Why isn't Igloi training used more often today?

Nevermind, I was able to read the article.

SoCal Cush,

Talk to Joe, but I may have been early on in his use of Fresh as tempo runs. It worked very well in my opinion, at least in my fitness. Igloi on the other hand, fresh was used early season, and was more of what Jack Daniels would call "cruise intervals." In my training with Igloi Fresh was used in large volume sets of 200s, 400s and 600s. I think you maybe able to see that in the training schedules that are at the back of the article. They are not in sequence, but there is an early season, mid-season and late-season sample weeks. I would say 60-70% effort was about right for both Igloi and Joe.

Reid Harter

SoCal Cush,

Also, I delivered a speech on this topic at the NCAA Championsips to a coaches' clinic at the same period of the article. It was at Austin, Texas in the 1980s. If you recall there was a real backlash against training intensity and mileage at that time. I found myself defending Coach Igloi.

Reid Harter

Don´t misunderstand kindness or politeness that´s my temper with honest and serious people in a social or institutional context, with what´s different, my way of expression in the training discuss and the debate of coach ideas, with a third different my kind of expression it´s the defense of my honor and my truth against people like you that after some moment I consider dishonest.

Early on i did consider you as someone I wanted to respect despite I did disagree with you about your training ideas. Actually that for what you wrote and what they did, I don´t respect you no more because you aren´t serious or trustful, you did betray my confidence, and I classify you as nothing but one intellectual dishonest person.

I start to be kind for you. You ask me one interview with the condition that I don´t talk about Lydiard. Your reason to miss any mention to Lydiard, the one you wrote in your email interview invitation is that Lydiard training is publicly known. I did accept that condition. Then, you built the questions, you sent me the questions by email and I sent you the answers back by email as well.

Let´s see your email.

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

Follow on Twitter

The interview was done. When it´s edit, I opened the interview but I was very surprised,. You add to my interview answer your introductions and comments on my interview related to Lydiard, naming Lydiard and people from the Lydiardism, with considerations I don´t subscribe at all. That were out of the questions of the interview, and I consider one manipulation my answers.

From that moment on I don´t respect you no more, because someone that ask me to not mention Lydiard because it´s public and says he just want to know about me and my training, my trustful estimation was that same person don´t include nothing at all about Lydiard on the interview. But you don´t, you did. That starts in the introduction. Let´s see the introduction of the interview and what you wrote there.

(…)The Igloi system of training is misunderstood because it was portrayed as the complete opposite of the Lydiard approach. Lydiard was simplified to “all aerobic long running”, while Igloi was simplified as the “all interval approach”.

Because Lydiard's approach gained so much popularity and people started to make the connection that intervals equal anaerobic conditioning, the Igloi method got seen as a high-intensity "anaerobic" training system.

Magness writes, “The key to the Igloi method of training is not in looking at intervals vs. distance, it's looking at what the actual workouts accomplished”. Antonio Cabral, as you will see during this interview, prescribes interval training, with an eye for what the intervals accomplish, just as Igloi had done.

Magness adds, “Igloi manipulated the intervals to create both aerobic and anaerobic adaptations. The basis of the system is running by feel and progression”.

The latter comment is a very Lydiard-like approach, ala, “knowing thyself” or as 4-time Olympian Lorraine Moller recently wrote in an issue of Running Times Magazine, “Becoming a Body Whisperer”. As Moller wrote, "The Principle of feeling-based running, one of the five principles that define Lydiard training..." (…)

In 5 paragraphs, 4 times Lydiard mentions ! From you, that didn’t want that I mention Lydiard and didn´t want to mentions Lydiard on the interview and said that´s because Lydiard is public knowledge, then you included Lydiard everywhere on the interview ? !

From that moment and I understood why you only did agree to interview me without mention Lydiard. Because you are a Lydiard obsessive and you had some interest some my post, and you wanted to know something more but also you wanted to catch my disagreement with Lydiard that could be showed in the interview, and also you decided to link my interview with Lydiard, as after all and by your conclusion my training is similar to Lydiard one. But more. Actually, with you insistence that my training is similar to Lydiard, I understood that you built the interview questions tricky, the way my answer could be interpreted as i´m a Lydiard one. This is simply intellectual dishonesty. This is why I don´t respect in what you stupidly you named me as bi-polar.

Then, everytime I stand up against my defense that i´m not a Lydiard or my Lydiard opinion, you feel upset and you say lies on Letsrun.com. Like the one lie you wrote I just post anti-Lydiard. It´s just not true. Just search António Cabral on the Letsrun.com and you will find that I post about many other subjects out of the Lydiard one. It´s you that almost post pro-Lydiard not me.

Finally, do me a favor if you please, since you pass so many time remembering my interview, if you have any kind of authority, please delete my interview from the internet. I really don´t care. Te people that knows me and my training they know quite well that my training have nothing to do with Lydiard. It hppens the opposite, is that the Lydiard training, when that goes out of traditional Lydiard, the Lydiard training moves to be similar to my one training.

ps- i´ve nothing to do with linkedin. I don´t know why that rerequest. I don´t imagine. So, excuse that mistake that i´m nonot the responsable.

Now I agree with this your post. From times to times, I agree with your posts. It´s the case of this one. What you say makes sense, that we can´t judge one training method simply by the results and the performances.

I always think of you as a honest, sincere person, that perhaps, we have one each other kind of eternal disagreement about what is efficient or doesn´t in the distance training methods.

But to be sincere with you, by the fact that you refer Lydiard always (or at least most of the occasions) with pro-Lydiard vehemence, most of the times when the thread hadn´t posts with the Lydiard issue, that your posts makes me think that you prefer Lydiard superior to every other training method. Don´t you ?

However, you don´t ignore the argument of some folks (I don´t want to name them to not disturb them) that the ultimate argument pro-Lydiard is the fact that Lydiard training is “the maker of champions”, the world best training”, the “perfect training”, and for them this is enough as argument to justify the Lydiard supremacy. You don´t ignore that. Without question the value of Lydiard training, yes it does value, but still it exists few other methods that did the same, near the same or better results at world category that Lydiard did.

First of all, thank you. I too, think of you as a good person despite the difficulties that we have discussing this sort of thing.

Second, let's not do too much of the "Lydiard" stuff here because it really does not fit with the thread but yes, because I had my best results with it and enjoyed it much more than anything else that I did I have a preference for a Lydiard approach. But I never did the sort of schedules that are in his books, not even when I was getting advice directly from him.

I responded best to steady runs and "racing" myself fit. I think of myself as a "Ron Clarke" guy as much as I do a "Lydiard" guy. Yes, I agree that all sorts of other approaches have gotten good results. When you start talking about whether one thing, whatever it is, is better than another thing you're almost always into a subjective area and what's "better" really depends on your criteria and the person making the judgment. Is a Mercedes a better car than a Hyundai? If your criteria is ride, engineering, performance, etc., sure. If your criteria is getting from here to there with the least cost, maybe not. For me, a Lydiard approach was best but every athlete needs to work out for himself what's best.

I studied as many different training programs I could find. Igloi information was hard to come by. There was a transition of training from basic interval training to more distance "off the track" training, that I think Lydiard and Bowerman were instrumental in bringing about.

In looking back at what distance runners were doing on the track at that time, none that I encountered did the workload that the Igloi system describes. When Smith described his 72 x 200 workout it blew my mind. I had read Fox and Mathews, understood the exercise physiology behind their thinking, but thought it was quite difficult to expect my athletes to do 30 x 200 with a 100 jog (which I think was one of their recommendations). And then to hear about doing 72 x 220....my god. Of course, that is not a tremendous amount of mileage, but back then, that was an eye opener.

Now I came from a background of shorter running distances, but enjoyed coaching and training the longer distances. I once did 20x200 and never did it again as it fried my brain, ha, ha. I had my athletes do 20 x 400 once and again, never did it again. I am sure my lack of understanding of the training philosophy had a lot to do with my backing away and moving over to the Oregon training approach. Plus I think I came to the conclusion that you had to be a pretty mature runner to handle such a huge quantity of repetitions (at least from someone coming from the shorter distance venue). It just seemed to make more sense to go out and run some miles over varied terrain than to spend over an hour running around an oval.

The other thing I would have difficulty with is not knowing what times I were running for the repeats. That would drive me crazy. I am sure it is my own personalty, but the most fun I had in training when doing a large number of repeats, was trying to see how close I could get to hitting the same time for each of the runs.

So I would conclude that the Igloi methods are really hands on with lots of discipline and faith in the coach. Otherwise, I would think boredom would creep into the workout and nothing constructive would be accomplished.

HRE wrote:

I too, think of you as a good person

You don't know him personally, HRE...

Man! What a thread this had grown to be!! All about opinions on which way is best to train.

Like someone posted on a thread I started, 'Just run baby.'

Meaning, run hard some days, long other days, slow & easy other days. Basically do the training which you feel is relevant to whatever your goal is.

Or, run the way you feel you want to run. Your body is good in giving you hints about what's best.

Anyway, keep up the great discussions.

the highest plane of athletics is inhabited by artists. very few athletes, and even fewer coaches are programmed for that naturally. to try to recreate it or fully understand it is futile. it's there to admire and maybe give some inspiration.

as those who've trained with him said, no two programs were the same. one of the major reasons he didn't tell them the training beforehand is that he himself did not know exactly. it was a dance between master and student. his nervous system was very sensitive and because of this he could see and hear the subtle rhythms during training as they played out.

jeet kun do wrote:

the highest plane of athletics is inhabited by artists. very few athletes, and even fewer coaches are programmed for that naturally. to try to recreate it or fully understand it is futile. it's there to admire and maybe give some inspiration.

as those who've trained with him said, no two programs were the same. one of the major reasons he didn't tell them the training beforehand is that he himself did not know exactly. it was a dance between master and student. his nervous system was very sensitive and because of this he could see and hear the subtle rhythms during training as they played out.

Very thought provoking and I agree. I have always thought of running more of an artistic endeavor than an analytical study or activity, where creativity on the spot is an important ingredient. So, I think my drifting towards the Oregon training was probably best, as I do not consider myself an artist of the highest plane and the Oregon method, at least for me, was more patterned and functional for my needs and my coaching ability level.

As to inspiration, anyone who can do 72 x 200 or 50 x 400 or whatever huge multiples certainly has my admiration. I loved running on the track and still use quite a bit of track work in my coaching sessions, but I pass on that quantity of reps. I could never nor would I ever want to convince my athletes to do such high quantity of reps, even if the mileage totals fall short of a distance run (which they do in many instances).

Now, that would address one of the possible reasons why Igloi's system is not that popular and used much anymore.

Coach Igloi often said "Must have big goals". In those days times were not as important as they seem to be today. We raced to win races or to place as highly as possible.

Also, training was not boring. Coach Igloi used two leg styles, sets and many tempos. The most intervals I did was 60 and it was done in 4 sets with 2 laps jog between each set.

I also trained under Coach Joe Douglas for ten months in 1975 as I prepared to turn 40 but I only did workouts 2 to 4 times a week with no morning running. By then, work came first. It prepared me for racing and I think I was ready to run a marathon in the mid 2:30s before I got the flu on a business trip.

Wrongo, bucko.

I have the original interview in its raw form. I took the editorial right to suggest in the intro that you do, whether you like it or not, subscribe to training that incorporates Lydiard. It is an observation.

Secondly, if you don't respect me any more, as you say, then why friend me up on other social media?

As kind as you can be at times (and you are getting along with HRE now) you have been tortuous to many others within Lydiard-specific threads here at Let's Run. The entire history is here.

Stick to being the nice and and polite Antonio and not the thread-stealing anti-Lydiard one.

Meanwhile, like HRE has said, stick to Igloi in this thread, as Lydiard does not fit here.

I have learned more about Igloi here in this thread than I have to date....

Geez, maybe you two guys ought to go over in some corner and argue among yourselves. It's been a while since there has been a really nice discussion on here and you two seem to want to put a damper on it. Maybe you can instant message of Facebook....:-)

Athletics Illustrated wrote:

I have the original interview in its raw form. I took the editorial right to suggest in the intro that you do, whether you like it or not, subscribe to training that incorporates Lydiard. It is an observation.

You've simply proven yourself to be a jackass, and with no credibility.

Don´t come with excuses. Don´t you understand that what you did is out of journalist ethics ? What you did is to ask that i didn´t talk about Lydiard, i did accept and the only fair behaviour it´s that you miss thew Lydiard issue in that interview. But you don´t you are a Lydiard obsessive. In my country what you did with me i will notice to the syndicate of journalism and you will be shoot out of being a journalist, they will took you your journalist permit. What is a surprise it´s that with your miss of journalism ethics and with your intelectual dishonesty with dirty interviews and you can be the leader of sport magazines.

Again your usual tricky way to move the conversation to your interest.

Does my poor english is not enough ? I don´t know what you talk about be your friend on social media and if any invitation of any kind arrives to you from me, put that on the recycle bin. Just don´t answer, i´m very selective with the friends, the good friends, i had a great friendship with John Hadd that tough about you the same that i do - you are not a person of confidence - you can betray everyone else.

I will be kind with you the day you will ask me your excuses for your dishonesty, and i repeat, to let me trust that you wanted know about me out of my Lydiard comments, and meanwhile you included your own comments on my answers on that interview full of your silly Lydiard comments.

You, that you wrote about me and my posts the rubbish adjectives, like "you are a jerk person", you ask for clemency and the pipe peace ? Don´t count on it. Yes i prefer HRE thousand of times. We disagree, but he didn´t show to be dishonest. i prefer thousand times Nobby, i don´t agree with most that he thinks about Lydiard, but until now he is a man of honour like a trustful Japanese with a code of honour and temper, what he says comes from his heart, and ca be right or wrong to my opinion right or wrong, but you...you are just a poor person with no value. just a Lydiard fanatic and an ignorant about training. I can´t accept that someone that did interview me, that read my posts about Lydiard still thinks that my training is similar to Lydiard. Only with bad intentions, intellect dishonesty or Lydiard fanatism.

On this thread, why early did move the subject from Igloi to Lydiard ? I didn´t. So, your ask will be better directed to the one(s) who did it.

What a joke, are you mad ? You, on this thread about Igloi, you did 2 main issues, one is to try to implicate me of being bi-polar, personal offence to my person and the second one, is your silly Lydiard A-B-C alphabet with things that everybody knows because Lydiard training is written everywhere. You told me that i ther´s no intrest that i comment on Lydiard training because it´s public on Letsrun.com, but actually on a Igloi thread you do write about Lydiard training !!!!! Now, you come with a different ask: post about Igloi as HRE suggests. Why you didn´t that earlier on ? Why HRE when someone introduced the Lydiard subject on this same thread he posted about Lydiard instead of just confine him to the Igloi subject ?

You need to stop that ask me to agree with you, to be polite, or accept your advice to what subject i post. As long as i´m free to post, i post about what i want, independently what you like or dislike you. You are not one authority, you aren´t my father, and i´m older than you, i have sons near your age.

Don´t play on me.

It really doesn´t matter me at all what you learned or you don´t about Igloi. I know what you learned about Igloi. You learned that Lydiard is superior than Igloi. All your training investigation goes to the same conclusion, that Lydiard is the world´s best training.

I know your problem, Your problem is that the Lydiard revisionists, people that interprets Lydiard with a modern training methodology, they are closer and closer to my training ideas, it´s not me that i´m similar to Lydiard, it´s the Lydiard non-traditionalists that approach to my training.

Your problem is that you read from the worlds very best coaches of today that they aren´t Lydiard. Renato Canova, so famous on this board once again repeated that his training isn´t Lydiard. Only if you take Renato drunk or sick of dementia you can hear from him that he is a Lydiard. Alberto Salazar, the present coach of the best US runner and the world´s best distance runner Mo Farah Alberto did write that his training isn´t Lydiard as well. Nick Simmons also said the same. Many others refused to accept that they are Lydiard. Then you come over me, like i was the devil, the joker, the weakest part. But you are wrong, you miss it.

Impartial Observer wrote:

Athletics Illustrated wrote:

I have the original interview in its raw form. I took the editorial right to suggest in the intro that you do, whether you like it or not, subscribe to training that incorporates Lydiard. It is an observation.

You've simply proven yourself to be a jackass, and with no credibility.

As i ever suggest something, somehow, that you might conclude your observation that my training incorporates Lydiard. Incorporates....Similar, it doesn´t matter to you, what was your real goal is to let the ignorant and the fanatic trust that i´m a Lydiard. Actually with reveal your email ask and what you did later on, everyone can understand the kind of individual you are. I agree with the Impartial Observer, you are a journalist with no credibility.

Cowboybob,

I can see how an interval session not effectively monitored would not hit the mark or being boring. I always felt challenged but not overwhelmed in my training years with Coach Igloi and Coach Douglas. I used ideas from both men in my own career as a coach, and tried to use it judiciously.

Reid Harter

So to not completely derail this thread from its original purpose about Igloi, which I do find interesting....I will make this final post in this particular thread about what you and I are arguing about.

When I wrote, "editorial right", granted, I should have used "privilege" or "observation" to be fair.

Antonio,

Calling out anyone's credibility is rich for you considering your long-standing aggressive behavior throughout this website against anyone at anytime who asked about or talked about Lydiard training. Within many threads you set about to purposely ruin the discussion by very arrogantly and very aggressively accusing people of being disingenuous, manipulative, liars and religious-like in their appreciation of Lydiard (as if he was a God or something) et al.

You were asked many times to stop posting in threads because you were disrupting good conversation, time and again. For anyone interested in the incredible rampages you went on about how Lydiard is inferior and those who followed his training were wrong/liars/failures, just search the massive "Lydiard versus Daniels" thread, for one of many, many examples.

There are quite a few people who were associated with Lydiard that posted regularly about their experiences with him, VERY VALUABLE information was shared, some of these people get paid to speak about him, here they were genuinely helping for no charge, right here! They have all disappeared except for HRE.

How do you feel about that? Mission accomplished?

You were relentless!

Now I held my promise in the interview and did not discuss Lydiard with you. However, much to my shock and amazement you indicated some training practices that resembles Lyrdiard - something that you have vociferously railed against and denied until then.

I was very fair with you during the interview and you were very cordial, I even commented how nice it was, in the past; a pleasant surprise.

Now simply because I observed these similarities between your training practices and Lydiard's principles, doesn't jeopardize my credibility one iota. In fact it reinforces it - providing I understand Lydiard training, which by the way, I do.

Now in another new thread, if you like, I will be happy to point out, where I see the similarities between what you advocate as a coach that resembles Lydiard (from the interview) and I will explain why I see it.

If you want to have an honest and open conversation without reverting to religious-like and dishonest accusations of my observations (or Lydiard training), I will be all for it. - hopefully we will see you kindly post in that thread without the usual nonsense.