How on Earth did Peter Snell run 1:44.3 on grass running 100 miles per week??

Because SNELL was the greatest.

And that was one of the greatest runs in history. 62 years as the NZ NR and still the fastest ever run on a grass track.

1.4sec ahead of all other runners ever

There are like 5 reasons:

• He was one of the greatest runners of all-time, so that helps. He was, at the time, the GOAT of the middle distances.
  
• The high mileage was periodized. So he didn't run 100 miles the week he ran the 1:44. Lydiard had them running high mileage but also doing other things as well.
• His lifestyle was very running-centric at a time when the idea of a "pro runner" was still a couple decades away. He could run a lot of doubles because he wasn't working a real full-time job for most of his years at the top.
• The grass tracks are firm/hard like the grass courts at Wimbledon, England. They are obviously very slow compared to a super track like BU or the streets of Valencia, but they aren't like running on a cross country course.
• Finally, he was a strength-based runner who thrived with lots of training. He wasn't a 400-800 guy, but rather an 800-1500 guy (as we see from his Olympic results).

You can get all this information in the amazing book called No Bugles, No Drums.

Open image

"100 miles in a week" means "occasionally", "sometimes", or "not often". This is not difficult to understand....

This is obvious...

I think anyone that wants to learn should start at the very least reading Lydiard's book "Running to The Top." You will learn about his system of periodization which still influences modern approaches to training. It's worth it to read his books yourself rather than getting an interpretation of what he wrote.

He had a scientific approach to his methods which although we have understood a lot of the science to be somewhat different, his approach worked for how we understand it now as well. It think HRE from these boards can weigh in on this more. What Happened to our good friend "Nobby" who was friendly with Lydiard? Does anyone know?

Going off of memory but I seem to remember Snell had sub 23 speed in a 200 with no real training for it. The 100 miles per week was part of the Marathon Conditioning Phase which included a very long run of around 23ish miles once a week. They transitioned to a hill phase which helped prepare the body for intervals during precomp and comp. During the competition phase they were not running high volume, but I can be corrected on this? HRE?

Also, don't forget about how cruddy the shoes were. I bring this up a lot here. I have a pair of John Landy's shoes from the mid 50's and can't figure out how he even walked in those things let alone ran. I feel like they might been better off barefoot.

Imagine if someone did that type of training, but with supertrack, super shoes and bicarb

Where did you get the idea Peter's life was very running centric and he wasn't working a real full time job? He was a surveyor. All Arthur's guys had real full time jobs throughout their careers.

Because he was a 1:42 guy whose poor training held him back😂Guys like snells 800, Ryuns mile, and Clarke a 5k/10k were insanely good performances where you can make some assumptions (1s/lap for tack, .5s for spikes,..) and they become the best ever. In the end we are talking elite genetics and good training. It isn’t shocking that the only difference between now and then is equipment

because he was a freak !!! National x country champion and according to sprint coach i spoke to from N.Z Snell could have won the National 200 M title if he chose to . What we will never know is whether or not he would have thrived even more under a different coach. Watch his explosive kick in the 1964 1500 M ... now thats a change of gear that we have rarely seen since (Steve Ovett could do It)

Malmo - somebody took the time to highlight an exceptional performance in our sport from many years ago. They expressed curiosity at how it could have happened and you chose to belittle the post. Stop being an arsehole.

Poor training my ass

Look at how it was all periodized, the science still holds up

Well.

It's probably because he was doing 100 mpw that he was the best.

Most of this would have been cruising/recovery.

Also, along with being optimally trained by Lydiard; he was fast - 22 seconds for 200m base speed.

He could have been a 1:40/1:41 runner in the modern era.

Thrived even more under a different coach?

He owes most of his success to Lydiard.

So the answer is no way.

Lydiard coaching Snell was destiny.

Oh, I get it.. And yet you took the time to find offense in me for telling him Snell didn't run 100 mile weeks he only ran 100 miles in a week only "sometimes"? Nothing about my post denigrated Snell nor that poster. You just follow me around looking to be offended, Karen. Too bad

Do they still contain the odor of his feet?

You are wrong. Your statement "This is not difficult to understand" was unnecessary and denigrating.

Which is it, his training or the equipment?

You seem to contradict your own argument within the same paragraph.

It was definitely necessary. It corrects the false premise being put forth by the OP. That's not so difficult to understand is it? Or are you going to be offended as well?