Incorrect. Cardiac efficiency is improved for all distances from 800m to ultramarathons by including an aerobic phase with long runs. Do the long runs. And long is not 90 minutes. Two hours bare minimum.
NONE of the top 1500 runners do this, including Jakob.
If you look at Josh Kerr’s training, he spent his teenage years developing cardiac efficiency running decent mileage and decent long runs. He now runs a little less but still put in a weekly 15 miler.
he even told the interviewer than his competitors are doing 100 mile weeks, he is now not doing that, but he strengthened his aerobic capacity as a teen and continuous some stimulus in this realm. He says he regrets the volume he did, but that played a major part of his general development:
Some do and it was proven 70 years ago practically and the the scientists confirmed it. While there have always been athletes who don’t train exactly that way, but did Jacob get out kicked twice in global 1500 championships? Yes he did.
Coe ran up to 100 miles a week in the off season. Long before super shoes and bicarb and ridiculously fast rubber tracks.
Guys who run their mouths like this never post links. Show us the science.
From what I’ve seen, the longer the race, the more important the long run.
The kid who just broke the HS 800 record didn’t do them. And if you think he would’ve been even faster with them, the burden of proof is on you.
Some do and it was proven 70 years ago practically and the the scientists confirmed it. While there have always been athletes who don’t train exactly that way, but did Jacob get out kicked twice in global 1500 championships? Yes he did.
Coe ran up to 100 miles a week in the off season. Long before super shoes and bicarb and ridiculously fast rubber tracks.
Guys who run their mouths like this never post links. Show us the science.
From what I’ve seen, the longer the race, the more important the long run.
The kid who just broke the HS 800 record didn’t do them. And if you think he would’ve been even faster with them, the burden of proof is on you.
Don’t be silly, this has been proven decades ago. Even 70 years ago. Even Rod Dixon, the most versatile Distance runner (b4 super shoes and super tracks) would run up to three hours in the gnarly bush of New Zealand. John Walker the first sun 3:50 mile with the most sub 4s in history had a big aerobic base built first….this is common knowledge if you know anything about athletics history.
Guys who run their mouths like this never post links. Show us the science.
From what I’ve seen, the longer the race, the more important the long run.
The kid who just broke the HS 800 record didn’t do them. And if you think he would’ve been even faster with them, the burden of proof is on you.
Don’t be silly, this has been proven decades ago. Even 70 years ago. Even Rod Dixon, the most versatile Distance runner (b4 super shoes and super tracks) would run up to three hours in the gnarly bush of New Zealand. John Walker the first sun 3:50 mile with the most sub 4s in history had a big aerobic base built first….this is common knowledge if you know anything about athletics history.
Burden of research is on you.
Hey Wetcoast: Super shoes and bicarb aside, how come Snell's conversion from 800m to 1500m/mile was so crappy? You'd think with all those 22 mile hilly runs it would be better, like 3:48 mile better.
NONE of the top 1500 runners do this, including Jakob.
If you look at Josh Kerr’s training, he spent his teenage years developing cardiac efficiency running decent mileage and decent long runs. He now runs a little less but still put in a weekly 15 miler.
he even told the interviewer than his competitors are doing 100 mile weeks, he is now not doing that, but he strengthened his aerobic capacity as a teen and continuous some stimulus in this realm. He says he regrets the volume he did, but that played a major part of his general development:
I read an article that Kerr breaks down his year into 3 phases. First is training like a 10k runner, second is training like a 5k runner, and third is 800-1500 meter specific training. Not reinventing the wheel by any means but very effective. Always get strong first!
Guys who run their mouths like this never post links. Show us the science.
From what I’ve seen, the longer the race, the more important the long run.
The kid who just broke the HS 800 record didn’t do them. And if you think he would’ve been even faster with them, the burden of proof is on you.
Don’t be silly, this has been proven decades ago. Even 70 years ago. Even Rod Dixon, the most versatile Distance runner (b4 super shoes and super tracks) would run up to three hours in the gnarly bush of New Zealand. John Walker the first sun 3:50 mile with the most sub 4s in history had a big aerobic base built first….this is common knowledge if you know anything about athletics history.
When he trained at Texas A&M, Brazier honed in on his speed with 25-mile weeks. Under Julian, he runs 35-mile weeks while incorporating strength workouts like fartleks. With improvements along the way—breaking the U.S. indoor 800-meter record in February and setting a 3:37 1500-meter personal best in July–Brazier learned to trust the new training.
Don’t be silly, this has been proven decades ago. Even 70 years ago. Even Rod Dixon, the most versatile Distance runner (b4 super shoes and super tracks) would run up to three hours in the gnarly bush of New Zealand. John Walker the first sun 3:50 mile with the most sub 4s in history had a big aerobic base built first….this is common knowledge if you know anything about athletics history.
Burden of research is on you.
Hey Wetcoast: Super shoes and bicarb aside, how come Snell's conversion from 800m to 1500m/mile was so crappy? You'd think with all those 22 mile hilly runs it would be better, like 3:48 mile better.
No one was going to run a mile in 3:48 in the 60s. The record that Snell broke was 3:54.5. He'd have had to improve the record by almost six seconds. You have to back to 1861 when the record went from 4:55 to 4:49 to see that sort of improvement. The biggest improvement since came when Elliott took 3.7 seconds from Ibbotson's time to that 3:54.5. Snell's second record could have been much faster than 3:54.1 but his pacing was not at all good. On top of that Snell was probably more suited to the 800/880. He struggled with distance, that was a big reason Lydiard had him doing those long runs, so it's not surprising if his 800 record is the qualitatively better one.
Found that as I've gotten older I can do fairly long threshold work consistently week after week (true strength), but absolutely suck at legit long runs over about two hours. Long runs are the weakest aspect of my training (very much the opposite used to be true). Suspect it's from how I've optimized my fitness curve over the years. So it depends on the race and your natural inclinations imo.
Hey Wetcoast: Super shoes and bicarb aside, how come Snell's conversion from 800m to 1500m/mile was so crappy? You'd think with all those 22 mile hilly runs it would be better, like 3:48 mile better.
No one was going to run a mile in 3:48 in the 60s. The record that Snell broke was 3:54.5. He'd have had to improve the record by almost six seconds. You have to back to 1861 when the record went from 4:55 to 4:49 to see that sort of improvement. The biggest improvement since came when Elliott took 3.7 seconds from Ibbotson's time to that 3:54.5. Snell's second record could have been much faster than 3:54.1 but his pacing was not at all good. On top of that Snell was probably more suited to the 800/880. He struggled with distance, that was a big reason Lydiard had him doing those long runs, so it's not surprising if his 800 record is the qualitatively better one.
Well, no one was going to run a mile under 4 minutes, until they did. No one was going to run a mile under 3:50, until they did.
You wrote of Snell, "He struggled with distance, that was a big reason Lydiard had him doing those long runs..." but didn't Snell have everyone do the 22 mile hilly run, including Halberg and Magee who did not struggle with distance?
Snell's conversion from 800m (1:44.3) to the mile (3:54) was not that great despite 22 mile hilly long runs. Since other runners have better conversions from 800m to 1500m/mile even without such long runs, doesn't that call the importance of the long run into question?
Snell did not have anyone do anything. It was Arthur Lydiard who had Magee and co., do long runs.
Snell did become a noted exercise physiologist. When asked what he would change about his training, looking back, he said, "very little."
There are examples of outliers at both ends though. Sure, there are the athletes who manage 100-120 kms per week and somehow race well internationally. Then there are the Mo Farah and Cameron Levins of the world who would run 160 - 180 kms per week for Farah and 200 -plus for Levins. Their fastest performances are in the 2000m distance not the 5000m/10,000m/marathon that they competed in.
Farah: 3:28.81 in the 1500 and 8:03.40 in the two mile.
Levins: 8:14.69 in the two mile and 4:55.35 in the 2000m.
Neither competed at that distance regularly.
The cardiac efficiency allowed them to take in and utilize oxygen better, even at lactate-spewing efforts.
Sifan Hassan's third best event is the 1500, which is a European record. She trains around 120 miles (193 km) per week. She holds 11 national or European records from the 1000m distance to the marathon - another athlete with great range.
Walker was up to 110 miles per week. Long before the super shoes he ran 3:32/3:49.
Ingebrigtsen is an amazing talent, however, has been outkicked in the 1500m by Brits who run more volume.
I saw that Hobbs Kessler doesn’t do a long run . Long runs are pretty taxing on the body . Is it important for someone doing mile - 5k?
Just an experiment of one:
I always hated the long run, and over than training for a couple of marathons at age 37/38 I rarely did more than an hour, although I tended to run it reasonably briskly.
In my early 50s - training for 55/10k - I was coached by someone who got me to extend my long run gradually up to 100 minutes. I'd do this every other week as I had trouble recovering if I did this weekly, but I'd have a phase of these of these in each build-up.
Doing that, I ran what were probably my best ever age graded times, actually got quicker from age 50 through to around 57 (when I had an injury), and set two still standing state age records (14 and 15 years ago) for 10k on road.
I think there are physiological adaptions, particularly related to mitochondria and capillary development that don't kick in until around 100 min+ At age 68, and coming back from injury, I don't see getting back to those kind of runs, but I'm contemplating getting an elliptical bike to get the same exercise duration.
