Peter Snell Interview and his thoughts on Lydiard training

Really? For some reason I thought Barry had coached him. Thanks.

Look, it's clear that Exercise Physiology is still at the Leeches and Humours stage. They argue back and forth about what happens in muscle fibers that they have no access to during exercise.

No one knows better what works than the afflicted, which is us, the runners.

So Snell (as PhD, not runner), JO, JR all you lot are just blind men arguing about the elephant. Hodgie has it right. Runners learn what works. And for almost all of us, what works is volume. Which you achieve by running slow.

Why you can run fast by running slow a lot, we have no idea. My fastest 1500 and 5000 times happened with zero interval training. Burfoot's experience of a great first race of the season followed by decreasing performances with added speedwork has been replicated hundreds of times.

This is the best thing about running, that no one has figured it out.

Arthur told me years ago he Coached Paul .. I know he spent a lot of time with him .. Barry may have helped/been on board at some later stage ..

An aside : I had Lunch with Arthur one time and I had a Cold Chicken leg with asalad. Arthur said (With a mischievious grin) "Ballinger said don't eat Chicken legs they are full of hormones" .. at the time Paul was Chicken farming !!!.

Everytime I eat a Chicken leg I think of that Lunch !!!

Eating fish just took a hit in a New York Times article I saw last week. Arthur would be pleased to have seen that.

HRE: If recall the quote correctly, Johnny Kelly (the Elder) once said that a REAL runner ran at least fifty miles per week at 7-minute-mile pace.

I believe, too, that someone out there on the 'web is some sort of quote from Nobby that essentially states that a 7-minute mile was a fitness standard.

How is that? wrote:

@Tanya Skagle

How is it that the FT fibers deplete glycogen if they are not being used?

This is where I'd normally troll the EP geeks with some pseudoscience or a non sequitur just to keep things lively, but this topic is hopping enough that such a tactic won't be necessary. So here's what's believed to be true at present:

Glycolysis can occur via lactate metabolism as a result of epinephrine in the bloodstream acting on the adrenergic receptors even when the associated muscle fibers aren't contracted.

It takes a couple of hours of low-level or moderate activity to produce a noticeable depletion in the FT fibers, and achieving this requires a higher workload (a faster pace, or segments at a faster pace alternated with segments at a moderate pace) for runners who have been doing long runs regularly enough to find them relatively easy.

It should be noted that doing repeats at or near maximal O2 uptake depletes FT fibers of glycogen much more quickly and to a much greater degree than running for two hours at a medium effort does. But this can be just as stressful in its own way as it is to continually up the ante pace-wise on long runs just to keep getting a training effect. That right there is another in a long line of reasons why you need some balance and periodization. The old Yerkes-Dodson diagram applies both mentally and physically here, since the mental and physical are so intertwined.

But I digress.

At present, it is not considered possible (nor is there any evidence of it) that FT fibers can be activated at a normal long run pace. The threshold for synaptic activation simply isn't reached at that pace, even in glycogen-depleted fibers. Of course, with training, FT fibers can take on some of the characteristics of ST fibers, and long runs can contribute to this process. In order for these changes to continue, however, an athlete's long run usually needs to evolve over months or years in such a way as to actually activate larger motor neurons (recruit the FT fibers) in various ways - whether it's done through a gradual pace pickup, short strides, unstructured Fartlek or deliberate inclusion of longer segments (3-10 minutes) at speeds associated with half marathon pace or faster. Some runners eventually find that to improve these aspects of fitness, long runs are no longer necessary in any form, as their negatives outweigh the positives that can be achieved through other means.

Realize that long runs don't stand alone. Some people enjoy trotting out lab research that - on the surface of it - either supports their ideas or debunks some other ideas. But virtually all of these lab experiments investigate a limited (usually a single) cause and a single effect. Running is a gestalt. The recipe is just as important as any one - or indeed all - of the ingredients. Long runs can be great tools for anyone, but how they're done and how often they're done (and what constitutes "long" for each individual) is going to vary based on physical characteristics/preferred events, running experience, racing schedule, etc.

In the first sentence, I mentioned pseudoscience. It's sometimes hard to distinguish that from the "genuine" science. The lab geeks are doing some "real" science when they test a single hypothesis of limited scope. Unfortunately, they sometimes attempt to extrapolate their findings, saying things along the lines of, "Rats doing protocol A produced change B, which is important to train system C and achieve performance D, so humans aiming for result D should train in the fashion of protocol A." Now that is pseudoscience. Thousands and thousands of runners throughout history have done the real science in the field of improving their performances.

Runners can guess about the "whys" of things and be wrong, as can the lab geeks, but you're best served by giving more credence to the runners rather than the non-runner physiologists. For example, just because LSD doesn't activate FT fibers doesn't mean it won't provide an ancillary benefit that will allow you to do more future work at faster speeds with less effort and become more economical at a faster pace. Maybe the long run is enjoyable, refreshing and regenerating. Maybe it helps with weight maintenance more than the rest of your routine combined. Maybe it gives you the mental focus and toughness you need. Sure, you can abuse the long run just like anything else, and maybe at some point it will become ineffective per the manner you've been doing it, but if you're in tune with your body and aren't married to an inflexible day-to-day schedule, you should be able to figure out when it's time to make adjustments.

I would add, having done the waitaks, that physiologically the hills (up and down) of that specific run make it one where one is essentially doing a long aerobic run fartlek style (the already mentioned concept of slower and faster aerboic runs that create more use of both FT and ST) that i would argue is also similar (hodgie san would be better judge than me on this one) to Squire's 'surges' in long runs

Barry McGee 2:18. Did he run any faster than that?

msr wrote:

Hodgie has it right. Runners learn what works. And for almost all of us, what works is volume. Which you achieve by running slow.

Well everyone go home then. Close the forum. Because Hodgie said Burfoot had it right with jogging 30 mile runs and 75 miles a week.

Buddy Edelen ran 2:14 for the WR in 1964.

He did this with a mix of fast long runs, 15 or 22 miles, and many repetitions. His training looks, to me, to be very similar to the Africans, who are running sub 2:05.

Except they have found ways to improve.

The training is not the same as the training was then.

I think the key is that those who break the barriers have looked for NEW WAYS to improve, not just doing the same things and the same ways as before. The difference is the training. Those who think the old ways were the same as now, well they are not even running any more.

What are Pete's thoughts on current events. Surely they would be more interesting than his thoughts on Lydiard training.

Barry's best was 2:17:19.

the 7 minute mile concept is absolutely absurd. To suppose that everybody regardless of natural ability and/or cardiovascular development would be governed by the same mile pace of 7 minutes, despite a variety of different physiological effects that pace would have on an number of different athletes makes no sense at all. The heart rate, and energy systems an individuals body would draw upon to fuel itself during a two hour run is not concrete at all when you look at Seb Coe vs Shaq vs Jordan Hasay vs the overweight rec jogger down the block.

If a guys personal best mile is 6:59, his body will not respond to 7 minute mile pace the same as a 4 minute miler. plan and simple. those two bodies react differently to the same stimulus.

What also makes no sense is the idea that you can make big leaps forward in your speed development, via slow running. I do understand the concepts/philosophy being put forth. But Speed is a direct result of power (force application) and coordination (the ability to efficiently utilize said power). The central nervous system is directly responsible for loss/lack of coordination and the reduction of power and force application during activity. High end speedwork (sprinting 95-100%) is the ONLY way to develop these capabilities accordingly.

So you want to increase your power/sprint ability. Incorporate short hills, sprints of 6-7 seconds, and weight training into your distance schedule. Don't think that slow two and a half hour run is going to help you drop a 52 at the end of your 10K. Ain't happenin kids

Met Paul in 83 and he spoke of Lydiard coaching him, also mentioned Gerard Dravitski being an adviser.

Goodness gracious - here I was yesterday enjoying a day of track and field competition as track announcer at the FHSAA Florida State 3A champikonships while all sorts of comments were streaming in about peter Snell, Arthur Lydiard and all sorts of tangents that stemmed from my interview with Peter. I only have a couple of minutes before leaving to announce the 4A State meet, but I am glad that so many of you enjoyed the interview. It was a joy to spend two and a half hours on the phone with Peter and to try my best to present a comprehensive interview to those who may not have read much about Peter. He was very candid and I did my best to capture that even when it meant leaving in expletives that I felt needed to be there. As far as the effect of running slow distance and it resultant effect on speed, my take on what Peter was saying is that for very good athletes we need to run at a 7:00 pace for two hours or more to deplete our glycogen stores and allow for recruitment of fast-twitch muscle fibers while we were in a state of long-term fatigue. For runners who can handle two hours at six minute pace or below, this 7:00 figure is about as slow as Peter felt we should go to allow this muscle fiber recruitment. I asked as much as I could in the very generous amount of time Peter chatted with me and had to skip a few things such as the 76 sec 660 yd TT that savagesquid mentioned. Regarding the sidebar on Amby Burfoot, he mentioned when I interviewed him that he thought his greatest running achivement wasn't winning Boston, but racing his local Thanksgiving 5-miler 45+ years in a row and, not just winning overall 9 times, but winning the high school division in his youth and 60+ division a couple of years ago. Amby believes longevity is a great thing. Bob Schul told me he never totalled mileage when I interviewed him. He did one to two hours of repetitions with 8x100m strides in between. Regarding running fast off of lots of distance, in college I did two weeks of 133 and 142 miles over Christmas break and when I cam e back lowered my 2-mile PR indoors by eight seconds with only one light speed session. That's all for now - off to the track meet... have a great day!

[Quote] Well everyone go home then. Close the forum. Because Hodgie said Burfoot had it right with jogging 30 mile runs and 75 miles a week.[endQuote]

Not at all!

The board is a valuable source of shared experience which is informative and inspiring. And even though medieval mutterings about EP are not usually connected to actual running experience, they still have entertainment value.

And indeed, though you misquote AB's training, he did use lots of slow running with a little bit of sharpening to win Boston and run 2:14. That is experience.

HRE wrote:

Do you think Lydiard made a lot of money from his coaching? Do you know that when he died there wasn't enough money in his estate t get his body back to New Zealand? An admirer picked up the tab.

HRE

Beethoven, the great musician once said:

“Genius is not paid. Only the work is paid, and not always”.

Lydiard was one coach of genius at his time. However when he was paid, if he was paid, it´s by the work he did.

Many can compose beautiful music, imitate Beethovan music style, but no one can compose the musics that Beethovan did. Beautiful music but eventually not the Beethovan genius compositions. Some can coach “a la Lydiard”, but NO ONE shall coach with the geniality that Lydiard did.

Simply he is a product of his time and his generation. But this is another story.

Antonio,

Thank you. That's a really nice post. I did not mean to imply that Arthur ever felt short changed by his compensation. He never gave that impression at all. I thought that someone, J.R. I believe, was insinuating that Lydiard did what he did to make a lot of money for himself and I wanted to point out that he was NOT money driven. Evidently I misunderstood what J.R. was implying though I still don't understand what he was getting at with those comments.

Hodgie-san wrote:

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.

Thanks. Very interesting.

Some years ago one of my runners offers me one book of Amby Burfoot at my birthday. The book isn´t about training methodology, but about inner reflections about the act of running.

I know some other experiences about straight mileage, but not all finish with success. I remember that on the early 70s one group of finish runner outsiders – some of them did orieenting as basic sport, and they did mileage extreme – kind of 25-30miles every day on, done in two or three daily runs. The only run out of mileage volume, is one sporadic fartlek. One of them did win Boston once , but most of runners of that group disappear without notoriety or major success.

I also knew some french runners that did try the “mileage thing”.

Of course i knew opposite, the kenyan John Ngeno, and some others that did intervals every day on or so. I don´t remember the name of the other Kenyan runner that also lived in US and that his main training was 1 very fast hour once a day ? Might be you remember, he did win some road runs in the america soil.

It´s undeniable that some runners are able to maximize their ability and talent with what i define wired training relate to the rich training methodology. We can analyze what they do and take some knowledge. Do you know the sentence “right person, right place, right time” ? Might be they are.

The danger is to take the tree for the forest. Distance training methodology is build upon a systematic analysis, it´s not build by just physiology, it´s not build by just runners performance, or just by singular INDIVIDUALS with singular training methods, that what is Amby – one interesting training type but one singular case of exception.

About the mind interference in the performance it´s something will take too much time to debate.

Mind is important, however i don´t trust that every mind or motivation can exceed the physical ability to perform. If the physical quality from talent and training can lead to some performance, no mind talent, or willing, or desire or ambition shalln´t overcome the talent limitation or replace the training effect.

Tanya Skagle wrote:

This is where I'd normally troll the EP geeks with some pseudoscience or a non sequitur just to keep things lively, but this topic is hopping enough that such a tactic won't be necessary.

Tanya

On this board. I did write many times, many posts about many subjects. I did my own opinion. Some agree, some don´t. You can accuse from many of my opinions. But one you can´t, no one can´t. It´s that i use rocket science rocket physilogy or that my argument is based in physilogy or fuzzology.

Therefore, if you claim that those that deny the interest of the long run it´s because physiology unknown, i don´t fit on that fuzzology group.

My argument to contest the long run is done by methodology.

What´s funny is that physilogists, they hardly agree one with each other as yoour post shows. This is also the reason why the Lydiard coaches they get the training debate on the physiology discuss. Why ? Since the physilogists they don´t agree one with each other in so complex physilogy subjects, then to get the discuss on the physiology debate, everfyone can run away from what is right and what is wrong.