Important moments and concepts in the history and development of Intermittent training

EXCELLENT summary Antionio! This is just what I was hoping to see you come up with. I think the LetsRun crowd should be appreciative of your effort and the info that you have brought to us here.

I have an initial question that comes to mind:

In the early days of Intermittent training, it appears that the athletes/coaches always used "short" repetitions for their workouts (100m - 800m at most). Is there any evidence that you know of that shows any well known athletes of the early 20th century using longer repetitions that one sees sometimes today, such as "tempo" or "threshhold" repeats, of 5-20 minutes (1-3 or 4 miles). This is popular today in many circles, and I was wondering when this form of intermittent training started to become popular (for a long time was only the use of "fast" "short" repetitions used? This could be tied into the topic of "fartlek training," and how it became popularized, and where it fits into your classifications of intermittent training).

THANKS!

Sir Lance-alot wrote:

EXCELLENT summary Antionio! ....

WHOOPS.....sorry about the typo on your name Antonio!

Thank you very much for sharing with us about this subject Mr. Cabral. It is extremely appreciated by those of us who come to letsrun to further their knowledge on the sport they love.

estudiante wrote:

Thank you very much for sharing with us about this subject Mr. Cabral. It is extremely appreciated by those of us who come to letsrun to further their knowledge on the sport they love.

Yeah, I don't think most people appreciate the fact that coaches like renato and Antonio come on here and spend a lot of time helping young runners for free while they could be doing other things(or getting paid for their efforts). They do it for the love of the sport really

Initial –in the beginning really indeed – most of the training was done with continous runs. I think that gymnastics exercises and Nordic gymnastic, and gymnastics sets are in the origin of the use of running reps. They did some warmup gymnastic set exercise, stop-rest, continue, more exercises, stop, another exercise set, another run.

Most of the runs in the 20s and early on were continuous runs, a kind of tempo runs, and here there is a new discrimination: long runs – in the continuous format, and the intermittent runs – usually in the repetitions format. In early days, the long runs – done by distance or time duration – that´s from the origin “tempo runs”, now called threshold runs also. If you remember Paavo Nurmi and Jannes Kholmainen, I read that they did short to middle intermittent runs in controlled pace (400m-600m) but they also did a few continuous intense runs with chrono control.

We also need to consider fartlek training, also a training format that uses intermittent runs, done in the outdoors, or all terrain, cross, road, dunes, which the Swedes were the authors. In the original fartlek, there were short-to middle distance fast bouts up the sand hills, but also intense runs of long distance.

When later on we read about Zatopec training – they refer 200m-300m-400m repetitions, rarely longer, but you need to consider this, that since the intense short distances are done with active pauses, not passive, Zatopec training have an effect similar to the continuous runs. Later on, when the advent of the Gresheler interval training, Gresheler did use short reps, but also long reps indeed – the now typical 1000m, 2000m, 3000m reps – even 800m/1500m specialists they did that mostly during the winter season. Why Gresheler did use that also? I think that´s because in Gresheler schedules the continuous runs were excluded, just for warmup and cooldown. Thus the need to use long reps.

Later on short reps were the most popular, and more and more popular from the training of Russian school from the 60s – and the coaches and runners tend to forget that in the origin the long reps were included in the intermittent and interval training – or in a threshold intensity, or in a tempo or relate to the race pace intensity.

In my opinion, the success of Ron Clark – with the use of intense runs - and the need of continuous runs for long continous intense runs: cross, half marathon, marathon events, and also Lydiard and Van Aaken – among others - what made people re-think that type of runs and turn the attention for that runs – threshold runs, tempo runs, long intervals-long reps. Then, 2 opposite directions: meanwhile the interval training “thinks” short and intense reps as the more efficient, the continuous runs (apart from pure steady-state) “thinks” longer distance reps and threshold pace as the more efficient.

Let's get Renato on this thread. Where is he?

bump

Renato,

If you are out there I have a question for you. I know you use "intermitten training" for some of your athletes (for example in Shaheen's program you use 2 x (6 x 100 in 13" recovery 15"). I was just mainly wondering if you use this type of "intermittent training" during base periods for your Cross Country or track runners (and if not, than what period when you decide to use it).

Antonio Cabral wrote:

When later on we read about Zatopec training – they refer 200m-300m-400m repetitions, rarely longer, but you need to consider this, that since the intense short distances are done with active pauses, not passive, Zatopec training have an effect similar to the continuous runs.

Antonio,

I know there is some controversey about Zatopec's repetition training, some saying he did enormous amounts of fast repeats, other say lots of slower repeats.

You seem to be in the "slower" camp, which makes more sense (going slower would allow him to many, and day after day). So you feel that his repeats were usually not very fast, and he simply picked up the pace some, and then slowed some, repatedly for several miles? What kind of pace was he running for his slow and fast parts do you reckon on some typical workouts?

bump

Emil

I´m not sure for what pace Zatopec did that. Ther´s too much controversy about that, and we read different figures.

But one thing I know. If you do, let´s say 20X400m and you do the interval recover standing, that´s different than if you do an active interval, that´s what Zatopec did – active intervals with easy runs, he didn´t stop. So, if you do 20X400m rec=70sec standing let´s say in 66sec average. If you do the same 20X400m but with 70sec, but now gong ahead on the track for 200m in that 70sec, that´s normal that you aren´t able to cover the same 20X400m in 66sec for the same level of effort, but slower, let´say in 68sec. What is going in here? Is that while you do active recover your run is more aerobic than when you do that with standing recover. That´s what Zatopec did. He turn on the workout that used to be anaerobic into aerobic power, with the use of active recover. That´s why I say that that runs in some way, have the effect of continous runs, in intermittence, or an accurate fartlek on the track using the same bout distances. Some say that this IN-OUT runs promotes the mitochondria, and also are good to manage lactic acid.

About the amount of that workouts. So many reps really. You need to understand that he did that in cinder tracks, in synthetic tracks that´s harder, that may cause injury often.

People claims that he did 100X400m with 200m jog. One more reason to believe that the pace that´s not a fast one. That´s impossible to run so fast that 100X400m as you did just 20 reps. One more reason to believe that´s aerobic power endurance, extensive method.

But about the number of reps. I see some disagreement among the number of reps.

First, when someone copies or translate a workout, something is lost in that process.

I believe that the 100X400m rec=200m that´s 40kilos reps +20kilos jog=60kilos total, may be he did it, but in a single session or a double day session ? Anyhow he didn´t do that as a daily routine, but that were considered exceptional workouts. I think that´s more plausible to think that he did 20 to 50X400m than 100reps.

I have my own theory about that 100X400m workouts. In my opinion that’s the worst part of the Zatopec training and not the best one. Why I say so ?

As you may know Zatopec did win the 5000m, the 10000m and the marathon in 1952 Helsinki Olympics. Well, that´s a strong achievement, no doubt. But we also need to know that in between the last Zatope´s track run in that Olympics and the marathon – that´s a 3 weeks distance. Not as Frank Shorter that did 5th in the 10000m final in 1972 Munich Olympics, and a few days later he did win the marathon.

1972 olympics - 10000 M

1 Lasse Virén FIN 27,38,4

2 Emiel Puttemans BEL 27,39,6

3 Miruts Yifter ETH 27,41,0

4 Mariano Haro ESP 27,48,2

5 Frank Shorter USA 27,51,4

6 David Bedford GBR 28,05,4

7 Daniel Korica YUG 28,15,2

8 Abdelkader Zaddem TUN 28,18,2

1972 olympics Marathon

1 Frank Shorter USA 2,12,19

2 Karel Lismont BEL 2,14,31

3 Mamo Wolde ETH 2,15,08

4 Kenneth Moore USA 2,15,39

5 Kenji Kimihara JPN 2,16,27

6 Ron Hill GBR 2,16,30

7 Don MacGregor GBR 2,16,34

8 John Foster NZL 2,16,56

Also Lasse Viren did win the 10000m in 1972 Montreal Olympics, some days after the 5000m and less than 24 hours after the 5000m final he did the marathon run and placed in 6th.

1976 olympics 5000 Meter

1 Lasse Virén FIN 13,24,76

2 Dick Quax NZL 13,25,16

3 Klaus-Peter Hildebrand FRG 13,25,3

4 Rod Dixon NZL 13,25,50

5 Brendan Foster GBR 13,26,19

6 Willy Polleunis BEL 13,26,99

7 Ian Stewart GBR 13,27,65

8 Aniceto Simoes POR 13,29,38

1976 olympics 10000 M

1 Lasse Virén FIN 27,40,38

2 Carlos Lopes POR 27,45,17

3 Brendan Foster GBR 27,54,92

4 Anthony Simmons GBR 27,56,26

5 Ilie Floroiu ROM 27,59,93

6 Mariano Haro ESP 28,00,28

7 Marcus Smet BEL 28,02,80

8 Bernard Ford GBR 28,17,78

1976 olymopics Marathon

1 Waldemar Cierpinski GDR 2,09,55

2 Frank Shorter USA 2,10,45

3 Karel Lismont BEL 2,11,12

4 Donald Kardong USA 2,11,15

5 Lasse Virén FIN 2,13,10

6 Jerome Drayton CAN 2,13,30

7 Leonid Moseyev URS 2,13,33

8 Francesco Fava ITA 2,14,24

But continue with Zatopec.

The Zatopec golden period are close to that 1952 after war olympics. Zatopec 5000m WR 13' 57" 2 is done in 1954. the 10000m PB WR that´s 28' 54" 2 also in 1954. But soon comes other runners that smashed Zatopec performances.

28' 42" 8+ Sandor Iharos, HUN, 15 Jul 1956, Budapest

28' 30" 4+ Vladimir Kuts, URS, 11 Sep 1956, Moscow

And in the 5000m during 2 years so many take out Zatopec 5000m WR.

13' 56" 6+ Vladimir Kuts, URS, 29 Aug 1954, Berne

13' 51" 6+ Chris Chataway, GBR, 13 Oct 1954, London

13' 51" 2+ Vladimir Kuts, URS, 23 Oct 1954, Prague

13' 50" 8+ Sandor Iharos, HUN, 10 Sep 1955, Budapest

13' 46" 8+ Vladimir Kuts, URS, 18 Sep 1955, Belgrad

13' 36" 8+ Gordon Pirie, GBR, 19 Jun 1956, Bergen

13' 35" 6+ Sandor Iharos, HUN, 23 Oct 1955, Budapest

Then what Zatopec taugh ? I can´t win no more 5000m and 10000m in the Olympics. Then I will move up to the marathon in the 1956 Melbourne Games. That´s what he did.

That´s only then that he tried that monster amounts – 60-100X400m with 200m jog, to be ready for the marathon. But what happened ?

No success, he is simpy 6th in that marathon run.

1956 Marathon

1 Alain Mimoun FRA 2,25,00

2 Franjo Mihalic YUG 2,26,32

3 Veikko Karvonen FIN 2,27,47

4 Lee Chang-Hoon KOR 2,28,45

5 Yoshiaki Kawashima JPN 2,29,19

6 Emil Zátopek TCH 2,29,34

so, what I think is this, that people claims the mythical 100X400m Zatopec workout as something very good and as a key for Zatopec sucess, when isn´t. he did well but with just 20-40X400m.

Correction. Viren didn´t 6th in the marathon event but 5th place in the marathon. Excuse me.

Antonio, thanks for the excellent info and posts! I think that many people on these boards forget the indidualized nature of training, and the necessity for this. While all or most successful athletes cover a variety of training elements - speed, endurance, LT, VO2 - in there traing, all of this over time must be developed to fit the individual. Too many people simply look at a number of say 100 miles per week as the key. But what if your body won't allow you to do this without injury? Then you have to find another path.

Interesting info Antonio.

You point out that after Zatopec, some other runners quickly surpass his 5000 & 10000 ability. One of these runners was Sandor Iharos an Igloi disciple. Here is a brief mention of Igloi's Hungarian athletes in an article I found:

During the early 1950s many of

the middle- and long-distance track

running records were held by Hun-

garians; in 1955 these included world

records for 1500 m (Iharos and Ta-

bori, jointly), 1000 and 2000 m

(Rozsavolgyi), 3000 m, 5000 m and

10,000 m (Iharos), and in 1956 Rozs-

nyoi broke the world record for the

3000 m steeplechase. Igloi had dem-

onstrated beyond doubt the value of

systematic and intensive training and

of interval training in particular.

http://www.rdcsanjuan.org/coachescorner/level2/IAAF10_5_2003.pdf

(this article also discusses the German method briefly, and discusses interval training)

And we also of course know of Igloi's success with the Americans (Schul, Beatty, and many others).

So was Igloi's methods of SHORT repeats (100-200 meters usually) run at a FASTER pace and with a WALK recovery/rest interval a better model of intermittent training than Zatopec's method of longer & slower repeats, with more-active interval recoveries ? It appears to be that way.

Antonio, do you know how the German method(Gerschler) of intermittent training compared/contrasted to that of the Igloi model???

The hungarians they did really good in that period. May be hungary and also Soviet Union, the did get influenced for such a sucess as those of Zatopec, a Chec, that lived close to Hungary and East european countries - also close to Germany, more than the south mediterranean countries or America, where the Gresheler interval training comes late, or is a bit ignored.

In my opinion in the ienterval training there are a inner relation among:

1/each set distance

2/the number of reps and the total distance covered

3/the pace intensity and

4/the interval recover

that produces a range of standard workouts.

One classification of that workouts are

According the rep distance

1/short reps

2/long reps

According the pace intensity

1/all-out (anaerobic endurance)

2/race pace/tempo pace (aerobic power endurance)

3/threshold pace (aerobic)

But one single discrimination comes as identifiable

1/intensive workouts - in a fast/severe pace

2/extensive workouts - which the target that to do more reps/cover longer distance.

Among all this combinations, the russians - by Bolotnicov and Vladimir Kuts and marathon Popov among other - they used a lot that short distance (100m,200m, 400m)/fast intensive workouts. That produced a quickly and powerfull shape condition in short term. If you do lots of mileage to create the base, and then later on you start to do that kind of reps - short reps intensive workouts - that for sure that you improve quickly your condition. That´s what the hungarians did, but they did add a new model short to very short distance reps, intense pace, but also in extensive style - the more reps, the better and also active pauses. In this item of the interval training the hungarians were more radicals than the russiansd i guess here the strong sucess. But every coin have 2 faces, and that quickly improvement trought short/fast/active intervals, as quickly as you improve - if you don´t balance that interval workouts with long continuous runs and/or with long tempo reps - you shape condition quickly goes off.

Another examples of that training style short reps/extensive workout and intense pace that´s Gordon Pirie and also 5000m gold olymopic Bob Shul. Sometimes Bob did a double workout sessions both with intermittent workouts.

What i think this - Hungarians, Schul, Pirie, USSR runnersd they were different than Gresheler classic intervals that´s Gresheler uses a lot the long reps, more than the hungarians or URSS or Schul. In good term that short/fast/intense or extensive intervals was good, but if uyou think in the running history in lomg term - this was bad. We eneter in the 60´s and as van Aaken said - everybody get crazy/kaput. They think that´s the short reps, that´s the only training direction for distance runs. LLydiard that´s not enough to make runners and coaches think about the need to use mileage and go out from the interval training confinement. We need that the australias Ron Clark and also Derek Clayton they did appear in the

scene to convince that we need to change - that means to include difrent training formats in a schedule, different than JUST interval workouts.

I think Lydiard had it right when he said the purpose of hard anaerobic training was to lower the blood ph, and then let it rise, then bring it back down again, ect to acquire lactate tolerance. Now, I would guess that the purpose of running this anaerbic work with shorter repetitions like 200m and 400m is to develop speed, speed that cannot be derived from longer intervals like 800, 1200, 1600... Speed that is much faster than that of the goal pace. Ex 20x25 sec 200m reps for 13:00 5k runner.

So I ask (because I do not know, not to persuade) why do we do intervals/reps longer than 800m

Correction to my last post:

..The reason is to lower the blood PH and develope speed...

and why do reps longer than 400m*

quote]Gregston wrote:

....

"So I ask (because I do not know, not to persuade) why do we do intervals/reps longer than 800m?"

You use intervals or reps for different purposes. Intervals (done the Reindell / Gerschler way) focused on increasing the stroke volume of the heart (pumping more blood with each heart beat). The correct pace wasn't too fast (about 75% of best speed over 200m, for example) and the recovery period allowed the heart to fill to a point of great stretch and then when it stopped stretching (around 120 beats per minute) the next short run (100-400m, generally) was done. So, a 4:00 miler who has a :22.5 second 200m best time might run :30 per 200m (75% speed), walk or jog until his heart rate dropped from around 170-180 beats per minute to about 120 beats per minute. When it took too long (about 90 seconds) to lower the heart rate to about 120, then the session was stopped. The goal always was to improve heart capacity.

You use repetition running to train your muscles for racing. The speeds correspond to race pace. The length of the repetition is generally a bit longer and thus local muscle endurance is improved. The recovery period is not (as Antonio says) limited or the focus. You rest as long as you need to get recovered enough to be able to do the next rep at a target - goal - desired pace. If you cut the rest, the pace suffers and the amount or volume of running you do in the workout suffers. A good example of repetition running is the typical Portuguese session of 6 x 1km or 4 x 1500m, 3 x 2km, or 2 x 3km. The pace is set, the reps are run, and the rest isn't focused on.

So, in conclusion to answer your question, "...why do we do interval/reps longer than 800m?" my reply is because rep that are longer than 800m simulate the demands of racing very well.

* Reps longer than 800m are just one part of the training recipe, so keep that in mind. Tinman

One of the reasons that I haven't told runners on the internet that they should use short reps is because American runners have become crazy about running fast and taking short recoveries. I am against this for most part. Running short intervals at the correct speed (not too fast) and taking a measured recovery period can be quite useful, however, but only when done right. Antonio can talk more about this topic. He has used them for years, properly.

I'm not sure I completely understand, Tinman.

But can't you simulate race conditions (and by simulate race conditions, I assume we mean high lactate) by doing many fast short repetitions with long recoveries as well? How does it make sense to train at race pace (current race pace) and then take recoveries if you do not get recoveries in the race?

Think about East Africans. (according to what I have read in Renato Canova's material) At altitude, they train at race pace, with long recoveries. But, their race pace is the pace they want to run at sea level. Therefore, the pace they train at is harder than race pace and the repetitions must be shorter. Does this not equate to running faster (must also be shorter) than race pace repetitions with long recoveries at sea level for a sea level inhabitant?