Peter Snell Interview and his thoughts on Lydiard training

Antonio, you may find this interesting the schedule of Amby Burfoot back in the 1960's when many runners were finding success with LSD (long slow distance).

Just because something don't make sense to the scientist don't mean it doesn't work. We need the psychologist involved in these conversations.

From Joe Henderson's book published by T&FN 1970.

Ambrose Joel Burfoot. 6'0'', 140 lbs. Born Aug. 19, 1946. Began racing at age 17. "Serious competition will probably cease for me before jogging does. I believe I will continue running or a very long time." Self coached influenced by John Kelly.

Best Times: 440 yds-57.9; 880yds.-202.5; mile-4:19; 2mile-8:45.6; 3miles-13:44.8; 6miles-29:26; Marathon-2:14:28.8 Favorite race, marathon.

Training: (1968 season) twice a day (6:30 a.m., 3p.m.) 7 days a week 12 months a year. About 115 miles per week. longest ever training run: 38 miles.

Description: "Under ideal conditions of good health, sufficient time (both for necessary training and the even more ecessary relaxation) and proper motivation, I would train as follows:

Mon.-Sat. 10miles a.m. 15miles p.m.; Sun. 25 miles.

I accomplished this schedule during the first two weks of February 1968. All running was at approximately 7:00 pace. Without any speedwork at all, I then went onto the track (indoors) and ran 8:45, which is still far nd away my most startling running performance. I ran with an ease which absolutely amazed me. I then began thinking about more track meets and adding a little speed, and got slower every week. By mid March I was a consistent 9:02 2 miler.

I spent the fall of 68 training 5 or 6 times per week. My weekday runs were 15 milers, while on the weekend I got out for longer runs including a 38 and a 36. I averaged 85 over this period and only topped 100 once. Yet, I felt very good and began doing "Oslerian pickups" (gradual accelerations). On my 15 I would run easily for 2 miles, do 7x800m pickups in the next 10-11 miles, and then do hard, short pickups for the last two miles. (This is the training that led to his 2:14 race in Japan which was within 1 sec. of the then AR. held by B. Edelen.

Hodgie-san wrote:

Best Times: 440 yds-57.9; 880yds.-202.5; mile-4:19; 2mile-8:45.6; 3miles-13:44.8; 6miles-29:26; Marathon-2:14:28.8 Favorite race, marathon.

Of course he was faster at the marathon, which is logical from the focus on long runs, especially with the marathon being downhill.

Looking at the times, about 30:30 for 10k, is there something notable to say training with only long runs is better? Or is that your point, that it's not very good training.

J.R. wrote:

Of course he was faster at the marathon, which is logical from the focus on long runs, especially with the marathon being downhill.

Looking at the times, about 30:30 for 10k, is there something notable to say training with only long runs is better? Or is that your point, that it's not very good training.

Fukuoka is not a downhill marathon.

I had a chat with Amby about slow training a few years later when he was in his "second" career. He said that he definitely stood behind his comments about slow training's value but at the time hadn't factored in the effects of being in college and racing 1-3 times in a typical week. After graduating and racing less frequently he didn't race as well and eventually added some very modest interval work to compensate for the smaller number of races.

It's also interesting that he's still competing seriously while in his 60s. He's entered the WAVA Championships this summer.

J.R. wrote:

Hodgie-san wrote:

Best Times: 440 yds-57.9; 880yds.-202.5; mile-4:19; 2mile-8:45.6; 3miles-13:44.8; 6miles-29:26; Marathon-2:14:28.8 Favorite race, marathon.

Of course he was faster at the marathon, which is logical from the focus on long runs, especially with the marathon being downhill.

Looking at the times, about 30:30 for 10k, is there something notable to say training with only long runs is better? Or is that your point, that it's not very good training.

He ran his PR at Fukuoka, not a downhill course. My point is that if it is working then it is good training for you.

Even if the physiologist cannot explain it or would like to tell you some other way is better.

There are many athletes who have improved their times and had excellent performances doing almost nothing but moderate paced running, alot of it.

HRE wrote:

I had a chat with Amby about slow training a few years later when he was in his "second" career. He said that he definitely stood behind his comments about slow training's value but at the time hadn't factored in the effects of being in college and racing 1-3 times in a typical week. After graduating and racing less frequently he didn't race as well and eventually added some very modest interval work to compensate for the smaller number of races.

It's also interesting that he's still competing seriously while in his 60s. He's entered the WAVA Championships this summer.

Yes HRE, races count as the ultimate workout right? BR raced frequently as well and factored it all in.

I suppose the debate here hinges on this question: if something is working, that is producing better race results, does that preclude the possibility that some other method could achieve a better outcome?

A better outcome could be a faster time, but it could also be a more efficient training method (here, I'm assuming no performance enhancing substances or even things like altitude tents and the like). If you can run slower, with less wear and tear, or run with lower mileage and get a the same or better race result than this is a good thing.

As for the specific methods, I have my own opinions but I defer to the experts and try to learn from them.

J.O. wrote:

Do you even understand the topic debated here?

I doubt you do.

I think the topic debated is whether you know your arse from your elbow.

No one seems to be able to find your creds.

Peter Snell is unique. Not only did he earn his doctorate, but he earned a couple of world records and a couple of gold medals.

Now back to you...

JonDCH wrote:

I suppose the debate here hinges on this question: if something is working, that is producing better race results, does that preclude the possibility that some other method could achieve a better outcome?

A better outcome could be a faster time, but it could also be a more efficient training method (here, I'm assuming no performance enhancing substances or even things like altitude tents and the like). If you can run slower, with less wear and tear, or run with lower mileage and get a the same or better race result than this is a good thing.

As for the specific methods, I have my own opinions but I defer to the experts and try to learn from them.

JonDCH, my experience has shown me that the intelligent athlete IS the expert.

This athlete receives all the data from other athletes & coaches etc. that they are open to and synthesize it to make their own individual plan.

I do not think that there have been any advances in the way athletes prepare for a very long time.

The athletes push the established barriers mostly a psychological battle.

You raise some interesting points, which with the inclusion of your more recent reference, are beginning to support.

I always understood (possibly flawed?) that in muscle recruitment, if one ran for, say, 20 miles at ten minute pace, the muscles recruited were predominately slow twitch muscles. As the muscles fibers fatigued, additional slow twitch muscles were recruited. When you ran out of slow twitch, then recruitement of fast twitch A began. Can you cite any research, either for or against, that confirms or disaffirms this mechanism?

I really am not interested in vetting your credentials, or taking sides in any of the vitriol. I'm simply interested in finding the truth underlying what I thought was settled physiological understanding.

TTMYG Hmmm wrote:

As the muscles fibers fatigued, additional slow twitch muscles were recruited. When you ran out of slow twitch, then recruitement of fast twitch A began. Can you cite any research, either for or against, that confirms or disaffirms this mechanism?

Forget the research, just think.

If you've run out of slow twitch then you've crashed, so now you're using fast twitch (really? the fast twitch lasted longer than the slow twitch) ... to "run" 15 minute miles or walk home.

You're "training" the fast twitch, to run slow.

Slower than the slow twitch.

I don't think Amby has a single fast twitch fiber in his body. So lots and lots of moderate mileage was what he like to do because it suited him best.

If Lydiard had gotten a hold of him he may have run better.

You don't appear to be very good at thinking.

The fastest marathoner that Lydiard coached ran 2:18.

J.R. wrote:

So, I think Lydiard's method was not any better than Kidd's, Igloi's, Buddy Edelen's, or any other top program. In fact the top marathoners today train more like these, and less like Lydiard's.

Like Igloi's? Um.. no.

North Coast wrote:

North Coast. LOL.

J.R. wrote:

Johnny Gray was much faster than Snell. And Bob Schul was much faster at the 5k than any of Lydiard's runners. Schul was trained by Igloi.

Not on grass. And certainly not without turinabol and methandrostenolone.

J.R. wrote:

The fastest marathoner that Lydiard coached ran 2:18.

Nope. 2:14. Jeff Julian. Ray Puckett was also under 2:18.

And so was Barry Magee.