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

Could you explain how Clarke "lost" at four Olympics when he only competed in two?

The long run is what puts the tiger in the cat

Thanks for the question. You are right really.In the hurry to write in a different language than my own, my mind is faster than my writing, and i want to correct my sentence. i want to say 4 runs in the olympics, counting that he was not favourite in the olympic marathon run. The 4 wins in the 4 olympic runs were the 5000m and 10000m in 64 Tokyo Olympics as well and the same events on the 68 Mexico Olympics.

Let me add something how i see Ron Clarke. If we search on Track & Field News world rankings, we might see Ron Clarke. Of course that the T&F News rankings are something subjective, because aren´t pure chrono rankings.

Ron Clarke in the T&F News - 5000m rankings

Ron Clarke 1964 2nd

Ron Clarke 1965 3rd

Ron Clarke 1966 2nd

Ron Clarke 1967 1st

Ron Clarke 1968 1st

Ron Clarke 1969 1st

Ron Clarke 1970 8th

Ron Clarke in the T&F News - 5000m rankings

Ron Clarke 1963 1st

Ron Clarke 1964 3rd

Ron Clarke 1965 1rd

Ron Clarke 1966 2nd

Ron Clarke 1968 1st

Ron Clarke 1969 1st

Ron Clarke 1970 4th

This ranking also take in consideration Ron Clarke olympic defeats.

Or this runner got the best ranking sequence in both 5000m and 10000m event distances during the period of 63 up to 69. With such world superiority and also with the world best chrono sequence in both events as well, he was the favourite in both events to win the olympics but he failed. It´s in this context that i mean that he is a loser. Of course that got to be one reason why he did failed. He said that he is guilty of not be more aggressive in the 5000m in Tokyo and take the lead of the run. Wrong move however to use a wrong strategy. Then in the 10000m in the same olympics he wasn´t able to go away and lead the package as a front runner the way he can out such a fast pace that he might open a gap from him and the other runners. As he

couldn´t run in front of the pack we know what did happen, he wasn´t fast enough to be the fast in the last 400m lap.

In the Mexico city, he was defeated by the altitude. But we all know that he wasn´t the only one to suffer from the hypoxia factor. But the conditions were equal for everybody, the defeat were legal, Naftali Temu, Kip Keino and others got some advantage that Mexico city is too high. Ron Clarke Mexico results, lie it or don´t were the repetition of the 64 olympics. Tremendous defeats for such a good runner.

let me say one more thing about my opinion. Not counting with Mexico city he did lost many runs by the same reason lack of fast speed final. He was the kind of the resistant endured runner, a bit like i see Carlos Lopes or Daniel Komen. Runners that are a able to lead and put a very faster pace to tired all the other runners. However that runners or they lead and they open a gap in the lead pack, or they take the risk to be defeated in the last art of the run.

I guess that one symptom of lack of fast final is the kind of runner that normally does lots of tempo runs and mileage that makes them very resistants.The training adjustment of this runners is to dedicate some time short fast intervals to a le them to carry on with fast pace with high lactate, and not long runs. Another my clue hypothesis about Ron is that he did the same kind of training during all season. I really don´t know but it´s possible. In that aspect, the Lydiard runners normaly they are good examples how to peak on the right moment.

Both the long run tempos are critically important for all events 800 on up. If you fail to do either you will fall way behind equally talented runners who do both.

The Long run is slightly more important because it causes long term positive physical changes in your circulatory system by increasing capillarization in the far reaches of the muscles by laying down tiny new tubes. This long term physical change increases your ultimate capacity to do all other forms of training. The Long Run, in conjunction with overall aerobic mileage, lays down the aerobic foundation necessary to be able to do tempos and anaerobic work.

There is a direct correlation between what you can do for tempo runs and your short term race potential (1-3 months). Therefore you must be constantly doing tempos to push the blurry aerobic/anaerobic threshold out further and further.

To race at your best, you also need to do anaerobic work at or near race pace and you need to do 4-8 weeks of it. Anaerobic work causes temporary chemical changes, specifically your body's ability to buffer lactic acid by bicarbonate ion. This temporary chemical change peaks after about 3-8 weeks of anaerobic work depending on how big your aerobic foundation is (i.e. the more long runs, tempos and total aerobic miles you have done, the more anaerobic work you can handle). After a period of time you can no longer fool your body with more anaerobic work, it won't produce any additional bicarbonate ion to neutralize the lactic acid and you will burn out and fall apart. Antonio doesn't understand this and Canova doesn't need to understand this because he is working with super talented genetic freaks who already have 20,000 aerobic miles and hundreds of long runs as a foundation before they even meet Canova.

If you are a developmental runner with little base, and you try to do year round anaerobic work as Antonio suggests or Canova does for his pro Kenyans you will rapidly break down and fall apart if you are lucky, if you are unlucky you will get injured.

While I have respect for both HRE and Cabral, this is the definitive answer to this thread. I believe in tempo runs but I also understand that an aerobic 'base' must be built for any runner from 800 and up. If there is no aerobic base built on long runs, pure anaerobic work will lead to injury and/or burnout quickly for the young or inexperienced runner. The musculature of the body must adapt to being on the feet for miles upon miles - or at least 4-8 weeks as you've said - before anaerobic work is introduced.

That said, who ever said a tempo run is anaerobic? To my understanding, a tempo run is below the anaerobic threshold, which makes this entire debate moot.

tempo runs are below the anaerobic threshold. They also can be interval tempos where you do repeats but stay below the threshold

great post.

andersons

1/Compartmented linear training, with one period of aerobic condition, followed by another period of just 6 weeks dedicated to anaerobic training almost exclusively.

It´s total inappropriate. This was one training concept that was originally spelled by the east-german methodologists based in the old style classic Matveiev system of periodisation, that took most of his periodisation concepts from athletic disciplines, like sprint distance runs, or jump or weight or vault that by the character and the kind of stimulus demand when you reach one shape condition plateau, that is after a short training period, you might diversify or don´t the training unities, but you stabilize on the ability to enhance the performance. There the idea of a final 6 week of very specific training. This fits in such event demand, but the top shape condition and the distance training approach requires more diversification and the introduce of aerobic and anaerobic stimulus during the same training cycle, because every distance event demands a certain percent of aerobic and anaerobic system demand COMBINED, and in the same run, and also biomechanics of course.

The idea that the anaerobic enhance is limited to 6 weeks and that by that reason it shall not be done more than 6 weeks of anaerobic training totally is a simplistic idea.

If that was right, then the aerobic system can be enhanced in 3-4 weeks, there we don´t needed more than 3-4 weeks of aerobic training. Do you know what´s the training principle of enhance and progress by repetition and continuity ? It´s what the anaerobic training as well as the anaerobic demands, continuity of stimulus and repetition.

This early initial based on just one peak/taper season dated in each season that latterly and more recently did change to 2 peaks in every season. in the attempt to fit into new competitive needs that did change for 2 peak moments in every session . Curious that as long as this training broke the rule of JUST 6 weeks anaerobic training in each season and starts to do 6 weeks i2 times in the season in 2 periods on the annual season, that able the runner to better performances. Why ? Because with 2X6weeks anaerobic period (and not just one) and despite that each one from the 2X6 weeks anaerobic training is done sparsely in the season, the runner does the double of anaerobic training that just 6 weeks in one single season peak. That means that he just can carry one that extra anaerobic period with no problem.

This also proves that anyone can carry one more than 6 weeks anaerobic training an still continue to improve his shape condition that way and that might lead to performance enhance. What one runner must not do is to compartment the season with just aerobic first followed by one second period with TONS of anaerobic training (the 6 weeks), highly frequency and mostly all flat out. This is the Lydiard way proposal, and nothing else.

Why they just can carry on 6 weeks of anaerobic training and don´t progress longer that 6 weeks ? Because the condense and dedicate to the anaerobic high stimulus all in one short period (the 6 weeks). If instead they were been progressively introduce the anaerobic training with low weekly frequency and augment the intensity at the meantime that the season goes on, they will get better adjustment to the anaerobic training, as well as – and this is important – the aerobic condition will improve faster and by the contribution of some parsimony the anaerobic training during the early season. This is what mostly they do in actual times, this is what is consensual among modern distance training methodology.

To say the truth, in the distance training approach, even those that did trust on this your 6 week limited period of aerobic training, actually they did give up to use that method. Just see how the german distance runners did train today. Mainly because we know know that east and west german athletes from the 70´s tey took every kind of drug, and with such a program you don´t need to to train hard more than 6 weeks prior the competition, This drug programs eas something that they did forget voluntary to say to Lydiard when he was in germany to look for the rich anaerobic training program. They forget to say. Mr. Arthur, we use the six-week anaerobic program because we also use drugs in Waldemar Cierpinski .

2/Aerobic condition supports the anaerobic condition.

I agree but this is see the one side of the coin. Also the anaerobic condition moves the aerobic condition up, and this one more reason why we might do anaerobic maintenance during the aerobic period.Its from the training combination in the same periods and not the compartment of both the aerobic and the anaerobic system in different periods as well as biomechanics that´s the best rich performance enhance, because in the run you need to use both systems simultaneously.

3/long runs – very apart from the 800m-1500m specificity are rich way to enhance the aerobic system related to that runs.

You got more efficient effect of capillarity etc , all the aerobic advantage/benefit that is bring by aerobic training with short runs than the longer one run. Just keep on doing mileage the 7 days a week and forget the 6 days with short runs that might be doubles and then 1 day of long run. Forget it because for 800-1500m doesn´t bring no efficiency at all.

4/anaerobic threshold training (by tempo runs whatsoever) is important for 800m runs ?

The anaerobic threshold runs what promote is the capacity to lactate decrease on a certain pace. There

Your training is old fashion style and outdate training from modern indate methodology concepts and also modern rich physiology. Your Training concepts were been fashion in the late 50s and 60s as a revolutionary method at that time when the main training of that time almost forgot the continuous aerobic runs and mileage volume and was obsessed by fast anaerobic intervals with little mileage and without care the aerobic system, But what you do in this your post is just include quite a lot of new physiology terms that the innocent and naïve about training methodology tends to agree and coach or train that your way.

This your training proposal is nothing but just the old Lydiard training revised with some new terminology comes from physiology, but in reality got the same old training methodology mistakes.

If you want to see something different from your training 800m-1500m training proposal go on and see this youtube documentary. It´s old, rocket training from ten 80s, but you will see how some did train some steps ahead of your training and they got better results than your training that is older than this one.

I take from this video, that during the winter introductory period, Seb Coe did 6-X800 hilly on road in about 2minutes with short recovery among other faster anaerobic training kind. This is not your 6 week anaerobic training neither your aerobic first.

I invite you all to watch this video that I invite everyone to watch, not because I consider the training perfection, but because you can see that are other training options, other training preferences out of your outdate training a la Lydiard. I also don´t address you all to watch this video because it´s a single case of training, Seb Coe training in the case or because I agree with everything. I invite you because this is not just Seb Coe training single ca of study or because Seb and Seb father says…(a la HRE). This is the kind of training that is product of a training experience but that passed to one training method, the one of Pete Coe and David Martin that was formulate in books and texts. It´s quite long but I advice you to watch and might be you learn something out of your training concepts.

Sebastian Coe Born To Run full movie

http://www.10youtube.com/watch?v=n5D0XzOcQkM

ps – one more point. I train mostly average runners and runners with minimum talent, not kenyans, not world top class runners, master runners. I´m specialist with my training in regain maters to the regular training and take them to the competition as long that they got motivation to compete. But with my training method, the hundred of runners I did coach and the dozens that I actually coach they don´t tend to injury. They would be prone to injury if I will put on them one period of easy aerobic runs followed by your 6 week anaerobic training, more to what they do injury training my way.

Antonio, you contradict yourself. You preach so called modern training methods then go on to praise the late 1970s (35 years ago!!!) of Seb Coe. But that doesn't matter. It doesn't matter if training methods are new, old or medium it is what works for long term development.

What you don't understand Antonio, is Aerobic work and Alactic anaerobic work (short sprints 40 to 200 meters and/or short hills with long recovery) to improve basic speed cause physical changes in the body and must be worked all year long for many years in a row for long term development. The aerobic consists of overall mileage, long runs and continuous tempos and tempo interval at varying distances and paces.

The alactic anaerobic work consists of short sprints twice a week.

You must be constantly working on aerobic and basic speed development year round which result in long term physical changes to the body.

Anaerobic work does not effect a physical change to the body. It is only a chemical change, i.e. the ability of the body to neutralize lactic acid. This change is only temporary and anaerobic development rapidly runs into diminishing returns usually within 4-6 weeks. After 8-10 weeks any additional anaerobic work is going to be counterproductive. If you have a lousy aerobic base you will fall apart in less than 6 weeks of anaerobic work both physically and mentally.

Most runners and coaches reading this forum (99.9%) are runners or coaches who are coaching runners who have far less than 15,000 lifetime accumulated miles and therefore are severely underdeveloped aerobically and also most fail to work on alactic basic speed work so their basic speed is also undeveloped. They would be far better off working on long term physical changes (aerobic and basic speed development) than doing anaerobic interval work which reaches its peak in less than 8 weeks. They should save the anaerobic work for the last 4-8 weeks before championship races and the rest of the year working on aerobic and basic speed development.

In summary if you goal is to be the best you can be 6 weeks from now, by all means follow Antonio's and Canova's training. On the other hand if you want to be much, much better than you are now 1-2 years from now, focus on aerobic development (long runs/tempos of all types) and work on basic speed.

andersons

Whatyou mean is the old fashion Lydiard paradigm and nothng else.

Be informed, The kind of training that i mean it+s not anaerobic alactic sprints. Try this.

Sebastian Coe - Born to Run - Part 3.flv

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xKgUuMzMWk4

3min 15sec ahead – Winter non competitive season. Pete Coe, the father and coach of Seb Coe prescribes hilly half mile intervals

Coe says about this intervals: “half mile…cruel”.

This intervals were done with chrono watch control, not by feeling.

Coe says” I do this…fourteen to sixteen years…half mile road back to back, the most significant around 2:00minutes with very short recovery, that is hard, that´s probably the hardest of the condition session ii do.

Pete Coe “the quality what you do it´s much more important than the quantity”. Why pounds…when you could develop is quality. If you develop that quality in terms of speed and speed endurance you are mentally….

Seb Coe”Hard sessions that really hurt”

7min30sec ahead – Seb Coe does hard short hills with high intervals wit chrono control coming back jogging.

Do you really think that he does the aerobic first and the just the anaerobic 6 weeks ? Do you really think that he doesn´t anaerobic intervals, fast runs, regularly during the condition season ?

This was the must training of the 80s in terms of 800-1500m/mile. But you talk about aerobic first, long runs, tempos and just 6 weeks of anaerobic training ? Please, be informed.

very good post.

question: isn´t it possible to equate long runs by doubles all the way? is the long run that necessary?

No. The long run must be continuous and "long" relative to your normal runs to cause the capillarization effect to permanently change your circulatory system and lay down those tiny new tubes which ultimately increase your ability to handle increased training loads of all kinds. This is called Collateral Circulation.

LOL again at Cabral getting totally outed by this poster. Mods stop deleting this post. There is nothing wrong if this website was fooled by someone’s lies for several years - lots of people were. However if you stop posters from flagging false information then you are covering up for those lies thereby making this website an unreliable training resource for runners (which is against the policy of this website). Lots of forum readers still look up old threads to read up on training methods and approaches. The post by “another 50 yo Portuguese runner” was entirely correct – Cabral never ran anything within 200m of a 3-39 1500m and certainly never coached Alberto Chaica or any Portuguese elite.