I read in this forum that there might be differences in training views between North America and Europe.
What do you think they are?
I read in this forum that there might be differences in training views between North America and Europe.
What do you think they are?
I start by a more specific French approach.
I think that we were greatly influenced by Veronique Billat and therefore our number one focus is the vV02max.
processmyrun wrote:
I read in this forum that there might be differences in training views between North America and Europe.
What do you think they are?
usa does more mileage earlier on compared to uk, who tend to focus more on speed. An intermediate approach is probably best. Not sure about rest of europe
Basically it's a matter of focus. In general I think:
USA: quantity comes first, i.e. mileage, then you progress to higher quality as you get more fit.
Europe: quality (in moderation: 2-3 times per week) comes first, i.e. intervals, and if you stagnate, you increase mileage.
Both have their way of reasoning and I don't think there's much of a difference in end results.
If you look at some of the greatest runners in history: Frank Shorter, Zatopek, Ron Clarke, Kipchoge, De Castella, Carlos Lopes, Bekele, ghebresselasie, ...
they all combine high mileage and intervals; it's not either this or that, it's both.
In France coaches don't focus on mileage, more on intensity (lots of intervals on the track, often two times a week)
People aren't running "real" longruns unless they prepare for a marathon
French (and European in general) system is disastrous for high mileage reactive guys, but it works well for guys who are very gifted in speed.
We also run way less mileage, and it's a bit due to the units we use ; 100km a week seems a huge amount for us, while 60 miles a week doesn't seem to be that much.
More important than methods is commitment. In distance running it seems Europe has fallen off the planet, while American runners are the only ones keeping East Africa from total domination. Relative to population, New Zealand and Scotland continue to strive for excellence as well. Russia's been sent packing for doping and the rest of Europe seems to have given up. What happened to them over the last 20 years?
It seems that Europeans have embraced triathlon and ultras instead of track. More sponsorship money, less Africans.
Other posters can elaborate better on this but I will throw out the idea of the 5 min mile vs 3 min km marathon training thing.
Absolutely ! And it's not going in the right way.
In France, at least 50% of the best young XC runners are also doing triathlon. Even if they're better at running than triathlon, they still do triathlon because they think that's their only chance to become a world champion or something. That's sad but that's because they don't see any French or European world champion in running, and then they see Vincent luis, Cassandre Beaugrand etc... and even the French mixed relay team winning everything in triathlon, so they think they may have a shot at reaching world elite in triathlon.
Just to give you an exemple : last year at the French XC u16 championships, the 3 top females were triathletes and the men winner was a race walker.
A lot of them chose everything instead of distance for a career because they think they can't beat the Africans.
French training is based off science and is very interval heavy. American training is less reliant on science (not that this is bad at all!), more "art" and is more focused on mileage.
First difference is science:
The French really value science, almost to an extreme, and therefore will not really adapt their training philosophies in the way (in my opinion, superior) American coaches will. The French follow Billat's VMA research from 1994 to a letter, even if it's not 100% accurate and applicable to all runners. American coaches base themselves on scientific principles but adapt their programs to different athlete profiles and seem to use a more comprehensive training plan. I'll attach an an example of a typical french plan at the end for reference.
The second difference is intervals/mileage
French really like doing "séances des fractionnés" which are interval sessions, usually 3-4 a week + strides, even for a 5k runner. These sessions are usually not as hard as the sessions american runners do. Volume is also pretty low, long runs aren't as popular. I was doing 4 interval sessions a week with about 50-60 km/week with a french coach. For comparison, when I started doing "American" style training, I was hitting 100km + with 2 harder workouts + a long run. The intervals are also usually repeats of pretty short distances, like 200-600m. Tempo sessions are present but not that common.
Those are the 2 principal differences that I've noticed after training under both systems.
Examples of french plans
1500
5k
My opinion is that the french system is good for short term gains over 800 and possibly 1500, but for good long term aerobic development and good performances over 5k+ you need the mileage and a more individualised plan.
Francais j'imagine?
Indeed I was following such a French plan for 8 weeks and regressed at all levels.
The coach said I was the only one to regress, out of 50 feedbacks, so maybe did I have the virus or something.
For more details of the plan and the results:
https://processmyrun.com/blog/vma
Seems I will now adopt more of an American way of things
Jeffro wrote:
"More important than methods is commitment. In distance running it seems Europe has fallen off the planet, while American runners are the only ones keeping East Africa from total domination. Relative to population, New Zealand and Scotland continue to strive for excellence as well. Russia's been sent packing for doping and the rest of Europe seems to have given up. What happened to them over the last 20 years?"
---------------------------------------
You and others on this thread seem to forget the 3 Norwegian brothers!
They run around 110 miles per week in the base training period and also "keep the East Africans from total domination". And I think better than most Americans!?
processmyrun wrote:
Francais j'imagine?
Indeed I was following such a French plan for 8 weeks and regressed at all levels.
The coach said I was the only one to regress, out of 50 feedbacks, so maybe did I have the virus or something.
For more details of the plan and the results:
https://processmyrun.com/blog/vmaSeems I will now adopt more of an American way of things
Québécois mais mon entraineur est français et ma planif était fortement influencée par la méthodologie française - je te conseille de suivre un plan de Jack Daniels, il décrit vraiment bien les fondements de l'entrainement "américain" dans son livre "Daniels Running formula" , mais il y plusieurs pages sur ce site qui décrivent assez bien sa philosophie
I train with a French group and none of us do a lot volume, topping out around 70-90 km/week in winter. My coach likes to vary the lengths of the intervals, and we even do longer intervals at times (my coach likes pyramids like 10’ 8’ 6’ 4’ 2’), but the intensity is usually high. I think my teammates and I would do better running more volume and threshold-type workouts while saving the really intense sessions for track racing season. I almost wish I could change training groups, but my coach is super passionate about mid-d and does a lot for stuff for us.
So Europe is not one nation, and Norway certainly do not follow France, quite the opposite focusing on long term development, building from year to year, pushing the intensity when possible but within mmol limits.
By far Norway is the best sporting nation in the world, so it beats me that anyone go Bilat all the way without considering long term development.
SprintTriathlon wrote:
So Europe is not one nation, and Norway certainly do not follow France, quite the opposite focusing on long term development, building from year to year, pushing the intensity when possible but within mmol limits.
By far Norway is the best sporting nation in the world, so it beats me that anyone go Bilat all the way without considering long term development.
Dude, I'm Norwegian too but to say that we are the best sporting nation is pretty arrogant. The Ingebrigtsens have done well and have devised a system that works well for most, but that doesn't mean it's the best in the world.
View the per capita cup. Actually in 2018 Norway was rated as the best nation no matter the capita, how crazy is that?
I looked at the numbers, so at the end of 2018 Norway was not among top ten, but at one point in 2018 they were regarded as the best nation in the world, no matter what. Naturally this what after the winter olympics, but not withstanding the amazing achievement taking into consideration that 19 states in the US have a larger population than Norway.