Lydiard Imitations

gypsy wrote:

[quote]Tommy D wrote:If you are serious about training, you don't need to fit everything into a 7 day cycle. You may want to try 3 day mini-cycles. I've found them to be much more valuable.

hard, mod easy for 3 day cycles works well. See recovery graph above and it makes sense.

This would work well and i imagine you would see progress often enough with little reversal of condition. Injuries would be less likely to surface and overtraining is well avoided. But this is something a 16-17 year old would be doing as they would be up to two hard sessions but not developed enough to handle three yet.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I find the opposite to be true. Young undeveloped athletes recover quickly for the simple reason that they can not break themselves down well. I've also found that elite talented athletes break themselves down further and often need a longer recovery to get proper supercompensation. Especially athletes who have the ability to run fast anaerobically, but do not have great aerobic development, need long recoveries. for instance, a 400m runner who has recently taken up the 800m.

Rather than 2 - 2 day cycles and one 3 day cycle in a week, try 3 - 3 day cycles. Obviously recreational runners like to schedule everything into a week, but forget the week for elite runners.

asdff wrote:

He posted a lot of shit as Peter Winter.

Whoa!! That explains all.

This thread is very interesting and is full of good advice.

gypsy wrote:

Also there is an important distinction to make. As i perceive Lydiard to also intend, i don't attempt to 'develop' the different qualities at the same time.

Fair point. If you're spending a couple of months focusing on interval training, I can accept that 3 sessions a week, most weeks, is OK.

I have just seen firsthand what happens when athletes hammer it hard 3x/week without scheduling in easier weeks. Indeed, I did it myself too often.

BTW, after a little googling I am very impressed with your credentials and past achievements. It's great to have athletes of this calibre taking part in discussions, especially ones likely to have a different perspective.

Thanks Euro, i hope i can match my coaches achievements one day.

I think Lydiard found three times a week as optimal because of his developmental approach, as Cerutty did. I think the Soviet's also for the same reason. There is a big focus on development in those systems and for this reason the linear periodisation fits.

I don't see anything Soviet that denounces this over-emphasis on interval training, but there system definitely steers clear of that problem, however, Lydiard and Cerutty were both very vocal against it, outlining the problems. My own coach was against it as reflected by his program but also by his occasional comments on other coaches systems. And probably this quote from his sums it up "Intervals are a very powerful tool, but a very dangerous one".

One this i have become aware of more recently is how the Soviet periodisation spread throughout the world and was adopted variously in different countries. And it seems clear to me now that the idea of the microcycle and the idea of the mesocycle were well understood and incorporated. The micros probably because they are a week long and this is easy for us to adopt as it fits right in. The mesos because they they correspond to the seasons so were also easy to integrate.

The thing i see as not being well understood and rarely applied are the macrocycles. So the problem arises as maybe it did with yourself Euro, that the microrcyle concept is being applied without the macrocycle concept.

So if people took this thrice weekly, single week idea and extended it week after week, then eventually there will be problems, because eventually the work:rest ratio becomes imbalanced enough to reach that critical point.

The macrocycle end phase addresses this by pretty much ensuring that full recovery is made. What this end phase (final week) entails is pretty specific and would cover the same thing the Lydiard time trials would achieve. But this aspect of this final week is not considered, this intensity aspect, and i think this is mainly because it is thought of as an easy week. To be honest it is anything but. I think i should outline one of these weeks so what i'm saying can be made more clear.

they also recover more quickly due to their age i find but i take your point to be also true. However, i guesss im referring to overall volume as well when i'm trying to get them to build up their intensity in the third session. They will already be doing the three sessions, just that only two will be able to be done to their capacity, the third session is still being built up.

Yes, i agree with this observation as well, but doesn't it highlight the problem? These athletes are imbalanced as you say and their aerobic is the undeveloped part, so they require more recovery. Do we adjust training permanently to account for this imbalance or do we adjust it temporarily whilst the athlete goes through the rebalancing process or do we eliminate interval training until rebalance has occurred?

I tried a 10 day microcyle once. When i was self coaching and recovering from an Operation in 1995 i tried Charlie Francis training method. 10 day cycles. It was just too messy. It out me out of whack with all of the individual training groups i was working with and it made every week different, which meant i found no rhythm with that program. It was an effort just to manage so my training was obviously going to suffer and i dropped it. I kept many of the details of Francis' method, such as the 30 day macrocycles, which were 3 cycles of 10 days and converted it to 4 cycles of 7 days which i maintained till i couldn't recover enough from the 4 week cycles once i was back on the track and so dropped back to 3.

I just can't imagine a 3 day mini-cycle like you propose though. If i was to start doing that whilst i was at peak training, my workload would go down significantly. Probably by a third and this is a massive reduction. Seriously i train hard every day in the week bar one. So we are not even talking about 2 times a week we are talking about 6.

yes the modulation can't be so extreme but then again this extremeness isn't wanted in preparation.

I'm not a believer of this approach though, and i hope i'm outlining reasons why. Actually i am a believer of this but such a very different way that i can say i'm not. I probably should explain this but the right moment hasn't arrived for it yet.

If i was to miss a day of training for some unusual reason like two exams scheduled on the same day, then i would be in worse shape the day after. I had recovered less well than if i had done a normal session. That session would involved the opposite of the previous session so the heavy feeling from weight training is offset by training light and fast for example. So throwing the shot put around or do sprint starts is light and fast compared to 5x6 of bench press or squats. The change in speed of the movement seems to act in some way to enhance recovery. So it becomes pretty cool when you consider every training session as having a recovery element. it's like playing snooker or pool. One guy focuses on making the shot alone. The next guy also focuses on where he wants the white ball to end up for the next shot. You want to include in the training plan the idea of where the ball is going to end up for the next session and this is where the recovery element of a hard session can be seen to be effective.

For competition phase especially the peak competition phase, super compensation must be maximised more often than not. This emphasis of one over the other brings out a peak as condition is improved to current maximal potential. During preparation the reverse for me is true. I want to cut short the super-compensation period short more often than not, to gain the compound suppression effect, but this effect can only be compounded a few times before reversal of training performance occurs, so that is where the super compensation effect needs to be allowed to fully express itself and so allow fuller recovery to occur with a longer period.

So in one part of the year we are cutting short the super compensation effect more often than allowing it to complete, and in another part of the year we are allowing it to complete more often than not. And there is a modulation over the entire training period from one to the other. It is a sliding scale for me.

MACROCYLE

The macrocyle can be seen to modulate both volume and intensity week to week.

volumes:

week 1: 80%

week 2: 85%

week 3: 60%

intensities:

week 1: 65%

week 2: 70%

week 3: 85%

So what this means is that in the third week whilst volume drops away intensity radically increases. This intensity increase is usually absent when an 'easy' week is taken as a compensation or mitigation against the heavier weeks. The easy part is only referring to volume. How the three weeks work is like this:

DIFFERENT SESSION TYPES MODULATION THROUGH THE MACROCYCLE

COMP PHASE ANAEROBIC POWER SESSION

week 1: 5x300/4

week 2: 400,300,200,100/5,4,3

week 3: 2x300TT/full

PRECOMP PHASE POWER CLEAN MODULATION

week 1: 5X6 REPS

week 2: 4X4 REPS

week 3: 5,3,2,1,1,3 PYRAMID (BULGARIAN STYLE)

GENERAL PREP PHASE LONG RUN

week 1: 2:15 hours

week 2: 2:30 hours

week 3: 1:30 hours

SPECIFIC PREP PHASE 60 MIN RUN

week 1: best average time

week 2: beat best average time from week 1

week 3: 30mins trial

I think this illustrates how week 3 might operate. It is basically a mini peak, but you don't want to go too far with the super-compensation, as you just want to get back to the edge of fresh by the end of this third week, before starting again.

But fresh isn't attained only by reducing volume, it is also enhanced by increasing the intensities. Not only does this aid in recovery but it keeps tuning the athlete up towards their maximum capacity for intensity, but only periodically. It definitely isn't interested in maintaining this level of intensity through the heavier two weeks, something quite opposite to race-pace methodology.

It is pretty interesting to me now how selective the race-pace methodology has been in choosing its training components and deciding upon their inter-relationships. The very fact that the macrocycle is not present when the other elements of that form of periodisation are, simply lead to the inevitable fact of having to modify all sorts of details within the methodology just to make it work. All of these modifications are compensations away from the ideal functioning of the cyclic approach. Training the main quality only twice a week is a serious problem for me as the most pertinent example.

The greatest benefit to the macrocycle - you can work harder for the first two weeks than otherwise.

excellent post gypsy

Thanks mate.

But already i see some BS in there.

I know the first two examples like the back of my hand so i am very confident of how they work together in a triad. I have trained and coached through those ranges for a long time now.

But when i look at the next two i don't have the personal experience to be confident of anything. Without it they are only just ideas, no matter how well they may appear to fit the overall pattern.

Taking the long run example i don't even really believe in this adjustment in week three. When i'm coaching people through this range i don't specify the duration in week three. All i do i explain that they should limit the effort level to be below that of the previous two weeks and how much this is below is up to the athlete. The ideas they have as guides are a. there is no intention to gain capacity in this week, and b. the next cycle begins tomorrow :). What i have found so far is that when athletes are building up their volume they prefer to have less duration and 90mins starts to appear. Later, once 2:30 isn't a problem anymore, i find the athlete tends to develop even more duration. They keep the same distance as the first two weeks but the duration is longer because their pace is a little slower. I think this is the ideal situation and the other, which is in my example, is just the build up stage.

I don't know how this fits with Lydiard and whether for this particular quality, because it's capacity is measured in volume, in order to make it more specific, even greater volume is required. In effect, to intensify the effects of strength, power and speed you increase the intensity and decrease the volume. But to intensify the effect of aerobic capacity, it is possible that increased volume at the same intensity is the key. And this would fall in line with the athlete observations i've had and seems to fit with what Lydiard is saying so i feel pretty confident about it. All that remains is the personal experience to fully make that knowledge my own.

Antonio, I was away for Christmas vacation and we didn't have internet. I didn't mean to just throw a question and, with you answering, just leave it there. Believe it or not, I sincerely appreciate you sharing your “practical” training idea with us. I think this is as detailed as you had ever been, so I really thank you for this.However, this certainly raises some further questions.It is quite interesting you saying that you wouldn’t even coach anybody (not even for a million dollars) unless they MAXIMIZE their shorter distances—say, in the case of marathon, 5k. Yet, you also say that it doesn’t matter if the individual is a good runner or not (I assume “i don't care what is (h)is talent” means that?). My first and foremost question to you then is: (1) how do you know whatever the 5k time that the individual would bring to you is his/her “maximized” 5k? Say, in the case of a 3-hour marathon runner as in your example, what would his/her 5k time be? 19 minutes? How would you know that 19-minutes is the best he/she could do? Why not 18:45? What if the person’s 5k PR was 19:20? You wouldn’t coach that person? What about someone with 22-minutes 5k PR? You wouldn’t even consider helping him/her out? And then (2) how would you expect them to reach this “maximized speed” in shorter distances? In a way, it’s easy for you to say “aerobic first is stupid” when you don’t have to deal with that first phase. You are basically telling people; “go become a good runner (the best you can in 5k) first and THEN I’ll coach you.” No wonder you like Canova method because basically that’s what those Italian “doctors” do—they go in Kenya or Ethiopia or wherever and find runners who are already good, already aerobically-developed, already a 13:00-13:10 runners and say, “Okay, now we’ll coach you.” However you determine the runner’s “maximized” performance, THAT is your coaching’s starting point. Let’s see Joe’s case once again. So he’s already run 2:27 prior to but had 5 years lay-off. Most likely out of shape and barely running 19-minutes for 5k. So you’d turn him down and say, “Okay, you get your 5k time best you can first.” It could be 17-minute, it could be 15-minute, it could be 14:30 but nobody knows for sure but only YOU. So you’d decide whenever he had reached his 5k best; lets say it’s 15:30. So, being out of shape, he would go out and start jogging…just as Hadd had prescribed him. He would get back in shape that way and, with a bit of sharpening, he would bring his 5k time down. And then, and ONLY then (not even for a million dollars otherwise), you’d coach him. And you’d come out and say, “Oh, aerobic first is stupid…” Sure, because YOU wouldn’t do it. You don’t have to because you don’t do it. Surely you can AFFORD to say it’s stupid because you don't deal with it. But the RUNNER would have to figure out what to do and it could very well be “aerobic first”.Or how about this way. So he would go out and, having read your posts, he decided to forget about “aerobic first” and started doing tons of intervals right from the get go. He would try to “squeeze” fast time out of him and, being out-of-shape, only managed to do 16:00. Okay, so that’s the best he could do at the time; he hit the pleateu and can’t get any faster so you’d take over and start giving him more intervals. Do you think that’s the best way to approach this out-of-shape runner? It must because it totally fits your coaching profile. He didn’t do “aerobic first”. He brought his 5k time down as much as he possibly could. And you wouldn’t start with aerobic running with him but more intervals. For anybody, you (Antinio) or any of those European coaches who go in to Kenya and “coach” all those already aerobic-monster runners, it’s easy to dismiss Lydiard-type training of first building good aerobic base before adding other race-specific elements. You are only dealing with Phase Two and beyond—in other words, SECOND HALF OF LYDIARD MODULE. You are totally throwing the Phase One, aerobic building part, up to the individual. I’ve read somewhere Greg McMillan saying THAT (=developing athletes’ aerobic foundation) is what the coaching is all about—to develop the athletes to the point where they can handle hard (Kenyan-like) training regime. I agree with that even though you had said it’s stupid (because you said so). And, in that respect, what you do is not coaching; certainly not DEVELOPING potential. The biggest thing that bugged me when I read your post was the way you said “good runner or not, they would go out and get their 5k time best they could…” So basically you are already limiting the individual’s potential with that. If someone comes to you with 23-minute 5k and you take on her (hopefully) coaching, you are already capping her potential as a 23-minute 5k runner. Whereas Lydiard, although it is rather stupid to say there’s no limit to aerobic development—there’s GOT to be a limit—his approach, my understanding is, you develop aerobic capacity first and you can develop it further and further; you may start out as a 23-minute 5k runner this year but when you START OVER AGAIN WITH AEROBIC PHASE (aerobic first per cycle), you’ll bring it down to a 22-minute level. In other words, Lydaird’s approach is; “We’ll see how far you can go because we don’t know the limit of your aerobic capacity.” Antonio approach is; “This is your limit and, based on that, we’ll get your marathon time to this.” Lydiard may be completely wrong for saying there’s no limit, it’s more positive and I’d rather have a coach positive like that than enforcing the limit (even if it’s physiologically correct).And also, seriously, Hadd was telling you in some cases (and, mind you, just SOME cases and not always?) he would start with intervals? Again, he was “personally telling you” that but to no one else? Again and again and again, that is the VERY thing you are telling HRE or Kim not to do wiht Lydiard? That they should NOT share personal conversations with Lydiard that it’s stupid and not real and won’t count? You can’t even play with your own rules?

Snowden, again we are speaking about two different realities. I already explained the preparation for an amateur nothing has to share with the preparation for a top runner. It's like going to school : also if the phylosophy is the same in the primary and in University (in both the cases the "users" are there for learning), when you are in University you don't repeat again, and forever, what you learnt when 6 years old (but this is the base for your further evolution).

When you speak about somebody having 23' of PB in 5 km, of course that person doesn't have any aerobic consistency, and needs AEROBIC FIRST. But put in your mind that person NEVER can become an athlete with good results.

Since I'm a coach with the passion to investigate the human limits, I'm not interested in training of normal persons, about which we know everything. Of course, if we want to move a PB from 23' to 20', we don't need anything complicated, and AEROBIC FIRST can also become AEROBIC ONLY. Or do you think a coach must have specific knowledge for moving a runner from 23' to 20' ?

The fact is you trend to generalize the training process, not moving from "easy" to "whole", but giving the most importance to EASY only. This is like to say that for a scientist the most important thing is the ability in reading and writing, not WHAT you are able to read and to write. Sorry, I can't share with you this vision of training, typically amateurial and very far from the reality.

Of course, when I speak of Kenyan runners, I say they are already at 90% of their potentiality when they start with me a systematic training.

Of course, when I was the Italian Head Coach of middle distances and marathon together with Luciano Gigliotti, we started with athletes at 60% of their potentiality, and had to use a longer period of building-up before going in the full specialisation.

But NEVER we were interested in joggers, this is not something regarding any type of coach. For this kind of runners, the schedules you can find in specific magazines can work very well, and we don't need anything complicated for enhancing the aerobic level, practically nonexistent.

Anyway, when you speak of African runners is clear you don't know anything about the reality in those Countries, and you use stereotypes having nothing to do with the reality.

In Kenya and Ethiopia there is a training system, also where there are no coaches. There is a basic knowledge about the principles of training very much higher than in Western Countries, where people approach training without any previous knowledge, because the ambience is very retrograde. Running is not one of the most natural and well known activity in our society, SO RUNNERS IN OUR COUNTRIES FIND DIFFICULTY IN HAVING SOME PRACTICAL INFO ABOUT TRAINING.

This is not the case in Kenya. In every village there is some top athlete, that had at the base a Kenyan coach following the programs of some Western Coach (may be Italian or English or American). The circulation of the methodological informations is very much more fast and deep than in our Countries, because there running is very much more important and more professional.

If you speak with a top Marathon runner from Kenya, he can explain you, very much better than every physiological book, HOW every type of workout can work for his body, ANd HE CAN EXPLAIN WHY THE SHAPE IS GROWING WHEN THERE IS HIGH SPECIFIC INTENSITY, AND HOW USELESS IS FOR BUILDING UP THE PERFORMANCE A VERY SLOW GENERAL AEROBIC ACTIVITY.

He can also explain you that, sometimes, they need to run very slow, BECAUSE AFTER THIS THEY FEEL BETTER.

But this is not because they are born knowing everything, or because a natural activity can give you all the methodological informations for developing your career.

This is because the circulation of right informations is very much more deep than in our Countries.

And they don't spend the most part of time speaking about phylosophy of training, periodisation, VO2 max, Lydiard, and how to move from 23' to 20'.

They RUN.

gypsy:

I think the "psb" is what Olbrecht abbreviates as "ps" in his book The Science of Winning. Since Olbrecht is mostly a swimming guy, "ps" just means the swimmer's personal best stroke. So if I understand it correctly, a backstroke specialist might do some training in other strokes, but would do most of his ANC (anaerobic capacity) and ANP(anaerobic power) workouts using the backstroke.

In Toby Tanser's first book about Kenyan running there's a section on Kenyan coaches. One of them, I forget his name, is quoted saying that "anyone who does (his) training will become a world class runner." The first session he lists is 4x800 in 1:56-2:02.

Fine. But anyone who can do a session like that isn't all that far from being a world class runner. But how do you get someone for whom a SINGLE 800 within that time range is a lifetime achievement to the point where they can do a session like this coach describes? That's something that's much closer to what the typical Letsrun poster/reader needs to deal with than is getting someone capable of doing that kind of session to the next level.

But you aren't the typical Letsrun poster or reader. You're STARTING with athletes who are already at that sort of level. I don't doubt that you've figured out some things about working with athletes at that level and I have no idea what Lydiard or Igloi or Cerutty or Bowerman or Squires would have done with athletes of comparable accomplishments.

I do know that the sorts of athletes you work with are not typical. They may be able to withstand kinds of training that would wreck lesser athletes. I know that, for example, the idea of doing race paced work most of the time would have destroyed me and that other athletes I've advised who are struggling have always improved when I've been able to get them away from race paced work and back to what Lydiard would have called base training.

I have no trouble agreeing that you've had success doing what you do with the athletes you coach but I am not convinced that the reason you've had that success has more to do with the superiority of the athlete rather than superiority of coaching and I am not convinced that what you do would work well for more than a handful of runners.

HRE, why didn't Mosop run 2:03 years ago?

To the op wrote:

HRE, why didn't Mosop run 2:03 years ago?

I'd guess it was because Boston was his first marathon. Previously he had represented Kenya in xc and track for many years.

This is because the circulation of right informations is very much more deep than in our Countries.

And they don't spend the most part of time speaking about phylosophy of training, periodisation, VO2 max, Lydiard, and how to move from 23' to 20'. They just run.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Renato, that was one of the most contradictory unintelligible posts I've seen. First, you tell us how intelligent the Kenyans are about training and how they understand how to train so well, and that those in the western world don't (except you of course), then you finish by stating at the end that, "And they don't spend the most part of time speaking about phylosophy of training, periodisation, VO2 max, Lydiard, and how to move from 23' to 20'. They just run".

What an insanely stupid comment.

Let me remind you of a few things:

1. It is amazing to me that in a country like Kenya where running is everything and all the top athletes aspire to be runners, and where you say "there is so much knowledge", many over the years, from Rono, to Lagat would come over to the US to find coaches to coach them to their top successes.

2. It is also amazing to me that the top 2 male 5000m runners, The 3rd and 4th ranked 10,000m male runners, The top ranked and world champion female 1500m runners, the 3rd ranked female 5000m runner, and both the top and second ranked female 10,000m runners in the world were all coached by American coaches.

So in looking at this, I see that although there are a lot of reasons for Kenyans and Ethiopians to be dominant in the world including the huge interest in the sport in their countries and the sheer numbers who train very hard for it, the coaching they are getting is not up to par - it is dominated by coaches like you clearly out to make a name for themselves, and you coaches are letting these athletes down.

We can all see the inconsistency that comes out of Kenya especially - and I understand some of the reasons for this.

What you fail to understand Renato is how low the sport of distance running is in the United States. It is not even remotely on the sports radar compared to Ethiopia and Kenya - yet the American coaches are outpormorming a mercenary like you even though you have a huge advantage by going to Kenya, setting up camps and coaching many of the athletes who have risen from the 1000s to become the best.

Educate yourself a little bit before arrogantly throwing stones at others.

Tommy Douglas wrote:

What you fail to understand Renato is how low the sport of distance running is in the United States. It is not even remotely on the sports radar compared to Ethiopia and Kenya - yet the American coaches are outpormorming a mercenary like you even though you have a huge advantage by going to Kenya, setting up camps and coaching many of the athletes who have risen from the 1000s to become the best ... Educate yourself a little bit before arrogantly throwing stones at others.

Very unfair!!

I wish that some respondents actually read carefully what others wrote. ....

Renato is clearly alluding to the fact that Kenyan runners develop an understanding of training methodology both from the experience of older athletes and "listening" to their own bodies. Something that western athletes are notably lacking in doing, often pushing themselves too hard too often rather than understanding what & what does not help them improve.

By the same token, Snowden clearly did not read Antonio's post ... he merely made assumptions based on his own prejudice .... what Antonio was saying was that he would not train an individual for the MARATHON until they were in "best shape" @ shorter distances .... he did NOT say he would not coach them at all .... by insisting that athletes are in good shape BEFORE entering a marathon training programme he is doing the athlete a very big favour!

& Finally, neither Renato or Antonio are saying that the athletes AEROBIC condition is not the most important determinant of success ... what they are saying is that this can be developed by means other than just slow, steady running .... intervals can be AEROBIC (it all depends on the pace run, & length of recovery) ... they do not have to be Anaerobic.

Tommy, may be you didn't understand my post, because of my English. I speak about MARATHON, because the argument of HRE was MARATHON (I don't think a jogger moving from 23' in 5k can look at something else but marathon).

About this, I CONFIRM ALL WHAT I WROTE, and I don't think US marathon runners were very good in WCh...

When in US an athlete with 28'20" of PB look at 2:15 in marathon as good result, it's clear there is no mentality about this type of distance. In this case, not in Kenya or Ethiopia, but in Italy, the athlete, if really motivated and specifically talented, has to look at a time under 2:10. So, in US you are able to make difficult what is easy, creating mental barriers that African runners don't have.

Which is the reason bewcause joggers of 20' in 5k speak of VO2 max, lactate, circuits, methodological science ?

In those case, the only important thing is RUNNING trying to increase distance and speed.

Also if the mechanical principles are the same, the engine of a Formula One works at different level than the engine of a Fiat 500.

And, about the possibility to coach Kenyan runners, it's true that is easy to find some talent able to reach top results ; but WINNING against other talents is very much more difficult that simply improving your PB, as in the most part of Western Countries is the real goal. This because for European, American and Australian / NZ athletes, the dominance of Africans is the "alibi" for NOT REACHING THEIR BEST POSSIBLE LEVEL.

The great difference between athletics of 40 years ago and athletics of today, at the base of the different methodology we use today, is that in the past the AMBIENCE was more interested in running and in fatiguing, so the recruitment was bigger and easier than today.

So, instead to lucubrate about big physiological principles, in our Countries can be better to create new motivation and entusiasm around the most natural action for a human being : RUNNING.

AFTER, only AFTER, we can discuss about any methodology.

Don't forget that the first step is the most important, and is RUNNING LONG AND FAST (what European and American were able to do 40 years ago, no more today). Of course, with some ecception.... but in 1985 in US there were 180 athletes under 2:20, and now....