Lasse Viren's training to win double Oympic Gold in 1972

..from malmo (since i have seen him kae this argument before), is not that he disagress with what was written in a bok. His contention is that he ACTUALLY TALKED WITH JONES to clarify what exactly he did.

Exactly Denton. Furthermore, as anyone with experience beyond that of a novice would know, marathon training is complete well before the six to eight week window leading to the big race.

Yo malmo, we're cool. I have been very aware of the ?JK and 150 mile weeks? and I think some young runners might be going away with the wrong impression. I have yet to see someone on here come out and explain that some 5-10k runners might only (like Viren) hit 120+ mileage for 10-15 weeks per year. It isn't high miles all the time.

On another point, maybe you can help us here: The pages in my possession note in a few bare sentences, and I quote; "Steeplechaser Tapio Kantanen had a 8,642km yearly training volume (89.4% aerobic). In contrast, Jouko Kuha, setter of the world steeplechase record in 1968 had a training volume of only 6,152km (71.7% aerobic)." Might be a bit before your time, but maybe you can tell us something about these guys?

You other dudes, let's see if we can dissect the (admittedly limited) data we have about Viren (in my first post) a little bit further. Shine a spotlight on it. Clarify it. Slice it a bit thinner and see if we can squeeze out a bit more understanding of what was going on there.

We're going to be very careful not to stray too far from the actual raw data, and start inventing things that aren't there. We are going to be as scrupulous as forensic (sport) scientists, but, as in archaeology, we might also indulge in some (educated/experienced) speculation and see if we can suck some marrow from the bones of Viren's training for the greater understanding of us all. (Don't take it too seriously, this is just some fun on a slow Sunday afternoon, but the rules still apply).

As an aside: we've already seen the training of Cruz (see relevant thread), with weeks of 40-60 mpw and a high degree of intensity. Proven to work at 800m (at least for the runners mentioned) but not the ONLY way to do it.

We've also heard (limited) info of Japanese mega-mileage that is also proven to work for the marathon, but not really successful for the 5-10,000m (but again, is not the ONLY method of marathon success).

And now here we have this data on the distances in the middle: the 5,000m and 10,000m, by the 4-time Olympic champion, no less. As before, this will not be the only road to success, but let's see if we can at least understand why this way worked.

Another aside: obviously each of these training methods worked for the respective athletes because of the specific genetic ?ability? they brought to the table. There is every reason to believe that such training methods will NOT work (as well) for those who do NOT have the right genetic mix.

A long-winded way of saying you must not believe you can simply bolt Viren's (or anyone else's) training onto your own physique and then ?rock? like they did.

Let?s begin: As a 20-year old, Viren was already a talent. Off of mileage monthly peaks of 437km (April '69) (approx 70mpw), he managed 13.55 and 3.52. As has been noted, the 13.55 time is way better than the 3.52.

But look deeper. This is probably a function of his training, which was basically 92-95% aerobic until right into the competition period. So, he was not training as would normally be expected for someone seeking a top 1500m performance (we also have no data here on how often he raced each distance... for all we know, the 1500m could have been a one-off, and we are aware that there is a certain "learning/re-acquainting" required in 1500m racing. You don?t get it right in the first race of the season.) So, he was better ?prepared? for the 5,000m than the 1500m, and this is reflected in the times. (anyone know his 1500m PR?)

A second (maybe minor) thing to note about this period is that his peak mileage was late in the year: Mar-May '69. He obviously did not like this, because he changed it in 1972.

We might classify his '68-69 season as almost classic in structure. Like from a book: Start off with purely aerobic (3 months of 100%) training.

Dial in some speed (3 months of 5% [by vol] anaerobic training).

Dial in yet more speed (3 months of 8% anaerobic training).

Race for 2 months (peak 10% [by vol] anaerobic training [probably due to including 6 x races per month]).

Go home.

Some things would change in his Olympic gold year of 1972.

1. His (base) peak mileage would be done earlier in the season's build-up (possibly dictated by the dates of the Olympic finals): Dec 71-Mar 72 instead of Mar-May '69.

2. His peak mileage would be much higher (approx 130mpw in Feb '72 compared to 70mpw in April '69. He is now a more mature, more seasoned athlete, aware of what works for HIM.)

3. This high mileage period was also the period with most training sessions per month (70-82), compared to the more usual 61-62 from April onwards. So there were some 3-a-days in there.

4. He was now NOT running at 95% aerobic. We can only speculate (a little) but somewhere between 1969 and late 1971, Viren and his coach discovered/learned that he thrived better on more intense training, and (importantly) that this intensity had to be year-round and not as in '68-69.

5. He had not really raced before his main competitive (summer: May-Aug) period as a 20-year-old. In Olympic year, he raced more often (44 times compared to 20 times). Five times in Jan-Feb (and it would be interesting the know the distances [x-country?]) possibly to see how his base fitness was. And then a continuous build-up per month all the way from April '72 until after the Olympic finals. We can only assume that he believed there is no preparation for racing, better than racing itself.

6. Such a racing schedule offers strong evidence that Viren did NOT blood-boost. Because he was racing at a high, competitive, level all the way from April-Sept. The "advantages" of blood boosting would not have lasted than long, and it is not a procedure that can be done repeatedly in a short period of time.

Let's look more closely at no.4. How "intense" was his training?

(First of all, we better define aerobic/anaerobic. We have no way of knowing how Viren or Haikkola defined it, so we better be safe. We better not say "10k pace and faster". Because then we exclude the accepted "tempo" and half marathon paces which are at least partly anaerobic in nature. So, playing very safe [and aware I might be too safe - this point is debatable], let's say that anything faster than marathon pace (99% aerobic), we will call "anaerobic". So, for a 2.11 marathoner, this means roughly any training at faster than 5.00m/m).

Another aside: we cannot really know how Viren broke down his "within-month" training. All we have is the total mileage per month and the percentage aerobic. It could be argued (but not by anyone sensible) that a month with 75% aerobic training means 3 weeks at 100% aerobic and 1 week at 100% anaerobic. It could mean that there were some weeks with NO anaerobic running (possible, but not plausible). So, we are going to assume (for simplicity) that there was a general spread of aerobic/anaerobic training throughout the whole month. We do expect there were certainly some days with little or no anaerobic training.

No longer does Viren begin with 3 straight months of 100% aerobic running. In fact he never does this at any time in '71-72.

The first 3 months of his training "year" he is already running 71.9, 80.7, and 74.0% aerobic. At roughly 22% "anaerobic", we can expect that Viren was running at under 5.00m/m on average every 4-5th session. Meaning roughly every second day (since he was running 60-70 sessions per month: two-a-day). Now we cannot know how fast he was running in those sessions. Obviously there was a whole spectrum of paces. We can only estimate the slowest pace he was running. But we can also note that in his peak mileage month (844km in Feb '72) he was still running 78.2% aerobic. Which means that of the 524 miles he ran that month (av: 130mpw) he ran roughly 115 miles (28mpw) all faster than 5.00m/m. So, this is not some fast alactate strides we?re talking about here. This is serious mileage and seriously fast. This cannot all be ?lung searing repetitions consisting mostly of 50, 100, and 200 meters?.

Now some speculation here (which could be wrong) might tell us that, at this base period in his build-up, the bulk of this 28 mpw was run at just under marathon pace: 4.30-5.00m/m. Later, as he moved into pre-competition mode, the pace of his some of his "anaerobic" running might/probably quickened (while still maintaining some good mileage at 4.30-5.00m/m). If this change over to quicker running did occur (and it makes sense), unfortunately we cannot tell when it occurred from the data.

Here, in the true spirit of discussion and knowing that only Viren and Haikkola know the ?real? truth, it would be interesting to hear the experienced comments of malmo and Hodgie-san on how they personally might spread this 28mpw of sub-5.00m/m into a sample 130-mile training week. Would (some of) it be used on ?progression? runs? Or might there also be specific track workouts (in which case, how far and how fast)?

To continue - In his main competition period (Jul-Sept '72), Viren still "averaged" 356 miles per month (approx 85mpw), and still averaged two-a-days. Despite the inclusion of seven races per month, total anaerobic percentage remained 79.4% for this period. At no time in the last 5 months of his build-up, even during his most intense racing period, does the "anaerobic" percentage ever exceed 25% of the total monthly volume. We can speculate that, as the speed/intensity of the hard sessions rose, Viren had to dial in more and more aerobic recovery mileage ie: the easy running got easier (although not shorter).

As can be seen, there is a point where educated speculation must end, and out-and-out guessing must begin. We will forego such indulgence here. Instead we will wait patiently and hope to learn more from Haikkola's upcoming book.

If I have missed any points of note, don't hesitate to point them out.

Other interesting points on other Finnish runners:

It appears that large training volumes, dominated by aerobic work, suited Finnish runners. But note that it helps to be racing the right event. Another great Finn by the name of Juha Vaatainen, by the age of 26 was clocking 1.48.4 in the 800m and 48.9 in the 400m, but was not having good racing success. His training volume was 6,000km year. It was decided he was just racing "unsuitable distances". He switched smoothly to specific long distance training and reached top performances at the age of 30 years, culminating in European 10,000m gold in 1971 (27.52.8).

Too much good stuff going on here to let this just go on by to the forgotten pages. It seems like there has been a lot of discussion on the boards lately on the :best? or ?right? training methods, and this is a good thing. Maybe in looking at some of these cases more closely (as you have already done), maybe we can find the underpinnings for good training.

Clearly, from looking at Cruz ? Coe ? Viren ? Japanese marathoners, it isn?t a huge stretch to conclude that different systems are being used in different degrees in these runners? respective events. All of Cruz?s intervals will never prepare him to run a fast 5K (or beyond), nor will all of the Japanese marathoners? miles prepare them to run a good 8. Of course this seems like the dumbest comment of all time (well, duh), but the point I am getting at is that there is no one ?right" method. Or, I should say that the ?right" method is one that takes into account the goal event and focuses on preparing for its physiological requirements. This would include paying attention somewhat to the strengths of the individual runner, but there are ?laws? of physiology that can not be circumvented.

I am somewhat loathe to pick out just a few cases, especially when these cases are Oly champions. One could say that the championships won serve as evidence to superior training, but I tend to view Oly champions as individuals who did good training while having incredible genetic gifts. Some famous dude said something about the importance of future champions doing a good job of choosing their parents. So, I would tend to prefer to look at say the top 100-500 runners in an event and what, in general, they do, than to mimic the top one or two. In that vein, it may be just as useful to look at the ?norm? for the Finnish training during that time period as it is to view Viren alone.

Although we have established that averages may not capture significant variances between the mileage of base building mode and mileage during racing season, average mileage DOES indicate overall volume. For instance, if the Finns avg?d 8K to 10K kilometers, then they had to be running some significant volume to offset the ?lighter? in season weeks. If Maanika ran 12k kilometers (140+/week) on average, then he was always running what I would consider a lot. So, obviously, there was something to this aerobic running that they were doing (or at least they thought so). Even Viren, after winning double golds, WANTED to do more mileage in subsequent years. I think this is particularly telling as it shows how they thought/believed/knew where his further development was going to come from. Of course, one could say that maybe they were planning to run more anaerobically, but still, this puts less of an emphasis on anaerobic work than if they focused on JUST that component.

The amount of racing is very notable. It seems that NO ONE races that much these days, and if they did, they?d be considered stupid. Seems like the consensus is that the better racers of late 70s-early 80s raced more in general as well?.hmmm.

I think the assumption that the anaerobic work increased in intensity as competition period ensued is a safe one. If in the first 3mos of the year Viren is running 28mpw anaerobically? well he is probably running near the 5m/m pace as this is a lot of running at quicker speeds, and it is likely that his aerobic system was developed so that a majority of these runs were not ?lung searing?. It is fast, but I bet 10-15miles at 4:50-5:00 was a nice just-starting-to-really-roll workout for the guy (JERK!). In competition, he runs much less volume of speedwork (including races), so surely he is running a bit more snippy in these sessions.

Vaatainen sounds like an equally interesting study...going from 1:48 half off an average of 70mpw (90base/50in season?) to 130mpw avg and 27.53 10K.

I know that following Hadd is not an ideal time to post (smile), but it seems interesting that no else has already done so. Is it because everyone already knows all that there is to know about this sort of thing? If so, that?s good, and I look forward to when we collectively surpass the late70s-early80s time period. If not, then I think it?s a joke how we delude ourselves into acting like we?re serious about improving.

1. You'll never get a Finn to believe he needs to train like a Kiwi, or an American, a German, a Brit, etc, and most of all, a Russian.

2. But they had enough pride in their distance running tradition to know that something needed to change. Hence the hiring of Lydiard as national coach.

3. They had a love/hate relationship with Arthur and his methods, but he had a huge influence. The difficulties seem to have revolved around Arthur's insistence that things be done exactly his way and the Finn's natural individualism.

4. Many of them rejected his structure but embraced his philosophy. Some claimed to accept his structure but really didn't. Others claimed to reject his philosophy but really embraced it.

Viren/Haikkola and Vasala/Paivarinta/Sinkonen seemed to embrace the seasonal nature of Lydiard's training most readily and perhaps it isn't surprising that they had the most dramatic successes. Others took to some parts of Lydiard, frequently the high volume bits, but were less organized about how or when they applied interval/pace/speed work. Vaatainen, I was told, basically just hammered himself all the time and often at really high volumes, sometimes over 200 miles a week on three a day sessions. Jouko Kuha I was told, was very impulsive about his training. He rarely had a plan, respected Lydiard's success but didn't like being told he HAD to go out for a two hour run in the dead of winter although if the spirit moved him he MIGHT go out on such a run. Or he might decide he'd have an off day but at 11pm be inspired to go out for a run. Or he might plan to do a 20k, come back and shower at his clubhouse, see a friend heading out for a run and put his gear back on for another 20k. He seemed not to do much track/pace work but raced a lot and believed that was his speedwork, sort of using Ron Clarke as a model. I'll add here that most of the running of all the Finns seemed to be done at a pretty respectable pace, though not all out as a rule.

Thus I'm not surprised to see that Viren ran fewer miles than a lot of other Finns. I really believe that he and Vasala were among the only Finns of the time (of the well-known athletes)who had a plan that was more complex than "run a lot and push yourself hard."

Much like Said Aouita, Coe cannot coach a distance runner and is more suited to the middle distances. Unlike Said who would have you run hard all the time, Coes example from Better Training would have you run something like 75 mpw with 14% intervals/week when sharpening but 10% long (800+m - 2000m) and 4% short(200m - 800m). I reiterate my position from an earlier post that according to Vigil the 10K is 10% anerobic and the 5K 20%. According to Salazars book marathoner's should run 10-15% intervals per week. While i thing that a marathoner should run majority of intervals short (ie 60%/short 40%/long like steve jones example in Noakes Lore of Running) Paula's example from the British Miler's Club Website (free article from aug 99 i think when she was a lowly 30:30 10K runner) shows shes a multitier distance runner who runs sprints, 200's, 400's, 800's, and 1000's-2000's (5 pace training) each 8 day mesocycle. feel free to check my math as its been a while since i did it but i thing its approxz 60% long intervals (800-2000) and 40% short (200-800).

Thought it might help to see Hadd's data for 71-72 in tabular format (below). What strikes me is the high number of sessions and the short distance/session. As someone mentioned, Viren's training didn't seem to include many really long runs. Maybe that allowed him maintain the intensity and recover properly without dropping his overall mileage too much? It also seems that he raced occasionally even during his base phase.

Month(71-72) Km Miles #sessions Km/session Miles/session %aerobic #racesOct. 392 245 60 6.5 4.1 71.9 0Nov. 532 333 62 8.6 5.4 80.7 2Dec. 739 462 70 10.6 6.6 74.0 0Jan. 636 398 82 7.8 4.8 69.1 3Feb. 844 528 76 11.1 6.9 78.2 2Mar. 824 515 66 12.5 7.8 69.2 0Apr. 630 394 64 9.8 6.2 76.4 2May 589 368 62 9.5 5.9 75.0 4June 489 306 55 8.9 5.6 83.0 7July 558 349 62 9.0 5.6 79.9 7Aug. 676 423 61 11.1 6.9 75.3 8Sept. 439 274 52 8.4 5.3 85.9 9

>Here, in the true spirit of discussion and knowing that only Viren and Haikkola know the ?real? truth, it would be interesting to hear the experienced comments of malmo and Hodgie-san on how they personally might spread this 28mpw of sub-5.00m/m into a sample 130-mile training week. Would (some of) it be used on ?progression? runs? Or might there also be specific track workouts (in which case, how far and how fast)?<

Hadd,

Excuse my ignorance but I really don't understand the question. Seems overly analytical, irrelevant.

Abstract of this thread:

one athlete run hard like race, every day. Vomit during hill repeat workout.

one athlete lollygag his way through 120 miles per week.

one athlete run with no schedule, up to 200 mile week. run by feel.

one athlete plan minutest detail.

grasshopper runner:

look at what the best Finns, Russians, Kenyans, Japanese, NZ, Americans etc. have done.

Look at what they have in common and put aside the differences, quirks what have you.

The key to all is SIMPLE CONSISTENCY. Build endurance the Lydiard way, the near fool-proof method. All the best do this.

Then hone your skills, track work, races etc. and match this with your desire.

I would think about a race situation an a run, once in a while. I would vomit during a hard run/workout, once in a while. I would lollygag my way through a 20 miler once in a while, enjoy the scenery.

AND

I do it every day twice a day. That is the key.

What the mix is, 21% this 47% that is a sidebar. Find your own sweet spot. No one can tell you though it is entertaining and enlightening to disect what the past champions have done.

Simplify.

Sorry my language but I try write something here.

Viren ran 1500m 3.41, but he thought that could ran under 3.40. In -69 when he ran 3.52 he didn´t focus on that distance, more to 3000-5000m.

Viren´s 5000m PR was "only" 13.16 BUT in july -72 when

he was tapering to olympics, he ran in track-practise

5000m in 13min 13seconds, every second 50meter hard/slow!!!

Viren´s coach Haikkola was dissapointed of Viren´s lack of desire to chase records, he just focused to win. Haikkola

said that Lasse was capable to run near 13min.

I could tell you more after I got his book.

Flying Finn wrote:

Viren´s 5000m PR was "only" 13.16 BUT in july -72 when

he was tapering to olympics, he ran in track-practise

5000m in 13min 13seconds, every second 50meter hard/slow!!!

Viren´s coach Haikkola was dissapointed of Viren´s lack of desire to chase records, he just focused to win. Haikkola

said that Lasse was capable to run near 13min.

I could tell you more after I got his book.

I have heard/read the same tale but the 5000 time was 13:30.

In 1972 Lasse DID ran 13.13, that i know, and it could be possible that he ran some other session like that in 13.30.

With you 1,000% on the simplification, Hodgie-san.

This is just a hind-site, retrospective (fun) look at what Viren was doing at his best. I would never expect that he and Haikkola said to each other, "Ooo, ooo, let's not forget we must have 24.32% anaerobic work this week..."

You do what is right at the time, based on where you are in your fitness and where you are in your year/racing plan.

But when you look BACK, you can often detect trends that are not immediately apparent when you are just doing the work. Coaches should detect trends and not just follow their nose out the front door. Yes, do the day to day work that is right at that time, but also look up occasionally and see the approaching horizon (coming races) and know where you are within the bigger picture.

We also see from this info that Viren ran slightly more "intensely" than other top Finns of the time. So, I guess he did find his own "sweet spot" as you suggest.

Can someone explain the ratios of Aerobic to Anerobic.

I'm guessing that if Viren only ran a month of 70% aerobic training and he ran a 100 mile week than he had to run 30 MILES of aneroabic training?

I can't imagine this being possible. How would one accomplish this?

Mon. 20 times 400 = 5 miles

Tue. 40 times 200 = 5 miles

Wed. 10 times 1000 = 6 miles

Thur. easy

Fri. 20 times 400 = 5 miles

Sat. 40 times 200= 5 miles

Sun. Long total 26 miles of anearobic training.

I guess the whole point of this thread was that his overall mileage had to have been must lower than 100 miles a week but at 70 miles you are still talking about 21 miles of fast stuff?

Did he really do that much quality or am I totally missing something?

I'm referring to the graph above where it says in March he ran 515 miles and 69% aerobic.

Fredo, you bring a good point. It would be nice to know how they defined aer vs. anaer. With the amount (as you pointed out) of anaer, it is reasonable to suspect that anaer included tempo type runs. Hadd (earlier in the thread submitted) that it could be anything at marathon pace and below (sub5), since it is around this pace that the anaer system begins to become engaged (slightly). If this is the case, it makes the percentages of anaer vs. aer seem much more reasonable (especially during the base months) as a 10-15miler at 4:50-5:00pace knocks out a big chunk of this "anaerobic" mileage.

Hodgie-san,

That is dead-on beautiful. Thanks.

Legendarypegasus wrote:

Bumrun

Don't fall in the trap like everyone else on this website which is "if I can't do that, that person must be doping." There is no evidence that Viren ever doped. Also, medical testing has proven that blood doping have little if any effect. Many scientists actually think it is determential to running.

Care to post links to these alleged claims or peer reviewed data?

yes

Does the NCAA do any drug testing? If not, I am wondering if you think it would be a good idea to test athletes, who were performing at near world class levels who seemed to have good chances to make the team but who did not run because of questionable "injuries" before the trials. What is a "hot spot" on the foot, any way? I ran the 1500 in college and several marathons since, and I am not sure what a hot spot is - either you have a stress fracture or you don't ......