The sport of track and field would be better off if Clyde Hart never entered it and took up coaching.

Didn't seem to hurt Matthew Boling's 100m

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ietCMPCINxU

Indoor? wrote:

You say certain things about Norman but you are assuming just because he is a good 200 runner he doesn't train similar to the Hart method. Do you know who else was a good 200 runner..... Michael Johnson.

Not an assumption about Norman. He's coached by CSG. She's a lot closer to Tony Holler than Hart lol.

Wrestling cat wrote:

Not an assumption about Norman. He's coached by CSG. She's a lot closer to Tony Holler than Hart lol.

Citation needed?

come on now wrote:

Yes, I too think that a random ass high school coach is better than the dude who coached athletes to 12 Olympic medals.

Loool calling Tony Holler a random...wow this board never ceases to amaze me.

Indoor? wrote:

Wrestling cat wrote:

Not an assumption about Norman. He's coached by CSG. She's a lot closer to Tony Holler than Hart lol.

Citation needed?

Citation for what? That he's coached by CSG? Or that CSG is a lot closer to Tony Holler than Hart?

Ever been to USC or listened to CSG talk about her training philosophy? If you have it's obvious.

Wrestling cat wrote:

You know it, I know it.

You have committed the logical fallacy known as begging the question: assuming the very thing in dispute. I don't think you know very much.

somewhat more recently:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ana_Fidelia_Quirot

Wrestling cat wrote:

what are you talking about? wrote:

Was mistaken, it is more like in the 40% range, which is still a large percent.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15966348

It's still primarily a sprint event and speed is still the limiting factor. There is a reason why the best 400m runners are 200/400 guys and not 400/800 guys. When was the last time the best 400 meter runner in the world doubled the 4 with the 800? Yeah that's what I thought.

My main problem with Hart is that his long to short philosophy dominates so much of lower level track and field when everyone at that level should really be doing the stuff that Tony Holler/Tony Veney/Ryan Banta do and working on speed especially since most sprinters starting out track don't even want to run the 400m.

Doesn't take very much time to sharpen up and develop your anaerobic capacity. However, for your aerobic capacity it takes many many years. On the flip side, using your logic, why should milers ever do short speed sessions, if their event is primarily aerobic and their aerobic capacity is the limiting factor? Last thing, whenever I watch a elite level 400 race the limiting factor to seems like stamina. The last 100 and the one who wins always looks like the one who slowed down the least. I'm no sprint expert, but have out of curiosity looked into Hart training. And it makes sense to me.

I believe I read Coach Hart saying that aerobic training only helped the 400 meter runner recover.

So that is the only reason why it was needed and he felt that it was only about 3% of a 400 meter runners

needs. He did think it was necessary.

I might be thinking of another coach, but the above is faulty talk and can be misunderstood.

Perhaps wrestling cat is thinking of the article where Hart said what my first paragraph states.

In that I would certainly agree with wresting cat!

Zeno's arrow wrote:

Wrestling cat wrote:

You know it, I know it.

You have committed the logical fallacy known as begging the question: assuming the very thing in dispute. I don't think you know very much.

Lool, we got a philosophy major here.

I made this thread partly because I knew my opinion was going to be controversial but also because I thought the idea that Hart's philosophy is a great way to train should be challenged. It was meant to provoke discussion and debate, not for people to just take my word for it.

Even if I steel-man the argument that long to short is the absolute best way to train for the 400m (I don't agree but for the sake of argument Iets say it is) my main point is that the methodology is over prescribed at a lower level of track (high school and low tier track colleges) where most athletes are not even trying to specialize at the 400m. Yeah, Michael Johnson made it work but high school and college coaching should not be trying to copy the training programs of genetic freaks.

How many high school sprinters actually want to run a 400m? Not many. So why then is long to short the primary training method used at a high school level?

Hart's method advocates starving the cats and getting them out of the sport. How many high school athletes have the sport lost because track practices are too long and hard? And for what? Tony Holler's athletes run some of the top overall HS times in the country across every sprint distance with half the effort.

what are you talking about? wrote:

I'm no sprint expert

At least we can agree on this much.

Wrestling cat wrote:

what are you talking about? wrote:

I'm no sprint expert

At least we can agree on this much.

And you are? What are your credentials?

what are you talking about? wrote:

Wrestling cat wrote:

At least we can agree on this much.

And you are? What are your credentials?

Lol what do you want my autobiography? Nah I don't feel obligated to tell some anonymous random person on the internet who I am and who I've trained with.

I will tell you this, I've trained under both methodologies, Hart's way (yes I used to train in a Clyde Hart program), Holler's way, Veney's way. Hart's training actually worked for me to a certain extent because I was innately fast but it was still obvious to me that Tony Holler's way of training sprinting is better and I did not hesitant to change even though I had trained in a Hart system most of my track and field life with improvement.

Hart's system just has too many flaws. It opens you up to over training if done incorrectly (and the vast majority of coaches who try to copy Hart end up doing so incorrectly) which is something that would never ever happen in a feed the cats program. It only really works on athletes who are innately fast and not those who are untalented. Feed the cats won't make a below average talent an olympian but it will make them faster than what they were before. Hart won't. He only worked with elite/college sprinters for a reason. And even at the highest level of track and field, feed the cats/adapt or die is still the better training philosophy.

Does it even need to be argued that feed the cats is objectively better for 100m and 200m sprinters? why then is long to short still being used as the primary training method at a high school level when the majority of sprinters don't even want to specialize at the 400m?

Hart was successful on a fluke. Yeah, you can say he had Wariner as well as Michael Johnson but in my view Wariner would have broken the WR if he trained differently from what Hart was having him do. He had already capped his endurance what he needed was more speed. Always thought it was a pity seeing him get close to breaking the WR but never actually doing it because the wrong things were emphasized in his training.

It doesn't matter what my credentials are. Look at what Tony Holler has accomplished. And he's as anti Clyde Hart as you can get.

Wrestling cat wrote:

Hart was successful on a fluke.

LMAO

You say he has too many flaws, yet you don't go into depth. Other than overtraining, which can become a problem No matter what training philosophy you follow. And can you tell me why "feeding the cats" is better?

????? wrote:

Wrestling cat wrote:

Hart was successful on a fluke.

LMAO

Hart got lucky that he got his hands on a couple of freak athletes with good genetics.

If you gave Hart a random selection of people to train for a 400m and someone like Latiff Thomas a random selection of people to train for a 400m, Latiff Thomas's athletes would be faster on average almost all the time. If you make them compete across all sprint distances (60, 100, 200, and the 400) then it's no contest. Tony Holler too, if he had to only focus on training the 400m.

Kickapoo wrote:

I believe I read Coach Hart saying that aerobic training only helped the 400 meter runner recover.

So that is the only reason why it was needed and he felt that it was only about 3% of a 400 meter runners

needs. He did think it was necessary.

I might be thinking of another coach, but the above is faulty talk and can be misunderstood.

Perhaps wrestling cat is thinking of the article where Hart said what my first paragraph states.

In that I would certainly agree with wresting cat!

Well I do not want to be misunderstood. Martin and Coe's book said the aerobic value for the 400 meter is

about 30%. I do think that a 400 meter runner can benefit from cross country running. Long Jumpers and

100 meter guys benefit from it. Yes, in 2018-2019!

But Wrestling Cat does make a good argument. You want your kids to enjoy the sport first before requiring that

they do things they might initially hate! So, for high school he has a very good argument.

Just want to know them wrote:

You say he has too many flaws, yet you don't go into depth. Other than overtraining, which can become a problem No matter what training philosophy you follow. And can you tell me why "feeding the cats" is better?

No, overtraining should never ever occur during a feed the cats program. If you get overtrained you are not doing feed the cats. It is very easy for some sprinters (based on things like genetics) to overtrain to some extent doing long to short because of the high volume of work and short recovery. The margin of error is very small. Doing intervals just a little too fast repeatedly and you'll burn out over time. This would never happen in feed the cats because every interval on a speed day is done at max intensity but the distance is very short, the recovery is long, the reps are low and speed days are spaced apart to allow days in between for recovery.

Furthermore, it is almost impossible for naturally slow athletes to build speed doing long to short. I've seen kids go from running 12 seconds to running 10.6 doing adapt or die/feed the cats. The 12 second kids who do long to short are still running 12 seconds even after doing the program for years. The fact of the matter is most high school athletes who are not innately fast do not have time to mess around doing 10 x 200m if they want to get fast. They need to start building their speed base day 1 and then work on extending it if they want to sprint a longer distance. Every athlete who trained with Clyde Hart was already fast before working with him so he could go straight to extending their speed without worrying about having to build it. And even then there are more efficient ways of extending speed than doing 10 x 200m.

Kickapoo wrote:

cross country running. Long Jumpers and

100 meter guys benefit from it. Yes, in 2018-2019!

But Wrestling Cat does make a good argument. You want your kids to enjoy the sport first before requiring that

they do things they might initially hate! So, for high school he has a very good argument.

I strongly disagree with what you said about cross country running being beneficial to 100 meter runners and long jumpers.

But yes, the feed the cats system is all about making training efficient as well as fun. I'll ask all these Clyde Hart fanboys again how many kids have given up on running track because the amount of running at high school practice they had to do was too much? This is my main argument when I say that the world of track and field would be better off without Clyde Hart's methodology in it. Most high school programs tried to copy Hart. Most kids burnout doing 10 x200m intervals at practice day after day. So what if it worked for Michael Johnson. The average track sprinter is not going to be successful training like Michael Johnson. I'd argue Michael Johnson would still have run the same times without Clyde Hart and even if he didn't is what Hart did for him worth setting the high school track system back a couple of years?