro method further up.

Firstly, Thanks Antonio for coming on here and putting your point of view. I find all 'common sense" contributions good value. I am enjoying yours.

I don't have the time to comment on a lot of what is being said as I am about to leave town to go to my son's Graduation Ceremonies in Wellington (NZ Capital).

I have been trying to get everything in my work place and athletes training set up for while I am away .. Hence just reading these posts and not contributing.

What I did want to say though if you feel was "triumphalism" in early work here is that most people who were posting were doing so were anonymous and were throwing in all sorts of "rubbish". Trolls in other words. Those of us who were trying to explain Arthur's ideas were easily contactable (and were quite a bit).

I believe we got frustrated with the whole deal. Now we are getting good argument and contribution , as we did in the other thread a month or so ago.

I see a "real" person on the at the end of the discussion. I may agree to disagree to disagree but I am always willing to 'listen' and learn when I see "Good stuff".

However, I still feel there is much misinterpretation of Arthur and the long run aspect and I will "jump" on here when I return.

BTW : Nobby is the expert .. I am but someone who was treated well by the old man and he always gave of his time when I asked.

That was a strength of Arthur he would help anyone prepared to do the work .. from 4 hour marathon runner to World class athlete.

Kim Stevenson wrote:That was a strength of Arthur he would help anyone prepared to do the work .. from 4 hour marathon runner to World class athlete.

I think it's a good point that when criticizing Lydiard, first defining "which" Lydiard you are criticizing, since Lydiard can mean so many things (right or wrong) to so many people, not the least because his training changed from 1960-2000, as he learned and incorporated new things, or adapted to different contexts and constraints.

For example, you mention the "faults" of block-periodization, and the unsolvable incompatibility of that approach with other approaches.

But I also recall seeing in some newer Lydiard training presentations, that Lydiard defined an alternating "race week, non-race week" schedule, to allow "aerobic" and "anaerobic" training and racing year-round. It's Lydiard training -- he wrote it, not some disciple -- but without the classic block-periodization. Maybe it's still incompatible, but less so.

So, just as with training, it's probably safest to keep the comments "specific", precisely clarifying some specific Lydiard aspect being commented, e.g. "analysis of long runs for 800m", or "continuous versus intermittent training for aerobic development".

I'm not giving any opinions here, except that many of the previous Lydiard threads could have been a lot shorter, with this kind of clarity and precision up-front.

Antonio,

Later today I will send to you a few articles from this old chestnut that I think you will enjoy. Everything being discussed on this thread is covered in this publication from 1971! As far as I can tell, the methods of the best athletes form a range as the faster more astounding performances are achieved. But the breakthroughs come by getting past the psychological barriers. The athletes themselves are always pushing those barriers.

Guide to distance running.

Author: Bob Anderson; Joe Henderson

Publisher: Mountain View, Calif., World Publications [1972, ©1971]

Edition/Format: Book : EnglishView all editions and formats

Rating: (not yet rated) 0 with reviews - Be the first.

I really appreciatte this your information. Thanks.

I guess that i´m always open to learn something more about the masters.

Thanks HRE. I trust on you and your information.

But what you say, got some controversy. If Lydiard – wrote books, gave conferences, did interviews – where he typifies/defines/characterizes his own Lydiard method and he defines the main structure or organization/periodization of that his own method (strong aerobic base early on, then hills, then anaerobic phase etc) AND ALSO DEFINES THE BOUNDARY and THE LIMIT of that same method: shalln´t go out of my season structure/organization/periodization; follow my season structure, try the 100mile+long run marathon kind of training; avoid anaerobic training during the aerobic block; don´t go for intervals during the aerobic block; do hill training before the anaerobic block; limit the aerobic block to the late phase of peak/tapper later season.

This are the essentials of the method, I guess, i´m not an expert, I didn´t detailed, but I guess that Lydiard builds his method by experience, skillness, trial-and-error and some physiology knowledhe to support his training organization and the training variants and HOW and WHY he uses it.

As you might understand, if we get some new data that dismisses their training principles and he does the kind of opposite (different) to what it did define for so long , what we may follow, what we might trust that is rich training or what don´t ?

I remember, i´m quite sure, that some years ago – yes ! we were been debate this for years – that you HRE, you did write one post reply to Nobby and you said (not literally but by memory I think that what you intend to do it´s “Antonio said to me he can get more efficiency by intervals instead of runs”. What Nobby did reply to you ? he said: “That interval kind might be good, BUT IT`S NOT LYDIARD TRAINING”.

Don´t you remember ?

What you try to say to me actually, it´s that Lydiard himself might use intervals on every phase of the training process, so my next question is, the same early question that I asked Wetcoast : After all, what what kind of training does define Lydiard training ? What is the boundary what´s Lydiard training what what is not. It´s just a strong aerobic base build what lasts ?

The runner that does intervals all year round, is still Lydiard ? Yes or no ?

Are we all Lydiard ? If so, then what is Lydiard training that other training isn´t ?

With all respect to you, but let me ask you one radical, quite absurd, non-sense question, but that you might understand what´s my point. Zatopec did the kind of training that can be defined Lydiard training ? Why not ? He did the kind of 100miles aerobic training done by aerobic intervals mostly but actually you say it´s permited to do intervals during every phase, he did long runs done by long interval sessions (60X400m with 200m recovery it´s 36k total (22miles total). Zatopec did Lydiard training ?

Sincerely, I think that my doubt, my questions are serious doubts. Everything that has no defined boundaries it´s not just complex, it´s undefined. If it´s undefined it´s impossible to get consensus.

Greetings.

Many things that look clear at first get muddled when you look deeper. Lydiard had a mistrust of the fascination many coaches and athletes had for interval work. He'd tell stories about a US coach who had an athlete running great 400 meter sessions but racing poorly. Arthur talked the coach into having the kid do mostly easy distance runs. After some time of this the coach put the kid onto the track for another session of 400s and the kid ran the session much slower than he'd done previous sessions and the coach was panicing. But the kid was also racing faster than he'd ever done.

If you talked to Arthur about trying to add interval work when you were supposed to be working on aerobic conditioning, i.e., doing volume, you'd generally be told not to do it BECAUSE Arthur was afraid you would fixate on running the reps faster and faster and start doing a lot of anaerobic work rather than getting in the aerobic development he wanted. And no, he never really deviated from that position in his original schedules as HE applied them.

But he also did advise people do do "aerobic" fartlek in the base phase which is a form of interval work and later when some of his athletes began coaching they would formalize that fartlek into sessions of aerobic intervals and Arthur was ok with that because he trusted that these guys who'd learned from him understood the limits they needed to place on the intervals so the reps would not become the focus at a time when distance was supposed to be. Knut Kvalheim made some comments on the big Renato Canova thread to this effect arguing that distance running in Norway went bad when indoor tracks became available and athletes began running fast intervals year round at the expense of doing distance work through the winter as they all had to do before the tracks were built because the footing was so poor.

So, no, in his original approach Lydiard probably would never have assigned interval work during the base phase but lived with it when other people claiming to use his approach did it in moderate and controlled ways if he trusted the athlete or coach who was doing it. Even Nobby told me that he sometimes uses long intervals in place of the faster distance runs Lydiard's guys did in their base phase if he has an athlete who seems to respond better to that sort of work than to a hard distance run.

All of that applies to Lydiard's original approach which was designed to bring athletes to two peaks a year for relatively short time periods. As rekrunner and I have both mentioned, he did come to understand that most athletes using his system were not interested in reaching those kinds of short peaks but wanted or needed to be ready to race well throughout the year so he did develop another approach in which the athlete does repetition work pretty much year round. That sort of schedule doesn't look much different from what many, probably most, athletes are doing these days. Briefly, the difference between that sort of schedule and what many others do is probably a lot more subtle and difficult to see. I would say that the most noticeable difference is in the lack of concern with hitting specific times for the reps or even really focusing all that much on what the distance of the reps will be, what you've called the difference between "modern" and "outdated" training, This is "outdated" by your definition I believe, though I disagree with the characterization. In this model the running at specific paces is more likely to happen in time trials and races as in the original Lydiard model.

By the way, Lydiard was heavily influenced by Zatopek as almost everyone in those years was. But like van Aaken, he was more impressed with the amount of running Zatopek did than he was with the speed at which he ran.

Now, this is awesome! Only on LR.

What better home for a thread called "Peter Snell interview and his thoughts on Lydiard training"! Here we discuss the eternally fascinating subjects of the invincible Snell and the guru Lydiard.

I enjoy reading the insights of those who worked with Fiasco, and those who have actually run the Waiatarua and worked with Lydiard.

I always thought it was a shame that an in-form Fiasco didn't contest the classic 76 OG 800.

As for the Lydiard training and its singularities, I confess that I have no idea what actually happened in NZ in the far-off early 60s. But reading the books and interviews tells me that Snell, for example, and as HRE states, raced quite often two distinct seasons in the same calendar year. And was very successful in both seasons. This doesn't happen so much now.

Not enough credit has been assigned to both Snell and Lydiard for their success at doing so e.g. 60NZ/60OG, 61EU/62NZ season, followed by 62 Empire Games in Fall. Their actual, legendary, accomplishments are magnified by these facts.

Repeatedly peaking at six month intervals is a lot different than aiming for a single peak. Lydiard acknowledged this with his insistence on maintenance of the base. His modification/peaking programs were somewhat flexible once whatever he considered the necessary base was accomplished. This base wasn't invariant, either. I know Snell and Halberg did some of the same Waitarua/LSD work together, but they also clearly did calibrated and quite different augmentation.

These programs look quite different than peaking designed by most modern MD coaches and I wonder to what extent this was driven by the need for Antipodeans to double peak. It's quite possible that organizing Snell's training for a single annual peak would have generated different results.

And, no wonder he was burned out after the 65 tour.

One more thing. We can live and learn. For once, I agree with ventolin's presentation of a sub-1:43 DVTT (tm) for the Christchurch 880.

I trust what you say about Lydiard, no reason to doubt. It´s normal that someone changes for better, what is not so normal is that the late change dismiss the old one. The late Lydiard (let´s name it like that, “late Lydiard”) had the argument of method, the physiology argument, and his own experience and his “training art” to prescribe the compartment training blocks with different training variables what is his own peculiar training periodisation.

However my problem is this one. The late Lydiard (let´s name it like that, “late Lydiard”) agrees with some intervals during the early blocks, when we all know the “early Lydiard” did contest, disagrees with that kind of interval training during the aerobic block (he wrote it, you can´t deny) . Now you tell me that the same Lydiard, but the “late Lydiard” accepts a different season periodisation (competitive week and non-competitive week) that the “early Lydiard” didn´t accept.

It´s ok. But then you got to admit 2 things:

1/One is that i´m right when I say that the early/classic/typical Lydiard training is outdate, what I was been contested by so many, I was treated like an idiot or misunderstood.

2/Second. My question is that this “late” Lydiard it´s not the “early Lydiard at all”. I can prove that the Portuguese training as several world or europeans distance training approaches as well, from individual coaches, from teams, from groups, from studies of universities, we were been done that “competitive week and non-competitive week” since the early 70s. I repeat, we have done it since the 70s, when Lydiard did contest that kind of non-linear periodisation. Therefore, you, hat you are so insistent in ask “what´s different the different training contain from Lydiard”, might be that you might realize that the late Lydiard is the PORTUGUESE TRAINING since we have been doing that since the early 70s training. It´s portuguese training as well as many other few methods, hundreds of coaches and thousand of runners that did it long before that Lydiard dreams or agree with that kind of periodisation.

In what Lydiard to trust ? The one that says that the season periodisation shall start with an aerobic block, followed by hills, followed by anaerobic block and it´s where he does intervals, or I can trust in the late Lydiard ?

One more step, one more "jump change" like this one about the late Lydiard interval training, or the late Lydiard periodisation, and eventually you will say that Lydiard prescribes the 100miles, but well… in fact the late Lydiard don´t. In fact he prescribes the long run, but well…in fact the late Lydiard don´t. In fact he says we need to build an early aerobic condition, but well…the late Lydiard don´t.

This is not just incoherent as uncharacterized as well.

Greetings

My goodness this is an enjoyable discussion! Nice work guys.

HRE

I think I understand your point.

Eventually I will do as Lydiard did with that persons high influence/fascination for the crazy/fast interval training as the toll to performance enhance. This with US coaches and runners, and not only in US, everywhere during the 50s-60s and 70s - are what I mean by “cases of circumstance”.

I understand the "aerobic" fartlek during the aerobic block, it´s ok. I also understand that with the miss of much real competition, he uses time-trials instead. It´s ok.

I also understand the Zatopec influence. Who don´t ? Everybody from that period get influenced and touched , if not by Zatopec training, by Zatopec perfromances. I also think that Zatopec training efficiency is volume and not the pace, but also the interval type, by Zatopec run-jog-run-jog permits more endurance and speed improve than just run. From this to think that might be the only type of training, is one big step that I don´t agree.

But my main question with Lydiard when I say it´s “outdate” it´s not about Lydiard circumstance. It´s about Lydiard fundaments. Well, I confess that “outdate” it´s one hard world, it´s not proper. May I say inappropriate by fundaments ?

My disagreement with the long run, that I think I share with many that do my opinon, it´s not one question of circumstance but training fundaments. Eventually if I coach someone that is a low mileage, don´t plenty of time to run mileage, and only in weekends he can spend time to train, I will prescribe him one long run ! But this is my choice of circumstance, not my fondaments. Might be that if I start to coach one runner that spend the last seasons doing too much intervals, might be I get him out of intervals for a long period. But this my option of circumstance for that specific case, not my training fundaments. That´s where it comes the training individualization.

When in 1974 when Pekka Vasala come New Zeland closer to Lydiard to be coached by him, he did a long period with the aerobic block, without doing fartlek or aerobic-intervals. Only after a short-late period before the Rome 74 European champs Pekka starts with intervals. This is an Olympic champion, not one crazy US kid doing crazy undesirable inefficient intervals. Stop that Kids !

I really hope that some day Nobby or someone else might write the "Defenitive Lydiard". I want to buy that book, because what i see is the complexity, the misunderstand, the conflit in between what is write and what some say the Man did.

Thank you very much for sharing this training.

Marcelo Fiasconaro’s training, above, adds up to only 35 to 50 miles a week.

Was there more running in addition to this, that added up to more than 70 miles for each week?

That is very interesting. I went from a middle type runner, to the first type, then the second. I was no longer able to reach the same top speeds with sprinting, but recovered much more quickly. So it is interesting to see how quite similar results could be achieved, with the same distances, and very different rest intervals.

How important do you consider the long very slow training to be, and miles just for the sake of miles. Surely there are many 800m runners who do not run the 70 to 100 miles each week. Would running more milers, very slowly, be of any great benefits to 800m runners? Looking at Fiasconaro, and Ralph Doubell, only mentioning two of them, they did not run ANY long slow miles.

If I’m understanding correctly, you’re saying that once one can run for 2 hours, then there is no reason to do it again, but to run less distance faster. But then how do you get the 70 to 100 miles a week? Is this by running faster, more often, so the total mileage comes out the same as before?

Okay, but up above, aren’t you saying this slow running is important for foundation?

Maybe Koskei recovered more thoroughly by running 3 hours very slowly, than by running one hour faster, or by not running at all, therefore the 3 hours slowly was important to him for recovery?

I'm going to stay neutral, and I won't say you are right or wrong, but only that I understand what you are saying about the periodization, as well as the long run for 800m runners, and the benefit of aerobic interval training. I could see how a 6 month periodization might perfectly suit young high school cross-country and track runners, but why it doesn't suit professional athletes.

My understanding (I don't know that much about it actually) with the introduction of "race week/non-race week" was more about adapting to an external reality, that athletes want to race 8-9 months of the year, rather than a "late" Lydiard contradicting "earlier" Lydiard principles. Each week combines some of the "aerobic" and "anaerobic" training elements, still in a way that is "balanced".

Also, for the same reasons of adapting to the athlete, 100mpw might turn into 60mpw.

In my last and final iteration (I promised myself) of insisting on asking about modern methods, I read about an emphasis on modern concepts like training progression, and specificity.

I'm not claiming this "race week/non-race week" is the "modern" Lydiard, bridging the gap to incorporate all of the "modern" concepts. I think he formed them still trying to preserve an "aerobic" and "anaerobic" balance, just on a smaller weekly cycle. I think it counts on the racing and time trials to implicitly provide the training progression and specificity that is explicitly emphasized in modern approaches. At least that's how I see and understand it.

I don't think Nobby is writing that book in the near future. Keith Livingston's "Healthy Intelligent Training" has gotten endorsements from The Lydiard Foundation. It would be interesting to see what you make of it.

You asked rekrunner which Lydiard to trust? The one to trust, as you call it, would be the one that come closest to meeting your own needs.

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

J.R. are you deliberately trying to be an idiot?

I think you are, and you're just trolling, you really can't be this stupid?

I never said running slow uses more fast twitch fibers, stop talking shit.

And running a 7 minute mile up a 10 percent grade is not slow, it's much faster than you can run up such a hill.

I never changed anything to agree with you, stop making stuff up.

Training is the answer of our body to the proposal, is not the proposal. I think already many times I explaned this concept. So, I repeat, we need to give stimula, and these can be only in two directions : INTENSITY and EXTENSION.

But, because we cant indefinitely continue in growing in EXTENSION (so, what after running 2 hours ? We have to run 3 hours, and then 4 hours, also for a 800m runners ?) or in INTENSITY (so, what after running 4x400m in 48" resting 5' ? We go running 47"5, then 47", then 46" ?), MUST BE CLEAR that the final key for improving is THE EXTENSION OF INTENSITY.

This means that we have to proceed in this way :

a) To increase, for the first 2 months of training (for example, November and December) the EXTENSION of continue run, using, however, to start to increase the pace, too.

For example, if an athlete starts running 40' at 7' per mile, his first goal is to run (may be in one week) 1 hr at the same speed. After this, we start to use 2 DIFFERENT SPEEDS (for example, 7' and 6'40"), and we can proceed in the following way :

a) 1 hr 10' at 7'

b) 40' at 6'40"

c) 1 hr 15' at 7'

d) 45' at 6'40"

e) 1 hr 20' at 7'

f) 1 hr progressive with first 30' at 7' for finishing last 30' at 6'40".

After this second week, the athlete can include a 3rd speed (may be 6'20" per mile) :

a) 1 hr 30' at 7'

b) 1 hr at 6'40"

c) 40' at 6'20"

d) 1 hr 40' at 7'

e) 1 hr 10' at 6'40"

f) 50' at 6'20"

g) 1 hr 20' progressive with first 30' at 7' + 30' at 6'40" + 20' at 6'20"

Of course, this is only an example, because real training is more articulated (we use sprints on hills, some fartlek, some exercise), but I think can explain the training phylosophy, that is the same you can find in the book of Peter Coe and Martin.

AT THE END OF THE FIRST FUNDAMENTAL PERIOD, YOU ARE ABLE TO USE A RANGE OF SPEED GOING FROM THE SLOWER (in this case 7' per mile) TO THE FASTER (may be 4'20" per mile), of course using different distances for every kind of speed. This situation (every speed is a DIFFERENT MEAN OF TRAINING) can't allow anybody in speaking about a SHORT MICROCYCLE, because in any case NEVER we can use so many speed in less than 2 weeks (personally I often use periods of 3 weeks without never repeating the same speed).

So, already in the FUNDAMENTAL PERIOD we can find a wide range of speeds, BUT STILL NOT THE MAXIMAL. Don't forget that a 800m runner for 1'44" has to use speed like 200m under 23", 300m under 36" and 400m under 49" in training, in his specific period. So, if we speak about these speeds referred to a mile, WE SPEAK ABOUT 3'10" / 3'20" per mile speed !

The longest long run we reach in the fundamental period, lasting 2 months, (for example 2 hr at 7' per mile), now MUST BE CUT, because useless as training, NOT GIVING ANY STIMULUS TO OUR BODY, NOR IN EXTENSION (otherwise we need to continue to move to superior extension, not connected with the specialism of 800m) NEITHER IN INTENSITY.

Because at the same time (supposing for example we already used a 4'20" per mile speed) we need to use some FASTER SPEED (may be 4' per mile, that is only, for example, the possiblity to use 400m in 60" and 600m in 1'30"), we need to cut THE SLOWER at the moment.

So, on one side we have a progression under the point of view of INTENSITY, on the other, we start to QUALIFY the extension, maintaining the reached duration but running faster.

Of course, we can continue to use EPISODICALLY some very long run. This is the case of the 3 hours of Christopher Koskei, but also the case of 37 km in 2 hr 01' of Saaeed Shaheen one week after winning with 7'56" steeple in Golden Gala in Rome 2005, in July, and before WCh in Helsinki that he easily won.

So, ONE THING IS THE PROJECT, ANOTHER THING ONE SINGLE SESSION. ONE THING IS RUNNING SLOWLY FOR RECOVERING, ANOTHER THING TO BELIEVE THAT CAN HAVE STILL A BULDING-UP ACTION.

Sir Lance-alot wrote:

So....isn't it true that you ARE saying: provided the necessary resistance is being worked against, "running slowly" ....could.... "use more fast twitch fibers" than running more quickly ?

I'm trying not to make too much of an issue of this. I'm just saying that running uphill is hard work and uses both slow twitch and fast oxidative fibers.

a seven minute mile up a 10% hill is about as hard as a 4.30 mile on the flat.

But although there is a guarantee of a very high level of fitness from hill running, you need to convert that fitness into race specific fitness for a fast mile on the track or whatever race you are aiming for.

I'm just stating the obvious really. No great revelation.