Nothing new about distance training has been discovered since January 1, 1980.

The stuff about Astrand and short intervals starts on page 33.

wow, kudos to Harloper this thread got a ton of great hits! Thanks man for coming up with this, I\'ve learned a lot from the stuff in this thread.

+10000

I think that a long term system of getting younger runners started earlier at high mileage adaptation (18-20 year olds) and then after handling that keeping steady effort work nearly daily is the biggest change since 1980.

The old hard/easy or really hard/easy/easy/easy training was the Bowerman system and was effective.

Getting to the point where much of the year you are able to train moderate to high mileage (tempo running nearly every day) and being able to handle hard sessions that don't wipe you out completely is the difference I've noticed.

Training has evolved since 1980 for sure.

Ha ha, this implies hardloper thinks that because some "authority" says differently than a well controlled study, the seminal paper on the subject and most quoted altitude literature to date, then he is valid in his assessment? That's not how evidence based science works. Just because you think you're right indicates your complete ignorance of the contrary!! Your true colors have been nicely identified! Now imply something valid!!

Interesting Renato, no long intervals in 1980? What do you consider a long interval?[/quote]

I remember doing long intervals in 1980.

Coach Canova,

As always, thank you for your insights. Young coaches such as myself are continually guided by your posts. I think you show that theory follows results. Keep doing what you do!

Also, your written English is very much improving over the years! Keep things written down so you can write a book later. We will use the name Canova like we do Daniels and Lydiard in ten years.

Thanks again.

HRE wrote:

Records improve as time goes on. Sometimes it's better training sometimes it's just that the guy who wants to set the record today has to run faster than the last guy did.

Peters' training was not very different from Steve Jones'.

Don´t disagree, however might be that Steve had more talent that Peter. Ok, you got a single example that fits in your argument. But don´t teel me that Carlos Lopes that did just a few seconds faster that Jones in the marathon WR did the ssme ttraining that Peter´s and Jones, and don´t tell me that Abebe Bikila did the almost the same training that Peter´s or Lopes. Don´t tell me that from Paul Tergat, Gebrelassie or Macao they all train the same that Peter´s. Don´t tell me that Zatopec, or Vladimir Kuts they did train similar to Ron Clark, Viren, Emil Puttmans, Morcroft, Said Aouita, Henry Rono, Gebre, or Kenenisa Bekele jst to name the very best in 5000m that run much faster related with the very best from the 50s.

SlowFatMaster

SlowFatMaster

I know quite well the work of Brent Rushall that you imagine and i admire him, also in the field of coach psychology, and coach leadership not just training.

Efforts in swimming are quite different the ones from distance running. Just think that the same swimmer can win from 100m to 800m in the olympics, and that means that are different swim events but near the same kind of effort.

Also swim deals with swim technique quite a lot, styles of swim, and short swim intervals, lead the swimmer to enhance his swim technique what is very important to improve swim performance. But in the distance run technique is not so important as in the swim events.

Second point is that i don´t deny the interest of the short type of intervals that you mean. Simply one rich distance training approach must do every type of intervals and also might include the long one intervals, namely as closer as the runner is to the competition phase.

António Cabral wrote:

But don´t teel me that Carlos Lopes that did just a few seconds faster that Jones in the marathon WR did the ssme ttraining that Peter´s and Jones, and don´t tell me that Abebe Bikila did the almost the same training that Peter´s or Lopes. Don´t tell me that from Paul Tergat, Gebrelassie or Macao they all train the same that Peter´s. Don´t tell me that Zatopec, or Vladimir Kuts they did train similar to Ron Clark, Viren, Emil Puttmans, Morcroft, Said Aouita, Henry Rono, Gebre, or Kenenisa Bekele jst to name the very best in 5000m that run much faster related with the very best from the 50s.

Your point being...?

I don't think anyone will tell you that.

My point is Einstein’s definition of stupidity.

Is “doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.”

I asked HRE if he thinks that the wold top runners from te 50s weren´t able to run faster if theytrain like the best of today, and he did choose one single case - Peter and Jones - and said they train similar - to run away from the answer.

My point is that HRE isn´t able to undertand that runners do train differently and as everything else, different training leads to different performance and better training leads to better performance.

For instance and just the 800m event. Roger Moens trains differently that Peter Snell that trains different to what Marcello Fiasconaro did. Both did train cvry different what Albertio Juantorena did. Alberto Juantorena did train very differently to what David Wottle did. All train differently to what Sebastian Co did. Sebastian Coe did train differently to what Kepketer did.

If we do the same exercise for 1500m, steeple, 5000m, 10000m up to then marathon we see that the world top best of every period did train differently.

It´s necessary to have a great training misunderstand to argue that they all train similar.

António Cabral wrote:

My point is that HRE isn´t able to undertand that runners do train differently and as everything else, different training leads to different performance and better training leads to better performance.

I think you misunderstood HRE. A common occurrence.

Antonio,

I am absolutely NOT telling you thatall these people trained the same. I am saying that there is not ONE way that people need to train to succeed.

In June I spent some time talking with Lee Troop and we got into this. He told me that in his nearly twenty years of international class running and three Olympics he had met dozens of guys who won major competitions and/or posted world class times and that many of them did quite different things with their training. "What that tells me," Lee said, "is that there are many ways to successful running."

Just because Runner A runs faster than Runner B did and trains differently, you cannot conclude that either trained "better" or "worse" than the other did unless there is some really obvious deficiency in what one of them does. Otherwise, the hundreds of US runners who parroted Shorter's training after Munich in '72 would all have run 2:10 and dead heated for first at the '76 US Olympic Trial Marathon.

HRE wrote:

Peters' training was not very different from Steve Jones'.

This is absurd. Peters did all steady runs, no intervals, and Jones ran intervals 3 times a week. There was also a difference in their mileage, and the structure of their schedules.

There's no question in my mind that Peters would have run much faster with a more balanced training, though even he was close, so long ago. Jones was on 2:05 pace for 20 miles in one of his 2:07.13, and with a few training tweaks, might have been able to hold that for the distance, the same as for Lopes. There were improvements to be made.

Hodge, and others, comparing their training to Kipsang is ridiculous.

I think people are confusing basic ability with training.

Just because you do the type of training that an elite does will not mean you are going to emulate their feats but you have a much better chance of reaching your ultimate ability.

I have had the opportunity to try all the major types of training one could think of and had fairly typical progression and stagnation once I reached my "peak".

Very late in my peak years(really late) I switched to the most modern Canova type training and took huge chunks off all my old Lydiard/Coe type training PBs.

You are shortchanging yourself if you stay lost in the past.

SMJO wrote:

I think people are confusing basic ability with training.

Just because you do the type of training that an elite does will not mean you are going to emulate their feats but you have a much better chance of reaching your ultimate ability.

I have had the opportunity to try all the major types of training one could think of and had fairly typical progression and stagnation once I reached my "peak".

Very late in my peak years(really late) I switched to the most modern Canova type training and took huge chunks off all my old Lydiard/Coe type training PBs.

You are shortchanging yourself if you stay lost in the past.

What exactly did you change? What exactly is the most modern Canova type training? Is it faster intervals with longer rests? Is it 40k @ 90% marathon racing effort? Is that what you did?

The Nangili 40k speed test.

Canova:

"At the beginning of 2011, we started running faster, and Moses Mosop ran 2:07:15.

After his result in Boston, the most part of top marathon runners started to run faster in that course.

Last year, before London, Abel Kirui ran in 2:04:57, and this became the parameter for the other best athletes."

There will be others, training through a sequence of workouts

to put themselves in a position to run a fast 40K at 7,000.

Hardloper wrote:

Only one Kenyan in Iten that Renato knows of.

Sure but probably most elite runners/coaches are not telling the World about their extraordinary performances in training for others to copy.

Anyway, thanks for this thread.

fred wrote:

There will be others, training through a sequence of workouts

to put themselves in a position to run a fast 40K at 7,000.

Yes, I have followed these "news" and I agree with you but what I meant is that maybe someone else may have done this but not told the World or not even realized they were doing it.

Maybe someone has run a fast 40K at 7,000ft but with "fast" being relative.

If I had done a fast 40K at 7,000 I am sure no one would ever hear about it.

I think I digress. Sorry.

fred wrote:

And you are a greater athlete than I ever was, Bob, so I am not

trying to mouth off to you.

In 82 Salazar ran with an altitude simulator, a plastic

container with some type of chemical pellets that removed

oxygen from the air you breathed.

If you were training at 6 minute pace, in the simulator you

were doing 7's.

I had one in 83. Ever train in one?

Yes I remember, I guess they did not catch on. Speaking of adjuncts to running I did invest in a pair of weight gloves that Craig Virgin marketed. You ran with them on for added resistance and could slip different size weights in them.

They came in handy when a big dog was chasing you.