Important moments and concepts in the history and development of Intermittent training

bump for Renato to maybe comment

Hey Antonio,

Aren't you a big believer in the importance of being trained at "race intensity?" I thought that you had said before that "overspeed" pace work (much faster than race pace) is not as important as race pace workouts, and that many people do their speed work too fast...is that what you said? If so, it seems that even nearly 100 years ago some coaches were believers in that view.

Frank

Frank N. Stein, MD wrote:

Hey Antonio,

Aren't you a big believer in the importance of being trained at "race intensity?" I thought that you had said before that "overspeed" pace work (much faster than race pace) is not as important as race pace workouts, and that many people do their speed work too fast...is that what you said? If so, it seems that even nearly 100 years ago some coaches were believers in that view.

Yes i do. But while i say that Race Pace (or close that´s main importance) i don´t deny the interest of overspeed.

For all the rest i simply interpret and comment what the french author did write in that book, and here i use 2 roles in the same thread. One is to express my view of the story of intermittent training and tyhe other that´s to have my own opinion about interval training. Besides to run short reps in 105% Race Pace i don´t think that goes out my Race pace concept.

Seb Coe's father enlisted advice on several occasions from Lydiard about why Seb was always coming down with viral infections and such. Lydiard advised that is was because of the intense, continual, year round anaerobic work.

As for his mark, you can get away with far more improper or less than ideal training in then 800m, where natural speed plays a big role, versus the 1500m on up where aerobic capacity plays a much more important role.

As for the East Africans--why WOULDN'T you imitate the best? That makes no sense.

And, in fact, much of what Lydiard advised applies directly to this argument. The Africans, and the good Americans from the '70s and '80s when the depth in this country was HUGE, are well known for having acquired a large GENERAL AEROBIC FOUNDATION through walking, jogging, and running long distances or through sustained play, as well as strengthening the crucial ligaments, tendons, and muscles in the lower legs and stabilizing muscles to be able to tolerate heavier training loads later in life.

Africans, according to Marius Bakken, are also well able to read their own bodies very well and have very high lactate threshold velocities. Lydiard's "high end aerobic pace" falls into this training zone, and it was his development of athletes in their mid to late 20's into world class athletes that paved the way for acceptance of the approach of building a solid LONG DISTANCE RUNNING BASE for...wait for it...LONG DISTANCE RUNNING SUCCESS.

It's so easy, yet so many want to make it complicated.

Antonio,

I thoroughly enjoyed your take on the history of intermittent training. I still don't agree with you as far as to you claiming that Gresheler did not believe it important to have complete recoveries between fast runs. But we can just agree to disagree on this point. It is all in the past now, so we may never truly know, and frankly it does not really matter too much. You made the point has been made as to what is and isn't interval training.

You also said that “Tony Net, a critic of Gresheler (thus we can trust him) says that with Gresheler each runner may use an individual interval pause(different for each athlete) but also an incomplete interval pause.”

Although Tony Net may be a credible source I don’t believe it is prudent to claim that just because someone is a critic of someone else we can trust them. Frankly, it has been my experience that usualy the opposite is true. I have seen many critics misrepresent other peoples work because their dislike for someone is so strong that discrediting them is more important than the truth. This especially common in American politics.

Is it not possible that Tony Net may have had an alterior motive that drove him to misrepresent Gresheler’s work. He may have known What Gresheler was really doing but chose to misrepresent him in order to draw people away from his training. Or perhaps he did not even understand Gresheler’s work to begin with.

I am not saying that Tony Net is wrong, I am only making these statement for arguments sake. I figure I would make an attempt at an interesting argument. Gordon Pirie who trained under Gresheler really does describe Gresheler’s training in a very different way than you describe. He describes interval training as a heart conditioner, and that this type of training adaptation occurs during the recovery period (the interval), not the running segment. He speaks of doing 40 to 60 times 400m at a controlled pace, after which he says he would lie on the ground and attach some type of cardiograph machine to his chest so that Gresheler could monitor his pulse. Of course this was only after every five repetitions, not every one. He speaks about how it was important for his heart rate to come down to 120 beats per minute before he could continue the next interval. This was to occur between 60 and 90 seconds. If his heart rate did not come down then the workout was to stop. Likewise if his heart rate climbed over 180 beats per minute during the fast running segment then the workout was also to stop, or at least the speed of the reps was to be reduced.. Pirie does mention that if the heart rate did not come down it was possible that he was running his repetitions too fast. I mention all of this to make the argument that perhaps this may have been what interval training really was about. Of course we will never now exactly what the real truth is. One of us is probably correct though. I am willing to concede that you might be the one who is correct.

Thanks again for the contribution.

Balance

Thanks for being here in this thread.

The doubts you have about interval training are credible. My own statement that Gresheler and Reindell they work and advise incomplete pauses is a my own interpretation based in several directions of investigation. Later on when I did enter really in Gresheler interval training details – i´m still in 1915 right now ! – we may discuss in more detail all that issue. In some way I did start this thread with a main goal – intermittent training discussion – but with a second goal – the demystification of the wrong interpretation about interval training that´s did spread all over the world. Then we will have the occasion to focus our discussion in that detail. But still I did some my comments.

But your doubts are real. You touch the surface of the problem – some literature, some articles, they simply copy from another article that is also copied from another article. But I think that I have the source, direct contact of a Portuguese runner that was coached by Gresheler himself directly in the 50s, some articles from Gresheler and Reindel, themselves, and also schedules of another runners that followed Gresheler advise – from German runners to Russian runners (USSR at that time).

But I understand your doubts and perplexities. Just a few example relate with our discussion and how the info and data is lost after some period.

If you read regularly the LetsRunCom threads or any other running thread a subject that comes around often that´s Sebastian Coe training. What we see. Sebastian did his career in the 70s-80s – 2 to 3 decades distant from actuality. And what do I see ? Ther´s no way of a agreement/consensus about what Sebastian Coe did really. Thousand of posts in disagreement., Some say that Sebastian did low-mileage, some say that´s not true, some say that his 5000m workouts that´s the key, some say that´s Horwill 5 pace influence, some say that don´t, and on and on and on. Sebastian and his father and the man that wrote a book about Sebastian training (I don´t remember the name right now) they are all alive. But ther´s no total agreement, and I think that´s impossible a total agreement, so many are the perspectives and considerations about Sebastian training and workouts. Despite that Sebastian did a huge popularity and he is from english language things are as you know. The same with Arthur Lydiard – so many are the Lydiard training versions actually.

Sometime ago I did start a thread in this LetRunCom site about Van Aaken training – another german coach that I have a great respect. The pioneer and the father of a certain modernity about a few training concepts.

http://www.letsrun.com/forum/flat_read.php?thread=619851

My main intention when I did open that thread is also because most of people – misunderstands quite a lot van Aaken. If you read some past posts of LetsRunCom regular contributors/posters you may confirm that´s true what I said. Look for the past posts of Tinman that I did dedicate that van Aaken thread. He did write that van Aaken didn´t workouts, most of people sees van Aaken training as just endurance training – LSD runs and nothing more. Apart from a few exceptions as HRE (nickname) – really an expert about van Aaken. I did share some personal e-mails about van Aaken with several our poster contributors, and a few of them start to a deep study, analysis and investigation about Ernst van Aaken, but all of them get the conclusion that because van aaken is from German language and that the facts occurred some decades ago – some vital information is lost. Even the van Aaken family and descendents or runners that he coached they aren´t able to clear some training doubts. But van aaken died some decades ago, in the early eighties I guess.

Now based in what I said about Sebastian Coe and/or van Aaken – relate that to Gresheler interval training from the 40s and 50s and 60s. No one knows no more ! The source is lost. Even the Germans they lost the source and vital information and vital data. Most that speak about interval training they quote english articles or english books.or some peculiar interval training use as that one of Gordon Pirie. Of course that Pirie did get influenced by Gresheler interval training – but he did use mainly interval training in extensive version – to run (short) rep distances for hours and hours…you may agree this is a very peculiar and outside version of the interval training. Of course, eventually, that fit into Pirie. That´s not by chance that he did 5000m WR. But to confine or to analyse Gresheler interval training based in Pirie considerations or Pirie workouts seems to me not quite correct.

(about Gordon Pirie)

http://www.gordonpirie.com/

What you need to consider in a positive interval training analysis is that each training school, each group or each individual they get they one interval training version, independently of Gresheler own considerations. I don´t see no major problem in that.

The problem lies in copy without concern our own individual needs and each one particular context. The problem lies in that most Americans they have a confine single mind concept of the interval training that´s “fast as you are able with compete recover”.

And they have a distort version of what´s the interval training really.

Another detail to consider is that nothing is static – or shalln´t be. Even Gresheler and Reindell when they start their investigation about the interval training – they were create a new training concept – and they continue their investigation during more tha one decade. In the end (as to say) the formulas are the same tha in the start. Since the top class runner of that interval training investigation that´s Roger Moens (a 800m runner) of course that they use quite complete intervals to train that runner, they use that get down to 120-130 heart beats recover rule. With Moens that´s the INTENSIVE interval variant that´s effective considering 800m runs. Long recover period, quite complete recover. Roger Moens did 20-30X100m/14 sec rec=2/3minutes or 15X20X200m/29sec rec=2/3min or 4-5X500m/1:18 rec=5/6min.

But if you train for 1500m-steeple-5000m-10000m this intensive style isn´t so effective. Remember that Gresheler did train and used interval training for a large range of events, from sprint events - 100m-200m and 400m to the marathon (!) – and of course the workout formula isn´t the same for all distances.

Also Gresheler and Reindell in the beginning they used 70%-80% from the runner PB in the distance they cover the reps. Ex: for a runner that did 400m in 54sec the 400m reps are in 70sec. Actually no one really do that so slow – eventually only during the basic period. The same with the intervals. Modern interval training no one distant runner may let the heart goes down to 120 beats. Because this is really complete recover. Only if youa re doing speed training, reps training and not interval training thatin the actual version that the search for acquire - aerobic power and not speed.

But as time passes by, with the improvement and progress of their investigations, Gesheler and Reindell they conclude that in the case of long distance events and with top class runners – the effective way of improve that´s with incomplete intervals. Short intervals. Simply what passed for the books that´s just the compete interval recover.

In my opinion this information is lost, since people all over the world is doing no matter what intermittent training version they all called that interval training. Actually we have a large diversity of training that in english language you call that “intervals”, but the origin and the source, and the reason to be named “intervals” that´s lost, as to say.

But in the future when i will post more data about my version of the interval training, particularly the modern version that´s with no doubt deals with imcomplete (and also active) pauses.

Antonio -

Thanks for sharing, please continue...

Antonio Cabral wrote:

Another detail to consider is that nothing is static – or shalln´t be. Even Gresheler and Reindell when they start their investigation about the interval training – they were create a new training concept – and they continue their investigation during more tha one decade. In the end (as to say) the formulas are the same tha in the start.

Excuse me, anothet typo mistake. I want to say that "In the end (as to say) the formulas AREN´T the same than in the start.

About top class runners that train in the Waldemar Gresheler direct guidance, you have this ones:

46,0 400m World Rec. Rudolf Harbig GER Frankfurt 12.8.1939

1.46,6 800m World Rec. Rudolf Harbig GER Milan 15.07.1939

1.45,7 800m World Rec. Roger Moens BEL Oslo 03.08.1955

May be that now, you underatand, one more reason why early interval training method prescribes complete intervals. To train for 400m/800m events that´s quite different than to train for 3000m/5000m/10000m.

bumper

this thread should not die. But it is on life support.

C'mon people, you have Antonio ready and willing to answer your heaviest interval training questions. But I suppose you'd rather argue about Webb vs Ritz in a steeplechase, or maybe discuss the "15 lb hamburger." And we wonder why US distance runners can't cut it.

Suit yourself.......

Balance, Tinman and all the others

May be you change a bit your opinion about some details from the Gresheler interval training when you read this:

That are a quoteste from Gordon Pirie book RUNNING FAST AND INJURY FREE by GORDON PIRIE

(Let me allow you all that I did pick that for free from the internet. Then i´m not violate copyright law.)

…” My own journey to the top of the heap in international running began when I saw Emil Zatopek…”

…” Following the 1952 Helsinki Olympic Games I met the great German coach Waldemar Gerschler. At that time, Gerschler had already spent 20 years working closely with Professor Hans Reindall, a heart specialist, and with psychological experts. His approach to training distance runners was well ahead of its time. He called for a systematic approach to training, which prepared the athlete's body and mind to withstand greater and greater efforts. Gerschler was the first person I met who suggested it was possible for me to train even more. From Gerschler I learned how to produce an absolutely maximum effort. Prior to meeting him I had been training on my own, but his expertise freed me from that responsibility. I had been training hard prior to meeting Gerschler, but had not really understood what I was doing - nor had I cared much about it, either. I still employ many of the principles of interval training which I learned from this great German coach during the 1950s. Nearly every top runner in the world today uses Gerschler's interval principles, most without knowing it - a good example was the American Steve Scott. With Gerschler as my mentor, I was able to lower the world record for 5,000 metres to 13:36.8 in 1956 (Gundar Haegg first broke 14:00 with a 13:58 in 1944). Gerschler's training methods made it possible for me to compete with the world's best for more than 10 years. The example of Zatopek, along with Gerschler's expertise, made it possible for me to become an uninhibited competitor. The crucial point in all this was that I was determined to set aside what was then traditional thinking, in order to do whatever was necessary to eliminate my athletic weaknesses. …”

…”I did not achieve this unparalleled success due to the possession of any extraordinary physical gifts or a magical training formula. I simply went about my training and racing with a singleness of purpose and determination that was unfashionable at that time, to the point of being downright “un- English”. I was able to beat such great runners because I trained myself to be able to withstand incredibly hard races and still sprint the last 220 yards in something near 25 seconds (on heavy cinder track). [B To achieve this, I ran 10x220 yards in 24 seconds - not once, but twice in a single day. I could manage 20x440 yards in 59 seconds with only a 30- second jog to recover, or 12x440 yards in 55 or 56 seconds, with a one - minute recovery jog. …”

My question is this one. Do you really believe that a 13:36 PB runner that does 12X400m/24-25sec or 12X400m/55-56sec, with rec=30sec jog and 60sec that´s complete recover or incomplete recover ? Do yopu really believe that his heart gies down to 120HR beats during that period ?

But I keep with quotes from Pirie book

…” Interval Training

Let us now look at the fundamentals of Gerschler's classic Interval Training Protocol, in the hope of shedding some light on this clouded subject; and in the process do away with the myths that have grown up around it. Gerschler's system embraces all distances from 2,000 metres down to 100 metres. His statement that you can achieve full development in winter training through the use of only the three distances of 100, 200 and 400 metres has led to the popular misconception that Gerschler and his champions only trained in this way. Wrong! Even Rudolf Harbig, World Record Holder for 400 and 800 metres, ran stretches of 2,000 metres in his preparations for races. This is a typical training day taken from Harbig's Diary: 40 mins easy running; 1x2,000m; 20mins jog; 2x1,000m; 12mins jog; 2x600m; 12mins jog; 2x300m; 8mins jog; 1x200m; 6mins jog; 1x100m; 10mins jog. Interval running, properly applied, is not only scientifically sound, but is also the most efficient Interval running, properly applied, is not only scientifically sound, but is also the most efficient has led to this time - honoured and well- proven system being maligned and blamed for athletes experiencing all kinds of difficulties. This is because careless application of interval running can damage runners. On the other hand, when it is applied intelligently, its results can be nothing short of miraculous. The plain truth about interval running is that it serves the purpose of developing the heart, circulation and muscles better than any other system. Its beauty is that it does so in a fraction of the time required by long slow distance (LSD) training. The longer stretches of race distance together with middle distance are an indispensable part of Gerschler's system, which is now well over half a century old. It preceded all other such systems of training, and it should be appreciated that Gerschler was the forerunner of a long line of experts who have put forward his ideas as theirs. Much of the difficulty many athletes have with interval training is that they approach it like a competition. Gerschler's motto for interval running was: “Take it easy”. As I started my faster runs in an interval session, he always called to me: “Langersammer (Slower)!”. You should take an interval session in your stride, running well within your capabilities. We cruised around the faster sections of our runs with controlled power. As a result, even after 80x200 metres I was still able to go for a run around the forest in Freiburg for another 3 miles or so, and then be ready for more later in the day. It was a very enjoyable way of running, but involved a lot of sweat! The following factors should be carefully controlled in an interval session:

1. Speed. The pace should be such that the athlete is able to complete the whole session without undue difficulty.

2. Distance. The distance run in this type of training should not be longer than the athlete can comfortably achieve at the required pace.

3. Repetitions. The athlete should not be expected to repeat a distance during a training session more often than he is comfortably able to do.

4. Continuous motion. The athlete should run at a comfortable pace between fast runs to assist in the recovery process.

5. Variation. Distances and speeds should be varied from session to session to maintain interest.

6. Technique. Training sessions should provide the coach with an excellent opportunity to monitor his athlete's technique.

…” The interval should be run at a continuous trot, and with the same rhythm that is used in the fast un; the breathing rhythm should also be identical. This assists greatly in the recovery process. …”

This is very intersting and also goes against many of you claim, in our discussion. I alwys said that the name from Interval training comes from that the interval receover that´s the important piece Just read:

…” Progress is indicated by an improvement in the required rest interval (i.e. it gets shorter), and also by an increase in the number of repetitions which can be run before the onset of fatigue. In addition, progress should be accompanied by an ability to run the fast section at a greater speed…”

…” Interestingly, during interval training, most development occurs during the interval; this was the conclusion reached by Waldemar Gerschler and Professor Reindel at the Freiburg Sports Institute after many years of research on thousands of subjects. Consider this quote from an article by Gerschler himself, which appeared over thirty years ago in the magazine “World Sports”:

“Tips From The Tutors

HEY, NOT SO FAST!

Athletes are often uncertain about what distances they should cover in training, and how fast and how often they should run them. Again and again, THEY TEND TO GO TOO FAST IN TRAINING, especially at shorter distances (writes Waldemar Gerschler).

Winter training can be arranged simply yet effectively if two distances are concentrated on - 100 and 200 metres - with jogged intervals between them.

A sprinter capable of running 100m inside 11 secs might reasonably take 12-13 secs for his training runs. A 400m man under 50 secs might cover 100m in 14-15 secs; the 800m man under 1:53 and a 1,500m runner under 3:50 in 14-15 secs; the longer distance runner inside 14:30 or 10,000m inside 31 mins in 16-17 secs. The jogged interval 100m should take 30 secs if the athlete is highly trained, 45 secs if in the intermediate stage and 60 secs if he is a beginner. These times may seem quite modest but from the training angle they are rather fast - in fact I am sure many will need to make them more modest still. The time of the run is of only secondary importance; more important is the timing of the intervals, and it is vital to adhere to these.

At the beginning of an athlete's training his effort should not be forced; growing fatigue indicates it is time to stop. But after three or four months a good athlete who has been training four or five times a week should cope easily with 40 repetitions. (The sprinter should not aim at 40repetitions; about 20 will be better for him).

For training at 200 metres, the sprinter might run that distance in 25-26 secs, the quarter miler in28-30 secs, 800 and 1,500m men in about 30 secs, and long distance runners in 33-34 secs.

The intervals between repetitions will, like those for the 100m training, depend on the athlete's ability: if in the intermediate stage, 60 secs; if a beginner, 75 secs. After three or four months, 40 repetitions should be reached.

Cross-country running in the winter provides good training, but the sprinter should not

participate. It should be remembered that the athlete himself can find what suits him best, bypersonal experience and observation.

An athlete not being trained by a coach should set himself a long term target. For instance, a middle distance runner over 20 years of age may say to himself that after three or four months of winter training he will (what a significant word, that “will”!) run 40x200m in 29-30 secs without looking particularly strained. Between each 200m he will jog for 60 secs. If he has been building up over a considerable period of time, say four to five years, he can aim at reducing his jogged interval to 45 secs.

Two other sessions he might do are 40x100m in 14.5 secs (or 15 or 16 secs, to be decided by an expert), with a jogged interval of 30 secs, and 30x400m in 70 (or 72) secs, with a jogged interval of 60 (75 or 90) secs.

Finnaly a last quote from Pirie book that shows the distinguish from interval training (short-incomplete recover from speed training by intermittent efforts (long complete recover)

…”Keep the notion of continuous motion in mind at all times. Interval training on its own canovertire and even destroy you. It is important to fully utilise all elements of a balanced training programme - interval training, longer stretches, general running and strength training – throughout the year, but to change the emphasis as your condition improves and your racing season approaches. Keep off the energy-absorbing intervals - this is where most athletes make their biggest mistake. As an athlete gets super-fit, the coach makes him run more and more sessions of 200- and 400-metre repetitions in hyper-fast times with shorter and shorter rest intervals. It certainly looks good in the training reports, but doing this sort of training will quickly turn a champ into a chump. Interval training is very destructive unless Gerschler's rules are adhered to.

Thus, take it easy with proper speeds, proper running rest intervals and proper distances.

Where high racing speeds are desired, hyper-fast runs are needed, to be followed by a

generous period of passive recovery (even as much as 20 minutes). Note that this is not interval running, and a different set of rules apply. An example of this type of training protocol would be:

400m (down to 50.0), rest 20 mins, repeat 4-8 times.

600m (down to 1:14), rest 20 mins, repeat 4-8 times.

800m (down to 1:50), rest 20 mins, repeat 4-8 times.

1,000m (down to 2:28), rest 20 mins, repeat 4-8 times.

1,200m (down to 2:50), rest 20 mins, repeat 2-6 times.

2,000m (down to 4:58), rest 20 mins, repeat 2-3 times.

Training is much more than just running intervals. You must go on to do race practice, together with fast and hyper-fast running. The hyper-fast times shown above are for a world-class athlete in peak form; you will therefore have to adjust your expectations accordingly. For example:

1 - 400m to be run in 60 secs, then 58 etc. down to 52 or even 48 secs over a period of time.

2 - 600m in 1:36, then 1:32, then 1:30, then 1:28, and perhaps even 1:14.

3 - 800m in 2:04, then 1:58, then 1:54, and perhaps even 1:48.

(N.B. Each training session should produce identical times for each run. The improvements quoted occur over a period of time).

The variations possible in this type of training are infinite. Training becomes a very interesting game of combining all these various elements into your programme in the proper amounts at the proper times. Early in the year, you should be doing a great deal of general running in the forest, including a lot of hills. As you get fitter and fitter, you can then add interval training to your programme, and then hyper-fast running as the racing season approaches. Once you begin racing, intervals will have been phased out altogether in favour of faster and faster hyper-fast running sessions (with fewer repetitions, of course!) and the race practice sessions. Gerschler stated that maximum speed can be developed by 100-metre sprints. However, you should maintain your overall volume of running throughout the year….”

I appreciate all you comments and doubts and questions.

António Cabral

Antonio,

thanks a lot for getting this back on the front page. I've got to print this out and read it all through so I can absorb it before I ask you some questions.

As Antonio has just pointed out, runners often run their intervals too hard. I doubt Zatopek did the reported 60 x 400 in 60 seconds as that would be too hard for just a sub 14 5KM runner. I would like to bring back discussion about Mihaly Igloi and his athletes. I think that Igloi exemplified the fact that people shouldn't run the intervals too hard (Maybe Lance a-lot will get in on this as he advocates the Schul method). I think there is a time and place for proper speed training (for instance, dozens of 100 repeats for speed, as in Billy Mills type-training) as I think every coach out there will also think. I think that Igloi used terms such as "fresh speed", "middle speed", etc. to keep athletes under a sense of control, of feeling the efficient body movements, the feel of neuromuscularly moving fast yet still in control of movements. Every athlete must possess a sense of control and a "knowledge" of how to move fast or what type of pace he is running (for ex., a runner does not start the beginning of his training run with the first 200M in 23 seconds to run 5KM in 16:00, it just doesn't fit and shows the runner is not capable of running 23"/200M speed with PR not faster than 22"). I think that Igloi, and some other coaches out there (Tabori, Schul, etc.) who have used extensive interval training (also Zatopek) had a feeling of effort, of varying intensities of effort (to know how they feel under race-like situation) and knew how to maximize their potential in running. Gerschler, along with many top inteval/intermittent training coaches in history knew that recovery was important part of training, to not have intensities too high for too long (meaning, if one athlete only does interval training almost everyday like Zatopek he does not run the same speed everyday over and over again). Many top interval coaches, or coaches who used variations in their training, did often not time their runners so awfully much because feeling of effort is more important than hitting specific time. I think that interval training is really a artform, one must be able to recovery between given efforts (such as walk training, jog training) and how one must master the fact that if a athlete does 60 x 400 one day, he does not do the same amount at the same price on the body the next day. I would like to hear stories about different types of training for different athletes, especially during the age where interval/intermittent training during time of Zatopek (because athletes after Zatopek used intermittent/interval training like Kuts, Pirie, etc. although modifying it a little bit). So does anyone out there have any example workouts that would demonstrate the fact that recovery was important in overall training program despite doing training day after day month after month?

Also, regarding Pirie doing 400 repeats in 59 with breif 30 second rest, not possible.

Didn't want to let it slip all the way down to the 3rd page...

Antonio shared keys to successful use of interval training, thus promoted by Gerschler, Reindell, and Pirie (in his book). Here are a few points that I saw:

1) Use voluminous amounts of moderate speed repetitions so that endurance is improved dramatically and speed is brought along without pressure or injury.

2) Use incomplete recoveries, particularly as one becomes more and more fit.

3) Use shorter repetitions at modest speeds before doing longer repetitions. For example, doing 100s or 200s in the winter is a good lead-up to longer reps in the spring and summer.

4) Use a variety of training methods, including running on trails in the forest and other places in addition to track work.

5) Enjoy what you are doing.

Tinman

Antonio,

Can you explain the training of Cacho and Reyes Esteves and the training philosophy of their coach Pascual in detail?

Thanks

Antonio,

Thanks for the information. I have also read Pirie's book. I printed off a copy a few years ago. I also have that article from Gerschler, so I am very familiar with what you are speaking about. We both apparently have the same references. I agree that the most of the training done by Pirie contained recovery periods that were incomplete. I would argue that they were meant to be complete. Pirie clearly states how he would lay on the ground ever fifth rest interval to take his pulse as to check and see whether it was dropping down to the required 120 bpm. If it did not drop down in the required 90 seconds he would stop his workout. It appears that he may have believed that his heart rate was still coming down to that low a level even while he was jogging during his recovers jog. He stated how adding about 10 seconds more time than it required his heart rate to drop to 120 bpm during the lying down recovery interval, to the jogging recovery interval. He states he believed that it would only take the heart about 10 seconds more to come down to 120 bpm than while lying down.

Of course this is false. I have tried this and it takes much longer than 10 seconds more for the heart rate to drop down to 120 bpm while jogging, than while lying down. Pirie did his training back in the days before heart rate monitors were available. His book however was written at a time when heart rate monitors where readily available. I am surprised he did not suggest using one.

I may just be misinterpreting Mr. Pirie, but I believe it was his understanding that he was completely recovered before he started the next fast run.

My experience with this training method of controlling the recovery periods as well as the running speed and distances based on heart rate maximums and minimums, has left me to believe that this was relatively easy training. It was for me anyway.

It is easy to figure out the distance and the speed of the fast running segment based off of a maximum pulse of 180 bpm. This is especially true with a heart rate monitor. 180 bpm is a maximum of course, and you would not want the heart rate to be that high near the beginning of the workout. If it was, the workout would not last very long, because the heart rate would climb over 180 bpm early in the workout. Remember, Gerschler's rules limit heart rates over 180 bpm. I initially started running 100's at a pace just under a sprint. 100's are not very long and it was usually not the heart rate of 180 bpm that required me to stop the workout. It was always the minimum heart rate of 120 bpm, which I checked lying on the ground every fifth interval.

Once I could do 40 x 100 I decided it was time to move up to 200m. I would follow the same rules; only with 200's I found that often I had to stop the workout because my heart rate would climb over 180 bpm. Once I could do 20 x 200m I decided it was time to move up to 400m.

I never continued with this experiment long enough to get to distances longer than 400m but this type of training left me with the impression that Gerschler's runners did not train that hard. They did the volume yes, but Gerschler's rules always required me to stop the workout before it ever became to taxing. During this experiment I found I could actually train this way almost every day. It wasn't so much the intensity that would wear me down as much as it was the fact that running fast every day takes its toll on your muscles and joints. I also didn't like to go to the track ever day. Very boring. I like to go for a run in the forest and enjoy the scenery myself.

As stated earlier, I probably didn't recover fully during the recovery interval, even if I jogged 10 seconds longer than when I checked my heart rate lying down after every fifth interval. This did not make the workout a very hard one though, since an inability for my heart rate to drop down below 120 bpm during every fifth recovery interval would require me to stop the workout. I could never get over taxed, since Gerschler's heart rate rules kept this from ever happening.

Note: Pirie states that it is important to be able to run at least 10 fast runs before needing to stop the workout due to Gershcler's rules. If you could not do 10 than you where either running too fast, or the run distance was too long. This is very valuable to know since some people can have a hard time getting their heart rates up near 180 bpm. They will quickly find out whether they are running too fast or too far though. This can be learned by monitoring your hearts ability to come down below 120 bpm during the recovery interval while laying down.

On a side note, I have noticed that the Book written in German, which talks about Gebrselassie 's training, mentions interval training, and there are many references to limiting the heart rate to 180 bpm during training, as well as a requirement that the heart rate drops down to 120 bpm during the recovery period. If this does not happen the workouts are supposed to stop. So apparently classic interval training lives on, and the people doing it are pretty dam fast.

Balance

Thanks for your post. To some extend you agree with me that Gesheler interval training - in it origin - or that´s conceived to be imcomplete recover, or they create a intreval training version that´s imcomplete recover rather that did happen voluntary or unvoluntary.

That´s right that like Pirie, some people taugh they did use quite complete intervals - get down to 120 pulse beat recover, but they don´t really. You made a point by remember that in the past ther´s not such thing as an heart rate monitor.

This may be a start point to understand the classic version of the interval training - the conservative one - get down heart beat to 120 - and the modern one - that uses short and active recover.

This is common in all new theory - as interval training was in that time. When something is new, you need to care too much about that, but after that some times passes and by the psread use of that, they get more confident - you improve your concepts and you aren´t afraid as you used to be and you are able to take risks. The same about interval training. The 120 beats recover caution - actually that´s no more a fix rule, now you have an efficient use of the interval training if you use imcomplete intervals and also if you have the cre not doing that in a too much intense pace.

Besides, for what i´ve read the 120 beat rule - that´s more a precaution more than a fix rule and i think that you say the same. When i was young, i saw the portuguese coaches acting like this: they did use a short recover than 1:30, but after the last rep, they test the heart while take the heart rate beat of the runner after the last rep. and they wait 1:30 and they took it once again. If after that 1:30 the runner did get down to 120 pulse or less, then they conclude that the short interval (ex:60sec) that they use is proper and they will keep that interval duration in the next workout session. But if they did realise that the runner aren´t able to get the pulse down to 120 beats in 1:30, then in the next session of the same reps. distance they will use a long interval recover.

Mr. Cabral,

Any info on Pascual?