Which is more important: a long run or a tempo run?

Obviously, you're going to think whatever you think about my "credo" whether I give you "permission" or not. I am a huge admirer of Lydiard and when I've looked at what successful people have done and tried to adapt it I have found that a lot of successful people are/were doing things that were rooted in Arthur's ideas, so I made a point of learning as much as I could about his system.

I don't really believe that I usually have a lot to say here that's really useful (though I have loads of company here on that note), so there are many topics that I don't write about. But from time to time people ask questions about some aspect of Lydiard's training. Because I have spent much time learning about it, I do think I can give some decent answers to their questions and I do that. I don't think I've ever done more than that and I've NEVER told anyone that Lydiard's system is "best." I have said that an adaption of his ideas made huge improvements in my own running and have pointed to the successes his athletes had. I used to get involved with you when I thought you were incorrectly explaining his system or criticizing it for something that was not part of it but I've largely given that up because it's just not worth the aggravation of having you arguing with me over things I never wrote but that you decided I wrote because, well, I've never really known why. Telling me what my "credo" is makes a good example of this as does your earlier comment about me following the Lydiard Method "precisely" when you've told me at other times that I couldn't attribute any improvements I made to the Lydiard System because I never followed the Method precisely. Ok, that's all I'm writing about the "you and me" stuff. It has no bearing on the topic.

As to Clarke and long runs, again, no one can say why he lost or won the races he did. Mills did do long runs or at least he told Lydiard that he did. He lost to Halberg at the 1962 Commonwealth Games and Halberg did long runs. I'm sure there were others in that race who did not. It's really hard to take you seriously if you're attributing Clarke's loss to long runs rather than altitude. And if long runs cost Clarke Olympic wins because he raced against guys who didn't do them how do you account for all the times he beat those people outside of the Olympics? And if doing long runs cost Clarke gold medals at the Olympics in the 5,000 and 10,000 when racing guys who didn't do them, how did long runs not cost Snell and Halberg gold medals at the 800 and 1500? How did they not cost Viren those same gold medals in the two Olympics after Clarke was done?

I have a friend who was once third in the New York Marathon who never ran farther than eight miles at a time in his preparation. Maybe with long runs he wins the race. Maybe with long runs he finishes fourth or fourteenth or fortieth. There's no way to tell. I do think a pretty good case can be made that taking advice from Ron Clarke about how to run a good 5,000/10,000 makes more sense than taking that kind of advice from you.

should read "...if you're attributing Clarke's losses at Mexico City to doing long runs rather than to altitude."

HRE

I really think that would be stupid to take advice from Ron Clark, or from you. Since Ron was a looser, with good performances but a looser, and since you based in your training i can´t take the conclusion it´s rich training then i ake advice from others that did win over Ron and over you with different and rich training methods that your owns.

About Ron i really think so, that he did lost the medals because he did too much training based in tempo long runs and mileage, and at the final moment of the runs he was not fast to sprint and win. He did possess an exceptional resistance and endurance but he misses to move from fast anaerobic pace in the final pats of the run. He takes his pace mainly from he aerobic energy and the aerobic system, that´s what long runs supposed to work, isn´t that true ?

In your last post, the conclusion i take, based in your information is that it´s impossible to define what´s the rich or the poor training by who did that performance, and how and why. It´s impossible. There the rich trainjng approach is to go deeply in the training methodology.

You got some information from Lydiard, don´t you kow that after 64 olymipics Lydiard give up to coach peter Snell because Peter did disagree to the need of long runs ? Try to inform that one. I got an interview with Lydiard from Runners World magazine and he says that he give up to coach Peter because he denies the interest of the long run, and he (Arthur) got no time to spend/waist with people (Snell) that don´t want to follow Lydiard training precisely.

Well, i guess that Snell that you say that by doing the long run, among othe Lydiard training components of course, did what he did, if it´s true that he wanted give up rom doing the long run because he doesn´t sees no major importance in doing it for his shape condition purpose , he willn´t say that what did pay in his success is the long run.

This is just an introductory to see how your argument falls like a card´s castle.

About the rest of our debate, the way you deal with facts and the conclusions you take from certain performances and the runners that did it, what i think it´s that it´s impossible to get a final and sustained conclusion from what we debate, they way you use to manage the information and deal with it to fit in your need to adequate that information to your training (i would say credo) but i say your admiration for Lydiard training.

The fact is that we might go on and on and we will take all life long aound the same discuss and in ten end of the day, the month, the year or the life long, based in your argument because someone did something, some rich performance, because someone wins over other one, or because someone thinks something or prescribe something about the training method, be the long run dor 800m eventually or be ny other training issue, it´s always inconclusive, and we could take all life long fighting one each other about that issues it´s inconclusive always.

This is why my proposal. instead of going in circles, you say that this runner did this or said that, and that one did tis ana said that, and Lydiard coached this and said that, that in fact most of the times it´s not public an he said that to you in private and we can´t be sure that he said that as you say, instead of this direction of the training debate, we might go for what´s been logic and what is not in terms of training methodology. If we do so, we get out of gloing around and around in circles you argue with fact and the way someone trains and the results he did, and i argue with the contradictory about other runners that did different training and as good if not best performances that your runners the runners that you name they did. Now what. It´s a impossible task to take one final conclusion that way. This go back to my initial post. the guy said that Peter Snell did 1:44 because he trains by he Lydiard and includes the long run and tempo run. I deny that is because he did train the Lydiard way the main reason he did the performances, because i know some people that train along the Lydiard method or that included were coached by Lydiard directly and they didn´t nothing as good what Snell did. There the main condition to be successful in the distance training it´s not the Lydiard training.

You mean about Ron Clark and Loraine Moller, the other one sorry but i don´t know who he is. I know thousand of runners some more famous and some less famous all over the eorld but i don´t know who he is. But continued. You name Ron Clark. We all know that he did 2 tremendous WRs, the 5000m and th 10000m on cinder tracks. However i can name runners from the same period of Ron Clark that got more success that Ron and that wins over him in important moments that he couldn´t and they train different from Ron and that they didn´t include the the long run in their training programs. I can name Ian Stewart running from Scotland that in the Commonwealth Games did smash Ron. And Stewart did win olympic medals and also the World Cross country title. From near the same period that Ron did faster pbs and better results than Ron didn´t. I say ian Stewart but i might say a dozen. I also might say as well that the long run that i think it´s vitl importance if you retend to compete in the marathon event, but in 5000 or 10000m and not in 800m-1500m, however the long runs that Ron Clark says did an huge positive influence in Ron´s shape condition, that long run training couldn´t help or contribute to Ron´s marathon success in the olympics. HRE, sees how we may use some result in favour of our training preference.

Now what ? What conclusion i might take from the long run that way ? No one.What conclusion i might take from Lydiard training, my training, every other distance training method just by the performances that training did on one certain runner (Snell by the way) if the same kind of training didn´t lead the the same results in other different runner, or by what someone thinks (Ron Clark by the way or Loraine) or what someone says (Lydiard by the way).

Now what ?

You say you don´t say that Lydiard is the perfect training. It´s true, but you say it´s good. And you don´t ignore that many from the Lydirdism they say Lydiard the perfect training. How good it is ? How good it is related with other different training methods as optional, as long as we don´t fall on te trap that is to thing that Lydiard is the coach like the sun is the centre of the universe and that everything turn around ? How good it is ?

Another example. Loraine Moller. It was a good runner, a fine runner, it´s ok. But if i place side in my analysis Loraine with other runners from the same period i know others with much more success. Just see the palmares of the portuguese Rosa Mota, olymic winner, multiple winner of Boston, how many times, and did win over Loraine more and in more important competition that Loraine did win over her. Now what ? Since both train differently and Rosa Mota doesn´t Lydiard should we trust in what training, from loraine or Rosa Mota.

Conclusion ? We will discuss all life long but if we focus our argument while deal with each runner performances and related to his kind of training or with what someone thinks about one type of training, or if we accept what someone said about training be the most famous coach of the world, the best one coach, or just one runner like Ron Clark, we willn´t take a final conclusion, an acceptable one.

Now what ? We need to see deeply. What´s the meaning and the effect of a certain training stimulus based on the methodoly knowledge, the physiology knowledge.

Finally HRE. I know that it´s impossible that you change your opinion, namely about Lydiard training, the long run, whatsoever that is the main core of Lydiard training. I know that you willn´t change ever. This your behaviour about the Lydiard matter is the most common behaviour of the Lydiard disciple. However when i post about Lydiard it´s not change you from your Lydiard ideas or that you agree with my own ideas, what you would benefit more than follow Lydiard. If would that my intention would be a lost case. My intention is different that you got the same training ideas that i do. This will never happens.

António Cabral wrote:Since Ron was a looser, with good performances but a looser

If Ron Clarke was a loser I wonder what you are.

decade.

You lose most credibility me yet again when you call Ron Clarke a loser.

many success stories were written with long runs.

but for 5k/10k and even hm it might be possible to delete long runs by running ambitious doubles regularly. some elite performers run doubles and max out at around 60mins/session. overall mileage is high.

Which one? wrote:

Which does more for you as a runner? Specifically a 5k/10k guy.

Like others said, both are necessary and important, but tempo runs slightly more important, if you think of it this way: if you only did tempos or you only did long runs, which would make a better 5K/10K runner? I think most would say the one who only did tempos. But the best runner would do both.

It would depend on what else you did. You could be doing intervals or fartlek in place of tempo runs. You could race frequently, etc.

Sometimes the truth blinds some people, mainly tne individuals that refuse to see the evidence.

I repeat what is are facts about Ron Clark.

Being a very talented runner since teenager- don´t forget that he did carry on the olympic flag up to the stadium on Melbourne Olympics - Ron was a fantastic runner, that among other things was the first to break sub 28:00 the 10000m for some 40secs faster the runner before him as recordist and also 5000m WR.

That´s for that reason he was the top favourite for both 5000m and 10000m runs on Tokyo 64 olympics and to some extend on 68 Mexico olympics. On the 64 Olymipcs he was defeated in the 5000m and 10000m by several runners and then he decides to run the marathon and got a poor run. On Mexico 68, due to the extreme altitude on Mexico City he did poor results as well.

On this context, being the world best chrono on his period he was a looser. On that same context of the world best Peter Snell in 64 Tokyo was a winner, double winner of course.

Simply people reacts emotional. I don´t say he was a poor runner.

All runners are both winners (assuming they've managed to win at least one race) and losers. Even Herb Elliott lost an 880. Clarke won more races than he lost. You could call any runner a "loser" and be accurate but when you single out for that label it's generally considered an insult here. Maybe it's different where you are.

I don't agree with the comment that Snell's 1:44 on a grass track was easier somehow than running on today's surfaces regardless if Peter Snell himself said so. I also think Snell's training might have been the right training for him.

You also have to consider the shoes they used to wear at the time for those races. Have you ever actually seen them?

Look at Elliot's 1500 gold who trained under Cerutty in a time that would have won this year's World Championship again in lousy shoes and on a bad track surface. Cerutty's system included long runs. I believe the long runs sometimes are what allows these guys to get through the volume of the qualifying races.

On the subject of this thread I believe both serve different purposes and should both be considered for a 5k / 10k guy.

I think Mills was trained by Clohessy (spelling?) who was a student of Lydiard? Too tired to look it up but that's what I heard anyway.

As long as you don´t understand that the Long run, got no specifics at all for the 800m, a less that 2minutes run that you run at a faster pace that the pace of VO2max (vVO2max) and that the need is a powerful anaerobic system that can carry on tons of lactate during one short period of run duration, you don´t understand nothing at all. There to face 800m or even 1500m it´s not a question of aerobic condition but anaerobic power. Short-middle distance events (all events up from 800m to 3000m) are not a question of lactate clearance, it´s lactate production. For that same reason, for certain kind of fiber type runners, do tempos for that FIbert ype specialist is useless, because training at anaerobic threshold takes lactate down by clearance, and that enable the runner of be able to carry on high lactate production, what is necessary to performance enhance in the 800m events

Of course that the training is not just specifics, and the aerobic condition got it place in the training context of a 800m or 1500m runner.

If you ask, but one stimulus because got no specificity can´t be done ? No, it can be done. Some do plyos and flexibility or weight training and that might help to a minimum extend any middle or long distance event. However it´s not the essential, the must of that run distance events.

There it´s accepted that the aerobic condition plays a role in the enhance of every middle or long distance performance. However what´s the best efficient training format to improve the aerobic condition. It´s volume training but not done in one long run as it´s the typical long run. The long run works effectively but if the run is a question or energy as it´s the marathon run or the ultra-marathon, because in that events the long run (not the LSD run) is highly specific for someone that is going to run one event longer than 2 hours. Marathon and Ultras are aerobic highly enzymatic runs.

But to imagine that you run twice a day the way you can sum 100miles or more a week, and imagine that you do 6 days a week twice training unities, and imagine that each seventh day you do the near double of more distance that you do in one single session of by-diary training with one long run every week(end) and that you got some extra benefit the way that got big influence in your performance enhance, that is false.

I know that no one is invincible. Lasse Viren did lost, Herb did lost, Peter Snell did lost to Rim Ryan.

Where i live is the land of reality and facts and not of drams or fantasy. No one can deny that Ron Clark the runner that is considered the main favorite in the olympics, far ahead of every other runner, by being so superior to all the others, if he lost, as Ron Clarke did lost 4 olympics, is considered a looser.

For instance. If Mo Farah after win the London olympics and being the maim favorite in this recent Moscow WC, if he did lost both the 5000m and the 10000m he was a loser. However Mo got not the level of favoritism as Ron Clark in 64 and also in 68.

By the way, what you say that he did win more races that he lost, might be true.

But once Michel Jazy said that in the total runs that they did compete both Jazy and Clarke, Jazy did win more than Clarke did. Here you got. Ron Clarke was the world´s best of his period, the world to best runner, a good pacer, able to run alone in the lead and the front, but is is a looser.

Anyhow you may consider him a winner, the all time world best, this means nothing to me to relate his training or what he says with the long run.

Of course that Lydiard training did help Halberg or Peter Snell to be the world top runners and the winners they were. Of course that the long run did help Halberg, Snell, or got a great influence to Ron Clark be the great runner he was.

But just to see what they did and think that what´s is necessary it´s to copy that training is silly.

If it´s just a question of copy then Zatopec did win the 5000m, 10000, and the marathon in the same Olympics, and he said that the erosn of his success was intervals everyday, sometimes he did 100X400m. Then we all were training intervals and 1200X400m ? It was silly if we think so. But it´s what some folks they think about training. Let´s do the long run because Snell and Clarke did it.

Also Rudisha will be doing 100X400m and the long run.

If the methodology to conclusion what´s rich training was what the world top runners do, then we well be doing wht was done in ten past by the world best runners.

What we need if training for 2013 and the next years, based on methodology training and not what someone did or someone said.

As long as you don´t understand the long run this way you will be fall in the trap that´s to agree and to copy “what someone does as training” or what “someone said about his training”. Base his training by what the others do or say, that is poor training methodology.

António Cabral wrote:No one can deny that Ron Clark the runner that is considered the main favorite in the olympics, far ahead of every other runner, by being so superior to all the others, if he lost, as Ron Clarke did lost 4 olympics, is considered a looser.

Apparently many people deny it.

But you seem to be the blind one.

You say that the truth blinds some people...

Why don't you start by telling the truth in your profile here on Let's Run?

Why don't you stop trying to blind people with your words?

You worked with World Championships' 4th placer Alberto Chaiça? What would his real coach, Américo Brito, say if he knew of this claim of yours?

You live in the land of reality?

I have known you personally for decades and what you say you have done, in terms of coaching and advising professional runners, is very, very far from reality.

Here

it says you have run 3:39 for 1500m. Did the author make it up? Was it a typo?

Because if you look up the FPA (Portuguese Athletics' Federation) statistics' pages, you see someone whose surname is Cabral, who has run 3:38 outdoors and 3:39 indoors. But guess what? It's not you.

Maybe you would like to explain people here on these message board why is it that runner after runner that you coach ends up leaving you.

Why is it that you discourage young athletes from fulfilling their potential?

Why should people on this message board "listen" to you and follow your advice when people you coach end up looking for someone else when it becomes obvious that what you profess doesn't work?

Why, if you are so good and have had so much success, isn't there a single elite or sub-elite runner in Lisbon that wants to work with you?

I don't speak English and asked for help from a running friend to write this. He was the one who told me about your presence on Let's Run and the article in the other link.

Don't worry, I will not hide behind a screen and will come to talk to you at the EUL track soon.

This is something for two adult men to talk about personally.

So why did I want to write this here? Because people should know of your real coaching ability and reliability (or lack of it) before they (some) start looking up to you for advice.

Regards,

R. T.

I´m at your disposal whatever you want. Answers about my coach activity, my coach individual options, as well as my relationship with my runners aren´t public domain, and less to debate or reply with you that I don´t know who you are.

My personal email is

coach2run@gmail.com

And my personal mobile phone is 96 322 14 13

Besides my coach credentials and authorization is available at IDP - Instituto Português dos Desportos and my athletic coach permit is number 4569242, both for Athletics and Athletics with deficiency.

Now about the training subject of this thread. You got some misunderstand here of the goal of this thread and my posts.

Do you judge my training opinion, whatever training opinion about training method or namely about Long runs, Tempo, or Ron Clarke whatsoever by the profile of the individual that posts on Let´sRun.com ? There we need to ask everybody else what he did/ does as coach or/and runner before to analyze each one post reply an the first one would be you that I really don´t know who you are. If so, therefore the best I can say it´s that you got stupid train methodology.

Another 50yo Portuguese runner.

Just one more point about what you wrote.

I´m just legal responsible for my acts, what I do and what I say, and what I write. I´m not responsible for what the others acts, what the others they says, and what ten others they write about me. Less what the others they think about me. Less the others I don´t know, or they don´ t identify themselves.

Just this.

Long runs are nice, but you can easily do without them.

For example if you run

10 miles AM

5 miles PM

for 6 days/week

and 10 miles on a rest day

that is 100mi/week of running without doing a long run. You will gain plenty of endurance by doing this and gain pretty much all the physiological benefits a 10k runner would ever need.

Tempos are nice, but there is alternative workouts such as cruise intervals and wave runs that will give you similar benefits.

For example

cruise intervals - 6 x 1mile @ 5 mile tempo pace with 30-45s rest

or

12 miles (1 mile @ 3 mile race pace, 2mile @ 5 mile tempo pace + 30s/mile alternate 4 times)

...

Personally I like to incorporate tempos and long runs, but no single workout is critical to the success of a well developed program.

99.99% depends on each runner's normal runs.

Many 'Joe Joggers' IMO are in dire need of pace/speedwork. For them- **Tempos**. But others could need the long run.

Pressed, my answer is: The ***LONG RUN*** - **If** that runner's doing everything else during the week a coach would recommend.