New Distance Training Philosophy

Should work fine if you're training for the 400.

Total crap. What he didn't mention was it was tried by European greats back inthe middle of the 1900's when they didn't know any better.

There isn't no short-cuts my friend. Use scommon sense, do what he prescribe really sound like it will work?

Might get you an Olympic medal....if you were running in 1964.

Let's see if Bob Schul choses to respond as this is more or less what he did with Igloi.

But, as with Lydiard, I don't think you'll beat any of Renato's guys or Colm O'Connell's guys with that training. We have learned a lot in the last 40-50 years.

coach d wrote:

Might get you an Olympic medal....if you were running in 1964.

Let's see if Bob Schul choses to respond as this is more or less what he did with Igloi.

But, as with Lydiard, I don't think you'll beat any of Renato's guys or Colm O'Connell's guys with that training. We have learned a lot in the last 40-50 years.

Yes speed and more speed

Got Bob Schul to a 13:38 5k and "an impressive 37.8 for the last 300 meters on a muddy track" to win og.

Granted, he was probably training for what, three four hours a day?

And now the Olympic champion has a pr of 12:37, so how Bob Schul trained is irrelevant.

coach d wrote:

Might get you an Olympic medal....if you were running in 1964.

Let's see if Bob Schul choses to respond as this is more or less what he did with Igloi.

But, as with Lydiard, I don't think you'll beat any of Renato's guys or Colm O'Connell's guys with that training. We have learned a lot in the last 40-50 years.

Schul didn´t do short "sprints". He did a ton of short repeats with short jog rests,so those sessions were really long continuos runs.

The only european system i know that is somewhat used these days that is alternative is the verheul method: Some good runners use a variant on this one (a more intensive version of this method with going over anaerobic threshold)

This method requires 3 - 6 sessions a week of these:

6 x 1000 at 1 hour pace

10 x 400 at 5 kilometer pace

10 x 200 at 1 - 2 mile pace

recovery is same time as run time or same distance (don't seem to recall)

I know that he is a coach after all and above these sessions he let runners do more miles around this core workout depending on what they needed. For some it means a 400 warm up and then the workout for some these came in a 90 minute workout.

His goal was to make runners work near anaerobic threshold intensity but focus on running form. So they could run somewhat fast in a relaxed way everyday.

If it is Igloi like discussed here you are still doing lots of miles in your workouts.

Your coach is awesome. He gave me one pill that will gave me a six pack and another that gave me a ten inch c0ck.

"Well", you are correct in that my walks between whatever I was doing became shorter as my body accepted the work I was doing. Therefore my heart-rate stayed high and it was the same as being on a long run. As I tell my runners the body only knows what tension you are placing on it and of course does everything it can to grow in ways to take care of that tension.

If I was doing ten x 200 meters with a fifty yard walk and doing them at different speeds, say 2 fresh (5K pace), 2 good build up (start at 5K pace and half way through go to good. (60 second pace), then 1 "Good" (60 second pace). Then repeat the series. After 10 x 100 meters (fresh) I would go to another set. Always choosing on how I felt at that time and how hard the workout would be.

You have to remember that all of us in the 60's had to study or work 8 hours a day. If I could get a rub down after the morning workout and maybe a nap, I am sure it would have made a difference. In the summer of '64 I did not work and everything was easier. Of course most of the good Europeans never had to work. Nothing against them, they were just a few years ahead of us. well maybe 10 or 15. But all of us on the L.A. Track club were fighting for changes in the rules. Remember I was one of the athletes who tried to have the pro-track circuit.

I worked hard three and sometimes four days a week. With 13 workouts (only once on Sunday)it took a lot of time. From the Fall of 63, when I returned to Miami of Ohio, I worked out at 5:30 A.M. and 5:30 p.m. Looking back I was doing close to 100 miles a week, if I didn't have a race.

Are the runners better today than we were? Maybe they are. I think the Kenyans and ethiopians have not only an advantage of having lived at altitude their entire life but their ancestors have lived at altitude for millions of years. Does the body change internally? If it does with training then it must change to be better acclimated. (Boy does that open a can of worms.)

Well European greats in the past aren't as good as European greats today, and today Europeans aren't that great.

The purpose of long runs is to build endurance, and to get your body accustomed to the shocks associated with running, building up resistence in bones, joints, and connecting tissues.

Interval training can provide a certain level of stimulation not possible with continuous runs.

Otherwise, there's a lot you don't say. What event(s) are you training? What kinds of intensities, work volume, and recoveries are involved?

If you're young and undeveloped, and training for events up to 5K, you might see a lot of improvement in the short and mid term with such an approach. It doesn't sound like a good plan for long term development, or for race distances beyond 10K.

I've given this idea more thought than usual lately, without reaching any conclusions. If modern training is so much better today, then why are the East Africans the only ones really benefitting from it? For the rest of the world, times don't really seem to have improved that much in the last 30 years, since the 70's-80's.I can think of two possibilities:- Something about East Africans give them more natural talent, or the physical/mental ability to handle higher training loads and recover more quickly.- The West just isn't trying as hard, or as deep, as when running was more popular, for whatever reasons, e.g. going to other sports, intimidated by East African dominance, etc.Altitude might be one factor, but there must be others too. For example, there are South Americans who live at altitude, but don't seem to have the same adaptations.

Bob Schul wrote:

Are the runners better today than we were? Maybe they are. I think the Kenyans and ethiopians have not only an advantage of having lived at altitude their entire life but their ancestors have lived at altitude for millions of years. Does the body change internally? If it does with training then it must change to be better acclimated. (Boy does that open a can of worms.)

Why should you worry about "East African dominance"? You are not African, right?

If Bob Schul did this training and it took him to 13:37 and an Olympic GOLD, then it must be worth trying.

I remember reading that Lasse Viren used to do stuff like a 5000 on a track consisting of 50 meters all-out sprint and 50 meters float then rinse and repeat to 5000 meters. Kind of like a "Canova-style tempo run" except that the pace variations are very short.

I know that if I tried that, my hamstrings would be toast at about 2000 meters.

I also remember reading that Swedish or Finnish exercise scientist discovered that YES, doing short sprints of 40-50 meters DOES increase performance for 5000 meter running.

I remember watching Norwegian record holder Marius Bakken do 40-50 meter sprints on the track in St. Moritz.

Hi Bob, got to talk to you about some stuff. Hope everything is going well. Heard alot of bizz after the Schul and how you were there. Everyone wanting to know about next year.

Coach Meredith

Milton Union

Are you really Bob Schul? If so, I know you probably hear this all the time, but great job in Tokyo!

Its really Bob, he checks in from time to time.

wannabeasuperstar wrote:

I was recently encouaged to try a DR training philosophy that emphasizes short sprints and no distance run over 4 miles. Essentially, you run sort sprint reps from 60m to 200m 5x/week with a 4 mile run 2x/week. The philosophy is supposedly science based and tested with the premise that long runs are totally unnecessary to build strength and that building speed is key. The coach said this was method has been used by European greats in the past and worked well. I'm excited to try the system if the results are valid. Anyone familiar with the system? Thoughts?

Now as stated to me by Dr. Jack Daniels about Bob was that he had a huge stroke volume and he could run at top speeds with alot lower heart rate then others like Shorter, Mills etc...... Bob had a huge aerobic engine even though he didnt really have to work at it. His training is part of almost every good coaches plans...jsut not as much or as frequent.

So what worked for Bob doesnt work for everyone. For most to be good they have to develop their LT and run long because they need a base.

Huh? I think I said it could work for 5K, and that interval training can do things continuous running can not. I cast doubts about longer distances, but what the heck do I know? Your Lasse Viren 50m sprint + 50m float, for 5000m, sounds like Lydiard's "windsprints".I'm not so worried about East African dominance so much as wondering out loud what coach d's statement above really means: "We have learned a lot in the last 40-50 years". Why isn't that abundant new knowledge helping Americans, Europeans, Asians, Oceanians, and South Africans more?

666EnergyDrink wrote:

Why should you worry about "East African dominance"? You are not African, right?

If Bob Schul did this training and it took him to 13:37 and an Olympic GOLD, then it must be worth trying.

I remember reading that Lasse Viren used to do stuff like a 5000 on a track consisting of 50 meters all-out sprint and 50 meters float then rinse and repeat to 5000 meters. Kind of like a "Canova-style tempo run" except that the pace variations are very short.

I know that if I tried that, my hamstrings would be toast at about 2000 meters.

I also remember reading that Swedish or Finnish exercise scientist discovered that YES, doing short sprints of 40-50 meters DOES increase performance for 5000 meter running.

I remember watching Norwegian record holder Marius Bakken do 40-50 meter sprints on the track in St. Moritz.

Bob Schul wrote:

Are the runners better today than we were? Maybe they are. I think the Kenyans and ethiopians have not only an advantage of having lived at altitude their entire life but their ancestors have lived at altitude for millions of years. Does the body change internally? If it does with training then it must change to be better acclimated. (Boy does that open a can of worms.)

Bob most of us have ancestors who lived at altitude, and therefore we have the genetics for altitude acclimation. You can't know the genetic make up of any particular East African runner, or when their ancestors moved to altitude, which may have been recently.

I think the altitude factor is a red herring. The best East African runners are just fitter than runners from other countries. They run fast at altitude and at sea level. To run a road 10k at 8000 feet on a tough course in Addis, in under 29 minutes represents a level of fitness that few non Africans can match.

If you were 40 years younger you would be running 5000m in well under 13 minutes. I think you know that, but modesty prevents you from saying it here?