Nothing new about distance training has been discovered since January 1, 1980.

The role of the spine in human movement, and how the very best runners understand how to use it.

1976 was an Olympic year. Top Americans ran the trials instead of Boston that year.

HRE wrote:

SMJO wrote:

Rodgers didn't run Boston in '76 so of course he trained through it.

Using races as training is still not the same as doing race like efforts in training.

Why not?

Hardloper wrote:

Nothing. Everything since then has been re-hashing of the same concepts already understood by runners in the late 70's / early 80's. All improvements since then have only come through better technology, faster courses, and a larger global talent pool of participation.

Its hard to argue against this statement. If you've been running for a long time you've seen the trends some and go. While you could argue that "tempo" running was new, I dont think it was.

We used to do tempo runs, we just didnt call them that.

So we might know WHY some workout are preferable now, but the work isnt necessarily "new".

Interesting way to look at it Renato. I have been thinking for some time that athletes here in the US have forgotten the best of the past and followed the propaganda of the popular running publication that "less is more"

Our coach here in Boston in the late 1970's Bill Squires had us doing nothing but longer intervals and innovative workouts combining intervals on the track and hills on the road and grass of "Heartbreak Hill"

Not exactly high altitude in Kenya but effective for us as we prepared for our early marathon attempts.

I have made my running history and that of my contemporaries available to younger athletes for their edification. I am often asked what we did and with the internet was able to share.

As a young athlete I was most interested in the athlete biographies that provided motivation and methodology.

I agree intensity is the big difference but not so much a new method.

Renato Canova:

"After no longer than 2-3 years, easy long run doesn't produce any effect. If somebody thinks the process of capillarization can last for ever, he's wrong. After opening ALL THE VESSELS that is possible to open in his body (and this happens during the first 3 years, if his training is enough), the only way for increasing the Aerobic Power is the intensity. In this point I'm very far from Lydiard."

Friend of Greg's wrote:

There is ONE CONCEPT that applies to cycling that eventually EVERYONE will do that only myself and couple of others do now. That is MOVE YOUR SEAT UP one inch slide it forward and SLANT IT DOWN as much as you can. You will go FIVE PERCENT FASTER! you will also be more comfortable and your bike will handle better. Try it!

This works for tri bikes but puts all your weight on your arms for road riding which kills you on long rides, plus moving your seat forward allows you to increase your cadence but at the expense of power....so, not new, not useful.[/quote]

The idea is you have your weight EQUALLY placed on your bars, pedals and seat. You want 33% on each one! If you have too much weight on your bars then lower them. Most riders have too much weight on their seat and not enough on the pedals so they go slow. When you raise the seat one inch and slant it down you get 5% more weight on the pedals and you take off like a rocket! Try it!

Why are people getting in an argument with Hardloper. Isn't this kid like 23?

HRE wrote:

Why are you asking me? You do understand that "hammering" is a relative term unless you're driving a nail into something, right?

Yeah, everything is relative - 24 @ 4:41, 24 @ 4:57, 24 @ 6

Great post. What are your thoughts on lactate measurements on distance runners during the fundamental period? Do you think going above 4mmol in training every week on these long fast runs would be a good idea only for top runners or also for runners at the college level 13:30-14:30? Or are you talking about these fast runs only when you get closer to competition? Thanks!

in an interview with Bill Adcocks he mentions Clayton turning up at their usual 22 miler. Normally they ran it in 1.58, that day Clayton blew them apart with a 1.52. Clayton normally would run his long run of 25 to 27 miles at 5.15 to 5.20 pace. His 14 to 17 milers often were covered at 5.00 pace and he often broke 50 on his short run of 10 miles. Clayton didn't allow himself to recover between the hard efforts and that was his downfall.

Kerry O'Brien used to do a lot of "Canova" short flat out hill sprints to build strength for the steeplechase. He also liked to run his 10 milers in 50 mins or faster and even his 15 milers were often quick.

Dave Chettle would run his 10 milers in 49 then finish the session with a bunch of 400s.

When I was young the 40 something 2.30 guy at my club used to tell me longer reps were the key. He advised me to do 3 x 2k @ 6.20 then finish with 800 @ full pace in the weeks leading to my efforts to bring my 5000m down to 16mins.

His marathon training included long reps like 4x 20 mins with brisk recoveries. Fast long runs and an occassional day of 2 hard 10 milers.

Not so different back then than what the Kenyans are doing now.

sddfsadfsa wrote:

It's 70s and 80s. I do agree with you, however. That's why it's a waste of money to pay for a coach. All of the training principles are available, well-known, and understood.

So high school kids should just coach themselves?

A coach offers someone on the outside to evaluate and adjust training.

coach d wrote:

(3) Neural recruitment in high lactate events (400-1500). Researchers in scandinavia in the late 1990's instrumented some 400 meter runners doing all-out 400s and saw new fibers being recruited as old ones died from acidosis. Reason to do heavy squats or Canova-style hill sprints.

coach d, could you provide a reference for #3? Thanks

Clayton raced 26 @ 4:54 and trained 25 to 27 miles at 5.15 to 5.20 pace

That's 20 to 25 seconds a mile slower, and not what Kipsang

was doing at 7000 feet altitude.

The innovation is the sub 2 hour effect for 24.8 miles.

Perhaps "we" as a whole have not learned anything, but many of us have in terms of individualization.

Just to clarify on the wording a bit, Renato, the 15k/45 minute run(s) were not Clarke's long runs of the week, as you described it. His long run was often the 22-miler that others have made reference to. And Ron said this was a relatively easy run for him, other than a couple of major uphill stretches. He also linked up with Clayton sometimes for a "very fast" 15-17 miler. The run you mentioned was likely one of his sessions at his favourite training site, the Caulfield RaceCourse, a horse racing track where he would often run after his workday. This was a grass track, "a mile and a quarter and 100 yards around", and Clarke would usually run 8-10 laps at a tempo that suited how he was feeling, so sometimes very fast, sometimes not so much. Regardless, a lot of fast-tempo running, which he said was the basis of his success.

I never said 15 km in 45' was for Ron Clarke the long run of the week. It was the real "fast tempo run" of the week, nothing to do with the long run, that obviously he did, how the most part of runners in that period, and how the most part of runners in the modern period.

What changed is the LENGTH of the fast runs. For a top Marathon of today, at the pace Clarke ran 15km (3' per km) now there are 30 km, and for some african champion also 40 km.

About what HRE tried with himself, we continue to see how people don't understand that is not possible to compare the training of an amateur, not able to produce quality for his objective lack of talent, with the training of a talented athlete.

If you are not fast, NEVER can become a champion. There are runners 90% slow fibers, not able to reach 5 mml of lactate : they can run 24 hours, but no chance to become good runners in any Olympic event (if you don't think a man running Marathon in 2:20 is a good runner, when there are 15 women in the world running faster).

I mean, as good runner, somebody at international level.

Different body structure, different physiology, different training, different results.

It's not possible to compare a racing horse with a horse may be stronger, but good for pulling a cart. They belong to the same family of animals, but are two different individuals.

The runs with Clayton were on roads, usually on Wednesdays, and not at Caulfield. If not racing on Saturdays, and they usually were, they would also do a 25-30 mile run together.

Clayton had something like six surgeries. I may be off on the exact number, but it's unlikely he could have gone much faster on those runs. If Kenyans are running even faster for distances of that length what you're seeing is not innovation but simply a superior athlete who is able to do what others have done but faster.

Renato, you did say "the first athlete to run fast his long run in training was Ron Clarke...". Of course we know that wasn't his longest run of the week, and as I stated, I was just clarifying your wording.

HRE, I know that the fast run with Clayton was on the roads, Clarke referred to it as "like a road-race". He also said this was one of the few sessions that he did on the roads, he much preferred his grass and trail running. On the long weekend runs, Clarke said he usually did the 22 miler, sometimes up to 25, but he said that Clayton would often go longer, somewhere between 28 and even up to 35 miles. And if Clayton didn't do the longer route, he would do another 10 miles in the afternoon.

In Clarke's opinion, Clayton's training was too hard, without enough "recovery" running. I've heard somewhere around 9 surgeries. Ron said that Derek told him that he really didn't like running very much, he just did it because he was good at it!