Peter Snell Interview and his thoughts on Lydiard training

Antonio,

I don't know how much more I have to say here but I want to pile onto this post and makeroom's. I've been pretty sure that some of the trolls on previous threads were you and never understood why you wanted to do that. You've got loads of knowledge and experience in the sport and I've always enjoyed the discussions I've had with you when you're, well, you.

Rubbish wrote:I love how Ventolin lists Vaatainen's 400 pb as 48.9 and then immediately announces that he's lost over 1 and a half seconds on it so that it fits in with his line of nonsense.

instead of spouting rubbish, go look at his wiki entry

it says he was an 800 runner until late-'60s when he then decided to concentrate on longer distances

only an idiot woud believe that a 800 guy moving to 5k/10k permanently, woud still keep the 400 speed of yore

for him, it appears that he may have managed to keep his 800 ability, but it wasn't great to start with

juha's estimates - i was just working off his quoted "13'10/27'10" ability in '71 - i agreed with the former, not the latter

as for viren :

for the 3k, remember, 7'36 value is a slower 3k than his contemporary foster's later 7'35wr & anyone who saw them woud have little doubt that viren wouda been close to anything foster ran for 3k or above

as for viren's 27'26 value, remember in his 27'38wr, he fell down & lost 30m to the field & then caught it up seemingly too quickly in 1/2 a lap & still won !

that musta been close to 27'30 without the shenanigans & then on top of that it wasn't a circuit tt but a race, with bedford opening in a crazy 60s

flatten out the uneven pace & you are definitely looking at the conclusion, a sub-27'30 time

that only leaves the 5k as being "off from their potential"

i'm not too sure where to look here as he ran those all over many year span - there was close to a decade gap between his 1500 & M pbs

for this sort of thing, you have to target a track distance & think about 1 particular year

probably '74 for 1500 or '76/'77 for 5k, but that 800pb of 1'47.6 looks pretty poor for a 1500 guy who ran within 0.8s of then existing wr

for him it's fumbling in the dark, but a start :

- '74,

49.00 / 1'46.25 -> 3'33.3 , 7'37.5 , 13'20.4

( the 3 & 5k aren't applicable to him that year as he was a 1500 guy & it's virtually inconceivable his endurance lasted "perfectly" to 5k that year )

- '76/'77,

49.75 / 1'47.00 -> 3'33.4 , 7'34.9 , 13'12.7

slightly interesting :

you can see the 400 & 800 have slowed modestly with the extra endurance work, but it's possible his 1500 ability was little affected ( ! ), but we do have reasonable 5k there for a guy who came close to the gold in '76

this might be of more interest, for an iberian c '84

53.00 / 1'51.25 -> 3'37.6 , 7'34.8 , 13'02.1 , 27'09.8

this iberian couda run within coupla secs of the 5k wr that year

HRE wrote:

Antonio,

...I've been pretty sure that some of the trolls on previous threads were you and never understood why you wanted to do that.

Actually you blamed Skuj.

A question for ventolin:

Does your calculator take into account blood doping?

Because it would be impossible to use the same formula for both doped and undoped athletes comparing times at different distances.

So which type of athlete do you assume? Undoped or doped?

Wetter Coast wrote:

HRE wrote:

Antonio,

...I've been pretty sure that some of the trolls on previous threads were you and never understood why you wanted to do that.

Actually you blamed Skuj.

And I also thought Antonio was doing it.

HRE wrote:

Wetter Coast wrote:

Actually you blamed Skuj.

And I also thought Antonio was doing it.

Once again. I´m not the only one that did all the posts, just about some part of that.

Further up when i will tell you what´s the reason why i did so, might be you don´t agree with my strategy, but you will know why i did so.

Actually, i want to take some time to continue my post reply to Nobby posts, he deserves it, you all deserve that i take things for serious and identify myself. I always think about Nobby as one serious man with strong temperament and strong charater, and it´s with people like him, that i want to try my best, not with Ventolin 3, whatever.

I know. I was very careful to make sure I said "some" of the trolls.

Most of them.

it doesn't matter if athlete is doped or undoped, that calculator just gives them the numbers

paula radcliffe is the most vehement non-doper in the world

her line of fit for track season in '02 ( just to 0.25s for 400/800 ) is

58.50 / 2'02.75 -> 4'00.0 , 8'21.5 , 14'22.2 , 29'56.3

so, we have line for non-doper

then we have line for a known doper - saidi-sief c '99/'00, again to just 0.25s for 400/800 ( you'd get much more accurate results to 0.2 or even 0.1s, but i'm not spending that much time on it )

49.25 / 1'45.25 -> 3'28.9 , 4'45.5 , 7'23.0 , 12'49.4

line for doper

you can't tell who is doping or not, except i do tend to believe doping helps you run well at a range of distances simultaneously

Antonio Cabral wrote:I always think about Nobby as one serious man with strong temperament and strong charater, and it´s with people like him, that i want to try my best, not with Ventolin 3, whatever.

moron

here's one for a miler :

47.50 / 1'42.75 -> 2'11.6 , 3'25.9 . 4'42'5 , 7'20.8 , 12'50.3

from

i wanna know this guy's 800 ability in '98

offer me something...

Keep on Posting Antonio. I, for one, am keen to see what you have to say.

Thanks Kim.

I will do some more posts, I didn´t forget it, I don´t let it go, put you have to wait. I want to post and debate training, but my first priority is to coach my runners.

You are the Man Kim, you are the one that knows Arthur training by what you saw with your own eyes, for what you did talk with Arthur directly.

Your testimony it´s interesting, because sometimes the theory and daily practice is different.

I take the opportunity to say that i agree with you. Ther´s no one champion that´s 100% undefeated. An undefeated runner doesn´t exist ever. No way.

Even the world´s top distance runners of every period, like Nurmi, Zatopec, Snell, Keino, Viren, Yfter , Gebrelassie, El Guerrouj, Bekele, they were defeated someday somehow.

Only when the runner quits out of competition too soon as Herb Elliott did to early, it´s the only chance of don´t be defeat never.

NobbyH wrote:

Now, I would NOT be surprised at all, after all that we had tried to explain, that some people may still come back and say, BS. It ain't gonna work. Fine. Some people believe in knife and fork; some people believe in chopsticks... Some people believe in chicken, some still love beef.

POST NUMBER FOUR

Today I continue to post one intro post before to move the methodological debate as an attempt to answer Nobby posts . I hope it will be my last story for the moment.

It´s another true story this time, some time ago in Japan.

Some years ago one Portuguese team of woman travel to Japan to compete in the famous International Chiba Ekiden, the famous marathon run relay.

The coach of the team is one woman also. Maria do Sameiro Araujo. When the team arrives in Japan, the Japanese organization as well as the Japan Athletics Federation did suspect about that woman coach. How might one women coach to coach and get some discipline in other women ? To expand the suspicious she isn´t one real coach, the aspect of that woman coach is such that they don´t trust could be possible. She smokes, she drinks, tinted nails with red, red lipstick, nothing is the conventional image of one coach.

Japanese do contact the Portuguese Federation to know if that coach is “real”. Effectively Maria do Sameiro Araujo is not just one ordinary woman coach. She Is the Coach !

Since 3 decades ago she was been the coach of some of the best Portuguese woman runners.

She did coach Albertina Dias, world cross country winner, and once 2nd and once 3rd in that same WCCC.

She was the coach of Manuela Machado, two times winner of the marathon in the World Champ.

She was the coach of many other portuguese top woman and among dozens I can name. Conceicao Ferreira, Albertina Machado, Fernanda Marques, and she is the earlier coach of Jessica Augusto the last 2010 European Cross Country Champ winner and many more.

She is one great coach with great reputation in my country. Actually she does one institutional charge. She is the Head Coach of the middle and long distance runs on the technical department on Portuguese Athletics Federation. Head coach of women and men also !

(on this Portuguese Atletics Federation site address you can see what is her position in the Technical Department)

Mª. Sameiro Araújo - Técnica Nacional de Meio-fundo

As you might understand she is not just one ordinary coach, she is one of the best.

The Portuguese Federation reply to the Ekiden organisation and to the Japan federation while say she is the coach of the team really indeed, and then they start to trust that she is a real coach, and they need to accept that fact.

However for the organization of the Ekiden and also the Japan Athletics federation, to be a woman, and with her profile, she couldn´t be a coach of women runners. Once again what´s right for some can be B.S. for some others.

One more time, this my little true story, shows how we can be different and thing different about the same subject, and also what some don´t imagine that might work, it works quite perfect. We all need to accept that people think different about the same subject.

If we think about training, we need to understand there is not one unique type of distance training that can lead to success or be effective, but several type of different training methods can lead to success.

We need to “open the eyes, hear and mind”, we need to be pragmatic and flexible about what´s different, we need to try to understand how the other he/she is and how he/she does. When we undertand our diffrence it´s when weare ready to understand and accept that the other might be different, but still works.

There’s not one unilateral training method.

(to be continued...)

Very interesting woman coach.

maru wrote:

Very interesting woman coach.

Here she is.

Sameiro Araújo

Just a thought: This debate regarding why/why not aerobic conditioning phase/period first is feeling stuck. If we can talk about energy flow within a training context we can get a different image.

An analogy like AC and DC in electricity flow can be very useful. This is the area of energy flow isn't it? The 'bits' or 'waves' of electricity streaming down a pathway is the image.

So how do we we decide which is more important the DC or AC? Or is it a redundant question to even talk about relative importance? Lets see.

These appear to be logical facts to me.

You can't have an Alternating Current (AC) without already having a Direct current (DC) present.

You can have a DC without having an AC.

Therefore we can conclude that the DC is prior to the AC. The DC must already be present or there cannot be an AC.

If we apply this to the steady long running (DC) and the breaking up of this steadiness into off and on components - repetitions/intervals/even fartlek (AC), we can assume that the steady state must be present before the alternating state can be developed.

So following this logic it appears commonsensical to me that first the steady state needs to be developed till it is solid (ie hard to disrupt) and able to be held steady over a long enough period of time. Once the athlete is at this stage of development, then and only then can we start to use the off and on switch. Prior to this it seems a situation fraught with too many potential problems for any serious repetition work to be done.

It's a nice attempt, but I think the analogy will start to fall apart considering you can use AC to develop DC.