Gjert Ingebrigtsen shares the secret to his sons' success - high mileage - and claims "they don’t have any natural speed."

The discussion has become diverted into a debate about the Lydiard programme. That misses the point. The only relevance of the Lydiard programme in the discussion is to indicate that high-mileage training is not new. Yet it is that high-mileage training which is being offered as an explanation for the unusual successes of the Ingebrigtsens.

Long-mileage is a training feature that most elite runners employ now, with individual variations to suit that athlete, and they have done so for more than half a century. So why does it work so well for the Norwegian brothers, and better, it seems, than for many of their fellow-competitors?

It is being offered by some here, including Renato Cova, that it isn't simply mileage, as such, but its intensity that is crucial. But how are athletes able to train at that intensity, day in day out, far harder than many great runners were able to do in the past? If there is anything that doping can do it is to enable an athlete to train harder and more often, with greatly increased recovery. It is argued here that athletes recover better because they train harder; it is equally true that they are able to train harder because they recover better. And this is what doping can do.

If athletes who are "naturally slow" are able to run much faster for longer than many of their naturally faster and more illustrious predecessors, then we need a better explanation than that they are following essentially the same old training methods as athletes did in the past, or even their present competition do today.

SprintTriathlon wrote:

Nice inputs from Canova!

I Jakob tested vo2 max and velocity at vo2max as a 11 years old and the results was going through the roof.

II His 400 and 800 meter results are from 2017 (so not comparable).

III The Ingebrigtsen' doubles a lot and spend a lot of time at threshold, but do no speedwork off sesason.

1. Most athletes are not VO2max tested at age 11. So who is he being compared with that is relevant to that age?

2. If his best 400 and 800 times were back in 2017 why have they not improved? It could well be that he has not improved his basic speed. Gert says Jakob and his brothers are "naturally slow". I'll take his word for that.

3. It isn't their threshold training that is being offered as the key to their success, but high mileage (according to their father). So what are they running each week that is different from anyone else?

Sorry, you are wrong about high mileage not being new with Lydiard. I was there at the time and his programme was dramatically different from the more typical Stampfl programme, for instance, which preceded it. I had even started on the Stampfl method before I switched to Lydiard's programme, which made me and so many other more naturally-talented runners than me successful to the extent we were. Only Cerutty/Elliot's training bore a resemblance to it. Periodisation was part of Lydiard's method but it wasn't the key part; high-mileage conditioning training was.

In respect of your points about Cram and Coe running comparable times to Jakob today; these were world record holders in their prime - not teenagers - and much faster in terms of basic speed than Jakob, as we see in their 800m performances. Yet, over 1500m, this comparatively slow teenager has caught them up. How?

Armstronglivs wrote:

In respect of your points about Cram and Coe running comparable times to Jakob today; these were world record holders in their prime - not teenagers - and much faster in terms of basic speed than Jakob, as we see in their 800m performances. Yet, over 1500m, this comparatively slow teenager has caught them up. How?

Man...you can say that again! Coe's sizzling 1:41.73 was the WR for 16 yrs and Cram was no slouch running 1:42.88 at his best.

I enjoy reading your posts - you're very comprehensive and in-depth with your research. Your perspective certainly gets one thinking about this (though personally I'm still on the fence and uncertain). And you've seemed to warranted some respect from rekrunner, which is very unusual when he's debating posters on these issues.

Sometimes I think this forum is some kind of opposite land, where the laws of logic are inverted, and facts combined with the alternate logic lead to the exact opposite conclusions.

Very Interesting wrote:

I enjoy reading your posts - you're very comprehensive and in-depth with your research. Your perspective certainly gets one thinking about this (though personally I'm still on the fence and uncertain). And you've seemed to warranted some respect from rekrunner, which is very unusual when he's debating posters on these issues.

You really don't understand anything, being blind to see what changed in training.

1- With continue frequentation of the intensity and the gradual adaptation athletes have, when they have the same INTERNAL LOAD, during a period of 2-3 years they become able to run at 15"/20" per km faster in long run, and in 3"/5" faster long intervals. They become also able to REDUCE the recovery times, because one effect of training is to increase the permeability of the cell membranes, in order to remove the same quantity of lactate quicker.

2- This means that athletes can produce MORE lactate than in the past, being able to remove it in shorter time, and a percentage of lactate is a new source of energy, due to the Krebs cycle.

3- This is true for the long distances, but also short distances are benefitted by a higher threshold.

4- For raising the threshold, we have to use two different kinds of training :

a) continuous fast run of duration between 10' and 20' (for example, a race of 5000m)

b) repetitions of duration between 1'30" and 2', at a speed about 5% faster than the speed of the current LT (Lactic Threshold), with short recovery. In this case, the athlete start to produce lactate at a level under the LT, but starting every time before having total recovery, the level of lactate is growing, with increased accumulation. We call this type of training LACTIC RESISTANCE, and is connected with the ability to raise the LT.

In other words, the athlete runs, for example, 10 times 600m in 1'30" with 2' recovery. After the first can reach a level of

3 mml, after the second 3.5, after the third 4, at the end 10. This means he starts the repetitions in the Aerobic Zone, and ends in high Lactic Zone. This type of training contributes to raise the Threshold, and with a higher Threshold the athlete can run faster, at the same level of INTERNAL LOAD.

5- Don't be silly when you ask "If his best 400 and 800 times were back in 2017 why have they not improved?"

Because he never went to run again the distances, but arguably in the shape of 3'31" he could easily run 800m in 1'47".

You do the mistake of the most part of posters, who go to see the PB of every athlete, without considering WHEN and HOW MANY TIMES they ran the distance. I already wrote it before, but I need to repeat again, because you seems not to be very fast in understanding : the PB of El Guerrouj is 1'47"18 (1995) when able running 3'31"16, but in 1999 he ran 3'26"00 : do you think his PB in 800m could be the same, if he had run the event only on time ?

Mo Farah ran in 1'48"69 in 2003, when his best in 1500m was 3'43"17 : when he ran 3'28"81, his 800m still were at the same level ?

Caleb Ndiku has a PB in 800m of 1'52"6 in 2007, when 15y old. When was able running 3'29"50 in 2013, do you think that one was his level ?

Daniel Komen the king ran in 1995 in 1'50"8 and 3'34"63, but two years later improved till 3'29"46 : was the value of his 800m the same ?

Daniel Kipchirchir Komen ran 1'47"04 in 2006, when was also able running 3'29"02. How much is the difference between the double of his PB in 800m (3'34'08) and his PB (3'29"02) ? It's less than 5", and Komen in training did a lot of speed.

About the last statement, can be more correct to speak about "high volume of runs around the speed of the threshold", and this is something very different from the past.

When we speak about "high mileage", we need to understand what it means. For Japanese Marathon runners, 1000 km per week is a normal nileage, and 1400 km is considered "high mileage". Toshihiko Seko ran 480 km in one week, and his average was about 350. With their old and classic system, Kipchoge, with his 200-220 km, or Sondre Moen, were athletes of "low mileage".

While Haile normally ran more than 200km per week, Kenenisa rarely overtake 150, with a terrible intensity.

So, 150-160 km per week is not a "high mileage" when we speak about top athletes in aerobic events, and the ecceptions are very few, normally regarding athletes coming from 800m. Without that kind of "base" is absolutely not possible to run around the threshold 3 times per week, but when there is continuity in this type of training is the training itself increasing the ability to recover, nothing to do with doping.

Last thing : you have to change the question, when you ask "why the athletes of the past, already using high volume, were not able to recover training of high intensity in short time", in "The athletes of the past,also very strong, and using high GENERAL volume, but low volume of SPECIFIC INTENSITY, could become able to recover in short time if could use training of high intensity with continuity ?",

In this question there is the answer, and the reason because short distances don't improve, but long distances continue to grow, is that the key is the increase of the VOLUME OF THE INTENSITY (so, not the general volume, neither the intensity very much faster than the speed of the race).

Armstronglives - Jakob Ingebrigtsen has not improved on the 400 or the 800 - BECAUSE HE HAS NOT COMPETED IN THOSE DISTANCES FOR TWO YEARS!

He is mainly a 1500 meter runner, and doesnt need to run other distances just to make YOU satisfied!

If he wanted, he would surely set new personal bests.

Renato, it doesn't make your arguments more persuasive to blind us with science. However, the essential point I take from what you appear to be saying is that the critical element in training is the high-intensity part, and particularly when it is of progressively sustained intensity. However, you also acknowledge that this kind of training has to proceed from a strong aerobic base. None of this I disagree with.

The problem I have with that as an explanation for the superior performances of the modern era is that these methods have been part of the runner's training pantheon for decades now: long steady-state running, fartlek, hill-training, interval reps - these have been well-established in the athletes ' repertoire, and they all contain the elements that you describe as being crucial to today's training methods. I would agree that, over the years, what can be undertaken in training has increased, and the proportions given to the mixture of aerobic and high-intensity work has changed as well. This will have undoubtedly have contributed to improvements in overall performances.

But the improvements in performances we see today contain another factor whose influence is difficult to measure because it is covert. A good proportion of elite athletes are reliably and expertly estimated to dope - the exact figure can only be an approximation and is the subject of debate here - surveys have shown it may be 1 in 3 elite athletes or perhaps even more than 1 in 2. With ped use of those proportions it is virtually impossible to separate training methods from doping in terms of their respective contribution to elite performances. But they will each have made their contribution and they continue to do so.

It strains credulity to suggest that superior training methods alone produce superior performances and that doping has no effect on this; the multi-million dollar industry of scientists, technicians, coaches, trainers and athletes would not be buying into a practice where there are significant penalties for exposure (not to mention the risk to the athlete's health) if it all ultimately had no more useful effect on an athlete than mothers' milk.

Nor-way wrote:

Armstronglives - Jakob Ingebrigtsen has not improved on the 400 or the 800 - BECAUSE HE HAS NOT COMPETED IN THOSE DISTANCES FOR TWO YEARS!

He is mainly a 1500 meter runner, and doesnt need to run other distances just to make YOU satisfied!

If he wanted, he would surely set new personal bests.

So, despite being an athlete of relatively slow basic speed for a 1500m runner he has seen no need to compete in the shorter distances, especially the 800, as a part of his preparation in seeking to improve and maximise his speed? If there is no benefit from racing shorter distances, why did he bother to race those events two years ago? He must have considerable confidence in what he is doing to sustain his limited basic speed over the longer distances.

Renato, you refer to the relatively poor 800m times of a number of athletes who had outstanding performances in the 1500m and upwards. It is likely that their times could have been better in the shorter event (given that some of them were running it no faster than Bannister) but it is largely conjecture just how much faster they would have been. It may not have been much, or they would have been at competitive over the 800 - as most 1500/milers were before them.

Several decades ago, to run in the region of 3.30 or so for the 1500 would have required that the athlete be capable of at least sub-1.45 for the 800. The best could run in the region of 1.42. But not today. I doubt whether any of the runners you mention could get near those times; they had phenomenal speed-endurance but they were not fast. It is that feature that causes me to view many of their performances with scepticism; they are, or were, much less-inclined to tire than athletes who had run similar performances before them, and were capable of running closer to their basic speed for longer. It is also an interesting coincidence that this trend in middle-distance performance was part of the EPO era, and obviously included several of the runners you mention.

Sorry. Arthur Newton predated Lydiard by several decades. Lydiard's value added was the way he combined "anaerobic" and "aerobic" training, and timed the peak to the important goals -- periodization and peaking. As we have seen, Jakob's 400m/800m cannot be compared to his 1500m. 3:31 is not quite caught up to sub-3:30. But once again, in your world, over a period of three decades of aerobic training and 1 in 2 doping, the list of runners faster than Coe and Cram is remarkably small -- hardly a ringing endorsement for the power of drugs as the only path to produce "unusual" performances.

A great aerobic engine allow the athletes to recover very quickly some lactic workout. We don't need pure speed, but SPECIFIC SPEED ENDURANCE.

Look for example at Steve Cram. He didn't run too many times 400m, however his PB was 48"5 when already was able running in 3'32". When was at his top in 1500m, Cram ran also 2'12"88 in 1000m, and 1'42"88 in 800m, without having speed near the one of the best 800m runners.

One of his training session was 10 times 300m between 39" and 39"5, with recovery shorter than 40". This was already the pace for 1'44", putting together 3 tests without recovery, and was a typical workout possible for somebody with very high aerobic level.

I don't see any reason for running some competition of 400m when you are in preparation for longer distances, other the curiosity to see how much you can do. How many 400m individual, for example, Sebastian Coe (PB 46"87 in 1979), or Wilson Kipketer (46"85 in 1994, with his best in 800m in 1997), or Joaqim Cruz, or Wilfred Bungei (46"99 in 2006), or Abubaker Kaki, or Andre Bucher (46"22), or Mohamed Amman, did run in their career ? Anf how many 400m did Peter Snell run ?

So, all what we can do is to estimate a potential speed, without any objective data.

I agree with you that many means of training started with Lydiard : circuit on hill, and sprints climbing, for example.

But what NOBODY did in those years was running LONG AND FAST. Ron Clarke was considered a pioneer because every week included in his training one session di 15 km around 3' per km. This means a pace of 30' for 10 km for an athlete able running, alone, in 27'39". This means a difference of 2'20", that is almost 10% of the speed of the race.

Today, the top runners of 10000m run in training 8 km at the full pace of the race (Bekele), 12 km at 97% of the race pace, and 20 km at 93% of the pace of the race (including competitions of HM, run at 96% of the pace of the race).

About Jakob, don't forget he won European Champs not only in 1500m, but in 5000m too, so clearly his trend is to move to longer distances (including steeple).

At the end, we have to accept that training for long distances changed completely, and what we use today with the top athletes is very far from the system of Lydiard, Igloi, Stampfl, Cerutty and the other historical coaches of that time.

Honestly, we have also to admit that, in the short distances, the training of 40 years ago was, probably, better than the training of today (and indeed the times in 800m didn't improve, the deepest period was between 1980 and 1988).

Aaah, this clears things up. This isn't about science for you, but about faith. "1 in 3" or "1 in 2" athletes doping is a measure of faith, not effect. All these powerful performance enhancing and recovery properties for elites are not scientific propositions, but more declarations of faith. Multi-billion dollar pharmacies make profit when faith is high.

Armstronglivs wrote:

Renato, it doesn't make your arguments more persuasive to blind us with science...

One must keep the faith, particularly in one's coaches and doctors. And in our self-less noble Sportsmen who are unblemished angel-like creatures without a trace of ego, whose morals tower over all other mortal folk - not for them is the indignity trading the purity of Competition for a few corporate $. For these pure entitities, the spirit of Competition is merely the taking part and those who betray the spirit by doping are emissaries of the Devil.

Contrary to what rekrunner asserts, I don't take anything on "faith" - which is why I have learned to be sceptical about what I see now in professional sports. I was trained in law, and have learned an evidence-based approach to analysis, and the evidence from many different sources is that doping is now an integral part of elite sport across the board. Given that is so, it is reasonable if not necessary to look behind performances such as those of the Ingebrigtsen brothers to ask how they accomplish what they do. Ironically, the "faith-based approach" now includes using selective statistics to categorically declare that the problem cannot be more or other than what those particular statistics reveal, and that what they reveal is therefore less than what any more diverse analysis would suggest. It does not recognise that many statistics can only be indicative and do not determine anything. The result is a conclusion arrived at to suit a predetermined view, and is typically a reflection of unconscious bias. It is the opposite of any evidence-based approach, which rarely determines a complex issue on any single item of evidence.

I am more interested in what Renato says about modern training methods although I am sceptical that high-intensity high-mileage training is responsible for most of the improvements we see in distance running today. Too many EPO busts tells me otherwise. It is known that the kind of training he refers to is aided by doping. One doesn't need to dope for races, as much as for training - which is why so few are caught today by in-competition tests.

You say : . It is known that the kind of training he refers to is aided by doping. One doesn't need to dope for races, as much as for training - which is why so few are caught today by in-competition tests.

I strongly disagree with your statement.

It is known by whom ? Because I know that I had athletes bettering the WR completing clean. I know that in 6 months an athlete like Erick Kiptanui moved from 3'37" in 1500 to 58'42" in HM. I know that another athlete of medium talent (Damniel Kipchumba) running steeple in 8'30" with one winter of training for long distances ran twice in 59'06", winning both the times and, in the second race (Copenhagen), beating Abraham Kiptum, who one month later destroyed the WR. I know that Florence Kiplagat, after years of training, bettered the WR in HM in both 2014 and 2015. I know that Josphat Boit, who ran his first competition (5000m) in Nakuru on 5th May 2017, finishing in 14'25", after 16 months was able to pace Kipchoge in Berlin till 27 km at the same speed. I know that in October 2016 a guy from Norway, Sondre Moen, asked to be coached, and in one year he moved his PB in marathon from 2:12 till the European Record of 2:05:47, improving in the season ALL his PB from 3000m till marathon. And I know WHY he was not able running marathon faster before 2016 : because he forgot completely any workout of speed endurance, and his PB were from many years before.

And I know that ALL these results were achieved WITHOUT any external aid, legal or illegal.

And I know that continuous training helps the body to recover quickly also tough workouts, BECAUSE THE INTERNAL LOAD REMAINS THE SAME RUNNING FASTER, THANK TO CONTINUE ADAPTATION AFTER RIGHT OVERCOMPENSATION.

And I know another thing, too : that NO ONE of these athletes was able to reach his real potential, and also when they bettered the WR I realized they could have run faster, because NEVER their training and/or their competition was perfect.

This is the reason because I can't believe in all the bullshits about big improvement with blood doping. Who believes in doping, doesn't have really experience and knowledge of training WITHOUT doping (that is difference), and doesn't know the effects of training, because with doping many things become different, but not necessarely better.

rekrunner wrote:

Sometimes I think this forum is some kind of opposite land, where the laws of logic are inverted, and facts combined with the alternate logic lead to the exact opposite conclusions.

Very Interesting wrote:

I enjoy reading your posts - you're very comprehensive and in-depth with your research. Your perspective certainly gets one thinking about this (though personally I'm still on the fence and uncertain). And you've seemed to warranted some respect from rekrunner, which is very unusual when he's debating posters on these issues.

Then why do you keep responding to trolls? Responding to crazy is itself crazy.

This thread, like many others, have been ruined because you keep responding to an obsessive troll. It's the same back and forth hijacking on random threads OVER AND OVER AND OVER.

Rekrunner, I know that you're not the one who is initiating this crap, but you have the power to stop it. Dont feed the trolls..

I have to side with Rekrunner over Armstrong on this one.

I'm not saying it's wrong to be suspicious of any amazing talent like Jakob. Nick Willis himself has said that it's right that everybody should be suspicious of all the top runners these days, sadly, including himself.

The reason Jakob is standing out is because of a number of things. First of all he (if clean) is obviously one of the greatest talents in history. Secondly he's white, and white middle and distance running has been abysmal for the last four decades, to the point where a consensus had almost been reached that East Africans are naturally superior and that even the likes of Coe only succeeded because there were few East Africans around at the time.

It's not like Jakob is wiping the performances of Coe, Cram etc off the map as a teen (yet, anyway). It's perfectly reasonable to believe that Coe, Cram, Ovett, and for that matter, Elliott, Snell, Ryun could run sub 3:26 on the Monaco track in today's world. Coe and the Brits could well have gotten very close to that kind of time back in their day with just a little bit better pacemaking and competition or luck with injuries and health. So Jakob still has a bit to go.

If you believe Elliott, Snell, Ryun, and then the Brits were clean, I see no reason to doubt that (finally) a modern European descent athlete would emerge with the same talent. This talent is in the absolute perfect environment to flourish and reach full potential.

As far as I know Jakob only runs one or two 800m each season. I think the last one was in the same weekend as competing in two other events at the Norwegian championships.

Another thing is that sports physiology and health care has improved massively since even the 80's. Maybe Coe, Cram, and Ovett would have handled more mileage as teens today, and not gotten injured so much later in their careers as well.

And to make clear - I personally have no suspicions about Jakob at all.

Coevett, you have reason : it's possible to run at the top in clean way, having talent, continuity in career, motivation and right training (that is not so frequent to see).

And I also agree that in 1500m the Britons (Coe, Cram and Ovett) could have had the chance to run at least 2 seconds faster if in races well organized like in Monaco in the last years.

But at this point, I have for you a question : if you believe Jakob is clean, and can run 3'31" (and in my opinion also under 13'05" in 5000m) when not yet 18, WHY DO YOU THINK ALL KENYANS ARE DOPED ?

You wrote : Secondly he's white, and white middle and distance running has been abysmal for the last four decades, to the point where a consensus had almost been reached that East Africans are naturally superior and that even the likes of Coe only succeeded because there were few East Africans around at the time.

I never thought African were genetically superior, but is a fact they were able to dominate during last 20 years, for the following reasons :

1- The superior motivation coming from the knowledge that, if able to run very fast, they had the opportunity to earn some money, for them more important than for European or American, with the possibility to change their life.

2- Connected with this motivation / dream, the result is that in Kenya and Ethiopia EVERYBODY tries to become a runner, so every "good fish" remains in the net,

3- Because of the big groups of athletes, running very hard, the EXAMPLE for the new generation is only one : train hard and run at your maximal intensity, otherwise you can't succeed (something in Europe we don't have anymore : 30 years ago, in UK the level of training was by far very superior to the level of training of today, as volume, and consequentely as intensity, whose recovery depends on the level of the Aerobic Threshold).

4- The continue and progressive decadence of the European and American level, in a period (lasting about 20 years, from the beginning of 1990 till about 2010) where the goal was to reduce the volume, trying to replace the most paryt of aerobic activity with exercises and other inventions, in the most part not only useless, but also damageous). I often say that Italy could have today a Antibo 1990, or a Panetta 1987, these athletes could fight for a medal in Olympic also today.

So said, don't you think to be a "white supremacist", when you think white people of talent can run at the top in clean way (correct), but think that the most part of Kenyan can't reach the same results without doping ?

I coach black African and white European, and can tell you that the difference is produced by

1- Personal talent

2- Discipline and continuity in training

3- Methodological level of the training itself

Athletes cannot be divided in black and white, or in young and old : in very simple way, they have to be divided in STRONG and WEAK. But too many times weak athletes think to have the same talent, same discipline, same continuity and same level of training of the top, also when is not true ; and for not considering their athletic life a failure, think that with doping only is possible running fast.