Does the Lydiard/Wetmore system do enough to develop speed?

Barakus Obama wrote:

tguyhijk wrote:

No, you don´t suddenly switch to rectruiting the FG fibers, FG fibers just will "dump" the glycogen to the slower muscles that are working. To really recruit the FG fibers you just have to run faster.

Thats always sounded most likely, but I keep seing that part about long runs recruting fast twich everywhere. Theres no scientific basis in it?

Snell, with his Ph.D in exercise physiology, will tell you that after enough time spent running steadily, the slow twitch fibers are out of glycogen so the fast twitch fibers are used. If you keep talking with him about this, he'll tell you that it can be very difficult convincing people that slow running develops the fast twitch fibers.

But he also believes, and here he admitted he wasn't sure, that there is a point where running too slowly will not activate the fast twitch fibers. He said (this is from a conversation that happened maybe 12 years ago so he may have other ideas now) that he thought 7:00 pace was "about" as slowly as you can go and still activate the fast twitch fibers.

I found it odd that he saw 7:00ish pace as an absolute dividing line regardless of age, fitness, circumstance, level of effort, etc. I asked him things like 'Is it the same for a 75 year old novice runner as it is for a fit 25 year old, is it the same on a hilly course as on a flat one, in hot and humid weather as in cool, dry, weather, if your heart rate is 130 as you run as if it's 170, for someone whose best mile is 6:00 as for someone whose nest mile is 4:00? In each case, he kept telling me that he thought you had to get this affect you could not go much slower than 7:00 a mile.

Historically, when you write something like this at Letsrun a bunch of people will respond by saying something like "you have to run fast to recruit the fast twitch fibers,steady runs won't do it," and many will have their own explanations as to why that's the case. If we could break through the anonymity here, I would bet heavily that few of them have Snell's academic or athletic qualifications. On the other hand, Snell is a "Lydiard guy" and maybe his experiences color his understanding here.

At any rate, there is scientific basis to the "part about long runs recruiting fast twitch muscle fibers." Whether the evidence is enough for you is your own business.

Interesting. Good post.

slopenguinrunner wrote:

I do remember Peter Snell finding this out in subsequent research in the 1970s after he had become a doctor.

Peter Snell was not the coach of Lydiard. It´s not me that says it, it´s Lydiard and Peter Snell. Lydiard simply advice Lydiard in some aspects of his training. Besides Peter Snell says that "...he does not feel that Lydiard knows quite as much as he does about the half mile and the mile..."

If you don´t trust me just read this:

Lydiard is not truly Snell's coach, in the sense that Igloi is the coach of the members of the Los Angeles Track Club. "I do not tell him what to do," Lydiard said in Modesto last Friday. "If he asks me, I help him. But he doesn't ask often. He is not as fit as he has been. But if an American is to beat him tomorrow night, he must run at least a 3:56. I feel that no American runner can beat him. His great quality is that he insists that he will not be beaten."

Although Snell is grateful to Lydiard for supervising his marathon training over the hills and through the sands of New Zealand, he does not feel that Lydiard knows quite as much as he does about the half mile and the mile. He believes that he has been able to combine what Lydiard has given him on distance running with what he himself knows about middle-distance running. It is not a preplanned to-the-fraction-of-a-second system that Snell admires. It is, rather, a system which depends upon Snell himself.

HRE wrote:

On the other hand, Snell is a "Lydiard guy" and maybe his experiences color his understanding here.

At any rate, there is scientific basis to the "part about long runs recruiting fast twitch muscle fibers." Whether the evidence is enough for you is your own business.

Peter Snell was not the coached by Lydiard precisely. It´s not me that says it, it´s Lydiard and Peter Snell. Lydiard simply advice Peter in some aspects of his training. Besides Peter Snell says that "...he (Lydiard) does not feel that Lydiard knows quite as much as he does about the half mile and the mile..."

If you don´t trust me just read this:

Lydiard is not truly Snell's coach, in the sense that Igloi is the coach of the members of the Los Angeles Track Club. "I do not tell him what to do," Lydiard said in Modesto last Friday. "If he asks me, I help him. But he doesn't ask often. He is not as fit as he has been. But if an American is to beat him tomorrow night, he must run at least a 3:56. I feel that no American runner can beat him. His great quality is that he insists that he will not be beaten."

Although Snell is grateful to Lydiard for supervising his marathon training over the hills and through the sands of New Zealand, he does not feel that Lydiard knows quite as much as he does about the half mile and the mile. He believes that he has been able to combine what Lydiard has given him on distance running with what he himself knows about middle-distance running. It is not a preplanned to-the-fraction-of-a-second system that Snell admires. It is, rather, a system which depends upon Snell himself.

I present here the published prove to what i say. You just want that we let trust you based in conversations and Lydiard opinions that you just can´t prove by no material mean. It´s just speculation, How do i trust you, i don´t know if that just comes from your imagination.

If what you say it´s evidence ? How can be evidence ? Just because is write on LR.com by HRE ? My evidence is solid. It was published long ago. Your attempt to evidence is just speculation with no material prove. No surprise that kind of argumentation it comes from you. We are used.

Granted it was a summary, but see below article from Running Times and selected quote.

http://www.runnersworld.com/elite-runners/peter-snell-gentleman-athlete-scholar?page=single

"In 1976, Snell's academic mentor, Washington State University's exercise physiologist Phil Gollnick and colleagues, published a study that was one of a series of groundbreaking research papers on the adaptation of muscle fibers to training. In simple terms, what Gollnick's study showed was that long runs were beneficial because they caused the adaptation (training) of both slow-and fast-twitch fibers. By measuring the glycogen content of the various muscle fibers at intervals of 30 minutes up to two hours of cycling done at a moderate level (60 percent of VO2 max), the researchers discovered that it wasn't until one hour of exercise that fast-twitch fibers--those normally recruited during high-speed running--began to have their energy stores of glycogen depleted, which indicated that they were being activated. Though the pace didn't change, the recruitment of fibers did. So, at the 6:00 per mile pace Snell and Halberg were running, it took about 10 miles to begin the endurance training of the fast-twitch fibers, without the damaging effects of exhausting speed work.

The fast-twitch fibers that every runner needs to call on during the end of a race, or to keep up a fast pace, are pretty much spectators early in the long run; for Snell, however, those last 7 miles of the 22-miler become prime conditioning for these fibers, developing what could be categorized as "speed endurance." "There are two ways to train fast-twitch fibers," Snell would learn in his exercise physiology studies, "moderate running for long distance or high-intensity training."

"Although Snell is grateful to Lydiard for supervising his marathon training over the hills and through the sands of New Zealand, he does not feel that Lydiard knows quite as much as he does about the half mile and the mile. He believes that he has been able to combine what Lydiard has given him on distance running with what he himself knows about middle-distance running. It is not a preplanned to-the-fraction-of-a-second system that Snell admires. It is, rather, a system which depends upon Snell himself."

Fair enough, but you are neglecting a basic fundamental truth about distance training: fitness builds upon fitness. The marathon-esque training and hill work Snell did with Lydiard mattered.

Also, the more current Running Times article seems to portray Snell having a more reverent view of Lydiard.

Just to note, this all being said, I don't know what Wetmore does for speed. Running with the Buffaloes is solely focused on the x-c season and some of the workouts feature some neuromusclar work, but more in the context of 10k runners for cross country, like some intervals at 3k/5k pace.

Although I am pretty sure that the hilly terrain of the areas surrounding downtown Boulder help with the recruitment of fast-twitch and intermediate twitch muscle fibers when out running. Was out there for a week vacation last summer and it did a decent number on my legs.

Also, the book is still more about telling a story; you will get a theme about the workout, but not necessarily all the details. It's not a complete picture. Maybe they do strides, drills or plyometrics as a warmup or cooldown, but maybe not.

It also gives the indication that the 1998 version of Wetmore eschewed weight-training. Oddly enough, Jay Johnson reminisced about Wetmore having mandatory 6:00 am weight sessions w/ the Doors blasting.

Who knows what he does for indoor/outdoor track for 800/1500m types?

Yeah, I made it all up just to annoy you.

Nickname "Phoenix" wrote about fiber recruitment at http://www.letsrun.com/forum/flat_read.php?thread=211182&page=0"The research articles cited above and others referring to the same topic have NOT shown that fast twitch fibers are recruited after long durations of running.What they have shown is that some glycogen depletion begins to occur in the fast twitch fibers. Some have assumed that glycogen depletion is concomitant with fiber recruitment. This is not the case.**Fibers do NOT have to be recruited to be glycogen depleted**It is much more likely that the ft fibers are dumping their glycogen in the form of lactate which is then being used for fuel by the heart and st fibers when st fiber fuel is depleted.However, glycogen depletion IS a stimulus for aerobic (AMPK signaling pathway for mitochondrial biogenesis)adaptation whether or not the fiber is recruited.So, in the short, long runs DO deplete ft fibers. This depletion IS a training system but is probably independent of recruitment."Snell was wrong.

slopenguinrunner wrote:

Also, the more current Running Times article seems to portray Snell having a more reverent view of Lydiard.

By the way all the Lydiard arguments about training that Lydiard expresses in the Running Times is a bunch of ignorance.

Zatopec is the only runner that among many world records and many wins, until today he was the only runner to achieve to win the 5000m the 10000m and the marathon in the same Olympics. Zatopec got nothing to prove to Lydiard that never had one runner with such success as Zatopec. did himself with one method of training that is his own because he was self coached.

However Zatopec did start to coach after he did retires from competing.

Then Zatopec comments that his method is not good because didn´t produce no major rich runners after he starts act as coach. What a stupid Lydiard conclusion.

To judge the value of one coach training method merely by the success of the coach. With that stupid Lydiard logic of conclusion how Lydiard would considerHRE training, it´s Lydiard training of course but what olympics HRE did produce ? And what about Keith Livingston training, as far as i know his training didn´t produce no olympic success. Is Keith Livingston training poor training. Are the Peter Snell training ideas without value because Snell training didn´t produce any olympic winner ?

Besides, ok, it´s a fact that Lydiard did produce some olympic winners himself, but how many more olympic runners did he produce from 64 to the day he died. Might we consider Lydiard training, poor training because he didn´t get another one of his runners another gold medal ?

Lydiard just lacks a bit of intelligence.

Do you have comparable credentials to Snell's?

Thanks. That doesn´t annoy me nothing.

First of all Lydiard was Lydiard and Peter Snell is Peter Snell.

Second Snell acting as physiology expert is one among many, it´s not that he felts from the sky with the ultimate training consideration. the only one that got the only one rich training theory about training, by the way what a coincidence, to corroborate Lydiard !

Third, Peter Snell doesn´t say nothing knew. The fast fiber enhance with moderate training is a reality that i agree. Also VO2max enhance from slow pace is a reality. It´s proved. But just to some extend. I repeat, to some extend.

There i need to add 4 other aspects of consideration

1/If the best effective way to enhance the FT fibres would be moderate training, there would be no need to train on fast anaerobic paces also, and even Lydiard uses fast anaerobic training, faster than simply moderate pace to promote the enhance of Fast twitches.

2/If it´s true that the FT up to some extend do enhance with moderate training, the opposite it´s also true to some extend, that is the fast training with some sensible percent of stimulus in the anaerobic system also enhances the aerobic system as well. her are also physilogists and science methodologists that got articles that they prove that the anaerobic training also enhances the aerobic system,

3/It´s due to this both link between the aerobic and the anaerobic systems, that while the easy to moderate training runs runs do enhance the aerobic system and the ST and to some minor extend the ST and the anaerobic system, and that while fast run training with some anaerobic stimulus do enhance mainly the anaerobic system as the easy-moderate run can´t, but that the fast training also enhance the aerobic system to some extend that the best trainig periodisation is made by training both the aerobic and the anaerobic systems during the same training phases but in different percents each phase of course and progressive way.

4/Snell conclusions take us to the next step. What´s the best application from Snell conclusions ? Because point

As you might understand, i agree with Peter Snell conclusion, but that

doesn´t mean that Lydiard is right. The part to what Lydiard is right is the part that is universal common sense training in 2013, that aerobic training is very important and the basis of any rich distance training approach. The link from Snell ideas to Lydiard ones in what concerns about Long runs, season periodisation it´s not obvious and it´s not honest. This is the trick that the Lydiard ones they used often.

I might take from that Snell interview anything from James LI training, or Salazar training or every other that do train differently than Lydiard training.

ps- You come from nothing to physiology expertise. From the confess of total ignorance about physiology, and deny the physiology debate, actually you want to come deep in physiology...You are just a tricky individual. You say what better fits your opportunism as argument. Wait and see, it willn´t take long that that you will be close in your shell once again and you will say "oh, physiology, i don´t know nothing of it". Conclusion, you know some physiology if it´s in the Lydiard benefice, the moment the argument is not convenient to Lydiard here you are again HRE the physiology ignorant. After so many posts you did, your tricks of intelectual dishonesty are well known.

HRE wrote:

Do you have comparable credentials to Snell's?

And you what are your physiology credentials better than me to better comment on Snell than i do ?

I wasn't asking you.

Antonio Cabral wrote:

First of all Lydiard was Lydiard and Peter Snell is Peter Snell.

I had always wondered...

I actually read some of this and you really do not comprehend reading well. I do not claim to know much physiology. I interviewed Snell. Anything physiological in my posts here is Snell's idea, not mine. Snell could be absolutely right or absolutely wrong. I don't know enough to say. But when I do have questions about exercise physiology I am more inclined to believe someone with a doctorate in the field than someone with no obvious credentials. So when someone says, "Snell was wrong" I'm not going to believe them unless they give me a reason to.

Antonio Cabral wrote:

ps- You come from nothing to physiology expertise. From the confess of total ignorance about physiology, and deny the physiology debate, actually you want to come deep in physiology...You are just a tricky individual. You say what better fits your opportunism as argument. Wait and see, it willn´t take long that that you will be close in your shell once again and you will say "oh, physiology, i don´t know nothing of it". Conclusion, you know some physiology if it´s in the Lydiard benefice, the moment the argument is not convenient to Lydiard here you are again HRE the physiology ignorant. After so many posts you did, your tricks of intelectual dishonesty are well known.

I seriously wonder how Robert and Weldon still have someone like you as one of the faces of Letsrun -

You bring nothing but the same old speech, arrogance and petty comments like the one quoted above.

Do everyone a favor and compile your drivel into one big post, start a thread with your name and retire from Letsrun until you learn how to be polite, civil and respectful of the opinions of others.

Please go elsewhere if you don't want to listen to Antonio. He and Renato are basically the only reasons that I and many others return to Letsrun (aka the all-day Lydiard circlejerk).He has forgotten more about training than you'll ever know.

xyz^3 wrote:

I seriously wonder how Robert and Weldon still have someone like you as one of the faces of Letsrun -

http://www.letsrun.com/2008/bio/cabralbio.php

You bring nothing but the same old speech, arrogance and petty comments like the one quoted above.

Do everyone a favor and compile your drivel into one big post, start a thread with your name and retire from Letsrun until you learn how to be polite, civil and respectful of the opinions of others.

xyz^3 wrote:

Antonio Cabral wrote:

First of all Lydiard was Lydiard and Peter Snell is Peter Snell.

I had always wondered...

So let copy and past once again until you all wonder.

"I do not tell him what to do," Lydiard said in Modesto last Friday. "If he asks me, I help him. But he doesn't ask often. (...)

Although Snell is grateful to Lydiard for supervising his marathon training over the hills and through the sands of New Zealand, he does not feel that Lydiard knows quite as much as he does about the half mile and the mile. He believes that he has been able to combine what Lydiard has given him on distance running with what he himself knows about middle-distance running. It is not a preplanned to-the-fraction-of-a-second system that Snell admires. It is, rather, a system which depends upon Snell himself.