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

SMJO wrote:

By definition a record involves running faster than the guy before you did. That's all.

Was Moorcroft even going for the record that day or just running as hard as he could?

"About three days before, I got out a calculator and worked out the 400-meter splits necessary for the 13:06 world record. That needed 63s. So I dismissed that and figured what I'd need for Foster's U.K. record. That was 64s. So that became the most ambitious goal. It was good that there were no pressures to win in Oslo. If an official had told me, 'If you're the first Briton home, you're in the team for the European Championships,' I'd have reverted to the old wait and kick."

Just minutes before the start, Moorcroft trotted nervously and watched Steve Scott win the mile in 3:47.69, the second-fastest ever run. "I thought, 'Uh oh, I should have been in that.' "

Charged and ready, Moorcroft followed the early pace of NCAA steeplechase champion Richard Tuwei of Washington State and Kenya. "After 200 I was itching to go," Moorcroft says. The 400 time was a swift 61.4, but then Tuwei sagged to a 65.8. "I took off then and ran what I thought was a steady 63." It was 61.3.

The next laps were 62.6, 61.5, 62.4. The field let him go, in wonder. (Indeed, Ralph King of Athletics West would think, as he placed second in 13:20.85, that he had won. "I thought the guy in blue who took off was a rabbit and had dropped out of the race," he says.)

"I took in all the atmosphere," says Moorcroft. "Perhaps it was like what a free-fall parachutist experiences, the elation. I knew it was fast, but not how fast. I was enjoying the running for its own sake, not for the selectors or for the public acclaim or to prove anything."

He struggles for analogies. "I think of an artist, stuck out on a beautiful beach with birds and sky, and left alone just to get on with it."

He didn't have a clear idea of what his speed meant. "In miling I know exactly what splits should be, but in the 5,000 I hadn't a clue," he says. "I remembered in my calculations that if the 3,000 were under 8:00, I'd be on for a good time."

He passed the 3,000 in 7:50.2. "Hello,' I thought, 'possibly a very good time.' Then with three laps to go, it was hard."

He slackened not at all. "At the bell I knew it was a question of by how much I'd break it. I kind of savored that feeling on the last lap. As I came down the last stretch I looked up and saw 12:56 on the scoreboard clock. It turned 13:00 just as I crossed the line...."

Yes, probably Steve Jones did it in the 80's, but didn't

make a big deal about it.

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.

Show us what your "lydiard/coe" training was, then show us what your "modern" Canova training was to compare it to?

If you can't so than then you are just talking shite.

If you haven't heard of Lydiard and Coe I'm certainly not going to take the time to educate you on them AND post training logs that I haven't meticulously kept. I know what I did, you can figure out what works for you.

The three methods barely resemble each other apart from including "running".

What possible benefit would I get from describing in detail what worked for me?

Struggle on.

HRE

You try to pass to me the idea that people might train differently and gotbthe same level of success , To me, that i subscribe individual training for the same event ! Ff course that people trains differently and with different training same got similar performances. Also the same method seems to fits in one particular runner might not fit at all in other one eventually. So far so good.

Also what you say makes sense, that if everyone would follow Shorter training some might think that they all would run as faster as Shorter, but that is not true.

But sincerely, and with all respect that up to this point, i don´t understand why someone (you particularly) did defend some type of training that we must do the long run and that the long run seems to be rich training in every training context. Am i wrong ?

But the question here and what i think it´s our disagreement is that if we got the big picture of the training methodology, we know more today that we knew earlier, and i guess that grow of training knowledge offers us (the coaches, the self coach runners) the tools for better training that the "past" training by the past knowledge. This is not just the case of Shorter versus Bill Rodgers or Peter versus Steve jones. This is the quantity of training knowledge we possess actually to our disposal that is superior that we did in the past. How can you say that over the time the performances always tend to be better, new WRs, faster distance pace, but in the training methodology we know precisely the same or near the same we knew decades ago. As to say the performances tend to enhance, but the training knowledge with more experts focussed on the training nothing got to be better training. I got one analogy. This is the same that say that my computer works fast and better as time passes, however my better computer efficiency isn´t result to better software, to better science of computation, no link with better computer efficiency and better science of computation ????? No way HRE. You can argue that we got better train and competitive surfaces that the past, better shoes, better training facilities. Of course i agree. It´s all true and talent got some percent of contribution, but the parafernalia whatsoever it´s not enough to justify the performance enhance from some not all of course. Better training got a contribution either.

I think there is a part of truth in what HRE says, but he doesn't understand the real point.

If you want to prepare a minestrone, everybody can know exactly the what has to put inside : potatoes, beans, peas, cabbages, rice, broccoli, for example.

The question is : Why some minestrone has a better taste than another ? The ingredients are the same, BUT SOME DIFFERENCE, o course, there is.

May be the time used for cooking ? May be not the same ingredients are put in the water at the same time ? May be the quantity of every ingredient is different from one cook to another cook ?

So, practically NOTHING NEW IN THE INGREDIENTS.

Also if really something new there is (treadmills, alter G, machines for strength and recovery), we can't give the responsibility of the improvement in long distances to these Technologies, because the best (who are African) don't use anything like this.

What canged is the SYSTEM OF TRAINING.

It's not important if, in the past, somebody tried CASUALLY something we use today AS SYSTEM. The long run of 30 km during a Marathon of Bill Rodgers was, of sure, intensity as we used today, but in 1980 was ONE TIME, now is part of the system.

I tried something new, combined in some way ingredients all coaches knew, only with some particular athlete, in some particular period, AND THIS WAS NOT PART OF THE SYSTEM.

For example, with Shaheen we used running, at the end of the Fundamental Period, 5-6 times 1600m including 900m climbing + 300m downhill + 400m on track with 5 hurdles.

This was possible for the particular situation of the track in Kamarin (Iten), where 1200m before the track there is a road with those characteristics, and I had the idea TO USE WHAT WE HAD.

With Kenneth Kimwetich (1'43"03 / 2'13"49) I used, for 3 times (once every 3 weeks) during the Special and Specific period, a training including 5 times 500m as follows :

200m under 25" (as the start of a competition) + 100m bounding (under 15") + 200 final meters at max speed. In this way I wanted to increase the ability to recover fast fibers already tired. Long recovery (8'-10'), final best time under 66". Looking at the results (Kimwetich was already 30 years old), with Gianni Ghidini wi used the same training with Wilfred Bungei, William Yampoy and Gregory Konchellah (Kamel) : all them ran under 1'43", and Bungei won Olympics.

Did he won Olympics because of this training ? Of course NO. He won BECAUSE THE BALANCE IN HIS SYSTEMIC TRAINING.

So, the difference is in what we use SYSTEMATICALLY, not in one ingredient, already known in the past.

I'm 69, I was an athlete during the period 63-70, and of course I know the training systems of that period. I don't need somebody living in the past for reminding me what the top athletes did. I was a subscriptor of "How they Train" by Fred Wilt, I have all the numbers of "Track & Field, the Bible of Athletics", I have all the number of "Der Leichtathletik", so I well remember the COMMON Training.

We can divide the history of methodology in several periods :

1. The beginning of the Century. There was no knowledge about physiology, and training was only running. Who had more motivation and more strength, was able to train more. In the history of Dorando Pietri, winner (disqualified) of Marathon during OG 1908 in London, we can see he became professional going to compete in US, and in some case he ran, against the American winning Olympics, and against a champion representing the native people (redskins), every week, also a full Marathon indoor (Empire State Garden) where it was possible to bet, for the spectators, about the situation athletes can have every mile. There was no idea about recovery. The athletes continued to compete untill when their body was destroyed, after went home without training for several months.

2. The period in between the two Wars. Finnish athletes started to have some idea about training, the most part in the nature. It was the period when FARTLEK appeared, and was the first time runners used variations of speed.

In Germany, was also the period when the combination physiologist / coach (Gerschler / Reindell) gave scientific reasons for the INTERVAL-TRAINING, mainly used at that time by specialists of short distances.

3. The first 10 years after the second War ('45-'55). In this period, two figures did something new : EMIL ZATOPEK, running an incredible number of intervals with very short recovery (for example, 50 times 400m at 90% of his PB in 10000m with 30" recovery) and his long run with boots, and MIHAIL IGLOI, the first coach combined speed and volume, having the same success of Lydiard, success that couldn't bring to Olympic Gold only because of the Hungarian Revolution in 1956. Sandor Iharos was able to beat WR in 1500, 5000 and 10000m, and with him Sandor Rozsavolgyi and Laszlo Tabori had the same impact that, some year later, Snell, Walker, Dixon and Quax had on the World.

4. The period of Percy Cerutty, who found in Herb Elliot probably the most talented athlete ever (together Jim Ryun) for 1500m. Cerutty, not professional coach, practically ended to coach top runners after the retirement of Elliot, which happened in very unusual way : only 22, after winning Olympic Gold in Rome with the WR (in this, something as David Rudisha did in London in 800m).

Directly connected with Cerutty, but a little bit later, the history of Arthur Lydiard started.

He spoke about "Marathon training", avocating a large "Aerobic base" before going to the pecific quality. But really, this training can be good for every event, apart Marathon : nothing of specific for that event.

Lydiard had a great influence on all the coaches of the period, due to the successes of his athletes, and to the fact he was of English Language.

In Europe, during the same period, we had development of different schools, all connected with high mileage : in France with Frassinelli (Jazy ran sometimes 3 hours, starting every new season with very slow run), in Poland (with more intensity, producing top athletes as Jerzy Chromik and Krzystof Krzyszkowiak), in UK.

UK had a period with very high mileage, using winter, and the cross country season, as main motivation for developing qualities of endurance later used on track.

All the best athletes (also who later became a specialist of shorter distances) started in the school with long cross : Steve Ovett, Steve Cram (winning European Junior in Bydgoszcz '79 in 3000m), Seb Coe.

At the same time, they developed a system of CIRCUIT TRAINING looking at increasing of STRENGTH ENDURANCE, and this system was, later, used by North African athletes too, because is the best for 800-1500m (and also today, very little changed, and many changes made specific training worse in this direction...).

It was also the period of the great Portuguese runners : Fernando Mamede (WR holder of 10000m)and Carlos Lopes (winning of WCh in Cross Country, and Olympic Gold in the Marathon) followed, with different plans, the phylosophy of the great coach Moniz Pereira, who in my mind was the first lookin at the INTENSITY OF LONG INTERVALS.

5. A new period looking at higher intensity, WITH THE MISTAKE TO REDUCE DRAMATICALLY THE VOLUME. This was for making training more "comfortable" looking at the requests of new generations, which didn't have anymore the same will to use a lot of time for long run. But this fact, combined with the lack of general endurance due to a more sedentary type of life, REDUCED THE LEVEL OF RESULTS, and all the Western Countries (Europe, US and Oceania) went in the darkness, losing completing the clue of training.

6. The beginning of African athletes. Before, only some African had the opportunity to compete with some preparation, and their training was mainly in US, where they went to University. With the creation of WCh, and of a more professional athletics, they started to look at the opportunity to change their lives earning some money running. European managers (the first was Bicourt, immediately followed by Kim McDonald) started to support training camps, producing top athletes, that in short time were able to become the "black wave" dominating the World. The same happened in Ethiopia, also if in different way, directly under the control of the Federation (but the real input was the appearance of Gebrselassie, who organised together with Jos Hermens a system producing professional results).

African athletes had high aerobic level, because their normal life (in this, not different from the top US runners of the period '60-'80), and were able to increase the quality of their training.

However, if Ethiopians had in their culture the long run, Kenyans didn't have : they preferred runs of medium duration (30' - 1 hr max) at very high intensity, as a competition.

Looking at Marathon, the real explosion came after 1992, when the Italian Gabriele Rosa understood the potentiality of Kenyan runners for the longest event. He created several training camps, having the ability fo find a big budget from Fila, and the big adventure of Kenyan Marathon started.

7. The decline of long distances on track. After 2005, due to the beginning of the economic crisis in Europe, the budgets for big track meetings started to diminish. At the same time, the number of African looking at athletics for improving their level of life continued to raise. So, the market became every year more difficult, and more poor, for track runners of high level. This fact pushed Kenyan and Ethiopian runners of high quality, still Young, to move directly to long distances (may be one year in HM, second year immediately to Marathon).

Who had the opportunity to live in one of these Countries in the same period, could find athletes different from before : strong, young and fresh.

That's the reason because we could increase the VOLUME OF INTENSITY, and this school is now followed by all Kenya. The most important Group are in Iten, Kaptagat and Kapsabet, and, with some individual differences, everybody has similar programs, VERY DIFFERENT FROM THE PAST.

That's the history.

Yes, I'm pretty much saying that you always put the same things into minestrone. Sure, you can change around the percentages of various ingredients or where in the process you add this thing or that and you'll get a different taste.

And I would say the same thing about running training. You've got various types of steady runs, intervals, hill reps, etc. You had them fifty years ago as well. People have always experimented with how much of each element they use, when they use the elements etc. and likely always will. All I'm saying here is that I don't see anything anyone is doing now that wasn't being done decades ago, though they may not be doing those things in exactly the same ways.

Antonio,

I have never said that everyone needs to do long runs. I think they're important. Lots of people, probably the majority, agree. But I never have said that anyone needs to do anything. I've even given examples of people I know who have done well without them. But, yes, I do think you're better off doing them.

Nothing new in weightlifting either I guess.

I think the emphasis on high mileage has changed since 1980 and there is more emphasis on speed training for distance runners.

Great articles on 800, 1500 and 5K training from back in 1998

http://www.britishmilersclub.com/bmcnews/1998autumn.pdf

Another bit of history the real beginning of the African athletes:

Bikila Typical running week prepared by his coach Onni Niskanen in 1964.

I will post a link to some pages from this book for anyone who is interested.

From Bikila Ethiopia’s Barefoot Olympian by Tim Judah 2008. p. 60.

Monday:

Morning: 30 kilometers out of city-Suluta.

Tuesday:

Morning: 10 kilometers medium speed, stadium.

Afternoon: 15 kilometers medium speed paved road.

Wednesday:

Morning: Up and down hill repeats.

Afternoon: 15 kilometers fast speed, paved roads.

Thursday:

Morning: Stadium track repeats-5x400m, 10x800m,5x1000m, 200m recovery between each.

Afternoon: 30 kilometers medium speed, paved roads.

Friday:

Morning: 50 kilometers, first half at fast speed and second at medium.

Saturday:

Competition in half marathon.

Sunday:

Break.

SMJO wrote:

Nothing new in weightlifting either I guess.

I have no idea.

From Bikila Ethiopia’s Barefoot Olympian by Tim Judah 2008

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BzkaYrZ2pCQ5dXYyd2QyTEJZWVk/edit?usp=sharing

I thought you'd do that. I pay no attention to weight lifting. If you have a point to make, make it.

Hodgie-san

Curious that you mention Bilkila training supposedly modern training when its the paradigm of old outdate training precisely.

Bikila is the paradigm of old/past /oudate training. He did go extremely fast in the direction of speed pace, and i remember that Bikila did very short intervals like 20-30X200m ALL FLAT OUT in about 28secs and that is 2:20kilo pace what would result in 23min 10k and 1h39m in the marathon !

This kind of pace got no main specificity related to the marathon.

Then in the opposite training direction he goes longer up to 30 up 50kilo and of course that is too slow related to marathon race pace.

Both kind of workout sessions, either he goes FAST OR LONG -the interval training and the long run - that got not the main link with the race pace target distance that are the specificity and modern training methodology does privilege the pace zones that are closer to the race pace that´s the must of modern training FASTER AND LONGER AT THE SAME TIME BUT HIGH HIGH LINK WITH SPECIFIC RACE. Abebe Bikila did the marathon WR twice. 2:15.16 in the 1960 Rome olympics running barefoot, and with shoes and socks he did 2:12:12 WR in Tokyo, Japan 1964 olympics. Therefore 2h12m marathon is 3:09 by kilo, but to run short intervals in 2:20 by kilo and long runs some 4:00min kilo pace both training are out of specific marathon race pace and that is old training fashion. Modern training - like the Renato Canova anova and others they do. They include include lots of long bouts closer to the marathon race pace, that is what is modern training - higher level of specificity.

Thanks HRE.

You said everything when you say that "you can change around the percentages of various ingredients or where in the process you add this thing or that and you'll get a different taste". I see a high analogy between the cook and the ingredients and the training percents of each kind of different training, and that might results in different performances.

Think about this. Just about the long run: we shall do or don´t. If we do we might do with different frequency, once in a while or every week, and we can do different kinds of long runs, shorter or longer, faster or slow, up hill or flat, mean pace or negative split pace, with fasting the day before, the day after a hard workout, after one day or rest, so and so. Every different long run format, results in different training stimulus eventually and different performance consequence/result.

Now imagine various types of steady runs, intervals, hill reps, etc and how that can be mixed in different training formats. So far so good ?

With this conclusion i still don´t understand why you can say that the training of the past is quite similar to the present training.

If we see things like: hills are hills, intervals are intervals, long runs are long runs, and easy runs are easy runs and we might resume: run is just run. However each one of this kind of runs can be done very differently and that result in different training.

Thanks Antonio, what do you think of Mutai is he "specific" enough?:

Self- Coached Geoffrey Mutai a training week:

Monday

A.M. 2 HR easy run (6:30-8 min./mile)

P.M. 1 HR. easy run (6:30-8 min./mile)

Tuesday

A.M. 50 min. run (8 min. miles)

P.M. Speed Workout:

30 min. warm-up

12x1km intervals (4:50/mile pace) w 1 min. rec.

Wednesday:

A.M. 1Hr 50min. run (8min. miles)

P.M. 2 HR easy run (8min. miles)

Thursday:

A.M. 25 mile run (7:15 min. miles speeding up to 5:35 min. miles)

Friday:

A.M. 1Hr 50min. run (8min. miles)

P.M. 2 HR easy run (8min. miles)

Saturday:

A.M. Speed Workout:

30 min. warm-up

20x2min. intervals @ 5 min. mile with 1 min. rec.

30 min. cooldown

Sunday:

Rest

Beyond the hills: Mutai's disciplined and grueling training schedule gets him up to speed

falseSpringer, Shira. Boston Globe [Boston, Mass] 13 Apr 2012: C.6.

For 45 weeks a year, Geoffrey Mutai devotes himself to marathon training in the high-altitude hills of Kapng'etuny, Kenya. He runs 110-125 miles per week with speed workouts conducted at a 4:50-mile pace. He coaches himself and leads a group of elite Kenyans who provide daily competition. He spends long stretches away from his family home in Eldoret, Kenya.

It is a simple, disciplined life in which Mutai focuses on maintaining his status as the world's fastest marathoner, where he dreams of more success in the Boston Marathon during punishing long runs.

Imagine running almost 25 miles on hilly terrain at an altitude of 8,200 feet at a pace that drops quickly from 7:15-minute miles to 5:35-minute miles. This is a typical Thursday during the most intense weeks of Mutai's training cycle. Every Thursday, he gets up around 4 a.m., eats a light breakfast and begins his long run around dawn. Mutai said the routine "is like the day of a race." The early start is necessary because of the sun's intensity at such high altitude.

During long runs that build to a peak of 25 miles, a truck shadows Mutai and the other elite runners along the dirt roads of Kapng'etuny, distributing fluids and picking up runners who don't go the distance.

"We start to run at 5:30 a.m.," said Mutai. "Where we run is very hilly, up and down, up and down. We don't really do a hill workout. Most of the time it's hilly, even where we do speed work. Once I finish the long run, I know the hard part of the week is done."

Still, Mutai also runs two tough speed workouts each week.

Tuesday afternoons include a fartlek session with 1-kilometer intervals repeatedly run at a 4:50-mile pace, slightly slower than the 4:42-mile pace Mutai ran last year in Boston. Between each fast kilometer, there is one minute of relatively slow recovery running.

"That program is so hard," said Mutai. "That's the toughest. Sometimes we are tired, but we must finish the program."

Mutai also runs a speed workout on Saturday with shorter, two-minute repeats at roughly the same pace. While other elite runners might do one interval speed workout on the roads or dirt trails and one track workout per week, there is no track where Mutai trains.

When not running fast-paced long runs or speed workouts, Mutai takes it slow and easy, at least that's how he sees two-hour runs at roughly an 8-minute mile pace. Monday, Wednesday and Friday feature morning and afternoon workouts that basically serve as medium-length recovery runs.

The idea is to make sure his legs are primed and ready to go hard on the days when the schedule calls for it. He also complements his training with stretching and core strengthening.

When asked his favorite day of the week, Mutai doesn't hesitate to name Saturday. But that is because he travels 40 miles to his family in Eldoret. He takes off Sunday and attends church with his family, then returns to Kapng'entuny in the evening.

"That's the part where I am happy to finish a good week," said Mutai. "I finish and I go home."

Credit: By Shira Springer Globe Staff

(c) The Boston Globe Apr 13, 2012

Here's the weight lifting world on doubling your muscle

cells:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jLmLO_R-wgE

"If we see things like: hills are hills, intervals are intervals, long runs are long runs, and easy runs are easy runs and we might resume: run is just run. However each one of this kind of runs can be done very differently and that result in different training."[quote]

I suppose it all comes down to what you want to call "different" and what you want to call "the same." As I see it, hills in 1963 are the same as in 2013, 30-45 kilometers in 1963 is the same distance as 30-45 kilometers today, etc. Sure, each of these kinds of runs can be done differently and you'll get some different training effects, but that was true in 1963 and before as well. People mixed those elements differently decades ago, they do it now, and they'll likely be doing it after we're dead.

When I see training profiles of current athletes I don't see any new elements. I see elements combined in different ways and yes, I see more running and more intensity in some cases, almost always involving Easy Africans. But to me, combining the same elements in different ways is not "new." we all have to figure out how to combine the elements in the way that works for us. And naturally when you have a sub 2:05 marathon runner or a sub 27:00 10km runner you're likely going to see them running faster than people from a generation or two earlier were doing.

Looking at Hodgie-san's profiles of Bikila and of Mutwai certainly shows that they weren't doing the exact same things, so sure, there's a difference. But the differences to me are matters of degree. The big change in training that I see, and Renato alluded to it, is that after World War II people found that it was both possible and beneficial to train more and harder than had been done before the war.

Weight lifting is not running. Maybe, just maybe, an intelligent argument from your side might be a bit persuasive. All you've really done in this entire thread is claim that there really is a lot of important, new, stuff, in distance training and insulted people who've disagreed with you.