Better Training for Distance Runners by Peter N. Coe and David E. Martin

I read the book x 3. The book IMO is better than high mileage books sold at Barnes & Noble. IMO the reason the book wasn't a great revenue producer was due to confirmation bias. Runners tend to buy and read books that confirm their high mileage biases. I have a high degree of respect for David Martin, PhD AND I believe S. Coe was dirty.

Coe ran a lot more than they let on in the book. This has been discussed before.

Ever notice how Coe always mentions doing 10 mile runs in interviews. For example, after the Moscow 800 he once talked about how he did his normal 10 mile run, "dogged by the British press" the whole way. Another time he talked about the sacrifice of doing your normal 10 miler on Christmas. Coe's average week once you figure in doubles was certainly north of 80.

Regardless of the specific number, nobody on a low mileage program is going out for a 10 mile jog between an olympic 800 meter final and the rounds of the olympic 1500. There's a reason the guy was a beast - he trained super hard and that included putting in the miles.

It depends how one counts mileage. Some runners count mileage as only their road mileage. Some athletes do not count workouts as mileage. Eg. 2mile warm-up jog, 6x800m, then two mile jog. You may count that as seven miles. I count that as zero miles.

This book is a fraud. Absolutely no reference to blood transfusions.

I want to read this book.... please inform me on

yashu.sharma1194@gmail.com

any one have in PDF format.

Thank you

There is a thing called the internet where you can buy books and the seller will send it to you! Try it!!

ironside wrote:

It depends how one counts mileage. Some runners count mileage as only their road mileage. Some athletes do not count workouts as mileage. Eg. 2mile warm-up jog, 6x800m, then two mile jog. You may count that as seven miles. I count that as zero miles.

LOL. That makes absolutely no sense. SMH.

Most of what"s in the Martin book is a bit outdated at this point.

Essentially they were overlaying science onto the training where it really didn't apply directly at all.

Peter Coe said he read everything and threw away 98% and the quality of work is much more important than the quantity.

Coe was not a high mileage runner; he was running closer to 50/week, but yes of course there were runs over 10 miles. His strongest event was 1000m.

dsrunner wrote:

Most of what"s in the Martin book is a bit outdated at this point.

Essentially they were overlaying science onto the training where it really didn't apply directly at all.

Peter Coe said he read everything and threw away 98% and the quality of work is much more important than the quantity.

Coe was not a high mileage runner; he was running closer to 50/week, but yes of course there were runs over 10 miles. His strongest event was 1000m.

Better Training for Distance Runners maybe should have been titled: How to Build an 800m athlete.

B.T.D.R. was necessary to swing the pendulum back to either (400-800)m training or pure 800m training away from Lydiardism. Lydiardism scared away many potential (400-800)m men & women and potential low mileage 800m athletes from 800m.

B.T.D.R. detailed the benefits of total body weight training and plyometrics for athletes events 800m and shorter.

There were two S. Coes. Coe, 1980 and earlier and S. Coe, 1984 and later. Those who state evidence of Coe's higher mileage, are taking a snap shot in time. Pre-1981, S. Coe was a low mileage guy who trained for 800m but also raced longer events.. Post-1983, Coe trained for 1500m but raced 800m also. Years in between, he mixed it up.

In the popular imagination, Coe has become the symbol of low mileage training. Whether that's fair or not is up for debate, but the book itself is most definitely NOT a low mileage book. In fact, the book says almost nothing explicit about total volume. The only place it turns up is in a sample periodization schedule for hypothetical runners. The actual training that's advocated is pretty conventional zone training with most running being easy aerobic conditioning. It's not that different from what you see in Daniels, Vigil, or the USATF Level 2 curriculum.

Over half the book is just exercise physiology (some of which is outdated). What I appreciate most about the book, however, is that it never pretends that the science can precisely dictate the training. It repeatedly highlights things that science doesn't have answers for, and it's full of what I'd call "art of coaching" tips. That's what brings me back to the book year after year.

I know some people count their daily walks on Strava toward their weekly mileage totals! I didn't know that was possible, as that is considered a "walk" and not a "run." I guess it is.

I had this book back in the early 2000s. Made for some interesting reading. The book got lost during one of my moves. I'd consider buying a used copy off the Internet just for nostalgia reasons.