Why isn't Igloi training used more often today?

Complex system, very effective. Sorta like running a complicated offensive scheme or maybe the triangle offense in basketball. A bit beyond the average college coach.

Bowerman borrowed several elements and Payton Jordan was running something very similar to Igloi also (even before). So old school Oregon approach includes a good bit of Igloi elements if you look carefully. Remember too Schul and Mills were already moving away from track, off to trails /golf courses (where Igloi becomes very focused, organized fartlek). Most decent coaches would move this high set/high rep work away from the track now, whenever possible but Igloi was working with what he had.

Anyway, follow the progression in theory : we look for a varied speeds traning (motor unit rotation/energy systems all in, moderately high volume, recognition speed is essential (quality beats quantity) basically that is seen/appreciated most often in two areas 1) East African running elite down to Kenyan kid heading home from school... and 2) US HS running (scaled to the level) (most result for least complexity but only by the better HS coaches.)

Basically this training blends into some volume/quality matrix conceptually; think of the recent data showing soccer is better conditioning than running...well, Igloi is basically soccer without the ball all carried out on what amounts to an endless field.

Several reasons:

1) It takes a very long time to complete a training session. with Lydiard, for example, you lace up your shoes open the door and c90minutes later you're finished. Igloi workouts take much longer than this (they include extensive warmup and cooldown)

2) Workouts need to be supervised by the coach who adjusts the training as the session progresses. Otherwise the athlete can easily train too hard or not run fast enough. how practical is this for most runners?

3) It's harder and less comfortable than the more common Lydiard based approach that seems to be favoured by most poster on this site

4) At their peak in the 1950s Igloi's athletes set multiple WRs but did not win many medals. Apart from Schul how many Igloi trained runners have won Olympic or World titles? most people would argue that a Lydiard type approach makes it easier to peak on a particular day or week every four years or so!

5) Igloi,frustratingly, never wrote a book summarising his teachings. The other great coaches of his era - Lydiard, Cerutty, Stamphl etc - all did and this helped spread and poularise their ideas.

Simple. Its not as effective as a (now) traditional lydiard based approach. Lydiard method trained athletes surpassed Igloi trained method athletes very early on and continue to do so. There are still coaches who believe in running intervals just about every day, but we call them morons now because everyone knows that method isn't as effective. Furthmore, its a lot more fun to run overdistance. Assuming both methods were equally effective, would you rather be on the track 6 days a week or out on trails, running up mountains, running through the country?

The Kenyans do. Diagonals are a form of Igloi training. Each rep is fast (800/mile speed), but short enough (120m or so) that excessive lactitc doesn't build up.

Diagonals are like doing 120m reps with 30 secs recvovery, but for about 45 mins.

Kenyans mainly do Lydiard type training though, IMO.

People like to go jogging.

Johnny Gray used Igloi training to set the AR in the 800 and he uses Igloi training to coach Duane Solomon today.

Schul also used it when he was a coach at Wright State.

In addition to what was said previously (lack of written books and the length of the workouts and the constant monitoring to adjust the workouts), I think a thing to understand is that Igoli's methods should be viewed as part of a toolkit as opposed to the entire toolkit. A lot of training "theories" keep on getting adjusted. No one really follows the exact training schedules that Lydiard wrote down in his books. I don't think Daniels coaches his teams with the exact training programs he has in his books. Coaches make adjustments. You learn from the past to see what works and what doesn't work.

I also think that Igoli's methods got a bad rap due to the success of Lydiard and several coaches mis-using Igoli methods. Igoli wasn't always hard intervals; there was a variation of paces. However, a lot of coaches trying to implement Igoli were using hard intervals and it burned down some runners (Kenny Moore touched on this in his biography of Bowerman and he saw some of the training done at Stanford by Payton Jordan). At the time, Lydiard was eschewing the interval-based training. I think a lot of people started to create false premises and equate LSD as good and Intervals as bad (I think Steve Magness talked about his in his blog posting about Igoli and his methods).

And if you review some of Igoli's schedules and compare it to different programs, it hasn't all disappeared. Many coaches still use multi-pace fartleks as part of a training program. Igoli also practically did tempo and aerobic threshold runs, but just in the form of intervals. Modern programs just send out runners for a run at a given pace. Similar physiological stimuli are being used, just not in the form of track intervals.

Also, it is hard to compare results of the 50's and 60's to with that today. Schul was running 13:40s to win gold, with an AR around 13:35. Today, top runners are in the 12:55-13:05 range without using Igoli methods. There is no saying that Igoli methods would make them 12:50 runners or 13:30 runners.

If I were an HS coach I'd use the crap outta Igoli's method. Assuming that you will not have 100% of your team doing summer workouts, I'd use Igoli because you can squeeze a lot of work into a short amount of time.

If most of your kids aren't going to be at practice until school starts that means you only have 90 days until the big meets at the end of the year. You don't have time to Lydiard them up, you need kids ready to race.

You'll take your lumps early, but by season's end nobody will want to race you.

Actually you can't squeeze a lot of work in a small amount of time with Igloi's method at least not on any given day. The practices will take hours and in a HS setting it is not practical. No way could you get 30+ kids to understand any subtle change in pace and form that this program demands. Modify Horwill/Coe if you want to get the most in a short amount of time. Igloi's demands too much time and discipline.

One of Igloi's great runners, Laszlo Tabori (WR 1500m), coached in the LA area for years using an Igloi-based system (still does I think, now well into his 80s). I am not an expert on the system, but I was always under the impression that a lot of young runners in the 1960s and early 70s who worked in such intense interval-based systems, trying to emulate Jim Ryun back then, suffered a lot of burn-out, mentally perhaps more than physically, and eventually most saw Lydiard as a better way.

My observation, if a kid hasn't been running over the summer, they are going to be a turd unless they are athletically/physically gifted as runners.

That said, even if they are talented, I have found that the better route is just keeping them healthy. Lot of steady runs, frequent racing, and properly timed speed work is sufficient. We often go right into speed work at the start of the foundational phase; however, you can tell the difference between those who took too much time off from the end of the season and those who had an active recovery period. Those who took time off cannot handle the fartleks or tempo work or neuromuscular work. The same applies for those who start running when school starts.

For a great deal of information about Coach Igloi, read the 15 page thread on this board called "Mihaly Igloi" started by dc449 on June 5, 2004. Bob Schul has posted on that thread.

Okay, let's have everybody focus on the name: IGLOI, not "Igoli." C'mon, get the man's name right...

[Okay, technically it's "Mihály Iglói," but I'll give you a break on the accent marks.]

And Orville, thanks for reminding us of that thread. It was a goodie.

Sorry, here's that thread (hope the link works): http://www.letsrun.com/forum/flat_read.php?thread=440141&page=0

Edward Teach wrote:

Simple. Its not as effective as a (now) traditional lydiard based approach. Lydiard method trained athletes surpassed Igloi trained method athletes very early on and continue to do so. There are still coaches who believe in running intervals just about every day, but we call them morons now because everyone knows that method isn't as effective. Furthmore, its a lot more fun to run overdistance. Assuming both methods were equally effective, would you rather be on the track 6 days a week or out on trails, running up mountains, running through the country?

Then how come in 1964, arguably the peak of Lydiard's NZ runners, the 5000 and 10000 were won by runners doing Igloi training?

goulash wrote:

Then how come in 1964, arguably the peak of Lydiard's NZ runners, the 5000 and 10000 were won by runners doing Igloi training?

Careful, you still had Snell in 1964. And don't forget that Viren and other Finns in the 70s were training based on Lydiard principles. Then you still had Walker, Quax, and Dixon running great in the 70s based on Lydiard and going faster that what was run in 1964.

One example doesn't disprove Lydiard. And Igloi's methods aren't irrelevant because Lydiard was successful. Good coaches and smart runners should learn from both.

goulash wrote:

Then how come in 1964, arguably the peak of Lydiard's NZ runners, the 5000 and 10000 were won by runners doing Igloi training?

Mills was doing Lydiard training in prep for Tokyo. He was following a plan he got from Pat Clohessy, a Lydiard pupil.

Mills and Lydiard met in Tokyo and discussed Mills' training.

lolly cake wrote:

Mills was doing Lydiard training in prep for Tokyo. He was following a plan he got from Pat Clohessy, a Lydiard pupil.

Mills and Lydiard met in Tokyo and discussed Mills' training.

Mills said he aimed for 100 miles a week but usually ran 80.

Lydiard responded, how did you like doing our training.

A couple of points:

It is good that people didn't follow Lydiard's schedules from his books. Lydiard didn't want to publish any, the publisher wanted it, to foster book sales.

Lydiard's training is based on a set of principles not hard and fast schedules - although there are many non-negotiables about his training method.

I'd prefer to use the word, "method" as opposed to "theory" when we are talking about coaches at this level. I don't know Igloi training well, but I would guess that it was a method and certainly Lydiard's was too.

Whoever wrote in this thread that "at the peak of Lydiard in the 60's...." -- his method is still used today (roughly to exactly) by most of the very best athletes, so I don't think you can say it peaked and went down in usage - if anything Lydiard is used as much today as any time.

Some key points were made in this thread. For one, some of Lydiard training being about just running in the woods on some days is a fine example. The human body and mind is malleable with rhythms and adaptations - also there is an art and a science to effective training. You can supervise an athlete constantly, but it is not inspiring at all - most athletes would prefer to love the task of running, rather than feel obligated to constantly adhere to exact paces, distances and efforts in a precise manner. Although there are some who clearly benefit from a system like that mentally and clearly there was success....