I'm very doubtful that the differences in METHOD between Drayton, Clayton and Hill plus throw in the E. Africans would amount to a whole lot. Hodgie is CORRECT.
not paying attention wrote:
Clayton, Drayton and Hill all trained with completely different methods, and each of them different than the world class Kenyan training of today.
It looks like it's set up so we have to request permission with our Google accounts in order to view it? Is that intentional?
Hugh Manatee wrote:
It looks like it's set up so we have to request permission with our Google accounts in order to view it? Is that intentional?
Not intentional. Try it now.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BzkaYrZ2pCQ5OUZrNjduWTZuUUk/edit?usp=sharingIntense training was around in the 60s and 70s. Someone else mentioned Derek Clayton and Ron Clarke, both of whom trained very intensely. So did Bill Adcocks, Eamon O'Reilly, loads of others whose names would not mean anything to most people now. On the other hand, Ron Hill did quite a lot of 7:00 pace running with a couple interval sessions and a weekly race thrown in and was arguably the most successful of the lot, so I don't think you can declare "intensity" to be the answer or the reason people are faster now.
It's worth noting that when we look at today's faster marathon runners compared to those of 30 plus years ago, we're almost always looking at East Africans. That raises the possibility that it's the improved athlete rather than improved training which is responsible for the faster times. Certainly no Canadian marathon runner, for example, has posted results that would suggest that his training is better than Drayton's was, no Brit today could make the same comment about his training compared to Hill's or to Ian Thompson's.
You also need to consider that people back then generally raced loads more than they do now. That increased the amount of "intensity."
Since 1976 wrote:
I'm very doubtful that the differences in METHOD between Drayton, Clayton and Hill plus throw in the E. Africans would amount to a whole lot.
Gold is the same thing as roofing tile, apples are the same thing as fish, and zebra are the same thing as monkees and climb trees.
I've seen the below quote from Drayton before in an interview he did. But then why in the article posted by Hodgie-san say he never does intervals? I'm confused. Which interviewer is he leading on?
Google is my friend wrote:
Not sure how close this is to what he actually did but this is waht I found on the internet:
Believe it or not, Jerome Drayton’s 2:10:08 marathon, set in Fukuoka, Japan in 1975, is still the Canadian record.
Here are excerpts of Jerome Drayton’s training. What works for him may not work for you. But I do like the meticulous detail and approach that he puts into planning for a major marathon. The recovery and regeneration component is missing is the excerpt below. I doubt he used ice baths back then.
TRAINING PARTNERS:
Most of the time, I trained alone, particularly on Mondays to Saturdays. I wanted to get the training over with as fast as possible in order to get on with my personal life. Most Sundays, I joined the club members at High Park where I would join the main group for a “social run”.
TYPICAL TRAINING SCHEDULE:
For a major competition, like the Olympic Marathon or Fukuoka International Open Marathon Championship, Japan, I had a plan that took 26 weeks. It was divided into four phases.
1.The first phase consisted of a general build up of strength and aerobic capacity. It meant a lot of slow steady running with lots of miles – up to 150 miles per week in the later stages of this phase, which usually lasted for ten weeks.
2.In the second phase, I concentrated on the development of speed. It consisted of a lot of interval running on the track about two or three times per week – for example 12 to 16 x 400 meters, each at maximum aerobic capacity, with a short break between each interval. The rest of the week would be the same as in the first phase – casually running, twice a day, up to 20 miles a day. Near the end of this phase, I introduced anaerobic running – for example 8 x 200 or 4 x 400 meters, sprinting flat out. Each was followed by two to five minutes of jogging. The total weekly mileage was also less than in the first phase. This phase lasted for nine weeks.
3.In the third phase, I tried to combine strength and speed. That is when I started heading towards my seasonal peak. The weekly mileage and the number of speed sessions went down, but the ones I did were faster than in the second phase – for example 6 x 400 meters at maximum aerobic capacity; followed by 4 x 200 meters at maximum anaerobic capacity. This meant that the reserves I had depleted in the heavy mileage training stage of the first phase and the aerobic and anaerobic speed training stage of the second phase began to return. This phase lasted for four weeks.
4.The fourth and final phase consisted of continued reduced overall mileage, a continuation of the third phase but with further reduced quantity and an introduction of short distance races for peaking purposes. This phase lasted two weeks. The final phase culminated with THE RACE, usually the Olympic, Boston, New York or Fukuoka Marathon.
Here's the quote from Drayton...
"I just run as I feel," he explains, "I may start my work-outs at about seven minutes per mile, but I don't stay around
there. I usually end up around 5:30 or even five minutes per
mile all the time." Essentiallv, he does not speedwork, not even during track season. He tried interval training a few years ago, found it ineffective. Now the closest he comes to speedwork is an occasional series of half-mile bursts while on a long run. "But they're not very fast," he says. "They're maybe 4:40 per mile pace."
Hodgie, please. Why can you guys not let go the fact that you could have trained better?
I think it is clear that the principles of training are the same but to say that nothing is being done differently borders on delusional.
Jerome Drayton’s training.
TRAINING PARTNERS:
Most of the time, I trained alone, particularly on Mondays to
Saturdays. I wanted to get the training over with as fast as possible in order to get on with 62
my personal life. Most Sundays, I joined the club members at High Park where I would
join the main group for a “social run”.
TYPICAL TRAINING SCHEDULE:
For a major competition, like the Olympic
Marathon or Fukuoka International Open Marathon Championship, Japan, I had a plan
that took 26 weeks. It was divided into four phases.
The first phase consisted of a general build up of
strength and aerobic capacity. It meant a lot of slow steady running with lots of miles –
up to 150 miles per week in the later stages of this phase, which usually lasted for ten
weeks.
In the second phase, I concentrated on the
development of speed. It consisted of a lot of interval running on the track about two or
three times per week – for example 12 to 16 x 400 metres, each at maximum aerobic
capacity, with a short break between each interval. The rest of the week would be the
same as in the first phase – casually running, twice a day, up to 20 miles a day. Near the
end of this phase, I introduced anaerobic running – for example 8 x 200 or 4 x 400
metres, sprinting flat out. Each was followed by two to five minutes of jogging. The total
weekly mileage was also less than in the first phase. This phase lasted for nine weeks.
In the third phase, I tried to combine strength and
speed. That is when I started heading towards my seasonal peak. The weekly mileage and
the number of speed sessions went down, but the ones I did were faster than in the second
phase – for example 6 x 400 metres at maximum aerobic capacity; followed by 4 x 200
metres at maximum anaerobic capacity. This meant that the reserves I had depleted in the
heavy mileage training stage of the first phase and the aerobic and anaerobic speed
training stage of the second phase began to return. This phase lasted for four weeks.
The fourth and final phase consisted of continued
reduced overall mileage, a continuation of the third phase but with further reduced
quantity and an introduction of short distance races for peaking purposes. This phase
lasted two weeks. The final phase culminated with THE RACE, usually the Olympic,
Boston, New York or Fukuoka Marathon.
The best way to start training is to understand the
vital processes of the body – at least those that relate directly to running. If the runner
understands some of the body’s inner workings and is sensitive to its needs and states of
tiredness, it can perform magnificently for the runner. Without such sensitivity, the
runner can too easily push him/herself into pain, injury or fatigue. With a little fine
tuning, this knowledge can make training safe and more productive. A sound knowledge
and practice of good nutrition is also of benefit.
The best training program is one that meets the
distance runner’s particular needs. This applies equally to novice and to world-class
distance runners. Do not adopt the successful program of your friends and competitors.
Although they may be succeeding they may be improving IN SPITE of their program. It
is fine to try new training ideas, but experiment with only one at a time. Then blend the
successful ones into your program to fit your own demands, rest needs and current level 63
of performance. However, never experiment in the year of an Olympic Games or World
Championship! By that time you should be set with a program in mind.
Some of the training principles that must be
understood by the distance runner are:
• RECOVERY – introducing days of easy runs after a day of a long run, hard run or
competition.
• OVERLOAD – introducing long runs or speed/hill training sessions to encourage
the body to adapt and improve performance capacity.
• PROGRESSION – increasing workloads gradually as the runner’s body adapts to
previous loadings.
• SPECIFICITY – relating training loads to the runner’s present level of fitness and
his or her competitive event – 5,000m or 10,000m or marathon.
• PEAKING – careful scheduling of key workouts at the end of the speed training
phase that can raise the runner’s performance potential to its highest level.
• REVERSIBILITY – understanding that the rate at which performance capacity is
lost, due to injury or rest from a previous competitive period, will be similar to the
rate at which it was gained.
The training program should be divided into four
distinct periods:
1. TRANSITION – a period of recuperation, during which the runner
recovers from the fatigue of the previous competitive period.
2. GENERAL PREPARATION – foundation training where aerobic fitness,
mobility, strength and local muscular endurance are developed. These
allow the runner to prepare for specific forms of training.
3. SPECIAL PREPARATION – training to develop specific fitness required
to meet the demands of the runner’s event – aerobic and anaerobic
speed/hill training and long runs arranged in the proper order.
4. COMPETITION TAPERING – training aimed at preparing the runner for
an important race (Olympic Games or World Championships) or a series
of races that lead to THE RACE (Boston, New York or Fukuoka
Marathon), in non Olympic or World Championships years.
Finally, and particularly for the marathoner, there are
certain prerequisites or internal characteristics that the runner must possess in order to
undertake the necessary training that a marathon requires. Of all the distance running
events, the marathon presents the greatest challenge both physically and mentally. Even
after completing all the required training and making it to the race site rested and healthy,
arriving at the marathon starting line in less than an ideal physical or mental state can
have a devastating effect on the runner’s performance.
The prerequisites or internal characteristics are
motivation, self-discipline and effective time-management. While a coach can provide
interest and enthusiasm regarding the training program he or she designs and presents,
motivation and self-discipline must be primarily developed from within. It requires a
great deal of motivation and self discipline to complete the long training runs while at the 64
same time cope with the other daily distractions and manage all the personal
responsibilities daily living provides such as school, professional career, personal life,
etc. This is why it is so crucial that the runner who wishes to train for the marathon be an
effective manager of time
Page 62.
http://web.archive.org/web/20050524200209/http://www.torontoolympicclub.com/TOC50yearsbook.pdf
The old school methods always seem to boil down to miles and basic intervals.
I see scant evidence of stuff like hill sprints and all the stuff that Canova talks about with fluctuating pace in long fast reps as well as long fast runs.
Yes, people still work on "aerobic" and "anaerobic" but the similarities end there.
nick m wrote:
I've seen the below quote from Drayton before in an interview he did. But then why in the article posted by Hodgie-san say he never does intervals? I'm confused. Which interviewer is he leading on?
Google is my friend wrote:Not sure how close this is to what he actually did but this is waht I found on the internet:
Believe it or not, Jerome Drayton’s 2:10:08 marathon, set in Fukuoka, Japan in 1975, is still the Canadian record.
Here are excerpts of Jerome Drayton’s training. What works for him may not work for you. But I do like the meticulous detail and approach that he puts into planning for a major marathon. The recovery and regeneration component is missing is the excerpt below. I doubt he used ice baths back then.
TRAINING PARTNERS:
Most of the time, I trained alone, particularly on Mondays to Saturdays. I wanted to get the training over with as fast as possible in order to get on with my personal life. Most Sundays, I joined the club members at High Park where I would join the main group for a “social run”.
TYPICAL TRAINING SCHEDULE:
For a major competition, like the Olympic Marathon or Fukuoka International Open Marathon Championship, Japan, I had a plan that took 26 weeks. It was divided into four phases.
1.The first phase consisted of a general build up of strength and aerobic capacity. It meant a lot of slow steady running with lots of miles – up to 150 miles per week in the later stages of this phase, which usually lasted for ten weeks.
2.In the second phase, I concentrated on the development of speed. It consisted of a lot of interval running on the track about two or three times per week – for example 12 to 16 x 400 meters, each at maximum aerobic capacity, with a short break between each interval. The rest of the week would be the same as in the first phase – casually running, twice a day, up to 20 miles a day. Near the end of this phase, I introduced anaerobic running – for example 8 x 200 or 4 x 400 meters, sprinting flat out. Each was followed by two to five minutes of jogging. The total weekly mileage was also less than in the first phase. This phase lasted for nine weeks.
3.In the third phase, I tried to combine strength and speed. That is when I started heading towards my seasonal peak. The weekly mileage and the number of speed sessions went down, but the ones I did were faster than in the second phase – for example 6 x 400 meters at maximum aerobic capacity; followed by 4 x 200 meters at maximum anaerobic capacity. This meant that the reserves I had depleted in the heavy mileage training stage of the first phase and the aerobic and anaerobic speed training stage of the second phase began to return. This phase lasted for four weeks.
4.The fourth and final phase consisted of continued reduced overall mileage, a continuation of the third phase but with further reduced quantity and an introduction of short distance races for peaking purposes. This phase lasted two weeks. The final phase culminated with THE RACE, usually the Olympic, Boston, New York or Fukuoka Marathon.
The article I linked to is from 1971.
Maybe it is all just a semantic argument. Especially to an outsider (not that Mr Hodge fits that description), top marathoners in the 60s and 70s ran between 100 and 200 miles a week, some of it at a fast pace. Top marathoners of today do the same. To somebody interested in exercise physiology, coaching, etc, the differences between these eras might seem extreme, but to a lot of people, it will just look like the same old thing with a bit of fine tuning.
The fine-tuning is what makes it different.
SMJO wrote:
The fine-tuning is what makes it different.
Different is not necessarily better or worse. It's just different. Let's see someone take what you're calling different and apply it to people like Hodgie-san or Drayton or Hill.
Sure it's better. People are faster now.
Jones and Lopes trained differently than Hodgie/Drayton and Hill and they ran faster.
Being stubborn that your way is right for you is admirable but it doesn't mean you're right as far as what's potentially best for you.
I would use Ryan Hall as a good example of someone like Hodgie, Drayton or Hill who trained differently and ran faster because of that.
Please don't bring up the fact that Ryan hasn't run well in while. That has little to do with the point above.
SMJO wrote:
Hodgie, please. Why can you guys not let go the fact that you could have trained better?
I think it is clear that the principles of training are the same but to say that nothing is being done differently borders on delusional.
Perhaps the biggest difference is that guys who could run < 27:00 for 10k are going to the marathon immediately.
Hall also is just plain FASTER; the kid came out of HS w/3:42 @1500. Those other guys (no disrespect) had zero talent compared to Hall. Frank Shorter/Rodgers were 2:08 guys who never harvested that type of time because they DIDN'T HAVE TO. The training is basically the same; the difference is guys are running faster because they have to.
SMJO wrote:
Sure it's better. People are faster now.
Jones and Lopes trained differently than Hodgie/Drayton and Hill and they ran faster.
Being stubborn that your way is right for you is admirable but it doesn't mean you're right as far as what's potentially best for you.
I would use Ryan Hall as a good example of someone like Hodgie, Drayton or Hill who trained differently and ran faster because of that.
Please don't bring up the fact that Ryan hasn't run well in while. That has little to do with the point above.
That's my point. Basically the same is not the same.
Quite a few guys have likely come out of high school with similar talent to Hall.
It's the training that makes the difference, not just the fact that they "have to" race faster.
How do you explain people who trained like Lopes or Jones and didn't run as fast as Hill? And again, overwhelmingly, westerners are not running much, if any faster, than they were 30 or more years ago and times ALWAYS get faster as the years go on.
these guys train like idiots.
speed work should be done with full recovery... and 6x400 + 4x200 ISN'T SPEED WORK!! Its aerobic work. 3200m of speed work doesn't exist BECAUSE you can't generate maximal CNS output over that distance in a session.
A speed session might be 2x200 with 20min rest between... or 1x400m or it could be broken up into short segments like 6x50m with 5min recovery.
No wonder these guys suck so bad.. they don't understand that QUALITY is better than QUANTITY. Nobody gives a sh*t that you can run 200miles/wk slow. My grandma can walk 100's of miles... but can she run a 400m in under 50 seconds??? no chance.
The FASTER you are at short distances.. means that you are running at a LOWER percentage of your maximum speed when you run long distance. Therefore, your running economy is through the roof and you can pretty much jog at a faster pace with less perceived effort.