Why isn't Igloi training used more often today?

making stuff up and you all

You need to understand that interview in the context that one of the goals from the person that interview me was to prove that i´m a Lydiard. This is so true that in the interview proposal he only did accept to interview me if I didn´t talk about Lydiard. There if i´m confined to not comment on Lydiard, how would I able to show what in my training is different than Lydiard ? if he was a Lydiard fan, that interviewed the Lydiardists mostly, but if he was also a good journalist, that he isn´t all all, if he was one independent journalist, if my training does some public interest, what best occasion to show a different opinion that Lydiard.

I copy and past the email, to see I say the truth.

From: Christopher Kelsall [mailto:chriskelsall@flocasts.org]

Sent: terça-feira, 24 de Maio de 2011 21:10

To: António Cabral

Subject: Interview Request - Flotrack - 5/24/11

Antonio,

I am interested in interviewing for Flotrack. In the interview, I am not too interested in discussing Lydiard, that is public knowledge at Let's Run and this interview would be about you, not someone else.

Let me know if you are interested and we can do it over shared google docs.

All the best,

--

Christopher Kelsall,

Columnist

Flotrack

chriskelsall@flocasts.org

Follow on Twitter

Now the big question. If as he says “Lydiard, that is public knowledge at Let's Run” why he continues to post about Lydiard on Letsrun.com ? Did the readers move from public knowledge as he says to public ignorance or misunderstand by my posts ???? Funny !

Once again about the interview. I knew by John Hadd that I was in close contact before he died that before you asked me one interview, you asked the same to him. He just told me. One of the reasons he didn´t accept to be interview by you is that your condition is that John didn´t mean Lydiard during the interview. Strange – I say, for someone lie you that 99% of you interviews were about Lydiard. Strange or don´t ? Why you ask that to John Hadd to John ? You were afraid that John Hadd will prove that his training is distant from the Lydiard one, and the readers will understand that he disagree with some of the Lydiard concepts.

Then you read on Letsrun.com our common thread “2 kinds of runners” that I and John we both build. Might be you realize something interesting (and different) about distance training there.. Just by

Then what did happen in the interview ? You didn´t ask me nothing about Lydiard,a nd in all my answers Lydiard is not named. But you in your introduction to my interview, you named Lydiard training. Then if it´s right that you don´t wanted that I talk about Lydiard it´s not fair that you start editing the interview with reference to Lydiard. But why ? Now we know, you wanted to let people trust that i´m one Lydiard coach, to expand the Lydiard influence.. kind of “we are all Lydiard”.

This is why we can't have nice threads.

8467 wrote:

When in the next Olympics she finished 3rd ...

First you say that HRE cannot demonstrate with facts that Lydiard training is particularly effective. Then you use Lorraine Moller, who used Lydiard-based training and improved from 33rd in the 1988 Seoul Olympics marathon to 3rd in the 1992 Barcelona Olympics marathon (at the age of 39), as a case study of the non-effectiveness of Lydiard training.

You could have hardly picked a worse example to justify your opinion that Lydiard had a poor training methodology.[/quote]

António, responde lá a esta.

Don't ignore someone who shows you how wrong you are.[/quote]

If the question is about age improve from Lorraine, from 32 to 3rd being older and training by Lydiard, then we have Carlos Lopes, coming from nothing to win the Olympic marathon with 37 years old, be world cross country winner with 38 years old, and marathon world record with 38 years old, and training out of the Lydiard training. There as you might understand, huge performance enhance with aging is not just a Lydiard exclusive, as other trainings were more effective that the Lydiard one. For instance Miritus Ifter was 5000m and 10000m winner in the same Olympics with 41 yeas old, and as far as we know he didn´t follow Lydiard.

Now about what works or doesn´t on Lydiard training by facts, not by the training methodology debate.

Poor training, different talent or bad luck ? What works, what counts ?

For instance, Peter Snell did the 800, 1500m and mile WRs wins the 800m in the 1960 Rome Olympics and double wins in 1964 Tokyo Olympics the 800m and 1500m. Lydiard training worked find on him, superior training. It was not the result of major talent, or good luck, just the effect of Lydiard rich training they say, the ones that prefer the Lydiard training.

In fact neither one or the other trusted one each other.

However when in the same 1500m final in the Tokyo Olympics that Snell did win, John Davies, another Lydiard runner did 3rd, and he wasn´t not just another Lydiard runner but also he did train almost the same that Snell did as training for that Olympics. However John Davies, being defeated by Snell and by Josef Odiozil from Czechoslovakia, according the Lydiard, the reason of that John´s defeat it wasn´t poor training that the other 2 (Snell and Odiozil) and the according the same Lydiard followers, the training of the Czech wasn´t superior to the Lydiard one, he just got more talent than Davis and Davis did a bad day, bad luck.

For instance. When Lorraine Moller did 33th in the marathon Olympics and 3rd in the next Olympics, according Lydiard, the reason why 34 runners did better than her wasn´t because they did superior training, but they say it´s the others superior talent and Loraine had a bad day.

Read this Lorraine Moller sentence “… in the era of New Zealand track domination, "Going to the track to do speed work during the base phase was considered the height of folly and something only the ignorant would do."

This is a Lorraine Moller silly sentence and ignorance to push Lydiard aerobic based block without the use of intervals during that period. The fact is that among the today´s best the use of intervals extended to all season process is a common practice. Might be that what she it´s ignorance (do intervals all season on) it´s what able the other runners that she did compete in world major champs or Olympics to win over her. I remember, she rank 5 in the 1975 World Cross Champs; 39 in 1979; 26 1981, 14th in the 3000m of the 1983 World champs; 5 in the marathon 84 LA Olympics and 3 in 92 in Barcelona. Might be that the ones that did win over them in many occasions they peak best for the major competitions that she did, but she keeps thinking that Lydiard training is the best training to peak in the right moment. OK. She didn´t win nothing at major continental champs or Olympics, she was defeated in all that occasions, but is training is the best one, the Lydiard one, not the training of the others that did win over her. Who is the ignorant practice, her with her Lydiard training or the others that they did win over her with other kind of training, namely the ones that did intervals season on ?

HRE. I used to know you weel since long ago. By you, where when the facts and the reality and doesn´t fit in your argument, ther´s no way to rove nothing. Only in the subjectivity of the choice of Lydiard, without physiology logic or factual prove there always an argue that Lydiard training wins !

Why the hundred of occasions ther´s a post saying that Lydiard is a superior training method, and the argument it´s because Peter Snell did win over the others, why you never replied with the same answer you did to me ? Why ? Why you never stand up and said. Look man it´s a fact that Snell did that performances that huge results , but “no one can´t prove by results that Lydiard training works” Why ? Strange don´t you think ?

Because they are not the same wrote:

vpathletics.com wrote:

Base training on hills is so similar to doing aerobic intervals on the track and not many are really connecting the dots!

Square pegs don't fit in round holes.

Of course they aren't the same. One is running over hills on a continuous run and the other is running a tempo style workout on the track. That doesn't mean adaptations in the heart aren't nearly similar.

This thread reminds me of when JK used to come on here and try to manipulate the published training of elites so that it seemed like they were using his type of training.

Captain Oblivious wrote:

HRE wrote:

Aerobic fartlek.

How is one able to exercise restraint with aerobic fartlek and yet not be able to do aerobic intervals instead?

Fartlek isn't timed. Arthur was afraid that if you put someone one the track during the base phase and had them run, say 20x440, they'd get an average time for the session and then want to be faster the next time they did it, then even faster the next time and so on. Eventually the session would be too hard. Certainly you can push too hard in a fartlek session as well but you won't be able to compare your time from session to session and feel compelled to push harder to run faster which he believed mitigated against the temptation to go too hard.

One of Lydird's lesser known runners, John Robinson, did a bit of coaching. He did include aerobic intervals during his base phase, a session 3 x 1 mile. But he did it away from the track and never used the same location more than 2 or 3 times because he didn't want his athletes measuring each session against previous ones.

Antonio,

I'll do this ONCE more because you asked a direct question but that's it. I have NEVER claimed that Lydiard training is the best kind. All I've ever said here was that when I started using Lydiard's ideas I started improving a lot and prior to that I didn't improve very much. That's all. Yes, there is always the possibility that someone who used Lydiard's stuff could have been better doing something else. There is also the possibility that someone using something other than Lydiard's stuff would do better if they used Lydiard.

Would Ryun have been faster, slower or the same with Lydiard for a coach as he was with Timmons? Or what if he'd trained with Igloi or Tabori or Bowerman or Stampfl? Faster? Slower? The same? I have no idea and neither do you and we could debate it until the universe ends with no real answer.

If you want to be literal about the business of using "facts" to prove a certain type of training works better than another method you cannot do it because the individual athlete is a much bigger variable than the way s/he trained is.

What we do seem able to prove is that training in general works. Trained athletes race faster as a group than untrained ones do so I'd argue that "facts" do show that Lydiard training works, van Aaken training works, Igloi training works, Cerutty training works because there are loads of examples of people who ran well following each approach but that's as much as we can prove. We cannot really prove much about each method relative to the others.

I've written this sort of thing in response to you many times over the years yet you keep telling me that I say "Lydiard training wins." I've never said that. I've said it worked better for me and that I enjoyed it. I've said that I managed to learn a lot more about how it's done than most people in the sport these days know so when someone asks a question about it, as "Old Slow Guy" or "Captain Oblivious" have done I'll usually answer it. But there is no point in answering your questions about why I always say that Lydiard training wins when I've never said such a thing yet you keep insisting I did.

HRE:

What pace would you guess coach Robinson's aerobic interval miles were run at? 10K pace? Half-marathon pace? And what kind of rest in between? Thanks.

I really don't know. The story about Robinson doing that just came up as an aside in a conversation about other things. The Lydiard approach to recovery was generally "Long rep, short recovery. Short rep, long recovery." I'd imagine the recovery would not have exceeded a couple minutes and I would not expect the pace to have been faster than half marathon. Even at 10k you do begin to breath harder.

But again, very little in the Lydiard system was done to specific paces. Most things were done to perceived effort so the likely instruction before those sessions would have been to run faster than your steady pace but without breathing hard. One time that could have been 10k pace, another time marathon pace, another time maybe 30k pace. It would have varied.

How would that have been monitored? That's what Robinson would have been at the session to do. If he saw someone struggling or even working really hard with their reps he'd tell them to go easier. He may have timed everyone himself but not told the runners their times. I don't know that for sure but it was a common thing. If he saw someone getting slower as the session went on it would tell him to slow that particular athlete down.

I remember reading about Tracy Smith doing huge amounts of intervals, but I don't remember him being tied to any program. I did find this post from an earlier LRC thread:

"I was on the infield of a meet at Madison Square Garden sometime in either the late '60s or very early '70s and Smith was running (too many years have passed to remember it). The latest issue of Track & Field News had just appeared and reported that one of Smith's recent workouts was 72x220 yards. So I told him about this report and asked him about the workout. He said, "They published that--coach will kill me!" He did indeed run that workout, but Igloi apparently did not want his workouts to be public knowledge. Smith was so sheepish about it all that even though I was just a kid I was charmed by it.

Read more:

http://www.letsrun.com/forum/flat_read.php?thread=1194651&page=1#ixzz39pDJLSjd

I remember that race and the quote at that time. So, was Smith a disciple of Igloi?

I ran for Coach Igloi from 1967 to 1970. Tracy Smith was Coach Igloi's top athlete for most of that period. In fact he had the world record for the indoor three mile for a time. Also, Igloi coached Ole Olson who one several NCAA individual titles in the indoor two mile and three mile. Olson defeated Frank Shorter and Dick Buerkle in those races. I believe those races were in 1969.

I authored a paper in Track and Field Quarterly Review titled "Mihaly Igloi Revisited" that outlines my training in detail from the 1970 season. If I had a scanner I would post it to this thread.

If I could add one thought to this discussion it would be technique. Igloi was big on technique and cadence. Raise the arm to shorten the lever, and shorten your stride to quicken your cadence. Rarely do you hear discussion of Igloi's tempo and cadence changes, which were essential to his system.

Ghost of Igloi

Yes, may well have been a lot of help plus the decision to be committed to his way of being coached. I'm thinking of my getting help with technique, back in the day.

Still believe the Lydiard way suited me.

It would be interesting if Igloi had lived to day and coached these WC Kenyans & Ethiopians.

Further discussions?

Tracy Smith trained with Igloi while I was there. Tracy is a friend.

Coach Igloi moved to Greece in 1970.

Coach Igloi did not encourage his athletes to talk about training to others. He felt it could lead to the demoralization of the runner.

In the T&F News booklet of the month in 1971 I wrote "He often felt that the critics and those who had lost faith in him and his system demoralized the others and intentionally led his athletes astray"

I also wrote "Coach Igloi gave me his time and patience only because I asked for it. I respect and thank him. I have been lucky to have worked and learned under a man who is strong willed, stubborn and a genius to boot".

This gets us back to the title of this thread. The reason that it was extremely hard and depended on Coach Mihaly Igloi and his knowledge.

Many of his US athletes have become coaches and used an altered Igloi training method successfully.

Orville,

Hope you are doing well.

You are correct that much of his success was his genius and personality. As always he would ask "Reid how do you feel?" I would remark about how tired I felt. Igloi had the solution, "Go home, get a bucket of water, not too hot, luke warm. Stick your head in for ten minutes. You will feel no pain."

I remember one athlete asking Igloi "why do we always run on the track?" Igloi replied "does Mark Spitz train in the ocean?"

Reminds me of one of the other comments of how swim coaches still use similar methods. And, Bob Timmons, Ryun's coach was a swim coach early in his career.

Reid Harter

Hi Reid. Time sure flies. All goes well.

There were times when Coach's answer to a complaint was "I feel nothing" or "Is alright. You will rest in grave yard many years"

He often said "Enjoy".

As Peter Mundle said in his 1971 article "He has a subtle sense of humor".

I made a mistake in my post about the article I wrote. It was in a "Runners World" booklet of the month.

Reid, Coach Igloi told me that I had the worst technique he had ever seen when I first started to do his workouts. That changed as time went by.

Orville,

Perhaps you remember Igloi's call of "SPIKES!" Then Coach would pace back and forth winding up the old style stopwatch behind his back. At that point you knew you were really in for a tough workout. The new runners had a shocked look on their face.

One time I remember, a new guy asked him "coach, what are we running?" That was a no-no. He looked at the fella and pointed to the graveyard across the street from the Santa Monica College track and remarked "you will rest in peace...over there." There was nothing but silence.

Reid Harter

Orville,

In regards to Track Smith. Prior to the Mexico Olympic Olympic Games Tracy took off to Mamouth Lakes where his family had a place for some high altitude training. Tracy made this decision on his own without consulting Coach. Tracy shows up a few days later and Igloi kicks him out of the club. A few hours later Tracy returns remorseful and asking for forgiveness, which was given by Coach Igloi.

Reid Harter

reading these exchanges makes me realize how much joe's personality and coaching was influenced by igloi. i did virtually all my trackwork in spikes at santa monica college, one of the hardest tracks in the world. never did 72x220, but did 36 reps, alternating sets of 6x200 and 6x250--of course, i was only a miler, unlike tracy smith.

as someone else alludes, there were many different speeds, and i don't claim to understand all of them, like fresh, good, hard/fast (virtually max effort), good-speed, good-swing; oftentimes i would start the workouts trying to focus on good-speed vs. good-swing, but by the end it was just survival. my biggest fear was when you'd been doing "good" efforts (maybe 75-80%?) for what seemed like a zillion reps, then you'd come to the line exhausted--we would jog into our reps most of the time--and joe would suddenly yell "fast--go!"