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

What changed, speaking specifically about Marathon, is the "coefficient of resistance".

Look at the PB of 10000m and Marathon of some of the best specialists in the past (probably I do soe mistake, because I write what I remember, here in China I don't have my statistical books....) :

Shorter 27'45"9 (2'46"6/km) 2:10:30 (3'08"6)

ratio : 88%

Zatopek 28'54" (2'53"4) 2:23:03 (3'23"4)

ratio : 85%

Rodgers 28'04" (2'48") 2:09:27 (3'04")

ratio : 91%

Seko 27'42" (2'45"7) 2:08:27 (3'02"6)

ratio : 91%

Lismont 27'56" (2'47"6) 2:11:13 (3'06"5)

ratio : 89,8%

G. Mutai 27'e (2'42") 2:03:02 (2'55")

ratio : 92,5%

W. Kipsang 27'30" (2'45") 2:03:23 (2'55"5)

ratio : 94%

Makau 27'30"e (2'45") 2:03:38 (2'56")

ratio : 93,75%

E. Mutai 27'50" (2'47") 2:03:52 (2'56"5)

ratio : 94,6%

Kebede 27'50" (2'47") 2:04:38 (2'57")

ratio : 94,3%

This clearly shows there was something new in training, and this is the VOLUME OF INTENSITY.

Of course, no new ingredients, but different way to use.

About new ingredients, somebody of the Lydiardists can explain me which new ingredients Arthur put in his training ?

Long run already existed from the time of Alfred Shrubb.

Interval training already existed from Gerschler and Reindell.

Fartlek already existed from the time of Paavo Nurmi, and after Gunder Haegg.

Running uphill already existed from the time of Jean Bouin.

But you speak of him as an "innovator" (and in my opinion you have reason). Why ? Somebody can explain me where his innovation was, if not putting together in different way the ingredients already known?

For example, replacing a normal long run at fast pace with 32 km run with fractions of 7 + 6 + 5 4 + 3 + 2 km, starting from Marathon pace (7 km) for increasing the pace in every fraction of 1"/2", alternated with 1 km NOT JOGGING, but run at 85% of Marathon pace (for example, for an athlete running full Marathon at 3' per km, around 3'25"), is not some "innovation" ? Using 20-25 km running uphill, with a difference in altitude of 2000m from start to finish, is not some "innovation" ? Using 1 hr 30'of fartlek with 10 times 2' fast recovery 1' at 85% of speed + 20 times 1' fast recovery 1' at 85% of speed + 20 times 30" very fast recovering 30" very easy is not some "innovation" ? Using special blocks bringing the athlete to run 50-60 km in the same day, including 45-50 km in the area of specific speed for Marathon, is not some "innovation" ? Using long period of recovery, with higher modulation between intensity and recovery in order to allow the supercompensation to work, is not some "innovation" ?

And now all these element are part of the "normal" training of the best African runners, that are very much more advanced under methodological point of view than European or American, when we speak about Marathon.

How I already said, nothing really new in short distances training, but many things new about long distances.

But, of course, running is Always running, nothing new in putting one foot ahead the other foot.

It seems to me that the argument hangs on whether or a change in degree of training is enough to claim that the difference in degree is great enough to be a difference in kind. That's to say, has enough new training methods been added since 1980 to say that some new type of training has occurred?

That's not at all clear.

Perhaps, improvements are more the result of an increasing number of runners attacking the various distances? There might be a larger population of people trying to run faster, which leads to a higher percentage of very talented runners competing.

Consider this, in 1981, the Ironman record was was 9:38:xx now it's 8:03:xx. That's a 16% improvement in 30 years. Was that due to training techniques or more about interest in the Ironman?

I always have said that Lydiard didn't invent anything in terms of training. He took things that people were already doing and put them together into a particular system. Really, someone may call that innovation, someone else may not.

I've said this before, but I think the real difference with what Africans are doing is that they're perhaps physically superior and able to do things that others couldn't.

HRE wrote:

Your brain seems to have a lot in common with those early bipeds so you'd know better than me.

Ha!

Hodge 28:24 (2:50) 2:10:59 (3:06)

ratio : 91.4%

Beardsley 29:12 (2:55) 2:08:53 (3:05)

ratio : 95.6%

Here are the three big guys of the mid 80s:

Lopes 27:17 (2:43) 2:07:12 (3:00)

ratio : 90.6%

Jones 27:39 (2:45) 2:07:13 (3:00)

ratio : 0.91.7%

De Castella 28:01 (2:48) 2:07:51 (3:01)

ratio : 92.8%

I'd be interested in your thoughts on Beardsley and his training, though the link provides only a brief glimpse.

HRE wrote:

Your brain seems to have a lot in common with those early bipeds so you'd know better than me.

Early bipeds were more advanced than the Lydiard disciples.

Thanks for that mo'pak. Prokop is the writer for this one as well, I posted on the Drayton thread in case you missed it:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BzkaYrZ2pCQ5OUZrNjduWTZuUUk/edit?usp=sharing

From that point of view, Lydiard is the same. He took the same ingredients, but mixed them up differently.The surpise for Lydiard was that aerobic fitness led to better track times too (maybe he's not the first), and the value added was the structuring of training to peak when you needed it.

Renato Canova wrote:

But you speak of him as an "innovator" (and in my opinion you have reason). Why ? Somebody can explain me where his innovation was, if not putting together in different way the ingredients already known?

Wow look at all these posts by people who aren't Renato Canova! Good thing I don't have to bother reading those.

No need for a coach. All the required information is known and available for cheap. Now, if you want to pay me $150/month to read you information off a website or out of a $20 book, I'd be happy to do so.

rekrunner wrote:

From that point of view, Lydiard is the same. He took the same ingredients, but mixed them up differently.

The surpise for Lydiard was that aerobic fitness led to better track times too (maybe he's not the first), and the value added was the structuring of training to peak when you needed it.

Renato Canova wrote:

But you speak of him as an "innovator" (and in my opinion you have reason). Why ? Somebody can explain me where his innovation was, if not putting together in different way the ingredients already known?

But how Lydiard mixed those ingredients was shown to be wrong in this classic paper that Yuri Verkhoshansky wrote in 1997 and was published in "New Studies in Athletics" (IAAF) in 1999:

Why? Because we knew more in 1997 than we knew in 1960 (or 1980). And Lydiard didn't invent this either--he got his periodization from the Soviets...and A Soviet/Russian demonstrated that it was wrong.

Similiar thing about Cerutty and heavy weights. Cerutty just did it, he didn't understand why, just like Lydiard didn't understand that people like Snell ran fast because they did short sprints fast, not because they did long runs slow. These days, we understand that lifting heavy weights improves running economy because it causes a more explosive footstrike. But we ALSO know from research by Carmelo Bosco that lifting heavy weights for more than 6-8 weeks causes metabolic changes that reduces the stretch shortening cycle, and you don't want to do that if you're a runner, jumper, or sprinter. Another thing that we know AFTER 1980.

HRE wrote:

I always have said that Lydiard didn't invent anything in terms of training. He took things that people were already doing and put them together into a particular system. Really, someone may call that innovation, someone else may not.

I've said this before, but I think the real difference with what Africans are doing is that they're perhaps physically superior and able to do things that others couldn't.

The Somax running videos clearly show why the Africans are better. Their stride angle, overstride angle, toe lift angle, etc. are just FAR better than non-Africans and their "bounce" is far lower. In other words the Africans run FORWARD and others run UP and DOWN! The reason is their flexibility and strength is so much better so they can run that way. I have tried the "African method" and it is HARD.

coach d wrote:

lifting heavy weights improves running economy because it causes a more explosive footstrike

Running economy is a result of reduced vertical oscillation and braking. Thus a more explosive footstrike would result reduce the running economy. This is why sprinters have a very poor running economy.

lifting heavy weights for more than 6-8 weeks causes metabolic changes that reduces the stretch shortening cycle, and you don't want to do that if you're a runner

You're always promoting weight lifting for distance runners, and now you admit that doing more than a minimal amount is not good.

Renato

You did a beautiful and correct resume of the training methodology in my opinion, it´s a resume, and one post or two can´t say everything.

But let me permit 2 facts that i think that is important.

One is that miss the ex-URSS period, Vladimir Kuts and Bolotnikov, they get down the 10000m WR from 28:42 Ilharos to 28.12, and Kuts was olympic winner of both 5000m and 10000m in the same olympics, and what´s relevant is that the training of bot was fast-short Freiburg intervals like 20-30X200m very fast or 20X400m very fast and recovery waits to 120 heart rate beats to the next one interval.

Another aspect that i want to share with you and others is that what you say that the Hungarian coach MIchael Igloi in afew years did smash all Zatopec previous records and add to that 1500m records and olympic wins. In my opinion Igloy starts to make huge performance progress to their runners only after to understand and copy (with some transformation) both the Zatopec training and the Freiburg Gersheler-Reindel interval training.

With so he did smash all the late world top performances from 1500m up.

This proves THAT a different training might makes the difference. Igloi with this new method influenced by the lesson of Zatopec-Gersheler did learn quickly better way to distance training.

But this also proves another point that misses to some. This proves that Emil Zatopec the multiple olympic winner and world record breaker didn´t a special talent that some might imagine. His wins were result of from his "new" kind of training at that period from late 40s to early-mid 50s.

The prove that Zatopec got no special talent is proved by Igloy pupils that since they start to train quite similar that Zatopec they did smash all Zatopec performances in a few seasons.

Hodgie-san

I did study in detail Abebe Bilkila training. I read the book of Tony Net that got many pages of the training detail from Swedish Bikila´s coach.

About Mutai i don´t got the same data detail, and to judge by your post or the link is not enough for me. However this is not an excuse. Please read again what i said about Bikila

\"...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 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...\"

You know who was Abebe Bikila. The world´s best marathon of his period. However i´m not betrayed by Bikila´s achievements. Then i said and i confirm that despite that he was the best in my opinion and from the actual training perspective and understand his training is considered the old school.

Therefore, if it´s the case i can say the same from everyone that i said about Bikila and also from Mutai. It´s not because someone is one of the world top best that that i might consider modern training or better training.

Toni Nett Der Lauf , 1972 edition does a few pages with Abebe Bikila training detail from 1960 up go 1968 when Bilka did gave up in marathon Mexico olympics and the kind of training it´s written there got nothing to do with your African Running Revolution Runner´s World editon source that i also did read.

Hodgie-san wrote

Something more about Mutai.

If we just consider that rich better training and "modern" is the training that the faster one of each period does, then we will follow what HRE said, that is that in 1972 period every marathon runner of world class will follow Frank Shorter training. However as HRE sates, that´s not the solution.

Something similar with Mutai or every other one. That is not the best or modern training methodology necessarily.

Renato once said something about discussing training theory with posters here being like discussing nuclear physics with elementary school children, and this is another example of that.

Here is part of one of the reviews of methods to improve running economy:

There is a growing number of papers showing a connection between heavy weight training and/or plyometrics and running economy. This is one of them:

Anyone who knows anything about strength training for athletes knows about so-called "western periodization":

hypertrophy >> max strength >> power

Unlike Cerutty, you do NOT stay in a max strength phase for more than 4-6 weeks at a time. And everything I've mentioned above is knowledge that has come after 1980.

You's just another typical moron who should not be allowed to post here.

It's like trying to teach flying to a pig.

All it does is grunt and shove it's nose around in the muck.