Interval refers to the recovery period, which we usually jogged. The repetitions were run at many different paces/tempos/efforts.
Interval refers to the recovery period, which we usually jogged. The repetitions were run at many different paces/tempos/efforts.
Here's the thread that people have been discussing. it should answer some of your questions.
http://www.letsrun.com/forum/flat_read.php?thread=440141&page=0
Bob Schul wrote:
In the year before the Games I never did anything above 400 meters and starting in May of 1964 I started to run 20 x 400. I was in good shape and would run three in 60 seconds with each fourth in 58. On the twentieth I would run all out and was able to run 54 something all through the months leading up to the Games. I would do this workout on a Sunday every two weeks if I had not raced on the Saturday
Interval training is a distinct type of intermittent training
Interval training is another category of intermittent training; a major one. The name "interval training" does not derive just from the fact that the workout permits recovery "intervals" between the periods of fast running.
The name comes from the fact that original designers, Gerschler and Reindell, used an interval of time that allowed only incomplete recovery.
They believed that an accurate and incomplete recovery interval stresses the runner more and more with each additional running period. Each running effort becomes more and more difficult as the workout continues.
They discovered that when training with an incomplete recovery interval, then the recovery became just as important as the running interval itself, if not more important! Here lies the essence of interval training.
The interval training method allows for short and equal recovery periods, but always aiming for incomplete recovery, and preferring an active recovery so as to ensure that complete recovery cannot occur.
Here we can see that interval training differs from repetition training in the format of recovery. Interval training mandates incomplete recovery, while repetition training does not. Interval training requires precise, accurate recovery interval periods, while repetition training does not.
Another interesting component from the early days of interval training as expounded by Gerschler and Reindell was that the average pace of the running interval was originally estimated from given percentages of the athlete's best effort for the interval distance. e.g.: If your workout is formed of 400m intervals, then the pace is based on some percentage of your 400m PB.
Repetition versus Interval Training
Many runners and coaches from any number of sports use the terms repetition and interval training indiscriminately and interchangeably, and usually with a different interpretation than the original one.
The question here is not whether the name of the training methodology is important, or whether the standard model should be changed, but our goal must always be to understand the exact goal behind the training.
Different training methods will stimulate the runner in different ways, and it is normal for training methods to evolve or be adjusted to different needs and contexts, such as tweaking for individualisation and personalisation purposes to suit the needs of each individual.
But if the training no longer provokes the adaptations conceived by the original concept, then it is no longer the same training, irrespective of the name used. It may appear to be related by name, but it is no longer the same training.
Interval training is different and distinct from repetition training. In repetition training, the pace is estimated from the target event. In interval training the pace is a percent of your PB for the interval distance (i.e. a percent of your 400m PB when running intervals of 8x400 indistinctly what is your goal distance event).
This original distinction between the two main intermittent training - interval and repetition methods - goes back to the two separate original concepts on which they are based.
In repetition training, the pace of each rep is calculated from the pace of the target event with a near-complete recovery (e.g. a 15:00/5k runner runs reps of 3:00 per km if done at 100% race pace, or 3:09 if done at 95% race pace, recovery is near-complete).
In interval training, the pace is calculated from a percent of the athlete's PB for the interval distance (e.g. a runner with a 400m PB of 55 secs would run 8-12x400 in 66 secs if running reps at 80% effort - multiply 55 x 1.2 = 66).
Postin Cabral & Hadd thread - 2 kinds of runners. Which are you?
http://www.letsrun.com/forum/flat_read.php?thread=2375989&page=0Bob Schul wrote:
When I returned to Ohio in 1963 I used his theory but did some adjusting. I decided to walk the intervals to take the tension off the muscles but I cut the interval. I worked on the grass and would do 300 meters in a straight line with 40 meter interval and later cut the interval to 20-25 meters.
All my other distances were done the same way with short walk intervals.
In the year before the Games I never did anything above 400 meters and starting in May of 1964 I started to run 20 x 400. I was in good shape and would run three in 60 seconds with each fourth in 58. On the twentieth I would run all out and was able to run 54 something all through the months leading up to the Games. I would do this workout on a Sunday every two weeks if I had not raced on the Saturday.
Interval Training Decoded
Rest duration between sets; the special case of the incomplete recovery effect.
1/Intermittent training with complete recovery (eg: fractional training or repetition training). Since recovery is complete between reps, the impact of each single rep is as if that rep was done on its own. If we have 3 sets (s1, s2, s3), then the cumulative effect of these sets as a single workout will be linear due to the complete recovery. The total impact of the workout will be (s1+s2+s3). Of course this theory is not as simple as it sounds. Despite taking every effort to make each recovery complete, there has to be an impact on the next repetition due to the effect of the previous rep. Otherwise the length of the recovery interval would have to be exceptional and the length of the whole session could take an infinite amount of time. Too, if recovery was genuinely complete, then the runner could run an infinite amount of reps without tiring, and we all know that is not what happens. The special case of repetition training done “flat-out” for a number of units, requires a long recovery, but we know it is not possible to have a genuinely “complete” recovery.
2/Intermittent training with incomplete recovery (eg: interval training). Due to the impact of the preceding rep(s) and the incomplete recovery, the impact of each succeeding rep is higher than in a straight linear formation. The effort of each set will be compound due to the aggregated effect of the previous ones. If we have 3 sets (s1, s2, s3), then the total effect will be higher than a simple linear addition of s1+s2+s3. Due to the incomplete recovery, the impact is not linear but logarithmic.
The impact of each successive set will include the additional burden of that set having been completed subsequent to an earlier set (or sets). So the impact of s2 will include a “percentage” carry-over burden from s1. The rep s2 is no longer simply a repeat of s1. In other words, s1+s2 is really s1+(s2+percent of s1). Since s3 is also not done in isolation, but is performed after s1+s2, then the effect on the runner of s3 is not as it would be if s3 were performed as a standalone, but in the form of the cumulative effect when s3 is performed after the preceding sets. In such a situation, s3 really means (s3+percent of s1+percent of s2).
The main goal of interval training theory is the use of an incomplete recovery so that each set places a higher and higher cumulative onus/stimulus on the runner. This cannot be achieved in a system that uses complete recovery.
In intermittent training with complete recovery (as in fractional or repetition workouts), the only requirement is that the recovery is long enough to allow the next rep to be run at the required intensity (ie: race pace, or vVO2 pace, or whatever).
In direct contrast, in intermittent training with incomplete recovery (eg: interval training), there is the compounding effect of multiple sets that will place greater onus/stimulus on the runner than a linear aggregation.
Each set will increase the effect/stress of the subsequent one precisely due to incomplete recovery.
The decision to determine what precisely is an incomplete recovery duration is taken from the workout design and must;
a/ be short enough to promote an incomplete recovery from the first set to the last
b/ be long enough that the runner doesn’t get into a state of deep exhaustion yet still is able to complete the session without reaching a state where he is not able to hold the target average pace, or needs to reduce the number of sets or even cut the session short entirely.
This is not to imply that the average workout pace cannot be accurate or pre-determined, it is not the prime interest. The pace is of interest only in that it contributes to the level of stimulus intensity.
Irrespective of the enormous variations in design that an intermittent session can have (number of reps, rep distance, pace intensity, etc), the most vital element in interval training is that the recovery interval must be incomplete; whether short, passive/standstill or active/run or jog.
In contrast, in intermittent training of the fractional/repetition type, including that of the modern vVO2max workout, the interval recovery may be active or passive, but needs to be long enough to permit the main goal of this workout; the pursuit of the defined target pace. This is usually related to the target pace for the target distance, or in more recent times, aimed at improving the physiological parameter, vVO2max.
In interval training (with incomplete recovery), a crucial element is that as each succeeding rep is run, it includes some percentage (or fraction) of the effort stimulus of the previous one(s) so that the effort, the strain on the runner, becomes accumulative.
Due to the accumulative effect, brought about purely by incomplete recovery, at some point during the session the athlete reaches an effort state that is more than the sum of the reps he/she has completed. The accumulated burden of the previous reps means the effort of each successive rep is more than that due to the distance run, or the pace achieved; the effort is greater than that normally required for the pace used in the workout.
For example; when a runner runs 10x500m interval training (with incomplete recovery), by the end of the workout the runner should have covered 5km in an average pace faster than current 5k PB. Despite incomplete recovery, the runner should manage a faster-than-5k PB pace average for the session. Along with the stresses of the higher intensity (greater than 5k race pace), a session done in this way may benefit other physiological areas like aerobic power in a way that could not be achieved if the session had been run as a continuous 5k, or run as an intermittent session with near-complete recovery breaks.
Post in Cabral & Hadd Thread - 2 kinds of runners. Which are you?
http://www.letsrun.com/forum/flat_read.php?thread=2375989&page=0I have to say - I trained under Norm Higgins for several years and what I found and what I liked about the methodology was the fact that the milage per week was low.
Yes - from all the interval work my body was toast - however I like the low mileage per week and that it produced results. In college I hated the dreaded 20 mile Sunday run and would take the Igloi method any day.
(eg%3A%20interval%20training).%20due%20to%20the%20impact%20of%20the%20preceding%20rep(s)%20and%20the%20incomplete%20recovery%2C%20the%20impact%20of%20each%20succeeding%20rep%20is%20higher%20than%20in%20a%20straight%20linear%20formation.%20the%20effort%20of%20each%20set%20will%20be%20compound%20due%20to%20the%20aggregated%20effect%20of%20the%20previous%20ones.%20if%20we%20have%203%20sets%20(s1%2C%20s2%2C%20s3)%2C%20then%20the%20total%20effect%20will%20be%20higher%20than%20a%20simple%20linear%20addition%20of%20s1%2Bs2%2Bs3.%20due%20to%20the%20incomplete%20recovery%2C%20the%20impact%20is%20not%20linear%20but%20logarithmic.&source=web&cd=2&ved=0CCYQFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Ftrainerpaul.blogspot.com%2F2009_11_01_archive.html&ei=MnHhTqHwNaeOiAfI7oC3BQ&usg=AFQjCNF_dRgO5xPsd5FIvBGGWOzxd60JeA&sig2=YJpqAVmcegGKXSMCs2dn1w&cad=rja
The above post from Cabral was taken directly from this German article.
gypsy wrote:
The above post from Cabral was taken directly from this German article.
Whoa, gypsy, aren't you on a mission!! A little hurt from the Lydiard Imitation thread, are we?
What Gypsy calls a "German article" is a Dutch blogger quoting at length what Antonio Cabral wrote in the near-legendary Cabral & Hadd thread "2 kinds of runners. Which are you?"
Gypsy must have meant to make some kind of complex inside joke, but I'm afraid I don't get it.
That will teach me not to be more thorough won't it.
As i click around this site reading different peoples words i keep coming across Antonio as you might imagine.
And there is normal Antonio-speak, and then there is the different Antonio-speak. Antonio's words above are the second kind. Where suddenly he has a solid grasp of the English language, seemingly from nowhere, like there are two Antonio's.
At first i thought this was him playing games and posting under different aliases, each with differing levels of English comprehension. I guess i thought that was because of Antonio's past and his multiple personas.
But then i thought differently and ran some of his 'expert English Antonio' through google and found where he had plagiarised from.
Then when i read this post and thought ah ha! I rushed through assuming i had found the source. Unfortunately, the source for those words is not on the net.
In future i will be more careful, but it is difficult dealing with someone as intellectually dishonest as he is. I'm not sure how to approach it, completely ignore or tackle head on all the lies and deceptions he makes and the misunderstandings he has about coaching.
gypsy:
Thanks for turning me on to Paul's website. The language is actually Dutch.
The Cabral post is from the letsrun Cabral-Hadd thread from 2008, first page. As near as I can tell, the part that appears on the trainerpaul site is from 2009 and is taken from that letsrun Cabral-Hadd thread from 2008. So Antonio is quoting himself.
The original thread here about Igloi is very interesting.
Thanks to this "gypsy" person's obsessions, causing an old thread to be resurrected, I gained some valuable insight. I doubt s/he intended that but thanks none the less.
Looks like skuja isn't the only one at lets run with an obsessive troll at his heels every waking moment. Gypsy you are obsessed.
gypsy wrote:
That will teach me not to be more thorough won't it.
As i click around this site reading different peoples words i keep coming across Antonio as you might imagine.
And there is normal Antonio-speak, and then there is the different Antonio-speak. Antonio's words above are the second kind. Where suddenly he has a solid grasp of the English language, seemingly from nowhere, like there are two Antonio's.
At first i thought this was him playing games and posting under different aliases, each with differing levels of English comprehension. I guess i thought that was because of Antonio's past and his multiple personas.
But then i thought differently and ran some of his 'expert English Antonio' through google and found where he had plagiarised from.
Then when i read this post and thought ah ha! I rushed through assuming i had found the source. Unfortunately, the source for those words is not on the net.
In future i will be more careful, but it is difficult dealing with someone as intellectually dishonest as he is. I'm not sure how to approach it, completely ignore or tackle head on all the lies and deceptions he makes and the misunderstandings he has about coaching.
Hey gypsy dude, you do realize Cabral's posts are just getting run through the exclusive Letsrun broken-to-fixed english filter don't you?
Why completely rewrite a previous posting when you can just quote yourself from an already filtered article?
Cabral is a charlatan so gypsy is right for exposing him.
This is just a guess, hopefully Antonio can confirm, but I wouldn't be surprised if, on the "2 Types" tread, Hadd lighted edited Antonio's posts for clarity in English.
Alan[/quote]
Alan,
Thanks for your response.
But, from what I understand they didn't do many workouts like that. They would often just rest or walk across the field between efforts.
What you said in your other paragraphs makes a lot of sense.[/quote]
----------------------------------
Sorry, but what you "understand" is completely wrong.
There was no "just rest or walk across the field between efforts"
Recovery was JOGGED.
As far as continuous running was concerned, we had usually 3 days a week where we ran continuously for 40-60 minutes
Bob Schul wrote:
It is an interesting post and I thought I would state a few things about training under Igloi and then training on my own starting in september of 1963 through 1965.
First when I trained with Igloi we did not walk any intervals. If we were given 12 x 150 we would jog 50 meters between each one. After the set we would jog a lap and return to Igloi for the next set. We did not stand around very long as he would immediately give us our set.
The intervals were normally 150's, 220's, 330's, 440's, 660's and once in a while 880's. Yes we were on a 440 yard track.
Most of the work was done with 30's and below but Igloi wuld give us 440's in a series of ten or twelve and at the time I was doing them in 63. We would walk back 60 meters and then jog easy back to the line.
When I returned to Ohio in 1963 I used his theory but did some adjusting. I decided to walk the intervals to take the tension off the muscles but I cut the interval. I worked on the grass and would do 300 meters in a straight line with 40 meter interval and later cut the interval to 20-25 meters.
All my other distances were done the same way with short walk intervals.
In the year before the Games I never did anything above 400 meters and starting in May of 1964 I started to run 20 x 400. I was in good shape and would run three in 60 seconds with each fourth in 58. On the twentieth I would run all out and was able to run 54 something all through the months leading up to the Games. I would do this workout on a Sunday every two weeks if I had not raced on the Saturday.
Igloi was a great coach and I learned to push my body under his training. It was very difficult training myself in the year before the Games as there was no one else around. However, I was able to listen to my body and if I felt I was pushing too hard I would ease up to allow my body to relax. At least in that year I was able to give myself the necessary workouts and keep myself from injury.
Let me say when an athlete pushes as hard as he must to be one of the best he is placing tremendous strain on his muscles, tendons and joints. Those people who have near perfect bodies are able to keep from being injured compared to those who have some idiosyncracies. In my case I had flat feet which caused problems with my achilles as they were always sore. You must remember we did not have flats whch could be used for training as they were too stiff. We had to use spikes which did not have heels in all our training. (By the way I was the first person to place heels on the spikes and I wore them in the Spring of 1964 and in the Games.)
Interesting, Bob. When I went to Salt Lake City in 1966, I ran 30x330, 110 jog every Tuesday. That was my hardest day of the week. Monday and Thursday were 660s or 880s or 1000m. Saturdays, I alternated between 2000m and 3000m repeats. Wednesday, Friday and Sunday were easy or fartlek days of 12 to 18 miles.
Bob Schul wrote:
It is an interesting post and I thought I would state a few things about training under Igloi and then training on my own starting in september of 1963 through 1965.
First when I trained with Igloi we did not walk any intervals. If we were given 12 x 150 we would jog 50 meters between each one. After the set we would jog a lap and return to Igloi for the next set. We did not stand around very long as he would immediately give us our set.
The intervals were normally 150's, 220's, 330's, 440's, 660's and once in a while 880's. Yes we were on a 440 yard track.
Most of the work was done with 30's and below but Igloi wuld give us 440's in a series of ten or twelve and at the time I was doing them in 63. We would walk back 60 meters and then jog easy back to the line.
When I returned to Ohio in 1963 I used his theory but did some adjusting. I decided to walk the intervals to take the tension off the muscles but I cut the interval. I worked on the grass and would do 300 meters in a straight line with 40 meter interval and later cut the interval to 20-25 meters.
All my other distances were done the same way with short walk intervals.
In the year before the Games I never did anything above 400 meters and starting in May of 1964 I started to run 20 x 400. I was in good shape and would run three in 60 seconds with each fourth in 58. On the twentieth I would run all out and was able to run 54 something all through the months leading up to the Games. I would do this workout on a Sunday every two weeks if I had not raced on the Saturday.
Igloi was a great coach and I learned to push my body under his training. It was very difficult training myself in the year before the Games as there was no one else around. However, I was able to listen to my body and if I felt I was pushing too hard I would ease up to allow my body to relax. At least in that year I was able to give myself the necessary workouts and keep myself from injury.
Let me say when an athlete pushes as hard as he must to be one of the best he is placing tremendous strain on his muscles, tendons and joints. Those people who have near perfect bodies are able to keep from being injured compared to those who have some idiosyncracies. In my case I had flat feet which caused problems with my achilles as they were always sore. You must remember we did not have flats whch could be used for training as they were too stiff. We had to use spikes which did not have heels in all our training. (By the way I was the first person to place heels on the spikes and I wore them in the Spring of 1964 and in the Games.)
This post should probably be in the Smithsonian.
Looks like Bob ran 3:58.9 in 1964. Anyone know the details on that. The regular workout he describes here of 20x400 in 60-58 finishing in 54 seems like he would be faster in the mile off of that.
Michel Jazy also had the 2000m record.
This thread illustrates what Let's run could be if we all cared