Mr. Renato Canova: Could You Please Answer a Question About Effective Ways to Improve the Lactate Threshold?

"makes sense" ??? I am not trying to be rude, but it doesn't matter if it makes sense or not to you. It matters what was done.

"But when Peter Snell tells me that he spoke to Seb and this is the conclusion that he came away with -- that's good for me. "

That may be, but I will go by direct quotes from Seb himself ( in MANY interviews I read him directly say that he trained in the 45-65 mile per week range, NO MORE), and Frank Horwill, and Marius' own conclusions based on looking at Seb's logs and talking to Seb directly. From all of that, even if one adds in some warm-up mileage possibly not counted, one can only conclude that during base training phases, Seb might have been in the 70's some weeks, but was generally below 70.

The 80-100 mile weeks (#'s bandied about by you and others several times) just did not happen from everything we know. And if he happened to run a week or 2 in his life in that range, it is inconsequential. We are talking about base training AVERAGE weeks. And again, for the last and final time, I will state that the FACTS point to a range of 50-65 on average over his career during these base months.

You disagree, fine. Let's move on until someone has some CONCRETE facts to prove either one of us right/wrong.

what facts? who knows exactly what miles he counted and what not? You hear claims on both sides: people say, "Look at the log -- he did no volume!" an dothers say, "Peter said, 'yes it was more than that.'"

Who the hell is trackhead anyways? Marius knows his shit so I'd take his word of 70 or less over a nobody any day.

Peter Snell?

A related example is the training of Said Aouita, p459 from "Running With The Legends".

"I train between 50 and 70 miles a week."

"There are many weeks of 50 miles, 50 miles, 50 miles," he says, moving his hands back and forth, as if swinging a pendulum.

Aouita was tested to have a maximum VO2 uptake of 96, and he was much faster at 1500m on up than Seb Coe.

Sir Lance-alot wrote:

So no matter what JK or others say (JK of the school of thought that there is ONLY ONE WAY to reach the top), there are actually different ways that suit different athletes....But in the end, please do not try and re-write history.

I might suggest you heed your own advice abot rewriting history, considering your "facts" about JK's approach are dead wrong.

As for this ongoing nonsense about Coe's mileage, unless someone has hopes of copying his schedule and running 1:41, the entire question is meaningless and has nothing to do with this thread.

The UNDENIABLE FACT is that the OVERWHELMING majority of the best distance runners of all time, 1500m to the marathon (and even some 800m runners) have used extended periods of higher mileage basic training to improve aerobic endurance, extend the thickness and density of capillary beds and mitochondria, improve left ventricle strength and cardiopulmonary efficiency, and on and on.

This is not hearsay, nor is it opinion, nor is it folklore. It is fact. May the futile debates about how much mileage a long retired runner ran end with that and now perhaps Renato can answer the question.

test

Sorry, that last post was from me. I had thought I was banned (for making a political thread) and was testing the waters before I made my post.

Sir Lance-alot,

you posted some interesting quotes from JK. I wonder if he meant that this was the case for marathoners. In any case, I sincerely would like to hear his thoughts on mileage for 800/1500 meter runners. Also, I'm curious about what he believes are the best ways to improve the threshold in the pre season and how to maintain it during the competitive season. JK, if you are reading, could you please respond?

Some more Coe info ;

I am sitting here with photo copies of parts of the 84 seasons training diary, written in Sebs own handwriting. That should be first hand enough. 12 weeks during the spring that year. Average around 40 miles weekly. Most runs 5-8 miles, some steady 5.15-30 mile, some slow 6 min miles. One rest day every week. Heavy weight work (esp dead lifts, arm curls, bench and full squats)

I also looked back at my journal from 1996 when I spent time at Peter Coes house in London. We sat in his office discussion this particular topic when I asked him what Seb did at the most in the winter. He took out the 1981 schedules (when according to Coe Sr., Seb was at his very best) and showed me the 60-70 mile weeks (only a few of them that high) Not including warm ups, but most warmups were not that long and no warmups in the steady/brisk runs. So throw in there 15 miles extra and you are at 75-85 mile weeks at the most. But the workload was still incredible considering the speed combined with endurance combined with explosive element. I believe Seb is a rare example of an athletes whoes Vo2 max was not particulary incluenced negativly by all the anaerobic work (81.4 mmol/l)

If this is not enough, I could email Peter. One of few 80+ guys on the internet. Still going strong, though his sight is not what is used to after a work accident some years ago.

Marius

www.mariusbakken.com

Marius,

Your findings don't run contrary to my own beliefs. Your input and commetns on this subject are most appreciated.

And congratulations on the new Norwegian 5000m record.

Bump

Marius, I too truly appreciate your input on this subject. While for some reading this thread, and possibly even for you ( I am not sure, I know that you have been asked to contribute on this subject many times before), it may seem like a boring question by now, but *I* still think it is worth finding an answer to.

Why??? Because Seb is one of the greatest middle distance runners ever, and his 1:41 /3:29 800/1500 combo has STILL YET TO BE SURPASSED (no other runner has ever broken 1:42 and 3:30). So, genetic freak or not ( aren't ALL of the all-time great runners genetic marvels on some level?? Of course they are), it is still worth knowing how he trained. He and his father and those close to him have always maintained that he ran "low" total miles compared to many elite milers (but again, not all, because others like Spivey, Krummenacker and Lagat also claim to have trained on a "low" volume scheme: 60's per week, no more). Now NO ONE has ever claimed that Coe did not train extremely hard. Putting in lots of miles, while usually a necessary ingredient for most top runners, is NOT the ONLY way to train hard (weights, plyos, cross-training, intensity, crash-training are all training elements that = hard work....they just do not necessarily = lots of overall average weekly mileage). But others have started the rumors that Coe purposely "lied" about his training, and tried to mislead people. They have been stating that he regularly trained in the 80-100 mile range during base phases(some even stating the he trained over 100 per week). I think such statements about his training are patently FALSE.

And I think that your information supports my belief. You wrote that sping of ’84 he is running at about 40 per week, consisting of mostly steady runs. Now for steady runs, one usually does not do warm-ups/warm-downs. So call it 45 if you like, but it is under 50 for sure.

And then you talk of winter ’81, clearly a base phase. You state that there were only a "few" 60-70 mile weeks. You also state that yes, indeed, warm-ups were not counted. But how many "quality/speed" workouts a week was he doing? If 3 a week, then an extra "15 miles" of warm-ups/downs sounds like a maximum for someone whose "warmups were not that long." But sure, call it 15 more miles if you must. And what do you get? 75-85 miles "AT THE MOST"….and again only a few weeks of that (his highest weeks). So….it appears to me, that is likely that during his base phases, his AVERAGE (one or two high weeks does not make an average) would still end up likely just at or under 70. And that is all I have been maintaining all along. I never said that Coe NEVER ran a week over 70 or 80 miles counting every step he ran. No, just that his average base weeks were likely in the 60’s (ok, maybe high 60’s) and his other periods were likely averaging under 60.

Bottom line, this was no regular 80-100 miles per week guy that so many are maintaining.

Marius, if you would like to be the one to settle this once for all, yes, PLEASE e-mail Peter or Seb, and that would do it. Please ask him/them this one simple question (simple, but precise)-

During Seb’s "base" (aerobic build-up) phases of each year (did he have two base phases each year?), over his career (1978-1986), how many miles per week would he AVERAGE for those periods?

That’s it. And to make sure there is no controversy, make he understands these points:

* Ask him to, before doing his calculation, add in any warm-up/warm down miles run before/after track workouts that might not have been originally counted.

* Ask him to again, give us an AVERAGE. We are not looking for his highest week in a given year, or even his highest base period average over just one particular year (such a week or year might be an anomaly). Just the AVERAGE weekly mileage(ALL MILES, even jogging) during base periods over the prime of hiscareer.

The answer to THAT question will settle this long, and OK…..starting to get boring…. debate.

THANKS Marius, you will save future generations PLENTY of wasted time arguing this one point!!! J

That's right, lance-a-lot, dead wrong. Another piece of sage wisdom; give the context of a quote.

Here is JK's response to someone who asked him about this:

"Look, guys, 120 miles per week is NOT an incredible amount of mileage. YOU (and the rest of this country) need to think outside YOUR box if you have the notion that it IS a lot. 150 per week is BORDERING on a lot, but it's not like I'm advocating one hundred and EIGHTY per week as some magic number. Plenty of elite runners do 180, even 200+ per week, so what I'm putting forth as a mileage standard is only moderate by comparison. Even everyday (non-elite) runners can do 120 per week (with a full-time job) with no problem. And (if they do it sensibly) guess what most of them find. They find that they feel stronger, leaner, and more efficient, and their subsequent performances (after filling in the other necessary elements of training) are SUPERIOR to what they achieved without that mileage base. In fact, most people report a distinct difference (performance-wise) after running at 120 per week during base training vis-à-vis running at 100 per week, indicating that 100 per week (which many Americans are ingrained to believe is "a lot") is NOT a sufficient mileage to produce all the requisite metabolic changes in a large percentage of the population.

The bottom line is that the number of people who respond favorably to relaxed high mileage running is FAR greater than the number who show equal improvement from using low mileage, super high intensity training. And FAR more people get injured from doing hard track work too often than from doing less intense high mileage running (as long as they use a sensible progression to arrive at that mileage). In fact, I guaranTEE more careers have been outright ruined by too much intensity than by too much mileage. High mileage will NOT kill your speed, so you can always add your bread-and-butter training recipe on top of a mileage base, and then almost always with superior results.

You're probably thinking, "Yeah, you said 'MOST people run better with a huge base.' What if I'm NOT one of those people? What good does running 120+ miles per week do me then, wise guy?" To that I will say that you will never know if you WILL find that extra performance boost unless you try it. In fact, you won't even know what events you're best suited to! That's why I say that trying the higher mileage, endurance-oriented route (instead of thoughtlessly blowing it off) is the ONLY way that you (yes, YOU) will find out what DOES work best for you and will allow you to reach your true potential as a runner. And it's not like all I'm talking about here is LSD. I said you need to be able to TRAIN at 120+ per week, not JOG that much. Just because most of it needs to be relaxed doesn't mean all of that is slow plodding.

If you do everything right and still can't get past x miles per week without trouble, so be it. I suppose I'll have to admit that you ARE an exception. But you're still going to be at your best if you get as much (training, that is; not all slogging) as you CAN get during your base periods. All the speedwork, all the plyos, all the other work to develop explosiveness can be added ON TOP OF your FITNESS, but without fitness, you're missing the whole point of training."

Again, a good example of misinterpretation on your part, but nothing more. And it is apparent you have some grudge against JK, especially considering you term his article a "parable" (a religion, is it, to run high mileage?).

Some more:

"That mileage is NOT high except by the weenie standards you've been programmed to BELIEVE in. In the 1970s, it would have been considered medium - maybe even LOW. You want high for a HSer? Read "Running To The Top Of The Mountain" by Joe Newton and pay attention to the 216 miles in ten days that the York guys are reported to have done during their "camp". Then look at the subsequent weeks of 146+ and 142. They didn't drop below 90 in a week until the week of the state meet. If you think those numbers are trumped up to look impressive in print, think again. Tom Marino (who won Illinois State X-C in 1974 ahead of York's Ron Craker) told me that MOST of the top teams in Illinois were averaging over 100 per week back then. That was pretty much the norm for serious HS runners a lot of places. Rudy Chapa ran up to 130 in HS. Jeff Nelson ran up to 142. Gerry Lindgren ran so much you'd have to express it in scientific notation! All three of those guys set still-standing HS records. Of course, Nelson and Lindgren DID fall off the cliff afterward, but that was just as likely due to INTENSITY as it was due to mileage. In Nelson's case, it couldn't have helped to race the likes of Salazar in workouts as an Oregon Frosh.

I'd put weeks of 120+ miles in the conditioning phase (maybe even over 150), as long as the athlete is mature and experienced. This additional "safe aerobic pressure", combined with the work on strengthening sheer "gristle", tends to enable better quality training to occur at somewhat lower mileage loads (90-110 mpw). It looks like most African track specialists train best at 100-110 mpw, but the mzungu NEEDS injections of additional mileage in order to attain the same aerobic fitness. Whether this is genetic or a result of a lifetime aerobic base (or both) is not known for sure, but African runners can thrive on moderate mileage with a higher intensity than most mzungus can tolerate. "

The whole thing is attempt at a zen-like story of finding the "one true path" up the mountain. If you don't follow the JK path, you are cheating youself, are a lazy short-cutter, or maybe taking drugs. JK is one of the enlightened few of (found his Buddha nature) of distance running, everyone else is chasing a false enlightenment. Tell that to the 100's and 100's of runners who achieved greatness following DIFFERENT paths then the one JK preaches. That is the WHOLE point of this Seb Coe debate, and contrary to you opinion, it is an important one: there are MANY paths to the top of the mountain, just as (to keep with JK's analogy), there are MANY paths to enlightenment.

Your attempts at sarcastic wit in truth convey an idiotic arrogance. Better not to try your hand at exaggeration in the first place and hijack the thread into your own self-righteous sermon against an accomplished coach who has forgotten more about running than you will ever know.

I so enjoy the painfully foolish generalizations you make that, as usual, are completely wrong. "1000's" of runners?

Really? Care to name them? Even a few? I can all bu t assure you that from 1500 on up, any Olympic medalist or world record holder has some base of high mileage, even if only extensive aerobic work as a youth.

And if you bother citing Paavo Nurmi or some athlete of yore, I might remind you that today's athletes have shaved nearly two minutes from his best times.

In conclusion, you make no valid point and you make too much of it.

Can anybody expand on how Renato say's recruiting fibers during high lactate's protects oxidation?

If we both agree with Marius' assertions, do we still disagree?

jon r wrote:

Can anybody expand on how Renato say's recruiting fibers during high lactate's protects oxidation?

I am not sure I entirely understand your question,

"I always use short sprints uphill (from 60 to 100m, with a gradient of 10-15%, depending on the characteristics of the place), also during full track season (or during every period of preparation regarding marathon runners). Running long distances many times, not always fast but often moderate, athletes become unable to use completely their fibres, expecially FT. Runners of long distance become unable to have quick nervous reactions, and step by step lose capacity of MENTAL INTENSITY in efforts. So, the goal is to recruit their capacity in requiring max intensity to their brain, that means rapidity in transmitting stimula to muscles, and means also the possibility of using the most percentage possible of fibres. So, the first goal of short sprints uphill is not to improve speed, but to reach the capacity of working with the higher number of fibres in each muscle (of course interested in specific activity).

The second goal is to increase the elasticity of heart. Being a muscle, heart needs to work using a large range of possibilities. Under this point of view, if you reduce too much your max heart rate, you reduce your capacity of working. An example :

Athlete A : Basic HR 50/min - Max HR 200

Athlete B : Basic HR 40/min - Max HR 180

Athlete C : Basic HR 36/min - Max HR 180

A) is the athlete after 2-3 years of training. He's yet young, didn't work very much on long run, is able to reach a high level of HR (200) having a good elasticity in his myocardium. His coefficient of contraction is 4, as he's able to work 4 times his basic value (200 : 50).

B) the same athlete, after working 2 years in dicrection of long run, improving very much his aerobic capacity. As his heart becomes bigger, he's able to reduce his basic HR of 20% (from 50 to 40). Of course, he's no more able to have the same peak (from 200 to 180), but loses only 10%. So, now his coefficient of contraction is 4,5 (180 : 40), so the capacity of working of his heart is higher than before.

C) after thie type of work, the athlete can yet reduce a little his basic HR, using long run FAST and long intervals (2000/3000m) at speed of 10000m, with short recovery. In this way, his heart can yet become a little bit bigger, but myocardium preserves his elasticity, because heart walls are not too thick, but able to contract and to relax very fast. The improvement of basic HR is 10% (from 40 to 36), but max HR is the same. So, the capacity of working of his heart is now of 5 times (180 : 36).

The only way to keep a high level of max HR is to push your heart to its max level, only for very short time, then to relax completly. In this way, myocardium can work at its max intensity, but the effort doesn't last long time, and the muscle cannot become hypertrophic, that is damageous for health and diminutive for performances."

jon r wrote:

Can anybody expand on how Renato say's recruiting fibers during high lactate's protects oxidation?

I do not entirely understand your question, but here is what Renato has written on high lactate work and fiber recruitment:

"The elements of training are always present in a good training-schedule. What must change is their percentage and their frequency. So, during the FUNDAMENTAL PERIOD you must work for increasing your qualities : general resistance, strenght, rapidity, flexibility, cohordination. You must not use SPEED, but you have to prepare your speed. For example, you use circuit with weights or special works uphill, having clear in your mind what the goal is. If I go climbing 400m, making, without interruption, 60m sprint at max. speed + 40m bounding + 60m sprint + 40m skipping + 60m sprint + 40m heels to buttocks very fast + 100m sprint, and at the top 10 times squat-jumps pushing harder is possible, I use a work for increasing strenght endurance, reaching a very high level of lactate, improving "stamina". THIS IS A BASIC TRAINING, but is of very high intensity. When I put speed in my training (f.e., 15x100m with 30/40 sec of recovery), I have more BASIC QUALITIES for improving this specificism.

I always use short sprints uphill (from 60 to 100m, with a gradient of 10-15%, depending on the characteristics of the place), also during full track season (or during every period of preparation regarding marathon runners). Running long distances many times, not always fast but often moderate, athletes become unable to use completely their fibres, expecially FT. Runners of long distance become unable to have quick nervous reactions, and step by step lose capacity of MENTAL INTENSITY in efforts. So, the goal is to recruit their capacity in requiring max intensity to their brain, that means rapidity in transmitting stimula to muscles, and means also the possibility of using the most percentage possible of fibres. So, the first goal of short sprints uphill is not to improve speed, but to reach the capacity of working with the higher number of fibres in each muscle (of course interested in specific activity).

The second goal is to increase the elasticity of heart. Being a muscle, heart needs to work using a large range of possibilities. Under this point of view, if you reduce too much your max heart rate, you reduce your capacity of working. An example :

Athlete A : Basic HR 50/min - Max HR 200

Athlete B : Basic HR 40/min - Max HR 180

Athlete C : Basic HR 36/min - Max HR 180

A) is the athlete after 2-3 years of training. He's yet young, didn't work very much on long run, is able to reach a high level of HR (200) having a good elasticity in his myocardium. His coefficient of contraction is 4, as he's able to work 4 times his basic value (200 : 50).

B) the same athlete, after working 2 years in dicrection of long run, improving very much his aerobic capacity. As his heart becomes bigger, he's able to reduce his basic HR of 20% (from 50 to 40). Of course, he's no more able to have the same peak (from 200 to 180), but loses only 10%. So, now his coefficient of contraction is 4,5 (180 : 40), so the capacity of working of his heart is higher than before.

C) after thie type of work, the athlete can yet reduce a little his basic HR, using long run FAST and long intervals (2000/3000m) at speed of 10000m, with short recovery. In this way, his heart can yet become a little bit bigger, but myocardium preserves his elasticity, because heart walls are not too thick, but able to contract and to relax very fast. The improvement of basic HR is 10% (from 40 to 36), but max HR is the same. So, the capacity of working of his heart is now of 5 times (180 : 36).

The only way to keep a high level of max HR is to push your heart to its max level, only for very short time, then to relax completly. In this way, myocardium can work at its max intensity, but the effort doesn't last long time, and the muscle cannot become hypertrophic, that is damageous for health and diminutive for performances.

Of course, during the basic period we don`t use repetitions very fast. We prefer to work for improving all the types of SPECIAL RESISTANCES, expecially STRENGTH ENDURANCE that has a very big influence on the Specific Endurance.

For example, using circuits lasting about 3/4 min with very long recovery, at the max. intensity, we can increase the periferal endurance improving at the same time strength and capyllarization. An example of circuit can be the following :

- 80m bounding (flat)

- 10 squat jumps on the place

- 300m running very fast on flat ground (finishing where a hill starts)

- 10 exercises for abdominals starting with the back on the ground

- 60m sprinting climbing

- 40m skipping very fast climbing

- 60m sprinting climbing

- 40m bounding climbing

- 60m sprinting climbing

- 10 squat jumps on the place again

- 200m very fast climbing

This circuit uses about 400m flat plus 360m climbing, and is very good for middle and long distance. With athletes of 800m, we can use the same type of work with shorter distances, lasting no more than 2 min.

Because the only way that we use for recruiting the most part of the fibres of one muscle is WORKING AROUND THE MAX INTENSITY, and the capacity of recruiting fibres is very important not only for the speed, but also for the endurance, due to the turn-over of the fibres of the same muscle, every circuit must be done at max intensity. At the end, the level of lactate is very high, and we have to recovery well before going for another circuit (normally, 5/6 min for long runners, 8/10 min for 800m runners).

But, what is important to know, is that, after using repetitions on track at high intensity (for example, 4 x 600m at 1:22 rec. 6/8 min for an athlete able running 1:47) without adequate aerobic support, for a time longer than 3 weeks, you can check that your Threshold decreased. Instead, after using circuits with adequate aerobic support, your Threshold increases. I suppose that this fact is due to the more global involvement of a higher percentage of fibres during the training, having a combined effect with the aerobic work able to push the Threshold, while fast tests on track have an OPPOSITE effect on the Threshold.

I want to write an experience that we had in Italy in 1990. At that time, we had a problem with 800m runners, having nobody able running under 1:46. There was a good group of very young athletes, born in '69-70 (Benvenuti, D'Urso, Giocondi, Bonamici, Chiavarini and some other less strong) that we wanted to follow for solving the problem.

In December 1989, we tested all the athletes (using a very simple Conconi-test) for detecting their AnT, after one month of long run, not very fast. Here are the data :

D'Urso 20,2 km/h (2'58" / km)

Benvenuti 19,1 km/h (3'08" / km)

Soffietto 18,8 km/h (3'11" / km)

Giocondi 18,8 km/h (3'11" / km)

Chiavarini 17,7 km/h (3'23" / km)

Bonamici 17,5 km/h (3'26" / km)

The athletes were assembled together in Turin (were we had an indoor track always open) from December for preparing their indoor season.

After some work non yet very fast (for example, 10x200m in 28", or 10x500 in 1'18" rec. 2'/3' depending on the athlete), they went for the first competition (10th of January) with split every 200m. The result was :

1) Benvenuti 1:51.2 (28.8 / 56.8 / 1:24.2 + 27.0)

2) Bonamici 1:51.6 (29.0 / 57.4 / 1:24.6 + 27.0)

3) Chiavarini 1:52.2 (28.5 / 56.2 / 1:23.7 + 28.5)

4) Soffietto 1:52.6 (28.7 / 56.6 / 1.24.0 + 28.6)

D'Urso and Giocondi didn't compete.

The athlete, during the next period, went for a training based on speed and lactic workouts, reducing long run very much (also for the bad conditions of weather, often snowing and under 0°).

Particularly Andrea Bonamici was able to improve very much in speed. One his workout, for instead, was 3 sets of 4x200m recovering 45" (5 min among the sets) in about 24"5/24", with the last 200m in 23"7.

They competed some time (2-3 times) in national races, improving only a little, but nobody was able running under 1:51.0.

After 40 days (20th of February) they went for Italian Championships, for qualifying European Championships.

The race was fast, as we had a rabbit pushing the pace in 25.8 / 52.4 / 1:18.8. All the athletes were destroyed, and Benvenuti won in 1:50.9 (last 200m in 31.2, because he was n. 3 after 600m !).

We were not able to understand soon what could have happened during the period of training. Few days later, we went with all the group in Tirrenia for beginning the preparation for the outdoor season. We tested another time the athletes using the same system (Conconi-test), and we found the following values :

D'Urso (non training with the group because he did't compete in any indoor race) 20.6 km/h (2'55" / km)

Giocondi (like D'Urso) 19.4 km/h (3'06" / km)

Benvenuti 18.1 km/h (3'19" / km)

Soffietto 17.7 km/h (3'23" / km)

Chiavarini 16.8 km/h (3'34" / km)

Bonamici 16.3 km/h (3'41" / km)

So, the results regarding AnT for the athletes, after 3 months of training, was the following :

Group A : Athletes NON USING very much LACTIC TRAINING :

D'Urso + 2 % (from 2:58 to 2:55)

Giocondi + 3 % (from 3:11 to 3:06)

Group B : Athletes using mainly ANAEROBIC WORKOUTS :

Benvenuti - 6 % (from 3:08 to 3:19)

Soffietto - 6 % (from 3:11 to 3:23)

Chiavarini - 5 % (from 3:23 to 3:34)

Bonamici - 7 % (from 3:26 to 3:41)

More the athletes used speed endurance at high level, with short recovery, WITHOUT HAVING ANY AEROBIC BASE, more they lost Aerobic Power, going into anaerobic system only for moderate speed.

More the athletes used workouts for increasing their Aerobic Power, more were able to be fast at the end of a very hard work.

Thru this experience we changed our systems, giving more importance to the aerobic basic work (not only long run, but long intervals on track and short intervals not very fast, reducing recovery times).

Thru this system, in 3 years we had Benvenuti 5th in OG '92 able running 1:43.92, and then to win European Ch. '94 ; D'Urso silver medal in WCh '93, able running 1:43.95 ; Giocondi 7th in WCh '95 and able running 1:44.85 ; and also Chiavarini ran 1:45.02, while Soffietto and Bonamici disappeared. The same school was used with Longo.

So, for us, the importance of having a high level of AnT (due to mythocondrial situation) is a fact now well known, and who was in our group at that time (like Gianni Ghidini, coach of Andrea Benvenuti) continues to use these systems also with kenyans like Bungei (1:42.34), Yiampoy (1:42.91), Kimwetich (1:43.03), Mutua (1:43.33) and many others, with different levels of speed."