Basic Training Principles--New booklet on Lydiard training for high school runners

O.K. thanks for the detailed answer

I guess that what happens with this thread it´s that for the first time - my early post -the fact that i did shake up and did question and disagree, turns on this debate more interesting that the usual Lydiard veneration doesn´t.

My first post reply after that the debate goes deeply - i guess so - it´s direct to you systems nickname, because you all, systems, Rekrunner, or Northern Star and more, you might realize that fromLydiard aerobic-anaerobic misconcept, the main reason that the total of Lydiard training is a package of misunderstand.

To put straight. What Lydiard says it´s not "Your aerobic capacity it´s the important one system to be developed and improved forever". This sentence would be right, since most of the distance training deals with aerobics as prime system with higher percent of intervention to produce a distance performance, at least from 3000m to the marathon event, because 300m to marathon are events beyond the VO2max, thus the interest of the aerobics and the aerobic progress and improve by training. Lydiard says that´s "Your aerobic capacity has no maximum—it can be developed and improved forever ” literally and it´s not by change. He did repeat that often and often with teh same basic misunderstand. If you take a look on report of the Lydiard - the Japanese Conference - it does present one graphic about the dependence of both aerobic and anaerobic systems and the sentence of conclusion is the same "aerobic progress it´s unlimited improve and progress.

He doesn´t say that the aerobics is plausible of be more effective as performance progress an consequently shall be the more quantity and quality trainig variant among that all. No, he doesn´t. He says it´s unlimited.

Conclusion. Once again, Lydiard doesn´t understand what´s aerobics really, the aerobic function, the aerobic contribution and the aerobic role among the distance events.

Now, the interesting point, and the key to understand (what is Lydiard training misunderstand), the prescription of "aerobics first" that i named as stupid. Lydaird creates this concept based in this wrong sentence and wrong conclusion that the aerobic improve is unlimited precisely.

Actually you might understand quite clear what the main reason why he uses the season periodisation as he did. It´s not because the competition phase that was shorten at that past as some Lydiardists tried to suggest. It´s not because the lack of aerobics that most "civilized" countries and some individuals might possess as HRE once suggests, it´s because Lydiard taught that the aerobic system is progress and improve unlimited either and literally.

Northern Star

Just to remind you. i was the first one to introduce on this board the concept, the idea and the expression of "modern training". It´s prove by post dating.

Don´t you never forget when you comment on that subject.

A second comment. Not long ago you comment on me that i´m not able to comment on Renato Canova training since i don´t train by Renato´s method.

That you silly idea made me smile, since i study distance running and distance coaching you weren´t alive yet, neither planed by your mother and father.

Actually i see that you write long copy and past stuffs and you debate about several training methods as an expert that quickly comes from nothing to several coach expertise. You write about Renato Canova, you write about Lydiard training and you pretend to write about modern training.

Since i´m not able to comment on Renato training because i don ´t use the Lydiard method, i ask myself and i ask you what´s the magical talent that able you to write about several different training methods. Do you train both Renato and Lydiard methods together ? Or do you possess some talent or expertise that i don´t ?

Some people are really funny and you are one of them. I can´t comprehend or comment on Renato´s training because i don´t coach by the reanto system but you can write about Renato, Lydiard, modern training.

I imagine that soon you will write about training individualization, one subject that you got expertise long ago.

ps - i wait for your scientific chemistry and physiology expertise justification of the silly sentence that you wrote in your copy and past Lydiard text, this one "aerobic improves and progress forever ". What is the lactate mmol percent of this unlimited aerobic progress ? What´s happens on the mitochondria that this might be possible ? What is the VO2max improve that makes this possible ? Or you got no answer because you did copy that silly sentence without really think about the impossibility and the silly meaning of it ?

The simplest rule of thumb is to compare the length of the recovery to the length of the repetition (workbout):Aerobic: equal distanceAnaerobic: equal timeIt can get more complex of course.Aerobic recoveries are short, active and incomplete.Anaerobic recoveries are long, could be passive/standing, and complete.Aerobic paces tend to be slower than anaerobic paces, but this can also be viewed as a forced by the recoveries: longer recoveries allow faster repetitions because you start each one fresh, while shorter recoveries tend to limit the pace to approximately the race pace of the total distance of the accumulated repetitions.

middledistanceguy wrote:

Hi northern star, I was just wondering is there any rule of thumb when determining whether a training session is aerobic or anerobic?

Antonio,

If you were my only source of Lydiard history, your interpretation might be plausible. You pretend that Lydiard's description of unlimited "aerobic capacity" forms an important defining and immutable basis of Lydiard's training method, and that his misguided understanding of "aerobic capacity", and the aerobic/anaerobic duality, suggests that a method built on that misunderstanding must be equally flawed, for lacking a sound foundation. That is, because he misunderstands the science, he must also misunderstand the training.

But your interpretation is contradicted by documented history. Legend has it that Lydiard formed his ideas about training based on practical experiences around 1945-1953. He found by experience that track training was more effective, after a period of marathon training. His track times were faster, after marathon training, than they were when he was competing in track. He also found that track training too early in the season lead to premature peaks. These basic findings, learned the hard way, or by chance, form the the basis for Lydiard's approach to periodization, and the basis of the method that lead to Olympic success in 1960. Marathon training before track training makes track training more effective. Track training for a few (3-4) weeks is sufficient. More than that leads to premature peaks. His findings were reinforced when he started training others to club and national success. His method was mature about the time he started training Halberg, and Magee. He predicted he needed about 8 years to develop a beginner like Halberg into a world class athlete.

When you read his 1962 book, you won't find the term "aerobic capacity", nor other misguided, misunderstood scientific terms, like "anaerobic" training creating "oxygen debt". You will find terms like "marathon conditioning", "cross-country training", "road-racing", "track training", "endurance", "stamina", "consolidation", and "coordination". The"modern" physiological explanations appeared sometime after 1962 and before 1978 publications of his books, and the more recent presentations you rely on, decades after his training method was matured, and after it was practically proven at the world level. These physiological supplements were based on discussions he had with scientists, after he became famous, that gave him new words to describe why his method worked so well.

When we bother to fix the science, we find that the training still remains largely unchanged. This is because the faulty science you depend on to undermine Lydiard training, was applied decades after the system was mature. The science used to explain what worked in practice, is of secondary importance.

I have to ask myself, if the only way you can make what you call an "interesting debate", is to replace words like "longer" with "shorter", in order to fabricate a conflict, and to rewrite historical timelines to fictitiously establish faulty scientific roots as a fundamental and necessary basis for his method, then how valid is your criticism of Lydiard? And if you yourself have already admitted that science is secondary, how important is the point you so desperately want to make?

rekrunner

Be that Lydiard built his training system with the start point be the training application and further goes from the experience and knowledge of that application to the training principles experience or rather he did the opposite, that is to take knowledge from the training principles and the systems what really matters it´s that something is wrong in the process, something is wrong from the conclusion.

Besides if that exits some responsibility from that wrong sentences, “Lydiard the perfect training”, “Lydiard aerobic first” and “Lydiard aerobic unlimited”, or “Lydiard long one necessary” it´s a responsibility from him but also from the followers/disciples/lidiardists that aren´t able to admit that he was wrong, but instead they spread all that kind of silly sentences. And more, some write texts and books which the starting point is to prove by physiology that the Lydiard principles are correct. How might be possible a rich training based in a impossible, wrong and stupid training principles. Are you able to justify ? I´ve seen some answers. Mostly they justify with Lydiard revisionism, something that Lydiard didn´t imagine to put I practice and he never did, but they hear that from Lydiard in private conversations.

One example. Lydiard doesn´t admit any kind of track intervals during the marathon block. But actually the Lydiard revisionists they spread the idea that on the genuine Lydiard training, the original one, it´s permitted. I don´t take Nothern Star as guilty of that mistake. After all he is just a boy trying his better. He is just a copywriter. He is the good student that gets an A in the test of Renato Canova training and another A in the test of Lydiard training simply because he writes the entire book in the text or because he collects the Renato Canova posts and organizes that in parts/chapters and repeats the same that Renato had said. He might be a good student, get the diploma with A classification, but pay attention to what I say. What he did doesn´t mean that he knows anything about that matters. How I know. Because faced and challenged with an ordinary question, like this one of justify how it´s possible what Lydiard wrote that ”the aerobic improve and progress is unlimited”, Northern Star with all his chemistry knowledge, all his physiology knowledge isn´t able to show us the oxygen formula that able that the aerobic be unlimited. You see, he knows Lydiard by memory, idea by idea, sentence by sentence, but he doesn´t understand really. If he would understood he wouldn´t write such silly sentence, for the knowledge of high school runners. This is the problem of school kids and those of academic studies. Their knowledge is made of the memory to write or copy and past. He knows ? Yes he does. But to understand it´s a different matter.

You are wrong about your history interpretation of Lydiard Ideas though decades of history. Just read Arthur Lydiard's Athletic Training, the lectures he did in Japan and he persists and repeats the same idea that aerobic improve is unlimited. It´s proved that during the 80s and 90s he continues to spread the same sentence and take the same basic conclusion, that “Your aerobic capacity has no maximum—it can be developed

and improved forever !

It´s documented, can´t be denied. Just read all those Lectures of public access, and please don´t ask me about reference. Do your home work as I did it previously.

Despite some might say that i´m a Lydiard ignorant but long ago that knew this part of the Lydiard methodology as well as Lydiard history based on his own experience.

The problem it´s that he takes (as you do and Northern Run does and most of you do) the wrong conclusion. I will let you know why. If you think that my question is simply about the meaning of the words or that can´t accept that the “Your aerobic capacity has no maximum—it can be developed

and improved forever” sentence might be just pamphlet one, you are wrong. It´s the Lydiard training application that is wrong since the start. He took wrong conclusion from the facts, and produces wrong training interpretation, that most of you repeat on and on and you and Northern Star do repeat on this thread. I will let you know why, this is a serious matter, not just my jealously about few Lydiard sentences as you suggest.

It's a fact. There is no end-limit, threshold or barrier to continuous and forever-more aerobic development.

Not only is it a fact, it is common sense.

Let´s profit your Sir Murray Halberg, Lydiard runner of world class at that time, to get to the conclusion that Lydiard was wrong in his training conclusion. Well I may accept that Lydiard did an huge success and that his method get great success. However from you Rekrunner or Northern Star or every Lydiardist I can´t accept that some 50 years later you repeat the same the kind of ignorance that is good to replace 3times per week intervals (200m in the example of Northern Star) by aerobic first and the early marathon block. You add that it´s a good thing, a good method because Lydiard got performance improve from the runners he coaches with his method. It´s a fallacy !

Runner progress can be done with several different kinds of training for the same target, and namely from the kind of interval training that Lydiard observation did refuse and from that he built his one method in disagreement, that in reality it´s interval training, a few runners that did train in the interval method did reach near the same success that Lydiard did with a couple of his runners.

Let´s see that i´m wrong or right with facts and some documentation source, what Rekrunner always asks me to show.

Emil Zatopek the multi medalist in the Olympics and the multi world recordist was the first man to run a sub 14:00 in the 5000m. Effectively his 13:57.2 done in 1954, just a few weeks after Sir. Roger Bannister broke the 4:00 WR, we might agree it´s not bad for the period. A word record I guess it´s the world best performance everytime anyone did. You may claim that it´s ok, but Murray did 13:43.76 official in 1960 and 13:35.2 non-official in 1961. But remember, Emil Zatopec did all that performances with interval training, the one that uses intervals done year round (as Roger Bannister also did by the way). Now I ask you one questions: How much of you, runners, runners from the present that got access to Lydiard training, Northern Star, Rekrunner, HRE, Nobby, or most of the actual LetsRun.com posters or just readers, people that might agree with the Lydiard training, the marathon block , the aerobic first, the 100miles, how much of you did a sub 4:00 in the mile and how much did 13:54 in 5000m ? Therefore, not bad 13:54 in 1954, 58 years ago, with interval training. Zatopek did intervals, not just 3 times a week as Northern Star says, but once or twice everyday, and not just during one short period of the season, but all year round. Intervals all year round doesn´t seem to be so bad as that.

At this point you can continue to claim that Murray did 13:43.76 and 28:42 official in 1960 and 1964 respectively. You are right.

But if you goo deeply into the 5000m world record progression of that 50s period you will see that all the recordists that did break WRs I that distance after Zatopec to the Murray Halberg 5000m PB all of them did train by thje interval training system, all of them did intervals all year round.take a look in the 5000m WR progression after Zatopec

13:57.2 Emil Zátopek (TCH) 1954-05-30 Paris, France

13:56.6 Vladimir Kuts (URS) 1954-08-29 Bern, Switzerland

13:51.6 Chris Chataway (GBR) 1954-10-13 London, UK

13:51.2 Vladimir Kuts (URS) 1954-10-23 Prague, Chec

13:50.8 Sandor Iharos (HUN) 1955-09-10 Budapest, Hungary

13:46.8 Vladimir Kuts (URS) 1955-09-18 Belgrad, Yugoslavia

13:40.6 Sandor Iharos (HUN) 1955-09-23 Budapest, Hungary

13:36.8 Gordon Pirie (GBR) 1956-06-19 Bergen, Norway

13:35.0 Vladimir Kuts (URS) 1957-10-13 Rome, Italy

All of them did train by intervals during the winter and all of them didn´t aerobic first, and all of them didn´t not train by Lydiard, but all of them were able to put the 5000m WR from 13:57 to faster than Murray Halberg. Wait, others did during that period performances from sub 14:00 to 13:30 from 54 to 61, but simply they aren´t on this list because they didn´t break the WR.

Obvious conclusion. To improve the kind of progress that Sir. Murray Halberg did by Lydiard training and during the period that Sir. Murray Halberg did run his athletic career, the world top runners of that period did it with the interval training method (in the several training variants that the interval training does possess). They didn´t (need) the marathon training block, they didn´t need aerobic first, they didn´t need a anaerobic precompetitive block, and they could done what they did with spread interval training all year round, what means a quite different training periodisation that Lydiard prescribes.

Obvious conclusion. IT´s undeniable that Lydiard did champions but there he was wrong about his training methodology when he criticizes interval training. Lydiard was wrong when he wants to replace the 3times per week 200m intervals at fast pace or whatever during the year round for aerobic first. He taught that aerobic improve and progress is infinite. No one gets injured or tired, overtrained or wrong peak period doing interval training during the non-competitive phase, as long as includes mileage (the important aerobic training format) to that fast training, and as long as uses the adequate days of easy runs as recovery and as long as the interval workouts as well as the quality training be done in the progressive-parsimony style. This will result in natural progression and improve from both aerobic and anaerobic up to peak performance.

What about from that Murray Halberg period to today ? We will see next. I will show you.

Antonio,

I don't think I suggested jealousy. I can accept that Lydiard's science is wrong. He was a milkman, not a patent clerk. I'm just saying it doesn't matter as the faulty science you mention wasn't used to create the training. But please by all means, show me the link to the faulty science, and wrong training conclusions. If one exists, I currently don't see it.

The historical information comes mostly from his 1962 book. When you read the history in the 1962 book, you see that his periodization is a result of a series of practical observations, rather than some reliance on faulty science, as you suggest.

The point of giving a historical timeline was to say that the training system was developed and finalized in the mid-50's. All this new science was added later, in the mid-60's or 70's or later.

So it doesn't matter what he said in the 80's or 90's in lectures, this science wasn't used as an input to creating the method, and it can be removed and replaced (or not replaced) without consequence. Whatever you want to conclude about "infinite aerobic capacity", it didn't impact how the training was developed.

What would be more interesting is if you found a reference to "unlimited aerobic capacity" dated from the 40's or 50's, or even the 60's.

No limit.

OK sorry for the wrong assumption. However John I must say that you are preaching old aerobic development dogma here. We don't keep developing aerobically, we improve endurance, which is not the same thing. And I must also say repeat that you must learn some biochemistry before you start preaching on the subject. What do you mean 'anaerobic systems'? If you don't really know what they are but think you do, then you certainly aren't going to gain my approval.

Antonio Cabral wrote:

(…) You (Americans) use a lot of anaerobic training without understanding anaerobic training and this is your problem, You think that by putting a kid on the track and running 20 400-meters fast that you are going to make a champion. (…)

(…) I have heard that the Moroccans are using my system but they have lengthened it, taking even long recovery between repetitions. They take up to eight minute recoveries between long repetitions. You people shorten it. You keep the pressure and you don’t get the arterial ph level you can get taking longer intervals of recovery and doing longer repetitions. That’s the way I do it. (…)

So the Moroccans are using your system Antonio? Is that why they are running so badly?

El Gerrouj did short recoveries, because he knew that they made him more efficient. Do you think that if you had coached him he would have run much faster?

There's just so much to sort out. Initially my intention was to sort through Mr C's last post, however, it seems there is only one question to ask.

Is there any evidence that aerobic capacity is not unlimited?

If this is your conclusion from my early posts you are missing the target what is my post intention.

Of course that i don´t want to debate the silly Lydiard conclusion that "aerobic is unlimited" and i don´t wait for any substantial answer to that question because ther´s no answer for such stupidity, be a milk man, or be one chemistry expert or be a coach, physiologist expert, or be a toilet cleaner, everybody knows that nothing in the physical body is infinite or might improve and progress "ad infinitum". That my quote sentence is just to be used as motto to open the debate as well as to see how people is deaf blind and dumb for something that they are obeyed as trash training conclusions. People like you or Northern Star - i guess that you aren´t milk man or something similar - and with all respect for the milk men - you are obeyed to understand that the Lydiard sentence does no meaning, it´s a fallacy.

My target it´s not to define what was been Lydiard training changes from the 40s to the day he dies. One thing is certain. The fact that he might not use the same word define and ideas define of his method, or that might be late absent of some meanings, his basic training principles didn´t change from the start to the end. You ask me where are certain sentences and certain words define on the late Lydiard that did exist in the early Lydiard. It´s an exercise that i willn´t do. What i ask you all, it´s where´s the prove that "aerobic infinite" he did revised that sentence and said that after all thi isn´t true or literal ? Reference please.

My main task it´s not where to place Lydiard training, in the science of training, in the methodology or in the training principles and concepts or to place Lydiard as one man of training application by experience, or consider him one milk man with training curiosity that got some training skill and expertise. If that troubles you i don´t.

My main task is to prove that by factuality, from the runners performances while training on the Lydiard training or abroad, ther´s no training special benefit by using the Lydiard method that some other training methods that Lydiard did criticizes and that Northern Star says it´s what made him built the training that he did as he did.

One Emil Zatopec, one Gordon Pirie, one Bolotnicov, one Vladimir Kuts, they they the same training progress, the same traning improve, and near the same pefromances by using the method that Lydiard refers as not efficient, that the ones of Lydiard. Namely the Lydiard runner that you quote in this thread, Sir. Murray Halberg. Effectively Sir. Halberg didn´t nothing special that the others that did interval training weren´t able to do at that same period or before.

This proves one things. One is that Lydiard isn´t the training that promotes better progress and improve as you tried to say when you named Sir.Murray Halberg. Consequently the Lydiard training premisses that you say he did get there by experience and also by be critic to the other methods, namely the interval training are quite wrong. One of that wrong permisse it´s that we might avoid interval training during the early stages of preparation (that he names marathon block) and from that the fallacy of the "aerobic first" principle.

systems wrote:

[quote]Northern Star wrote:

But you won't improve long-term if you run hard intervals day in and day out.

Well. This started by Northern Star reveal that Lydiard get the conclsujon of miss intervals during the aerobic phase while seeing 200m intervals very fast 3 times a week (read Northeern Star early post). Actually this moved to hard intervals "day in day out". In the future this will progress eventually to say intervals "every day in".

Another curious aspect, from Lydiard to Northern Star is the fact that they use the word "hard" with the meaning of something that we shall avoid. However they don´t define how hard it is, how fast it is. Very tricky. special for those like Northern Star that are very concern in pace define and in lacatate oncentration or Ph. IT´S TIME TO BE PRECISE ABOUT THIS HARD INTERVALS, qand not just refer that it´s hard, whatr´s ten meaning of hard ? 1500m pace for 200m intervals, 3000m, 5000m, 1000m pace ? all this are aerobic intervals, nt hard intervals. Another tricky from Lydiard & co.it´s that they refer those crazy american runners, or the runners of world class that did train wrong but they never reveal their names. WHO were they ? Who were the runners that did wrong and hard interval training during the aerobic phase that Lydiard did based to built his distance training approach ? No one really knows. Might be some frustrate and mediocre out of class runners that trained crazy. I guess that Lydiard doesn´t want to mean Emil Zatopec that did intervals twice a day all year round, or Vladimir Kuts that did intervals al,l year round, or gordon Pirie, or El Guerrouj, or Carlos Lopes, or Fernando Mamede, or hundreds of others.

Curiously or not, it´s Lydiard that says that the anaerobic it´s the important one and the determinant one system to contribute to the performance, other way he wouldn´t prescribe hard intervals day-in-day out PRECISELY during the anaerobic block.

So what´s that, Lydiard denies the interest of hard intervals or he uses it ? Lydiard doesn´t denied the interest of hard intervals, Lydiard denies the interest of any kind of intervals (be hard or moderate) during his marathon block/aerobic phase what is different. And the reasons he denies intervals during the aerobic phase are pathetic - risk of injury, wrong peak in the season what so ever.

I know many runners of world top category that while they did intervals all year round and the entire career, they rarely or never were injured and surely less injuries that Peter snell that suffered quite a lot with injuries despite he didn´t intervals in the aerobic phase. As you might not contest that the hundreds of world top class runners that does intervals during the early season, and that they are able to peak at the right moment. Or do you think that from Zatopec to El Guerrouj or Bekele or actual 800m recordist, to hundreds of others - they didn´t peak correctly in the season because they did intervals during the winter ? Of course not. the problem is a different one.

But this was the mistake of Lydiard, and the misunderstand of many including Northern Star. If ther´s something the runners that do hard intervals MUST DO it´s not reduce or skip interval training during the aerobic phase. What the runner that exaggerates anaerobic training frequency he shall reduce the frequency and RUN MORE MILES. Yes, in the past the main problem of SOME (not all) runners that did the interval training it´s that while they do interval training during the early season, they didn´t enough aerobic training together with some quality training during the same period of the season. Not quit out of intervals but run more miles instead (and keep on the intervals). After all it´s what modern training does aerobic training (the high training percent) combined with interval training (the lower training percent) but both interesting as well. I repeat once again Lydiard aerobic first, the aerobic block without intervals is a waist of time that no physiology for the distance running might justify. The illusion and falsity that is to spend a long period dong just aerobics followed by an concentrate period of hard anaerobic training as Lydiard prescribes is a wrong conclusion, and ther´s no scientific or methodological support for that idea. Only the kind of Aerobic does a larger chance of progress there it might be done first to support the anaerobic phase and deeper hard training. It´s right but that can be done since the start. To resume i would say, that can be done with 100 miles weekly but also with interval training weekly.

Antonio Cabral wrote:

To resume i would say, that can be done with 100 miles weekly but also with interval training weekly either.

This is what modern training does. take a look what the world´s best do actually, how they train, most of them of course. the great majority does some kind of intervals combined with mileage aerobic training.

systems wrote:

OK sorry for the wrong assumption. However John I must say that you are preaching old aerobic development dogma here. We don't keep developing aerobically, we improve endurance, which is not the same thing. And I must also say repeat that you must learn some biochemistry before you start preaching on the subject. What do you mean 'anaerobic systems'? If you don't really know what they are but think you do, then you certainly aren't going to gain my approval.

Well yes to some degree I am preaching "old dogma"... Run to the Top is fifty years old, after all! And sorry for being loose with terminology. By "anaerobic systems" I just mean the collection of biological mechanisms which facilitate running at, roughly speaking, faster than the anaerobic threshold (a term you probably despise!) and which are preferentially developed through training sessions at faster than AnT. I don't mean to imply that there is some completely separate "anaerobic" mechanism which operates independently from the "aerobic" mechanism. To me, aerobic development = increased ability to easily run a long distance at a fast pace. What type of terminology would you recommend instead? Like I said my understanding of the "aerobic/anaerobic" divide is mostly informed by the Robergs 2004 paper with regard to the cleavage of ATP, formation of lactate, etc. I have not done as much reading on the reuptake of lactate (Brooks' lactate shuttle theory) as I should, but those papers are on my reading list.

Antonio I will hopefully answer your concerns later tonight, though just as a first remark I think you misinterpreted something I said earlier; a middle distance runner could (if he or she so desired) do some fast/relaxed 200s once every 2-3 weeks in the "base" phase, not 2-3 times PER week. Anyhow I am in a bit of a rush but I'll try to answer the issues you raised tonight or tomorrow.

Antonio Cabral wrote:

Emil Zatopek the multi medalist in the Olympics and the multi world recordist was the first man to run a sub 14:00 in the 5000m. Effectively his 13:57.2 done in 1954, just a few weeks after Sir. Roger Bannister broke the 4:00 WR, we might agree it´s not bad for the period.

I am sorry but Gunder Haag of Sweden ran 13 mins 58.x secs for 5000m in the 1940s, almost a decade before Zatopek got the world record. From written accounts, Haag trained using Holmer's fartlek training, mostly in nature away from the track.