Peter Snell Interview and his thoughts on Lydiard training

HRE wrote:

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."

Well thanks HRE, I get the impression that Snell was quite competitive about those runs and he must have been tired at the start of the runs and he had to build up gradually. But 22 miles on a hilly circuit once a week during 10 weeks of his highest ever mileage, that's tough. I am sure that he was training as hard as he could withing the parameter of not exceed 6 minute miling.

I know how hard it is to run uphill in a long run and that is why I want to emphasize the point that to reach a high level of fitness you have to train very very hard.

Look again wrote:

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.

*****************************************

Yes of course, nobody is arguing that point.

J.R. wrote:

Look again wrote:

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

I disagree with you.

********************************

Nobody except J.R. the original black is white, white is black contrarian.

*****************************************

Antonio, you don't know as much about training as you think you do.

A classic example of the pot calling the kettle black:

J.O. wrote:Antonio, you don't know as much about training as you think you do.

I do the training described and don't try to make claims that it doesn't work because it is not 'specific' enough.

I know that marathon type training works for middle distance runners, and that's why I get results. Which you already know don't you?

I know, I know, 4 x 600 at 800 pace. Of course you get results

J.O. wrote:

I know that marathon type training works for middle distance runners, and that's why I get results. Which you already know don't you?

Lots of things work, the question is what is the most efficient way to achieve the desired training effect.

How many of today's top middle distance runners do 22 mile runs on a regular basis?

I think the part about calling the runs "enjoyable" was one of the most significant comments Peter made to me. The first chapter in Lydiard's "Run to the Top" is called "The First Step-Enjoyment." Sort of echoing Hodgie-san here, if you love it you'll do enough of it to get close to your potential. I think it would be tough to maintain that love if you're obsessed about what's going on in your liver or mitochondria.

newname wrote:

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.

Dear newname

Now that you detailed what you want to mean by “that distance running is (surprise!!) the best way to train for distance running” I may say I disagree with you. I disagree with your fragmental training periodization (one period dedicate to aerobic mostly; your idea that that “distance takes a long period of aerobic training (12-20 weeks), probably twice a year”. In my opinion the aerobic training of the distance runner shall take the runner career life long. On my training plan, everyday on year round some percent of the daily training shall be dedicate to the aerobic training done by distance, not just your kind of 12-20 weeks.

I like a lot Peter Snell interview. Sincere man I guess, with more pragmatism than his master Arthur Lydiard.

Many on this board did comment and discuss Peter Snell interview. Some get an emphasis on what he says about some training aspects and the long runs is one.

To disagree, not to disagree precisely, but to complement with you distance (mileage) training need, I want to write an idea that many on this board tend to forget that is on the Peter Snell interview.

You wrote “…For some reason, there is a vocal faction on Letsrun who doesn't see that distance running is (surprise!!) the best way to train for distance running…”

I write “…For some reason, there is a vocal faction on Letsrun who doesn't see (surprise!!!) “…FOR A MIDDLE DISTANCE RUNNER I BELIEVE YOU MUST RUN PLENTY OF RUNNING AT RACE PACE IN TRAINING WITHOUT DESTROYING YOURSELF. THE ONLY WAY YOU CAN DO THAT IS THROUGH INTERVALS – Peter Snell”

I guess most Letsrun readers just tend to read about the long run but they TEND TO FORGET the first part of the Peter´s answer thaht does 2 points to retain

One. The Middle distance runner must run plenty of running at RACE PACE(without destrying yourself).

Second. Th only way you can do that (train at race pace) is through intervals.

But i see that some on this board they prefer to debate their beloved long run and their beloved distance training

Typical of some on this board !

In Peter Snell interview:

Peter Snell — May, 2011

GCR: There continues to be discussion about the relative importance of tempo running versus interval training. Which do you believe is the most effective?

Peter Snell: For a middle distance runner I believe you must run plenty of running at race pace in training without destroying yourself. THE ONLY WAY YOU CAN DO THAT IS THROUGH INTERVALS. The Later on as a scientist I learned that the benefits of distance running are achieved after muscle glycogen depletion.

Dan Moriarity wrote:

J.O. wrote:

I know that marathon type training works for middle distance runners, and that's why I get results. Which you already know don't you?

Lots of things work, the question is what is the most efficient way to achieve the desired training effect.

How many of today's top middle distance runners do 22 mile runs on a regular basis?

*****************************************

Not many, probably very few. I do believe in that sort of training to help me attempt my own target which is a sub 4 minute 1500 at age 50.

The issue of specificity is a confusing one. I belive that we need to train at all paces in the right amount at the right time. Every pace supports every other pace in the directions of endurance or speed. Race pace is somewhere in the middle of the muddle.

HRE wrote:

I think the part about calling the runs "enjoyable" was one of the most significant comments Peter made to me. The first chapter in Lydiard's "Run to the Top" is called "The First Step-Enjoyment." Sort of echoing Hodgie-san here, if you love it you'll do enough of it to get close to your potential. I think it would be tough to maintain that love if you're obsessed about what's going on in your liver or mitochondria.

I agree. Although I love sports science, I don't believe in 'scientific training'.

J.O. wrote:

Look again wrote:

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.

*****************************************

Yes of course, nobody is arguing that point.

Running slow up hills most definitely does NOT train fast twitch muscles.

I'm surprised that you think it does.

J.O. wrote:

J.R. wrote:

I disagree with you.

********************************

Nobody except J.R. the original black is white, white is black contrarian.

Black is black, white is white, gray is gray.

Slow twitch is slow, fast twitch is fast, running slow up hills is SLOW twitch, not fast.

I don't want to get into which twitch, twitches when. But having done enough of the Waiatarua and also living in those hills. I know what the legs felt like. We did not have a clue what Twitch was working, It was "Get to the top of the Hill". I can recall Quite a lot of "self inflicted Pain" so I could keep up !!!!!!

Seriously, If you did that course for 10 weeks with a good group it was not necessarily "fun" but it was enjoyable. The banter and Talk as you ran was part of Waiatarua and the support and Trash Talk from the group as you climbed was part of the "Game". The sense of accomplishment afterwards was always there. Every Sunday you would hear .. To quote Sir Edmund Hillary.. "We knocked the bastard off".

I can clearly recall my first one .. tough as .. the next weekend we were out again. But it felt "better" .. I was just that little bit Stronger. .. and so the story goes.

I posted a piece about a month or so ago about the famous course and times. The Thread was "Lydiard Training is ridiculously hard" . Check it out

J.R. wrote:

Look again wrote:

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

I disagree with you.

Muscle fiber recruitment has to do with the amount of force required and very little to do with the speed of the limbs involved.

Consider your 1-RM bench press. You recruit your FT fibers even though the heavily-laden barbell might be moving very slowly.

Recruitment of FT yes, optimally trained no.

Snell's basic contention along these lines is misguided. We now know that 22 mile runs and 100 mile weeks are completely unnecessary for 800m runners. To Snell's credit he does acknowledge that he likely ran too many miles.

By now many runners have reached <1:44 or faster with half the running (or less) of what Snell did. Did Rodahl even run 22 miles/week?

dsrunner has the day off wrote:

Recruitment of FT yes, optimally trained no.

Snell's basic contention along these lines is misguided. We now know that 22 mile runs and 100 mile weeks are completely unnecessary for 800m runners. To Snell's credit he does acknowledge that he likely ran too many miles.

By now many runners have reached <1:44 or faster with half the running (or less) of what Snell did. Did Rodahl even run 22 miles/week?

Right. Someone can inform how many of the 800m 30 all time world best DO/DID frequent 2 hour long run (or longer) ?

800 m all time world best

1 1:41.01 WR David Rudisha KEN

2 1:41.11 AR Wilson Kipketer DEN

3 1:41.73 NR Sebastian Coe GBR

4 1:41.77 AR Joaquim Cruz BRA

5 1:42.23 NR Abubaker Kaki SUD

6 1:42.28 Sammy Koskei KEN

7 1:42.34 Wilfred Bungei KEN

8 1:42.47 NR Yuriy Borzakovskiy RUS

9 1:42.55 NR André Bucher SUI

10 1:42.58 NR Vebjørn Rodal NOR

11 1:42.60 AR Johnny Gray USA

12 1:42.62 Patrick Ndururi KEN

13 1:42.67 Alfred Kirwa Yego KEN

14 1:42.69 NR Hezekiél Sepeng

15 1:42.69 Japheth Kimutai KEN

16 1:42.79 Fred Onyancha KEN

17 1:42.79 AR Youssef Saad Kamel BRN

18 1:42.81 NR Jean-Patrick Nduwimana

19 1:42.85 NR Norberto Téllez CUB

20 1:42.86 Mbulaeni Mulaudzi RSA

21 1:42.88 Steve Cram GBR

22 1:42.91 William Yiampoy KEN

23 1:42.95 Boaz Lalang KEN

24 1:42.97 Peter Elliott GBR

25 1:42.98 Patrick Konchellah KEN

26 1:43.03 Kennedy Kimwetich KEN

27 1:43.06 Billy Konchellah KEN

28 1:43.07 Yeimer López CUB

29 1:43.08 José Luiz Barbosa BRA

30 1:43.09 NR Djabir Saïd-Guerni

dsrunner has the day off wrote:

Recruitment of FT yes, optimally trained no.

Snell's basic contention along these lines is misguided. We now know that 22 mile runs and 100 mile weeks are completely unnecessary for 800m runners. To Snell's credit he does acknowledge that he likely ran too many miles.

By now many runners have reached <1:44 or faster with half the running (or less) of what Snell did. Did Rodahl even run 22 miles/week?

But only Snell won three Olympic gold medals. Perhaps Snell succeeded in spite of too much mileage and not enough "core training", but succeed he did.