Coe = low mileage, Lindgren = WOW.....same results, how??

Martin,

First let me begin by saying that I appreciate the fact that, while you and I differ on many things, we can discuss them w/o this name-calling bullshit. It's a rarity on this board.

--

I was on the phone with Snell a few months back and we were discussing this topic (mileage, middle distance training) and I mentioned Coe's name as the patron saint for the low volume mid-distance runner, and at that point Snell told me that he had spoken with Seb on the matter and had, "have concluded that [the low volume image of Coe] it's bullshit." I appreciated his tact. He added that he believed that the low-mileage image of Coe was, "grossly taken out of context." Perhaps it all depends on how you ask the questions. I should be talking with Snell again soon (if I can get a hold of him) so I can certainly bring this up again for further clarification.

As for Irv, at a clinic he had this past summer in southern CA., he said at one function he found himself sitting next Peter Coe. They began discussing Seb Coe's training and Irv started to add everything up (all those runs not included in his tabulations). Irv and P. Coe concluded that his base mileage was in the 90+ range (definitely emperical units).

Again next time I see Irv (think he's having a clinic in January) I can ask him about this for further clarification.

The reason why this debate is somewhat pointless is because every elite has tried all the systems and you never know how it benefitted them throughout the career.

Obviously, Coe did not run as much as Snell because Coe ran most runs at 6:00/mi or better while Snell did run slow and easy a lot with some faster long runs. Snell did say he did not get 100 miles sometimes as he was supposed to.

BTW, the gap between Coe and Snell on 400 is even greater as Coe split 45 low on relay carry while Snell's best was 47.9r.

Snell's periodization was completely different. He did the base phase solely, then hills solely etc.

Coe was an all around type. Sticking to pace systems all year. Coe did run long runs such as 90 minutes, even into the summer racing season. He quoted that he basically did 2 90 minute runs a week to keep his endurance. Was I there? no, so it could be not EVERY week. Coe ran 10-12 miles in between the Olympics 800 that he lost and the 1500 that he won. The trail of shame it was called.

Now, Snell was "only" 100 miles a week big deal and that is best average for 10 weeks. That is average of today's stars in 1500m so it isn't like that is unbelievably high. Coe states in his book that he would do 70s in the winter time. So it can be assumed that he logged some warm up miles since he worked out all year and that pushed him into the 80s.

Alberto Juantorena ran 15-25 miles a week why? Because he ran 44.26 and mileage varies with speed. Coe was faster than Snell and lighter.

Unless you are an 800m runner anyway, you should not look to Coe as an example. Recently, you have had many people run under 3:29 and all run decent miles.

Perhaps I haven't been clear.

Let me ask you a question:

If you run 3,000mi in a year, are you going to run 60miles every single week?

No. There's base training (where volume would be in the 90 range), racing (where volume would be in the 40s), and periods in between (50-70mpw).

3,000mi/yr and 90mpw for certain parts of the year are not contradictions.

For example

Fall Base (Avg. 80mpw)

Winter (indoor) (Avg. 55 mpw)

Spring Base (Avg. 90mpw)

Spring-Summer Pre Track (Avg. 60mpw)

Summer Track (Avg. 35mpw)

That's an annual average of 65mpw or 3250mi/yr.

----------

And with regards to singles, I think that running only in singles inhibits your recovery. 2x 45 min (am/pm) runs will function as recovery while 1x 90min run will not. I think it's easier for guys to get hurt running that kind of volume all in singles.

I know what Wetmore's after (more capilarization, endurance....) but I think the risks to injury outweight the benefits, which are probably miniscule. Lydiard's guys, Geb, the whole lot ran/run twice per day.

s

Interesting debate. Without taking sides, I'd have to say that one thought that occurs to me is that if Peter Coe is selling books detailing Seb Coe's training and he fails to give an accurate count of his miles, that would be misleading, bordering on ripping off buyers who want the book to base their own training on. I could see if at first he said Seb is doing, say, 40 to 50 miles a week, and he really meant just hard miles, but he had to know pretty early on about the controversy of how many miles Seb was really running, so you would think he would be pretty clear by the time of the book with David Martin about what he was including and what he wasn't. I don't have any of the books handy so it's hard for me to comment too much about what they might say, but it just seems that if Coe is selling books about training distance runners that say Coe only trained 40-50 mpw, without mentioning that he was getting another 40 or so easy miles (when he knows that the running public is wondering about that subject) would be neglectful, and book purchasers would not be getting their money's worth.

I thought that what you meant......thanks!

Trackhead you know your stuff man

Interesting extract I have just found in a famous British coach's biography- who I will fail to name:

One breezy evening at Watford whilst watching another disappointing BMC 800m race I bumped into my old chum Peter Coe. Pete was in fine form and we both harked back to the day when a 1.47 runner couldn't even qualify for the AAA's.

As a sea of runners tied up in the finishing straight he commented that 800m runners neglect their mileage these days. In his usual abrasive, yet charming, manner he told me how seb used to run an easy 5 miler every morning and evening in much the same way as the Kenyans do these days.

Therefore, the 6o miles a week Pete professed in his books were pure quality. Hence, we both concluded that Seb ran at least 100 miles a week.

Sound familiar Trackhead!!

Not really, he's just parroting the words of others. What he just put up is Irv Ray's input to Tony Benson's system . So the guy can regurgitate someone else's theories. That means he has a memory and knows how to type.

Try getting him to EXPLAIN some of Coe's workouts and why they made him as fast as he was. Whether he ran 60-70 or 195 miles a week (depending on what post you look at)...the mix is more important than the math.

Both of these talented guys believed in thier training system and toed the line confident that they could run with, or away from anybody. HOW they got to that point doesn't matter as much as THAT they were both successful based on what worked for them. And believe me, you have to find what works for you, not the guy in the magazine or the previous running post.

If I took what you said literally, this post would invalidate yours as soon as I tell someone how to train.

By the way, trackhole has yet to explain these workouts. He just parrots the thoughts of others and fights about ludicrous claims that go against written proof published in tens of thousands of books.

All malicious, self-pleasing banter aside, this link is fairly nice:

http://www.british-athletics.co.uk/bmc/coehorw.htm

This one's pretty funny...it mentions Coe having a max HR of 250bpm:

http://freespace.virgin.net/bob.jackson/ccol9808.htm

stupid question, but from reading all the posts I am assuming Coe and Lindgren were training for the same events

is this true?

Sandrock 's book said that he did have a period where he ran 16 kilometers a day I think it was for 9 or 12 weeks?

What would you like me to explain?

I didn't know it was necessary -- I though Martin/Coe did it well enough in BTDR.

TomM

As others on this thread have noted, the actual, pedantic recital of X-miles per week for any one athlete is really not the point.

Peter Coe's training philosophy, as I've interpreted it, essentially sets out basic principles in broad strokes, allowing a coach to boil those down more specifically for each individual athlete.

In the eary 80s, Peter's response to other athlete's request to train under him were usually met with some form of this response: "I don't know you, I'd have to move in with you before I could train you."

In other words, individual tweaking of the broad strokes was and is far more important that the strokes themselves -which I think most middle distance coaches share:

Roughly translated as spring based speed endurance (anerobic) work layered over a cross-country developed aerobic base that is slowly fine tuned as the summer track season progesses. (this of course was butressed by a great deal of weight training and flexibility exercises - something often overlooked when discussing the Coe method.)

For a durable athlete with limited natural speed, 75 miles per week might be a better starting point in the fall than a slight athlete (such as Seb Coe) with natural basic speed.

That's what I've always taken away from the Coe/Martin school of thought and I've never felt like I wasn't getting my money's worth.

Martin

I really do wish some of you would do some reading before posting.

From Better training for distance runners, page 211. For a middle distance runner the following is recommended over each 4 week period (in miles): 30-40, 45-60, 65-75, 70-75, 75-80, 70, 65, 60, 55. For a distance runner: 30-50, 55-70, 75-90, 80-95, 80-95, 80, 75, 70, 70.

So did Seb run low mileage? No, he just didn't include his warmups and cooldowns or his easy runs in the morning (I spoke to him in Edmoton 2001 regarding this). Is Peter advocating one thing while he had Seb do another? No, it's right there in front of you! 75-80 miles in mid season for an 8/15 runner. Look at a few of Seb's sample traing weeks and do the math yourself. The numbers don't add up. When they say 50-60miles, those were quality miles.

If you don't belive what I just wrote, that's okay. Go out and train with only 50-60miles per week. Let everyone else put those extra miles in and see what happens when you race next. Unless you are extremely talented or lucky, you will loose.

An update from an earlier post of mine:

I incorrectly cited Coe's VO2max as being in the low 80's. In fact, it is reported as 77.0 mL/kg/min in the latest edition of Lore of Running.