Peter Snell Interview and his thoughts on Lydiard training

maybe off target wrote:

I'm a little unclear - are people saying that glycogen depletion = training? So that if we can show FT fibers are being depleted during a long run, it necessarily means they are being activated/trained? Because it sounds like maybe they are just being depleted with no activation.

(And by the way, I do realize that depletion is a form of training that is important for the marathon, because it leads to certain fuel economy adaptations. But most events - 800, 1500, 3k, 5k, 10k, steeple, cross country - are short enough that there is no danger of running out of glycogen/glucose so athletes in those events would care less about muscle fiber depletion adaptations, and would probably care more about muscle fiber activation adaptations, right?)

True. Absolutely.

To run 2 hours or 20miles that is so slow relate to 800m race pace to train for an 800n event is out of every kind of 800m up to 1000m and cross/road SPECIFICITY.

To run for 2:00 min is very fast relate to the marathon race pace and it´s not marathon specific either.

HOWEVER if you want to enhance the AEROBIC SYSTEM, ENDURANCE and STAMINA, we might run a LONG RUN.

On the opposite if you want to train your anaerobic system and your SPEED 2:00 min flat out pace is link is linked with the kind of stimulus to exercise the anaerobic system.

HOWEVER as 2:00min flat out run it is not the best way, the effective way to train the anaerobic system THE LONG RUN IT IS NOT THE BEST AND IT IS NOT THE EFFICIENT/EFFECTIVE WAY TO TRAIN THE AEROBIC SYSTEM. Long length and distance runs BUT SHORTER THAN the long run typical 2 hours BUT FASTER pace than the long run is best as aerobic workout than the long run. By long run i don´t mean LSD, i mean kind of Lydiard long run.

Let´s say 75-90min run, done on the kind of negative split or fast pace last miles, or done fast-easy-fast easy like one fartlek by some of this kind of runs your aerobic condition and you aerobic power is better exercised than on longer runs.

Might be that Peter Snell is right on his physiology hypothesis about the long run and he is right when he says that on the long run, after you go further and get depletion and then the FT fibers are exercised, what is defined as slow VO2. HOWEVER FT fibers are best recruited ON SHORT RUNS FAST PACE THAN ON THE LONG RUN. Short intervals with long recovery by the way, is better EFFICIENT/EFFECTIVE WAY TO TRAIN THE FT FIBERS than the long run.

Antonio Cabral wrote:

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.

Are you using Google translate?

I think the Kenyan you're thinking of, the one who did an hour a day, was Michael Musyoki.

That was Mike Musyoki, Atonio.

Yes. Musyoki.

Renato Canova says "ther´s not different training for each event, ther´s training for each different individual".

Might be that the reason why some runners did what they did with the kind of training that is out of the mainstream training. Sometimes wired training fits on one particular runner.

From this comprehension and to think that wired training shall be the norm it´s one conclusion that i can´t accept.

Ivory. wrote:

That was Mike Musyoki, Atonio.

Your post name "ivory" is good to use on the question of how to train, what to train.

Pianos do ivory and ebony. Some play music on piano with just ebony keys. Some play with A/La B/Si, C/Do, D/re, E/Mi, F/Fa, G/Sol, but they include some # or b keys (the black ones - ivory on the piano). Sometimes it´s the opposite and most of the music is played with just sharpes and flat keys.

Some runners do only mile runs. Some they train mostly hard tuff intervals. We can´t deny some singular cases. However this doesn´t change the norm.

I don't know why it's different, but when I learned notes, B is Ti: Do Re Mi Fa Sol La Ti Do.

denton wrote:

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

As young "grasshopper" runner we begin running our waituks sometimes painfully slow like Snell in the beginning.

But then we gradually adapt, we begin to get faster with consistentcy.

Then we run cross country races because they are fun and hard work.

Then we sharpen a bit but not too much, we race but always to prepare.

After that the 800m seem like a piece of cake:)

Is that any different today than it was in 1960?

No one really knows what drives the heart and head of any individual athlete. So physiology is interesting but not really relevant only in a minor way.

I find something like this:

more helpful than anything the physiologist can offer.

"

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.

"

Maybe they ran Boston for a lark and went back to achieve their notoriety on the orienteering course.

The long run plays a more important role in orienteering because there is a different threshold involved: at a certain level of exercise the brain will start shutting down some higher executive functions which are important for the decision making of orienteering and not so important for running on the road (or around a track).

HRE wrote:

I don't understand your last paragraph. What top marathoners today are training along Igloi's lines? Are you saying Lydiard, who spent his life touring the world and explaining his method and wrote several books doing the same was excluding people from what he knew? Igloi was the one who was very secretive about what he did with his athletes and never wrote anything down for fear that his competitors would find out.

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.

Sorry if I've misunderstood what you wrote.

He was a f***ing millionaire by the time he officially retired. So, yes I would say he made a fair amount of money coaching. Not sure what happened to the estate.

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.

No, no, J.R. Amby had it right because he self discovered what worked for him. Experiment of one.

The athletes and coaches will always be far ahead of the physiologist and science.

I'm just sayin, discuss all you like but there is no formula that works for everyone only a very general outline from those who have gone before.

Snell in his biography and studies and Lydiard with his methodology provide a perfect beginning point. Start with the "fool proof" method that so many have launched from.

"The key finding is the understanding of why distance running works in terms of muscle fiber recruitment and glycogen depletion that occurs over time allowing a different population of muscle fibers to be activated when you run long enough and at a sufficient intensity".

Snell said running long (22 milers) recruited fast twitch muscles fibers. Wouldn't it be easier to just do speed work to recruit those same muscle fibers?

Just to clarify once again, running slow doesn't recruit fast twitch fibers, but those fast twitch fibers release glycogen in the form of lactate to be used by the slow twitch fibers as fuel.

HOWEVER, Snell didn't do the 22 mile Waitarua run slow, he ran very very hard on that course, and he gained considerable endurance benefits from this.

You can also gain endurance benefits from very long slow runs regardless of what Antonio Cabral believes.

How does this work? It's really simple, you learn to concentrate for longer and this can be adapted to fast running, but it only works if you do more fast running.

Snell did not run very, very, hard on those 22 milers, nor were they particularly slow. They were done between 7:00 pace early on and something in the low 6:00s towards the end of the base phase. Given the terrain those paces are harder than they might have been in another location. But remember that Lydiard did those runs with the group. He'd have been on the high side of forty and with a best marathon of 2:38 run in 1950. Peter described the runs as "generally quite enjoyable."

J.O. wrote:

Just to clarify once again, running slow doesn't recruit fast twitch fibers...

Run slow up a steep enough gradient and for sure you recruit your FT fibers. Speed across the ground is not the only criteria involved in fiber recruitment patterns.

Look again wrote:

Run slow up a steep enough gradient and for sure you recruit your FT fibers.

I disagree with you.

J.O. wrote:

Just to clarify once again, running slow doesn't recruit fast twitch fibers, but those fast twitch fibers release glycogen in the form of lactate to be used by the slow twitch fibers as fuel.

HOWEVER, Snell didn't do the 22 mile Waitarua run slow, he ran very very hard on that course, and he gained considerable endurance benefits from this.

You can also gain endurance benefits from very long slow runs regardless of what Antonio Cabral believes.

How does this work? It's really simple, you learn to concentrate for longer and this can be adapted to fast running, but it only works if you do more fast running.

I know my english is not perfect, buet where you read that i say longs runs don´t gain endurance ?

I say that by shorter and faster than long runs you gain more endurance than on long runs. Therefore shorter faster runs, namely by fartlek and long intervals you gain more endurance and more aerobic and you exercise FT at high gain than long runs.

You have no idea what´s hilly 22 miles very hard. Almost one marathon very hard and how do you felt the day after if you try one marathon run every week ? the next day you barely could walk ! the second weekend you will died after the long run.

Antonio Cabral wrote:

[quote]

What you say it´s not simplicity, it´s simplism. What you mean by distance train ?

By the way why not a 20mile long run on every day ? Don´t you agree it´s distance training ? Why not 200miles a week, is more distance train than 100 miles.

You forget one straight point. Better distance performances means resitance and speed pace. It requires go FASTER for the distance. If you just go longer and not faster, you may lenght the distance that is useless.

Antonio,

What I meant was that being great at distance RUNNING, takes a long period of aerobic training (12-20 weeks), probably twice a year. A period where you improve your oxygen delivery, oxygen uptake and energy production primarily and allow your body to be in the condition to do the "next" period of training needed for your best performance.

My idea looks something like this:

Mon:

AM- 5 miles

PM- 10 miles + 8-12 x 100m at 400m pace

Tues:

AM- 5 miles

PM- 10 miles at hard pace (~marathon pace)

Wed:

AM- 5 miles

PM- 10 miles

Thurs:

AM- 5 miles

PM- 12-15 miles at hard pace (slower than marathon pace)

Fri:

AM- 5 miles

PM- 10 miles + 8-12 x 100m at 400m pace

Sat:

AM- 5 miles hard; OR 3x3miles on tough hill loop; OR 10 miles all uphill; OR 6x1600m at 10-15k pace.

PM- 6 miles easy

Sun:

AM- 15-22 miles at the pace that works for you

I didn't forget any points. I didn't misunderstand anything. I didn't jump to any conclusions like you did. By DISTANCE RUNNING I did NOT mean 20 mile runs every day.

You say: "If you just go longer and not faster, you may lenght the distance that is useless." To that I say, "If you just go faster and not longer, it is useless."

I think you would agree that my ideas include "longer" AND "faster". The "vocal faction" I was referring to was just THAT, a faction, not YOU specifically.

Take it easy.

Antonio Cabral wrote:

[quote]

What you say it´s not simplicity, it´s simplism. What you mean by distance train ?

By the way why not a 20mile long run on every day ? Don´t you agree it´s distance training ? Why not 200miles a week, is more distance train than 100 miles.

You forget one straight point. Better distance performances means resitance and speed pace. It requires go FASTER for the distance. If you just go longer and not faster, you may lenght the distance that is useless.

Antonio,

What I meant was that being great at distance RUNNING, takes a long period of aerobic training (12-20 weeks), probably twice a year. A period where you improve your oxygen delivery, oxygen uptake and energy production primarily and allow your body to be in the condition to do the "next" period of training needed for your best performance.

My idea looks something like this:

Mon:

AM- 5 miles

PM- 10 miles + 8-12 x 100m at 400m pace

Tues:

AM- 5 miles

PM- 10 miles at hard pace (~marathon pace)

Wed:

AM- 5 miles

PM- 10 miles

Thurs:

AM- 5 miles

PM- 12-15 miles at hard pace (slower than marathon pace)

Fri:

AM- 5 miles

PM- 10 miles + 8-12 x 100m at 400m pace

Sat:

AM- 5 miles hard; OR 3x3miles on tough hill loop; OR 10 miles all uphill; OR 6x1600m at 10-15k pace.

PM- 6 miles easy

Sun:

AM- 15-22 miles at the pace that works for you

I didn't forget any points. I didn't misunderstand anything. I didn't jump to any conclusions like you did. By DISTANCE RUNNING I did NOT mean 20 mile runs every day.

You say: "If you just go longer and not faster, you may lenght the distance that is useless." To that I say, "If you just go faster and not longer, it is useless."

I think you would agree that my ideas include "longer" AND "faster". The "vocal faction" I was referring to was just THAT, a faction, not YOU specifically.

Take it easy.