The school, University of Pennsylvania
The school, University of Pennsylvania
A book is in the works. I wll post details when I have them.
Cool, A book would be great. Any idea when this might happen
it will not be published until you stop bumping threads that are a week old!
you ever think maybe people are out of town!!!!!
If in ebook form 3-4 months, 6 months if paper.
DE OLIVEIRA, L
Middle distance training with Luiz de Oliveira
Track Technique no 104 Summer 1988 p.3319-3321,3333
Salazar, Alberto, Advanced Circuity-Luiz de Oliveira discusses the circuit-training techniques behind the success of Joaquim Cruz and Mary Slaney, Runners World Feb 86, pp 74-77.
Almost all of the above articles can be had for free by requesting them by email from the AAU Library in LA. For further info see...
http://www.aafla.org/4sl/over_frmst.htm
Notes from a clinic he gave in Austrailia that same year...
Article Title: General and specific methods for the training of middle distance running.
Journal Title: IAAF Regional Development Centre. Bulletin(Adelaide, Aust.)
Vol: 10 1996 p. 9-11
Author: de Oliveira, L.
For copies of this one try...
Last week I was trying to find info on Olivera. I found the typical stuff Krumm states in his interviews:
The first week back in training (after a break following winning gold indoors)was very light. I did some 30 minute runs, a few 200's, some sessions of easy weight training, and an hour run. The next several weeks of training went really well. I continued with the 30 minutes runs and once weekly ran an hour. On the days I wasn't running mileage, I had either track sessions, easy biking and weight training, tempo runs, or power training (on hills).
The track sessions have consisted of step downs, long interval repeats (800m or 1000m), and change of pace work where we focus on being able to accelerate the latter stages of the race.
We have usually about two track sessions per week, or three depending
on whether or not we have a race in that particular week. We'll also
have various intervals depending on what time of the season it is. We
might have 1000m repeats or we have competitions with each other, and it
just depends on what point of the season we're in. Other days we have
either mileage or weights, or we might have some drills or plyometrics.
We usually have one day a week where we're completely off, or we're in
the pool doing some running in the swimming pool in our apartment
complex. It's not like running laps, we have a little belt on and were
actually doing the running motion in the water.
Much has been made of Luis de Oliviera's "unorthodox" training: running backwards, pool running, and running while holding your breath. Krummenacker says while doing some of these things (but not running while holding his breath), his training under Oliviera is not radically different from his training under Drosky. As Krummenacker says of Oliviera's training "I think it's a well balanced approach. If you look at all the different aspects of it, it has all of them sprinkled in."
The biggest difference Krummenacker says is he has more easy days mixed into his training. "There are certain aspects (that are different than in the past) running slightly faster on some days and running easier on other days. Someone was saying yesterday and I thought it was a really good point, that at the end of their career many top runners say they had too many days (of training) right in the middle (in terms of intensity), days with a 6 output, instead of days with a 3 and (then followed by) a 9. So I'm doing more of that now. So on the days I really hit it, I really hit it, and the days where it's easy, (I) really go easy. There aren't so many in between days now."
Buoyed by a new coach from Brazil, new training
partners from Burundi and Kenya and new training bases
in Arizona and Germany, Krummenacker, 27, has
capitalized on new training methods that include
plyometric drills like backward sprints.
The drills, which also feature "kangaroo
squats"--jumping
Krummenacker started doing less volume with
more speed. Instead of running a set of ten 400s in 60
seconds with a short rest in between, he ran five 400s
in 54 to 55 seconds.
"David has gained both speed and strength," said
Nduwimana,
"David has the potential to break 3:30 right now,"
said DeOliveira by phone from Manaus, Brazil, the
capital of the Amazon state, where he is coaching at a
training center. "Our program enables him to sustain a
certain speed for a long period of time."
DeOliveira's unorthodox menu of exercises first
gained acclaim when he coached Joachim Cruz, a
Brazilian who'd run for the University of Oregon, to
the 1984 Olympic gold medal in the 800. DeOliveira
said he employs three stages of plyometric drills,
which total 63 different exercises. The first stage is
for base distance training, the next for speedwork,
the last for the competitive season over the summer.
He integrates fast running between the drills, calling
his approach "circuit training."
and I found this:
World-renown Brazilian track coach Luiz De Oliveira has trained champion runners like Mary Decker and Olympic gold and silver medalist, Joaquim Cruz. De Oliveira claims his breath-holding drill allows middle and long distance runners to improve their endurance by adapting to increased levels of lactic acid. "I have a breath-holding drill that I use once a week," says De Oliveira . "I try to drive the lactic acid up quicker than it would in a regular race. That way, my runners get used to it. What I have them do is take a running start, then inhale and hold their breath when they hit the starting line, then they run for 25 meters. They work on technique while holding their breath. When they reach the finish line, they exhale and breathe normally."
De Oliveira then has them jog back and do the same drill for 30 meters, then 35 - all the way to 90 meters. "Everybody's capable of holding their breath for a very long time. But you've got to do three of these sets. By the final set, you're going to become very very tired. It's hard to hold your breath at that point. But if you use my drill, you will see results."
De Oliveira has another drill where his 400 and 800 meter runners hold their breath for just the last 30 meters, simulating the end of a race when they're most tired. At this point, they have to pick up their speed and work on their form. "The most important thing you can do in the race," says De Oliveira, "no matter how exhausted you get - is to maintain your form."
Oh, and I would like to see those "handouts" as well.
Trackhead:
We've been down this road before, I know, but I think it's worth reiterating that, although it's true that Snell's records still stand in New Zeland, it?s equally true that Coe's records still stand in the U.K. - and stood for 16 years on the world stage.
Arguing that Snell's methods are superior because his records still stand is nonsense, considering the fact that Coe has bested all his times (even factoring in track surfaces) and had a career spanning three decades, winning two gold medals and set several world records. So, by your own logic, Coe's "quality not quantity" training system should be seen as superior to Snell?s ?slow twitch recruitment?.
But Skinny?s point about Snell?s drop from 800 to the mile is as damning an indictment to your oft-posted theory about mileage and development I?ve seen.
Coe?s 800 to Mile differential is 2:09. Snell?s is 2:16.
Coe ran 3:29.77 for 1500m (set at the tender age of 30); the same as Sydney Maree, a 13:01.15 5000m guy who hammered out as many miles as God would allow.
Coe didn?t move up to 5K because he didn?t have to: two 1500m gold medals and the quadruple 800/1000/1500/mile records are more than enough proof that he was the greatest middle distance runner of all time.
Martin
With regards to national records, comparisons are irrelevant for obvious reasons.
As far as 800m/1500m comparisons here are some intersting comparisons:
Peter Snell (400-48, 800-1:44.3, 1000-2:16.6, mile-3:54.1)
Sebastian Coe (400-46.5, 800-1:41.7, 1000-2:12.2, mile-3:47.3)
Snell 800/400: 2.173
Coe 800/400: 2.187
Snell 1k/400: 2.846
Coe 1k/400: 2.843
Snell mile/400: 4.877
Coe mile/400: 4.888
Snell mile/800: 2.244
Coe mile/800: 2.235
Very similar results, more so than I expected.
And I don't mean to knock what Coe did. I cannot argue with results, and he was one of the best that ever ran. I'll be getting my copy of Coe/Martin's book within the next week so I can a better comparison on the two.
Take it easy, Martin.
Trackhead
I am, as you say, taking it "easy". You'll notice I'm not the one hurling insults at you, merely suggesting that you're analysis is fundamentally flawed.
Using 400 m times as an operator for comparison is also flawed, given that neither athlete competed in that event in any serious way.
(Snell may have been faster than 48, and Coe may have been in the 45.x range if properly trained for a one-lap race)
Yet, having said that, you should check your figures:
Coe's 400/1000 differential is 85.68 seconds. Snell's is 88.6 seconds
Coe's 400/800 differential is 55.23 seconds. Snell's is 56.1
But more importantly, you won't address the central tenent of my post:
You say Snell's records still stand, thus his training system must be the best. (as infered by your posting of his rantings to RW and previous posts on this subject)
I say, Coe's records still stand, are superior to Snell's, as is his overall career).
Should this not mean Coe's methods are superior to Snell's?
Martin
good to see a respected figure preaching the benefits of running with the breath held. beyond driving the lactic acid up quicker it is also a more powerful way to run in bursts and is currently not being taken advantage of by almost anybody outside of 100 -200 meter guys and the 50 - 100 meter swimmers.
Martin,
The 'take it easy' wasn't meant as anything in the way of you getting on my case -- we're having a friendly debate over training once again, and the phrase was meant in the sense of 'cheers.' I actually really appreciate these discussions we have, because we can talk sensibly about this w/o resorting to the kind of mindless shit talking that normally ensues on this board.
That aside...
I never meant to make the arguement that Snell's national record still stands and therefore he's got it down. Anyone could hold a NR from any nation for any amount of time and not necessarily have the best system in place.
As far as Coe v. Snell, I think that using 400m bests in comparing the two at other distances is not unreasonable. True, they never competed at those distances at the same frequency as the 800/1500/mile, but I would think it's safe to say they ran within a few tenths of their maximum capability at 400m.
I don't believe that just because Coe ran faster does not necessarily mean his system is 'better.' Again, assuming that their 400 PRs are legitimate, they both performed at similar levels to their basic speed.
Which system is better? You could go either way. Coe and Martin are not uneducated and have it literally down to a science. But I see more consistent results in Lydiard based athletes (Snell, Walker, Dixon, Vassala, Morceli's training seems Lydiard-esque), and greater success across all distances. There's a lot more that could be said, but I'll leave it at that for now.
Cheers,
trackhead
Kumbaba,
You are talking sense. I posted on this board a few weeks ago about the benefits of speed versus mileage. And was told in no uncertain terms that I was talking crap and was an idiot by some of the high mileage guys around here.
They were taking some marathon training plans and trying to extrapolate them to all distances from 800m upwards. The point I was trying to make, and I think you made it better, is that the mileage you run and the speed you do it at has to be relevant to the event you are racing.
Who cares about whether Seb Coe did/could have run a good 5000m. Same as who cares about Paula Radcliffe`s 800m time.
Guru for me is Frank Horwill. Run speed sessions at the pace relevant to your race distance.
I see from the steady state mileage runners that if you want to run a 7min/mile marathon do a load of miles at somewhere around 7 to 8 min mile pace or 70% Max HR, with a few quicker sessions to peak. And I agree with that 100%. All Coe/Cruz etc are doing is applying that logic to running intervals of 300m to 1000m at 800/1500 pace. And they recognised that is not possible on 150 miles per week.
Finally, there is a load of talk on these boards about why USA distance running is in a bad state. With the exception of Paula R its the same in the UK. Well, I don`t think it is because the coaches are burning people out with intervals. Its because there is minimal talent coming into distance racing. Why ? Because it is not glamorous, well paid, sexy or any of the other things that pulls in sporting teenagers. My missus thinks most distance runners are scrawny, sweaty introverts with personality problems. Lets look at our local tracks and try to spot a teenager running distance. They are`nt there. They sprint. Then they mess around jumping, hurdling or throwing things at their mates. Distance running ain`t fun when you are 15.
...There`s the problem.
End of rant.
Martin,
I too think Skinny's point was a good one. Clearly, as seen with Snell's 1:44, he had had some serious speed. So that speed coupled with his, according to many, superior aerobic development (compared to Coe?s) due to his superior weekly mileage totals, Snell should have probably =?d Coe?s mile/1500 times. But instead, the opposite is true! Snell gets relatively slower when he moved up to the 1500/mile as compared to Coe. 2 points here:
1. Obviously Snell had more natural speed than most will give him credit for. I agree that 400 times are not that reliable of a measuring stick since we do not if either made many high level efforts at that distance. I thought I read that Snell ran 22.3 or so for 200. If so, he certainly could have run a 47 flat open 400 with his middle distance strength. Not much slower than Coe.
2. Snell?s higher mileage did not help him run a better (relatively) 1500/mile than Coe. So why do people say things like: ?Coe should have run more miles like Snell, we may never know what Coe was REALLY capable of.? I say baloney to that. Maybe Snell could have run a better mile if HE had trained more like Coe.
Too many people think Coe was just a ?talent? and Snell was a product of will and hard work. They were BOTH incredible talents. Coe had better results in the mile relative to his 800 speed. Something to be said for the methods of Coe.
Martin, see Ovett thread for Coe/Ovett comparison. In my analysis, Ovett(like Snell) had nearly Coe?s speed, was MORE talented as a youth, and ran higher miles. But again, Coe was the better miler/1500m runner overall (2 golds, better PR?s).
Milers out there: time for some plyometrics, weight work (squats etc), and more quality anyone?
A very nice fellow posted a link to a pdf of many of the above articles in another thread for those wondering minds that need some reading material. He had one article I was unaware of...
The Runner May 1985, Just Cruzin Along by Luiz Alberto de Oliveira, pp 43-45.
If you look at the above ratios, relative to one another's performances, they stay the same.
Trackhead said: "But I see more consistent results in Lydiard based athletes (Snell, Walker, Dixon, Vassala, Morceli's training seems Lydiard-esque), and greater success across all distances."
I'm not convinced quantity beats quality, but it is true that after three dominating years ('79-'81) Coe's race results, especially over 1500, were inconsistent - one week winning, the next finishing fifth. By 1984, he did not even finish in the top three in the British Olympic Trials and had to be added by the selection committee. He vindicated himself by winning the Olympics, but the unpredictability of his race results seems a bit scary.
Does anyone know the ratio of the size of trackhead to that of Webbhead, relative to the above performances, which do not stay the same?