Is aerobic base training dead???

rickb wrote:

6. For myself, I got my best results from running 10-milers at an effort where I never got into heavy breathing (2-3x per week) - so you could say they were primarily aerobic with little lactate accumulation. I also would run my recovery days (maybe still 10 miles) but at as easy a pace as possible. The test in them being easy enough was being able to repeat the fast aerobic run the following day.

7. That being said, I also benefited (half-marathon PR 74:02) by running 10x400 (ave. 68 secs - fast for me!) with a very easy 3 minute jog recovery rather than 12x400 @ 72 sec with a short (100-200m) recovery.

8. So it's all intriguing.

Rick

Rick,

With all due respect, this is not so "intriguing" as you think. It is more likely just a misunderstanding about interval training.

You say that running 10 x 400m in 68 secs average with a very easy 3 min jog recovery is fast for you. But do you know that 12 x 400 in 72 secs average with a short (100-200m) jog recovery is slower pace but harder and tougher than the 10 x 400 in 68s (3 mins rec) workout.

I would imagine that with your 1:14:02 HM and 2:37 marathon PBs you never achieved 15:00 for 5k. Your 12 x 400 in 72s average with the short recovery would therefore be faster than your 5k PB pace (which would be wrong). That type of interval training design with short/active recovery should only be done at 10k pace or slower if you want it to correctly complement your other workout of 10 x 400 in 68s with 3 mins jog rec.

What you did was replace/confuse the target(s) of different workouts. If you want to progress the 10 x 400 in 68s with 3 mins jog to a higher quality plateau, you might shorten the recovery to 2 mins jog, at the same time slowing the 400s to 72 secs. If you want to shorten the recovery to 60 secs, you might even slow the 400s to 78-80 secs each.

If you want to run 10-15 x 400 (perhaps even 20 x 400 if in really good shape) to prepare for your next goal 10k or HM, and you want to run this session with short duration active interval recovery (eg: 100m in 40-45s) then the 400m pace you select should be very close to your 10k performance pace, and not at all similar to your 5k, or 3k, or 1500 pace, or any other pace, as you have tried to do here. If you are FT, you can benefit from this workout and even ST's can do it sometimes.

Of course this workout I have just described does not negate the value of running the original 10 x 400m in 68s with 3:00 mins easy jog. Simply note that both workouts have different training targets and are not either similar nor interchangeable.

Your 10 x 400 in 68s is repetition training and not interval training (and the difference is not merely semantics). With 3 mins jog, you have quite complete recovery. You have some anaerobic pace here because 68s per 400 is related to your 1500-3k paces.

If you completed the type of training of running 10-milers at an effort where you never got into heavy breathing (2-3 times per week), which we can agree means they were primarily aerobic with little lactate accumulation, then you got your aerobic condition primarily from this type of threshold workout. The training effect of such runs is similar to what you could achieve from short intervals at 10k pace with short active recovery.

That's why, in what is considered training balance, you got best results from your 10 x 400 in 68s (fast for you) with an easy 3 mins jog recovery, rather than with the short active recovery like you tried. Anyway, the 12 x 400 in 72s that you tried (with short 100-200 active recovery) was faster than you should have attempted, hence (as you note) you did not get major benefits from them.

In proper training progress and proper training periodisation, you should replace one of your weekly 10-mile threshold runs for 400s in approx 78-80s with short active recovery. What you should NOT do is replace the 10 x 400 in 68s and 3 mins recovery with 12 x 400 in 72s with 100-200 jog recovery. What you would be doing there is create a training unbalance, rather than a good training balance.

In my opinion, some people read what Robert Schul wrote about a workout that he did, but absorb and retain only one part and forget the rest. Schul wrote, "“....When I ran 20 x 400 meters with three in 60 seconds and each fourth one in 58s on a cinder track with 60 yards walk and 60 yards jog back to the start, I believed no one could match that workout. I always ran the 20th one all out and always did :54 something.”

Some might read this post by Schul or read elsewhere that Gordon Pirie did something similar to Schul, as his once in a lifetime very best workout ! They read such posts and tend to forget the aerobic condition such athletes had previously built up through a monster amount of interval training made up of the famous tons of 100s and 200s intervals that the Igloi method was built upon.

Some observers forget the high mileage that such runners did in the interval training method. They fail to realise the amount of mileage that went into these workouts because they were run differently than the traditional LSD training, or those continuous runs "at best aerobic pace".

The mistake of many is in not realising that the main target of such interval training (the type employing short active recovery) is to improve the aerobic condition, and the aerobic power. That was and still is the mistake of many people ... and among them are some who are considered good coaches.

The aerobic base training is not dead. It may contain some interval training workouts as well to improve the aerobic condition. In some types of runner it shall include interval training workouts really indeed.

Cabral & Hadd thread "2 kinds of runners: Which are you?" Subject: "More than one approach to running and racing" by clicking on this link.

This is a private thread and is developing into a wide-ranging discussion on various aspects of training. It is suggested you save it as a Favourite, because it drops off the front page quickly since only Cabral & Hadd can "bump" it.

Antonio,

Many thanks for your very detailed response. You make some very good points.

I guess the main point I was trying to get across is that I don't know for sure what training combination would have worked best for me and I think this is true for many runners, especially us non-elites.

I tried various things at different times and feel I had some modest success despite not being blessed with world-class genes. But I never did the perfect "scientific combination" test on myself. For example, my marathon PR came from 4 months of 80 mile weeks with 20-mile steady runs once per week, 2 fast-aerobic 10-mile runs and one day of intervals (typically 8x800@2:35/400 jog, 5x1600@5:20/440 jog, occasionally 20x400@80sec/30 second recovery). I would love to know if I could have run faster by adding something like the 10x400@68, 3 min jog intervals in the final phase.

As an aside, the 10x400@68/400jog was much harder for me than 12x400@72/200jog. I never had much natural speed - any I had came from being dedicated to consistent running and strength from a good base. I've heard it said that Peter Snell was not the fastest runner in the Rome 1960 800m final but he was the fastest after several rounds due to his Lydiard base. Interestingly too, Frank Shorter says he felt he could run quality interval workouts when he ran 120mpw. I think this points to the strength element one also gets from relatively high mileage aerobic training, especially carried out at decent paces. This would also be true for the high-volume/short recovery interval workouts Bob Schul described. One cannot separate the aerobic and strength benefits from this type of training.

But I don't want to focus on myself but rather on training in general. I do think that (1) an aerobic base of decent mileage with some runs done fast aerobically, (2) a weekly long run (distance dependent on race distance goal), (3) some form of specific strength/form work like Lydiard hill springing, (4) short, fast interval training with longish recoveries (what you call repetitions), (5) recovery runs at a very easy pace and (6) always finishing any workout knowing one could have run faster, longer or done more repetitions are key components for a successful training program. Then, of course, one has to decide about periodization and as you described, the speed of the various hard workouts.

Thanks again,

Rick

Excellent response. Thank you.

The main goal of interval training of the extensive kind (ie: in the form of great number of sets with short and active recovery) is to improve the aerobic condition and the aerobic power, and at its ultimate, to improve what we call strength endurance — which has an anaerobic component to it, but is predominantly aerobic. This was the original scope behind the original term - interval training - as well as the correct modern interpretation.

Running that is more anaerobic in nature, or speed-based, or biomechanical in nature can, of course, also be done through interval training, but to achieve this you must increase the running pace and lengthen the recovery interval. And by so doing, it is no longer interval training in the true sense of the term, because the recovery is no longer incomplete in nature; as it should be in the correct characterisation of interval training.

Most of the critic of the interval training is based in the misunderstand that the only version of the interval training type it’s the very fast and the anaerobic type. It´s wrong interpretation and it starts in the 60s and lasts for decades. I don´t need to name the well known and famous coaches that did persist in that mistake and wrong interpretation all life long. It´s written in books about their training methods and their followers and disciples they still continue to spread that wrong interpretation. See the main reason they say every kind of the interval training workout it shall be avoid during the build-up phase 1. They say the intervals it´s anaerobic training.

This is the mistake of many; among them some who were, and are, considered top-class coaches. This single fundamental fact has been misunderstood for decades. In every version of the intermittent training workout they do they want to solve a problem by increasing the running pace, but to do so they must (also) lengthen the recovery period ... and in so doing they create a bigger problem.

The main reason that is always given for avoiding interval training during the base-training, build-up period is all down to a basic misunderstanding of the fundamental meaning of interval training. Or at least a misunderstanding of the form of interval training that is extremely effective in improving the aerobic condition.

The question states, is aerobic base training dead? No. However aerobic base training may include some interval training workouts — used correctly but sparingly — as aerobic training, and in the optimal form designed to improve the aerobic condition. May be you do. May be you don´t. It´s your choice. But it´s not right to criticize those who do it by the wrong argument and the misunderstand.

Cabral & Hadd thread "2 kinds of runners: Which are you?" Subject: "More than one approach to running and racing" by clicking on this link.

http://www.letsrun.com/forum/flat_read.php?board=1&id=2375989&thread=2375989

This is a private thread and is developing into a wide-ranging discussion on various aspects of training. It is suggested you save it as a Favourite, because it drops off the front page quickly since only Cabral & Hadd can "bump" it.

"If you want to run 10-15 x 400 (perhaps even 20 x 400 if in really good shape) to prepare for your next goal 10k or HM, and you want to run this session with short duration active interval recovery (eg: 100m in 40-45s) then the 400m pace you select should be very close to your 10k performance pace, and not at all similar to your 5k, or 3k, or 1500 pace, or any other pace, as you have tried to do here. If you are FT, you can benefit from this workout and even ST's can do it sometimes."

What you write about "interval training" is very interesting and you point out the main mistake that many coaches make. However, you also say 10-15 x 400m at 10k pace with a short, say 1 minute recovery is a good endurance building workout for an FT runner (eg Mamede from your thread with Hadd). But what about interval training workouts to build endurance for an ST runner? I am going to guess from your discussion with that the same workout but with more active recoveries is better for a ST runner. So for example, 10-15 x 400m at 10k pace but with a 400m very active recovery, this recovery being run at "recovery run speed" rather than a slow jog. Would this be a better approach for a ST runner?

OK, for sake of argument, take a runner aiming to run 10k in sub 31 mins (current fitness is about 31 1/2 mins). The 400s wouls be run in anything from 72 to 75 secs, but the recovery 400 would be run at a pace about 30 secs slower per 400m, in this case we shall say 1 min 45 secs. In this sort of session I think that the ST runner would be working more to his training strengths compared with the FT runner. I am not sure if it would be a ridiculously easy session, I am guessing it would be like a relatively stressful "threshold run".

I think Antonio is making the point that in interval training to deveolop endurance, you should not be running too fast relative to your 5k ot 10 ability. I am just trying to work out the best way to apply this type of training to FT and ST runners.

rickb,

I agree I would not to do 80 x 400 on the track. That is why I stopped at 20, since I was becoming mentally bored. I did surmise what I might have done it I had continued at the same pace instead of running the 20th in :54. I believe I could have gone on for another five or six but I doubt I would have run :54 on the last one.

Going to extremely long workouts were a problem in the sixties since we were working an eight hour job in between workouts. I have thought what might or could have happened if those athletes of the 60's would not have had to work or even go to college. In todays world there are massage therapists, chiropractors and doctors who have the knowledge to keep a body from injury or if it becomes injured the knowledge to fix it.

As far as the word interval, I have had many people believe I did everything hard or very hard. Obviously from what I have said that was not the case. There were hard days and medium days and easy days and they revolved around the speed I would doing a paricular set and the distance involved in the set. The true interval, I thought was started by the English and they timed everything. Igloi worked on effort and only 400's and above were timed, again so we would learn the proper tempo for a race.That is why I use the term "effort interval" in my training book. I suppose I term the entire workout Interval training or effort interval training. I didn't ask Igloi,"What type of training are we doing now?"

Igloi jogged all of his intervals between runs and when I trained myself, starting in August of 1963 I soon began to walk intervals and shorten them. I found the walk allowed the leg muscles to relax and I could do more extended workouts.

My walk periods never were very long for I would up the speed, if that is what I wanted, as my body progressed to a different level. There were times when I would do 300 meters in approximately :45 to :47 with a twenty yard walk between each one. Other times while doing fat 200's in :24 to :25 (based on my knowledgeof my body and not a atop-watch) I might give myself a fifty yard walk. The amount would depend on what I had done previously and how I felt. I never made a workout up before hand but only knew if it was an easy, medium, hard or very hard day. Each set was built on the previous one and I made a determination of the amount and speed and walk interval based on how I felt at that time and how hard I wanted to push my body. By the way, in a hard day, not every set in the workout was hard. I doubt I went into another hard set after just finishing one. I have done the same thing with my athletes over the past forty years if they are at the workout. I do help some people over the phone, which I do not like, since I cannot see them.

Wellnow

Antonio's post makes perfect sense, you did that session of 400's way too fast if the training direction or purpose was to improve your aerobic condition for 10000. We don't need to consider whther you had a bad run that day to consider this, just look at your 3000 shape.

69 400's equates to 8000 metres of effort at a pace actually faster than your 3000 shape. You don't say whether the interval was standing or active, even if standing that is short for a 3000 pace session using 400's and in any event you appear to indicate by your reference to your subsequent 10000 time that the goal of this session was for training toward that 10000 race. 69/400 is 29 minute pace 10000. You would have been better off running 20 x 400 @ 75 with 45 seconds jog recovery - when your body had adapted to this training you may have ran low 31's

Bob,

Thanks for your response and detailed feedback. For me, the key points you make are about effort. I see many non-elite runners run their track workouts way too hard. I see this with group workouts where folks show up because they would not do these workouts alone. I see people become competitive in these workouts.

But I diverge from the topic. To me, in what you said, having relatively easy and moderate interval workouts (I know Antonio will chastise me for combining intervals and repetitions!) meant that you were not always creating high levels of lactic acid and so there was a large aerobic component to some of these workouts. Am I correct in this assumption? The degree of effort makes a big difference in which physiological systems and benefits are being targeted.

Thanks again,

Rick

Antonio,

Your comments seem to be a criticism of Lydiard and his followers. It's hard to argue with the influence of Lydiard and the success of many athletes following his training ideas.

I do believe I'm correct in saying that the original development of interval training (and I define intervals to be any training where there are fast sections separated by slower "intervals") by German physiologists Gerschler and Reindell was this - run a fast section, then let the heart rate recover to a certain level (maybe 70% of max), then repeat the fast section. With short recoveries the heart rate is never going to drop to the low value. Their theory was that the heart became stronger because of the work required to get back up to the high heart rate of the fast section. By your definition, these would be classified as repetitions and not intervals.

But here's a question - what do you think is the difference in physiological benefits between running 5k at 10k race pace versus running 25x400m at 10k race pace with a short recovery (30 seconds, 100m etc.)?

Given that one of the main concepts in training is specificity, the former is specific in not taking any breaks (which you don't get to do in a race) and the latter is specific in matching the race distance.

Lydiard's base training was more like the former - 10, 15, 18 mile runs at good aerobic effort. My best marathon came from only one change in my training - more 10 mile runs at a fast aerobic pace. My intervals stayed very much the same - 8x800m/400 jog, 4x1200/400jog, 5x1600/400jog. I didn't do any repetition training leading up to that race. It's impossible to say but I don't think I would have run faster with doing short-recovery intervals but I do suspect I would have if I had done some fast 8x400/400jog workouts in the final phase as I had done leading up to my half-marathon PR (which is a slightly better quality result).

Cordially,

Rick

wellnow wrote:

You were implyint something different than what you have written here, you were talking about an inneficiency concerning extra oxygen uptake. You were saying that I didn't understand the biochemistry when in fact it was you who was misundertanding.

Similar implications come from Spaniel too. I'm not going to be lectured by peoople who don't know what they are talking about. I know what you scienticians are like, you try to act much smarter than you are and then when you are proven wrong you say: "that's what I was saying all along" I hear this stuff all the time.

this is the best you could come up with?

Ricky -

you and wellnow have a lot to learn with regards to training techniques and methodologies. I suggest that you read the link to this thread:

http://www.letsrun.com/forum/flat_read.php?board=1&id=825534&thread=825534

Here is the beginning of it, enjoy!

Important moments and

concepts in the history and development of

Intermittent training

On another thread (which discussed the effects of lactic acid on performance), the poster named “balance” wrote the below (in bold) comments/questions. I answered him on that thread. But since that particular thread was beginning to “fade away”, and balance’s questions were concerning a new topic (interval/repetition training), the poster “Sir Lance-a lot” asked me to start a new thread on this topic of intermittent training. I agreed to meet his challenge. And with his English editing help, I re-wrote my answer to balance, and now begin this new thread with a re-posting of my comments to him here.

balance wrote:

Some people refer to the fast running segment as a repetition. I have even seen coaches classify workouts by the durations of the fast runs, where long repeats of about 800m or more are called receptions, and anything under this is called an interval. Anyone else get confused or annoyed by the all the possible misuse of these words? I prefer to refer to interval training in the classical term, where the recovery period is always the interval, and the fast run segment is always the repetition. If everyone adhered to the same terminology I believe it would reduce some confusion. Just thought I'd put these thoughts out there. Discuss if you like.

Well, when the subject of “intermittent training” is discussed, incorrect terminology is often used to describe it. I see the word "interval" indiscriminately used to define many things in training, but rarely do I see it used to define the actual interval training system that the Germans Gresheler and Reindell conceived of.

The Americans - and others - they gave the name “interval training” to every form of training that resembles intermittent training, but that´s not correct. And to prove that to you, most of you have either one of two incorrect conceptions of interval training. Most of you believe that interval training is either:

A) a training method that is mainly concerned with the intensity of the running pace(which could vary) of the repetition portions, but which pays no special attention to the rest/recovery interval portions, or

B) you believe that interval training is a method in which the repetition portions are only to be performed in a nearly all-out intensity, and the recovery-rest interval portions should be quite complete.

I often see the advice that "one should not do 15X400m short intervals because that´s too fast, to do them in 60sec for a 14:10 runner". Of course that´s too fast - that´s more than fast, that´s a wrong pace if you are desiring to use the interval training ideas from the German-Gresheler-Freiburg method.

In my opinion people often uses 3 different names to refer what they think is the same thing, but in fact are actually 3 different training concepts: intermittent training, repetition training and interval training.

INTERMITTENT TRAINING

The first basic discrimination, is that apart from "continuous" training, you have non-continuous or "intermittent training". Intermittent training is no more than a run workout that contains pause-rest intervals or that contains 2 intensities - fast/slow or run/pause. All interval training is intermittent training, but not all intermittent training is interval training.

A first question arises. Why and how was the intermittent training method used in the early days? Most of information from the early 20th century is lost. But I think that the main reason why those early pioneers use this method is basically because of what Mr. Frank Horwill says in his article "Why do repetition running?"

http://www.serpentine.org.uk/advice/coach/fh12.php

"...Glen Cunningham (USA) was seen in 1932 running a mile flat-out every day on the track. A puzzled coach asked him what he thought he was doing. Cunningham replied that he was trying to get his mile time down. The coach told him that that was not the way to do it. He should run parts of the mile faster and run double the distance slower. For instance, if his best time for the distance was 4:40, he should attempt to run half-mile 4-seconds a lap faster, ie 2:12 (66 secs / 44O yds). Also, three-quarters of a mile 2 seconds a lap faster ie 3:24 (68 secs / 440yds). For stamina. it was suggested he ran 2 miles at 10 seconds a lap slower (10:40 or 80 secs / 440 yds). Cunningham was to break the world mile record 2 years later, running 4:06.8. This routine, was known as under-distance faster, over-distance slower..."

In my opinion this is a good article and in part justifies the use and benefits of intermittent training(yet despite my praise for the article, you will soon see that I don´t agree a lot with Mr. Horwill regarding his other thoughts on interval training).

The fact is that by the use of the intermittent training the runner improved his conditioning as he had not been able to with the use of continuous runs only. Mr. Frank Horwill refers a 1932 fact. But intermittent training, that was created some decades earlier on. I´ve read some articles and books from 1910-1920 and they describe the use repeat fast runs with pauses to recover. Finn champion Paavo Nurmi - 1924 first Olympics - used to run repetitions.

REPETITION TRAINING

The second basic discrimination is that "intermittent" training began to be utilized because in the past they learned that instead of doing a run in a single/continous period (non-stop) one may be able to do MORE – either more Quantity (total mileage, distance, number of reps, time duration) AND/OR more Quality (faster, higher pace intensity) - efficiently in one workout – if he uses pauses in between the running segments.

Each one of these set parts of a total run were seen as a fractions of a the total distance run, so this training was named as fractional training, meaning to cut or to divide the total run into parts.

When they decided to run those fractional runs several times, they called those repetitions. The repetition was the designation of the short intense run portions of the workout. For example, let´s say 100m could be the repetition, as that´s the designation of the longest repetitions one would do quite close to the race pace for say 800m or mile training. The universe of this classification deals mainly with the intermittence (fast-stop-fast-stop-fast-stop) of the workout and the pace intensity of the repetitions run. And it follows that if there is no special concern about the duration of the interval pause(which with this training there is no such concern) – then that means that you may have quite complete recovery periods/rest intervals, which are in proportion to the high the effort demand of the repetition. That means that if you do repetitions of a fast speed/very intense pace or a of long duration, consequently you need more recovery interval time. Thus, many incorrectly call this type of training “interval training,” just because there are some rest intervals involved, as there are in all intermittent training. But this is wrong, because the rest intervals are not the focus or considered a very important part of this type of training, but only the repetition portions are the focus. In real interval training, as you will soon see, the rest intervals are considered a primary focus of the workout.

INTERVAL TRAINING

Third basic discrimination is that in this scenario, now we have all that variables in the intermittent training or repetition training:

1. Time - the duration of your run, and also the duration of each repetition segment

2. Distance - the mileage that you cover in each segment and in the total of the segments

3. Pace - the consequence from the time over the distance

4. Interval - the time that you are passive (interval)

At this moment in the history of running distance training, this exact type of true interval training was not yet in existence.

Of course all 4 of the above variables are in a close interdependence. For example if you run an intense pace for your repetition, it is for sure that you will need a longer recovery interval, or you will need to only run a short distance for the repetition, or your total volume of repetitions will be few, etc, etc.

Historically we had not arrived to Gresheler and the interval training yet. But the repetition workouts existed before Gresheler, only Gresheler did build a very particular type of repetition training - the interval training.

That´s only now that Gresheler and Reindel they enter in the running scene.

I will tell you later the master lines of Gresheler/Freiburg interval training - the original format, genuine format, that is how it was distinct from the repetition training or fractional training of the period. And this difference was mainly due to the fact that true interval training (as conceived by Gresheler/Freiburg) deals with an INCOMPLETE recovery interval variant, which was utilized in order to create artificially a strong heart and also to allow the runner to manage lactic acid concentration. How exactly did they effectively use that ? By having their runners train with repetitions run in a sub-maximal pace but with a very accurate pace average range.

For me there´s no doubt that we can name interval training to a workout only if the recovery period is incomplete. Tony Net, a critic of Gresheler (thus we can trust him) says that with Gresheler each runner may use an individual interval pause(different for each athlete) but also an incomplete interval pause. Beginners may walk in between each of 2 fast repetitions, but when they have more experience and maturity they shall jog in between, 100m or 200m.

In my next post I will continue with the specifics of the Gresheler/Freiburg interval training method and more on the history of intermittent training if you wish.

I appreciate all you comments and doubts and questions.

António Cabral

wellnow wrote:

Antonio was saying that the poster's 400's session would not lead to an improvement because blah blah blah, how the heck would he know? there was nothing wrong with that session, it was consistent with his posted times.

I couldn't tell if Antonio meant the 12 x 400 at 72 with 100-200 jog recovery would "not lead to an improvement" or, simply, it would be a less effective session that 10 x 400 in 68 with 3:00 recovery, given Rick's training history.

On the thread Antonio linked, he recommended a very similar session to improve the aerobic power of a 10k runner:

15-20X300m/3000m race Pace rec=45sec going ahead in the track for 100m.

that means 300m for 46sec at sea level.

Maybe Antonio could clear that up for us.

Dear YesYesYes,

Not sure who you are (Antonio perhaps?) but I find your email rather insulting. I don't profess to know everything there is to know about exercise physiology and interval training but I have read extensively in this area and was briefly in a PhD program in exercise physiology. I've also run for over 30 years (over 75,000 miles), tried many different types of training on myself and successfully coached various amateur runners.

Yes, there is always a lot to learn about training techniques and their physiological benefits FOR ALL OF US. If everything were known, we would have all runners doing identical types of training for their events (except if it were known how to modify training for a given athlete's personal physiology.)

Rather than saying that I and Wellnow have a lot to learn, it would be much more constructive if you replied to specific points we made with reference to scientific data or empirical evidence if you disagree.

Cordially,

Rick (not Ricky)

Rick,

You are correct when you state the speed and distance of the repetition and the interval of rest are the basis for what system I was trying to enhance on a particular day. The speed becomes the effort and changes each day depending on your body. In other words running thirty seconds for 200 meters (if it was timed) with a certain effort would not be the same time on another day, even if the effort was the same. As I tell my runners over the years, there are many things which interfere with your body. Sleep, food, fight with your wife etc. But it makes no difference as no matter the speed, the effort will bring the heart rate to the same level if the effort is the same on both days. Therefore I didn't have to worry about having breathing problems (asthma) during my workouts as it placed more pressure on my systems. I did not have to run as fast on those days to bring my heart-rate up to the 70%. Obviously I didn't want the breathing problems on a race day although at times it happened.

As I said before having three or possibly four hard days a week when you did not race was plenty as the body had to rest. They were recovery days and the workouts were physically and mentally non-taxing although the mileage may have been similar and the time of the workout may have been the same or even more.

Igloi trained his top athletes by themselves as I did from September of 1963 until I retired in 1965. therefore you can only race yourself and if you are disciplined to hold to the effort you have set for the repitition and the interval of rest you will be better off.

The hardest part of training the athlete is knowing when and what to give in a given set. All the book knowledge is useless unless you learn how the athlete respnds to different sets with a certain effort and interval. How hard to push them through various plateaus is all important. Too hard and you can ruin them mentally. Too easy and you are wasting valuable time.

Wellnow

Why is it you neither keep a training log or follow a schedule? Is it advisable not to do so?

I don't keep any sort of diary, it's just not in my nature to do something like that.

As regards recording my training, I have my best weeks stored in my brain and can remember a lot of details.

As regards following a schedule, I don't belive in such control freakery, either self imposed, or imposed by a coach. You don't know how you are going to feel tomorrow or next week. I have a general plan of what I need to do and follow that plan by adding what I need when I feel the time is right to do a certain type of training.

I do most of my best training on my own, because then there are no distractions, and no-one can try to race me. Pure speed work is different, such sessions are a good time for runners to race each other and a lot of fun to do. I'm 46, but I like to do these sessions with the fastest young guys in our club. I think we both benefit from each others company. Their fast young legs challenge me, and my endurance challenges them. Also they learn how to take the inevitable banter, when beat them.I also like to race against young guys too, unless I'm racing against the best masters of which there are many. Those races are reeeeealllllly tough, there is one guy who is two weeks older than me whom I have never beaten, grrrrrrrr.

This is a really fantastic thread with more information on here than can be counted or responded to in one post. I would just like to make a few comments

1. Training should progress from general to specific. Specific training for racing should be the ultimate goal, but a large base of general training will largely benefit an athletes ability to do the specific training. So, if early on an athlete needs to do a whole bunch of easy to moderate distance running and resistance traininig to prepare his/her body for the hard training that comes later, than that is what should be done. I don't know that the easy base training should ever be completely replaced.

2. Comment #2 is going to seem to contradict comment 1, but here goes. In swimming, the athletes do interval training almost exclusively, even for the longer races. Of course, swimming is not running, but both sports rely heavily on aerobic capacity, mitochondrial development, coordination of neuro-muscular systems and all the other factors discussed on this thread.

3. The original article that was linked at the beginning of this thread specifically cited the need for short bursts of power in sports like soccer and downhill mountain bike racing. These sports are not similar to middle or long distance running as well. If the article had pointed out how much better cross coutnry mtn bike racers (or road racers for that matter) performed as a result of this type of training, it might carry a little more water in my mind.

4. The way Mr. Schull describes his training, it was largely aerobic in nature. 20 yard walks in between repetitions would not allow heart rate to drop back anywhere near resting rates, therefore most of the running would have been done in the high end of his aerobic training zone. Also, he states that most intervals shorter than 400m were never timed and many were run easily with jogging done in between. Last time I checked, that is called continuous running or fartlek running. The idea that anybody could perform well in an event that requires continous running without actually doing continuous running for training is just silly and by Mr. Shull's description, he (and Igoloi's other athletes) did lots of continuous running (just not at an even pace)

I don't have a point to make here. Nor am I trying to advocate any particular type of training system. These are just some of the things that popped into my head while reading through the thread.

Point #5. High end aerobic training and intervals may bring about great results in a 9 week study, but are mentally, physically and emotionally taxing. Many people find it impossible to maintain that type of training year round or over the course of an entire career. Those runners who succeed with this type of program are the exception rather than the rule.