Worth od doing intervals like 1950s runner

Fred Wilt's "How They Train" has two editions and profiles something like a hundred runners. Whose training program are you talking about? Stampfl also coached many athletes who ran very well but again, which are you referring to. The program you're mentioning doesn't really look like something from the 50's. You'd likely have done 5 or 6 interval sessions in a week then, all along the lines of what you mention. Could it work? Sure, though you've got four other days to account for and I suppose I could ask what you mean by "work." If you enjoy it and don't push too hard you could be okay in terms of injuries and burnout. Or you could have troubles. I have no idea how hard eighty second 400's are for you. That matters.

The 80 second quarters are just like a tempo run, without the lactate build-up.

Those, then shorter/faster intervals, plus a long run are nothing out of the ordinary.

I think about Franz Stampfl book "On Running". I got it, and some plans for 5/10k are intertesting. I cant add link with photos, but it is simple training week for 29:00 runner on February (Season start may):

Monday: 30x400/400 pace 73 sec | for 5 k its 15/400

Tuesday: 25x200/200 pace 29 sec | for 5 k its 15/400

Wedn: 8 x mile 5:00 very long rest up to 10 min | for 5 k its 8x800

Thur: 15x400/400 pace 64 sec | for 5 k its 15/400

Fri: Weights/Callishenics no running | same

Sat: 1 1/2 hour fartlek or steady run | 10 mile steady

Sun: rest

Im 8:48 3k runner (5k run in about 15:30), actually do simple training 1 hour steady a day + some speed session here and there, my speed training its start for short distance 800-2k and strides + weights. I feel quite nice, but miss my part of training when i was younger and training on track 5 x week. Now i train for 5/10k and look for new training with interval mostly to the test.

There was a massive jump in performances in the 60s, when people stopped training this way, and adopted a Lydiard high mileage, base-building approach.

Also, the problem with running 400s for 5k/vo2 max intervals, is that it takes 15-20 seconds (longer with more rest) in each rep for your body to then begin utilising that energy system. It's therefore inefficient at achieving the aim of the workout.

And finally, 400m is far too long a recovery. Optimal rest for 5k/vo2 workouts is somewhere between 3:2 or 2:1 work/rest ratio. E.g. 3 minutes on/2 minutes off or 4 minutes on/2 minutes off.

Was their a massive jump though?

Klutts took the 5000m WR from 13:56 to 13:34 from '54 to '57.

Clarke dropped it to 13:16 by '66. So both took 20 seconds off the record.

Alan

I don't think it's bad, but it's better to do longer in base phase

That's one record and one measure. If you look at world and national lists from the earlyto mid 60's compared to the "intervals every day" era you see it taking faster times to get into those lists. Also, as times get faster comparable margins of drop become bigger, e.g., going from a 3:51 mile to 3:49 is a bigger drop than going from 4:01 to 3:59.

That said, I think if you or your coach REALLY know how to do interval training it can work well. But most people really don't know how to and end up frying themselves over time and stagnating. That was actually Ron Clarke's experience with Stampfl. He told me that at first he improved consistently under Stampfl but then got nowhere until he came back to the sport and started running with the group that met each day at Caufield Race Track and did nothing but distance runs,

'50, '60s, not 50's or 60's.

My computer disagrees with you. In your quote the only number that gets that squiggley little line underneath it that it does to tell you're wrong is "60s." It doesn't do it for "'50," "50's," or "60's." I used to think what you do but have deferred to my computer. If I find that it's wrong I'll go back to doing it like I used to.

HRE. Auto correct is the bane of modern existence. Fred Wilt us right.

Clarke would run 10 miles a day, and up, he ran as hard as he could a lot. He'd admit to the occasional 10 x 400 session. He was not an interval fiend. He was a "run your butt off regularly" fiend. Yeah, he got it down to 13:16 for 5K. He was an odd one, I don't think he ever worked much on his kick. He did it "his way", like Frank Sinatra

Clarke admitted to being shocked by Kip Keino's 3K world record of 7:39, it was a BIG jump. He also bragged about outkicking Keino in a different 3000 race. Keino famously outkicked Clarke in the 1966 Commonwealth 5000.
My comments come from reading an out-of-print classic, "Ron Clarke: Runners & Races" in the 70s. I was a teenager. Ron Clarke and Pre were my heroes. I read every training book I could get my hands on and all but memorized them. Front running was a big deal in the 70s, even though kickers nabbed a lot of the big ones.

Y’all are what makes me dislike the forums. It’s supposed to be about running, everyone can understand what’s trying to be said. There’s not a need to nitpick to make yourself feel better.

I checked and he is right and it's how I used to indicate decades before the computers, every one that I have, wanted apostrophes.

For what it's worth, I appreciate them setting me straight.

HRE, just using this thread to say thank you for your contribution in all running discussions. Rare gem these days.

Thanks so much.