Peter Snell Interview and his thoughts on Lydiard training

If your arguing that the faster times run by 800 guys since Snell proves that their training is "better" than Snell's you're overlooking a number of factors and are being really simplistic too.

You're ignoring faster tracks, the freedom tot rain and race full time, professional rabbits and the fact that records will always improve over time. You're also overlooking the fact that the guys Snell beat trained similarly to the faster 800 guys of later years.

If Gray, Kipketer, etc. could run faster than Snell because their training was better why couldn't Kerr, Kiplagat, etc. who trained similarly? The easy answer is that Snell was more talented but as we really have no idea what "talent" is as it applies here there is no way to validate or invalidate that response. Snell thinks he had talent comparable to the guys he raced but was better trained but there is no way to validate that hypothesis either.

You're correct in saying that Snell is an exception and not the norm. BECAUSE he was exceptional. i.e., there really have been no 800 specialists who have trained as he did, there is no way to say whether most 800 runners would be faster, slower, or the same if they trained like he did.

J.R. wrote:

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

No, it's not. Try running a seven minute mile up a ten per cent hill, see how far you get?

Not very far. Even in your younger days you would be gasping by the end of that mile. Hills require more effort even at slow paces, hence more recruitment of fast oxidative fibers.

Antonio Cabral wrote:

altoroad wrote:

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.

It´s the simplistic argument.

If it´s the question how many olympic nmedals medals Emil Zatopec did win 3 gold medals in 3 distance events, 5000m, 10000m and marathon wins on the same olympics - and he never did long runs, but every train session is done by intervals.

Snell is one single case of exception and it´s not enough to make the norm.

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

Since the 1970's the training has changed for middle distance runners. But the only significant change is that we know that an athlete can train at different paces all year round.

I'm sure thought that Snell was a better middle distance runner than anyone since El Gerrouj.

Hi Antonio:

I am not defending Snell's training. I bet none of the speed guys on the list (Rudisha, Borza, Tellez, Lopez, Konchellah family) except Rodal did 2 hour long runs. Here is a link to a thread about Rodal's training that mentions 2 hour long runs in autumn:

http://www.letsrun.com/forum/flat_read.php?thread=1187288&page=0

Snell didn't just run the 800 like many of the more recent specialists. He deserves a lot of credit for that.

J.R. wrote:

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

J.O. wrote:

Try running a seven minute mile up a ten per cent hill, see how far you get?

Not very far. Even in your younger days you would be gasping by the end of that mile. Hills require more effort even at slow paces, hence more recruitment of fast oxidative fibers.

So, your point is you run slow up steep hills, therefore fast twitch are used?

In the case of going slow up hills, or slow pressing a weight, either one of them uses primarily slow twitch fibers because the movement is slow. You're confusing the effort of the fibers with speed.

Consider why Renato has his runners sprint up hills for 10 seconds or less to stimulate all the fibers. Why not just have them run up for a mile, if doing such would really stimulate all the fibers just as much - because that is NOT the case.

Antonio,

For what it is worth, I agree with you. You are commenting of middle-distance running (which I define as 800-2000m). I was commenting on distance running. once you get to the 3k distance you are very near to VO2max and I feel that the 3k and 5k events are very close in physiologic and training demands. Probably closer than any other events contiguous in distance. So I consider distance running to be 3k-marathon. You may feel differently and others may also, which I recognize as fine. Judging from how many greats have run well at 3000m-2M all the way to 12km XC and up to the marathon, I feel my definition is good enough.

So whatever people think about middle-distance training, or Peter Snell's training is fine, I know nothing about that and don't claim to. I also recognize that YOU are a famous and successful coach, and I am a nobody in the Distance running world, so I realize that even if what you are doing or thinking may seem odd to me ... it IS getting results.

We appreciate your contributions to the Forum. It is a unique window into the training, racing, and development of some of the world's greatest runners. And we should not forget, that is why MOST of us are interested and still tuning in.

Thank You.

Hre

In my opinion , juantorena was the most impressive of them all. What he

Accomplished hasn't been duplicated and perhaps no other athlete will ever do it again.

So to be able to lift really heavy weights in bench press you should have a lot of slow fibres?

My idea is not to arguing with faster guys than Peter Snell.

Peter Snell isn´t the referential on that list.

My main idea is to show that the ALL TIME WORD BEST 800m, if not all, most of them, did great 800m performnces, the world top performances eventually without the need of long run. It´s slightly different than what you say. It´s not relate with Snell performance. Do you see ? It´s relate with Lydiard training long run.

Besides the 30 world best 800m ranking were done in different periods, different seasons, different decades. During that same periods, that same years, there had been many 800m specialists training the Lydiard way, or not training Lydiard precisely, but doing the frequent long run. Simply those that did the long run, rarely or never are on the top of 800m of each period, of each season.

Do you remember John Walker ?

But we can do another exerciae that dismiss your argument that can´t be relate different performances from different periods, with different tracks, differnt professionalism etc.

I can show you the 800m of all olympics, all world champs, and the norm it´s that the winner and the medalists don´t do long runs. Are you able to admit that if a couple of competitors running on the same olympic final or on the same world champs they are on teh same season, they are on the same run, on the same period, they run on the same kind of track, they are on the same weather conditions, and they are competing one against each other. Do you ? Are you able to agree that on that case they run on the same condition ?

Let´s imagine another interesting exercise. Let´s take the top ten Track & Field annual rankings. I know it´s not totally objective, it´s based on ruin pwerfromances mixed with run results, but it´s done by vote and choice. However i bet with with that the amount of the year´s best on every season on that T&F 800m ranking that don´t do the long run is very superior to the ones that did.

Objective conclusion. The long run might have it training credit, it physilogic benefits, but it´s not VITAL and not EFFICIENT for the 800m event.

AS THE 100 MILES stuff ISN`T EITHER.

I guess i understand your point. Let´s see if i´m right

Middle-distance. 800m to 3000m, More anaerobic, and faster than vVO2max.

Distance. Longer than 3000m. More aerobic and slower than vVo2max.

But if i continue with your original sentence: "distance running is (surprise!!) the best way to train for distance running”.

Consequently we can say: "middle-distance running is (surprise!!) the best way to train for middle-distance running”

Do you agree ?

HRE wrote:

I think it would be tough to maintain that love if you're obsessed about what's going on in your liver or mitochondria.

Probably why you're a loudmouth neverwas.

So Antonio, are you suggesting that Lydiard's method that required long runs and an aerobic development phase (marathon phase, as he called it) was not necessary for Snell or any 800m runner?

What about the notion that the 200m distance being the best distance to measure pure speed on, and using that 200 distance found that Snell, in the Olympic final, (that he won gold at) was the slowest, "pure speed" runner in THOSE finals?

So when Lydiard said, it was Snell's aerobic development that gave him the oxygen carrying/utilizing ability to carry him through to the final and in the final to gold...he was incorrect and Snell could have accomplished as much training the way other 800m runners do, primarily as an interval trained runner?

If so, then what does that mean for all the other successful runners he coached and the hundreds he either indirectly coached or advised who had success or the thousands that have used his method to one degree or another to attain success across the world? And what does that say about the Kenyans who trained pretty much using that same method where he told them, "I have nothing to teach you".

Or how about other successful coaches who use that particular method, Bill Bowerman, Dellinger, Wetmore, Daws, Davies, the Japanese, the Finns who adopted his method for their golden eras? What about the resurgence of running in the US by way of increasing mileage, phasing and using methods similar or same to his?

Is that all out the window now?

Obviously it's possible to run well at 800 meters without doing long runs or 100 mile weeks. It's been done. The questions are whether or not Snell would have had the career he had without the sort of training he did or whether some of the people who ran faster than he did later on would have run even faster if they'd done Snell's sort of training. Neither question can be answered.

However, in New Zealand in the 90s there were a couple of young 800 guys who were running well, Shaun Farrell was one and I can't recall the other's name, maybe Kim knows it. They were both in the 1:45-46 range and both expressed interest in finally taking Snell's national record and both were going to attempt it by emphasizing "quality" rather than distance. Snell still has the record. What would have happened if they'd done more distance? Again, unanswerable but "quality" was not the answer there.

Ralph Doubell still has the Aussie 800 record and while he didn't do 22 mile runs or 100 mile weeks he did say in an interview in an Aussie magazine that he thinks the reason no Aussie 800 runner has broken his NR is that they aren't doing enough mileage now. Again, that's an opinion and not verifiable but because there are really no 800 specialists (Walker was never a true 800 specialist) doing big volume or long runs we're going to see fast 800 times turned in by guys doing relatively short, fast training. That doesn't prove anything about what's the best way to train.

Lydiard thought that the 800 record should have been under 1:40 years ago and would have been if 800 runners were doing sufficient endurance work.

J.R. -

Mr. Orange is correct. Force, not speed, is the primary factor that determines voluntary motor unit recruitment. The more force required the more motor units are involved, and likewise more force activates higher threshold motor units. It's the cascade (progression of force) effect, which has been known since Henneman's research report ws printed in 1957. (Hundreds, if no thousands of experiment have tested the principle in an attempt to either deny or confirm its truth, but the nearly every result demonstrates that most of the Size Principle, and thus the order of recruitment, is true.)

You can lift a pencil fast, but you aren't recruiting many fast fibers (more accurately motor units). The force required is to low for fast fibers to be recruited. Just the same is you can blink your eyes fast, but there is no fast twitch involvement because the force requirement is super low. Conversely, if you have to lift the back end of a Buick car, you will obtain maximum recruitment of fibers, including Type I (slow), Type II (a) (fast oxidative), and Type IIx (they used to be called Type IIa), which are the one that are more powerful but have low endurance potential.

I've said this before, but this is nothing new to anybody who has studied exercise physiology in the last 50 years:

"Force, not speed, determines how many motor unit fibers are activated. Even though you turn your legs over faster on the flat, speed doesn't determine activation of fibers. Force does. That's why hill sprints are great." (In Pete Magill's excellent article in Running Times: (http://runningtimes.com/Print.aspx?articleID=20476)

To clarify, if you choose to take small steps while running on a track, which is flat, and you turn over your legs fast, you aren't necessarily going to recruit many of your fast fibers (motor units). However, if you voluntarily demand maximum force from your legs, as you sprint down a track, you recruit far more fibers at the high end of the spectrum - the Type IIa and IIx (fast twitch). So, though speed is apparent to the eye and to the stopwatch, it is the requirement of high-force that causes that speed, along with minimum friction.

To grasp the force concept more, go ahead and try to sprint all-out up a very steep hill and you'll notice that your speed is quite low, compared to sprinting on a flat track; but you are recruiting as many, or possibly more, of your Type II (a and x) (fast twitch)fibers because a very high force requirement is demanded by your brain (i.e. your choice to run all-out).

----------------------------------------------------------

The "Size Principle" by Henneman:

http://jn.physiology.org/content/93/6/3024.full

and

http://books.google.com/books?id=YAAT1-hebMgC&pg=PA88&lpg=PA88&dq=muscle+fiber+recruitment+force+%2B++not+speed+%2B+determines+recruitment+%2B+Henneman&source=bl&ots=IQC5kMYHvX&sig=e_R8jFHQbj_wIwl4UhIkbGjuNxA&hl=en&ei=4a3MTavkJZK2sAOpnezoCA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=9&sqi=2&ved=0CFUQ6AEwCA#v=onepage&q&f=false

-------------------------------------------------------

A basic, but clear, explanation of the size principle in action:

http://www.t-nation.com/article/bodybuilding/maximum_recruitment_training_i&cr=

HRE wrote:

Ralph Doubell still has the Aussie 800 record and while he didn't do 22 mile runs or 100 mile weeks he did say in an interview in an Aussie magazine that he thinks the reason no Aussie 800 runner has broken his NR is that they aren't doing enough mileage now.

However, Ralph Doubell trained by running many repetitions every day. He might have run a lot of miles, but he did not run a lot of long runs.

I believe I said exactly that. He did mention doing a goodly number of ten mile runs.

Tinman wrote:

That's why hill sprints are great." -- Pete Magill

Short hill sprints are not the same thing as running slow miles up steep hills.

Read my previous messages.

J.O. wrote:

I'm sure thought that Snell was a better middle distance runner than anyone since El Gerrouj.

Nonsense. You can't compare Snell & EL G as "middle distance" runners. Snell did nothing over a Mile, and EL G did nothing under 1500m.

EL G was possibly the greatest 1500 - 5000m runner, along with Morceli & Aouita.

Snell was the classic middle distance runner over 800 - Mile. In that respect the only athlete as talented was Coe. He held all the WRs (Snell never had the 1500), and was consistently in the top 2 at both distances simultaneously over a much longer period. He also had the likes of Ovett and Cram to contend with.

Of course different periods, so hard to compare, but Coe is Snell's peer rather than EL G.