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

Tinman wrote:

The use of longer reps (1k-2k-3k), such as the Portugese use, and how I have trained runners for several years, is about improving endurance and resistance to fatigue in a sustained way. Long reps improve that quality of performance extremely well. I have coached runners who had previously not run long reps, and when I added long rep to their schedules the results were quite good in as little as a month.

The point is, if you are going to run in races that require sustained high effort, you need sustained high effort reps as part of your program. ...

Tinman

I agree that longer reps are very effective. And in fact, some other examples of athletes that have used longer reps to great success (of course there are tons of examples, but here are just a couple) are:

**Seb Coe, who used to run 1000's at "5k pace" a lot. His Dad said, quoted be Frank Horwill, that intense longer reps if done regularly make the need for higher volumes of mileage not so necessary, ie, they effectively can take the place of lots of slower volumes of steady mileage. One can disagree, but that was his opinion, and explains why Seb did not do lots of mileage.

**Marius Bakken: My understanding is that the bread and butter of his program was 3-10 minute repeats run right at anerobic threshhold(LASS). Later, he even bumped them longer to 3-20 minute repeats.

But I do have one more comment. Tinman, you say:

"The point is, if you are going to run in races that require sustained high effort, you need sustained high effort reps as part of your program.

That makes sense, and was a Lydiard belief too. But for Lydiard it meant hard long runs and also time trials, which is of course were clearly "sustained high efforts" similar to a race (and I am sure he used some long repeats too, right?). Lydiard felt that such "high sustained efforts" were the reason Halberg won the 5000 gold in 1960, and the reasons the others could not beat him in that race was because they were too used to quick rest breaks after short repeats, which did not reflect a race scenario (that was the basic meaning of his comments). That all sounds good, BUT.....

As I have pointed out before, WHAT ABOUT IGLOI'S ATHLETES???? Schul won the gold in the SAME RACE (5000) in the very next olympics after a training regimen ALMOST SOLELY composed of SHORT REPEATS (100-200 meters) with LOTS OF REST BREAKS. His program contained virtually:

* ZERO LONG RUNS

*ZERO temp runs

* ZERO "LONG REPEATS"

Bob Schul, and other Igloi disciples, tore Lydiards comments/theory to pieces. It is something to consider.

Earlier Antonio stated:

"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."

That's correct, but an UNDER-statement. "SOMETIMES" ?? Sorry Antonio, but Bob Schul ALMOST ALWAYS, ALMOST EVERY DAY ran "double workout sessions, BOTH with intermittent workouts."

I will post some sample training weeks of Bob’s right before he broke the two mile WR to demonstrate that. But that can be inserted a bit later in Antonio’s "history of intermittent training."

Bob Schul ran 90 miles per week, so you can't say it is unfair any of us to infer that he performed well while when doing low mileage, high intensity, short reps. Bob Ran a variety of rep and interval distances at a variety of intensities. He did NOT run them all fast. He is a smart guy and has a good system. The volume was there, much of his work was not super fast but moderate (he had great 200-400m speed, so if you figure a percentage of it for his reps you find that the majority of his 200s, 400s, etc were done at 70-80% of best speed (28-30 seconds per 220 yards for example is about 73-78% of his best speed) , which is reasonable. He also did a lot of 100s that were easy for him as part of his plan (a version he created from his experience with Mihalyi Igloi) that added volume to his schedule.

Hopefully Bob will read this thread and respond. In the past he has been a contributor. I ordered and read both of his books, figured out the paces and percentages and realized he did a lot of volume of work that would promote endurance, while a reasonable and smaller percentage was quick. He appears to have balanced out the key elements of performance: endurance, strength, and speed. Tinman

Gregston and Tinman

I agree with most of what Tinman said - and i do agree a lot with Tinman that in the considered long reps - the typical one 1000m/mile/2000m/3000m reps etc - that shall be done with quite complete rest, for the reason that the focus is in (race) pace or quite close and not in the incomplete interval to produce high lactic concentration,

In my opinion short intervals in long reps - that would be inadequate.

I Knew that a typical american (and not just american) 1000m or mile reps with 1min interval recover.

Besides i doubt a lot that a runner is able to run thsi workout. ex; preparing a 5000m run- 5X1000m or 4Xmile in his 5000m race pace, with 1 minute rest. No portuguese is able to run that, i i think that no one. Only with one exception - or your 5000m performance is underestimate and you run let´s say 5X1000m/3:00 that´s 15min 5000m pace rec=1min, and in the next 5000m you do a sub 15:00 (imagine a 14:35 a new PB) or the opposite, you train for a overestimate performance - you run that 1000s for 3:00 and then your run is for 15:40. If that same runner runs the 5000m close to 15:00 that´s a poor performance considered the workout check test. The next minute you stop and you go to re-start, despite that your cardio/vascular did rest and recover in that period, the lactic acid is in the same concentration if not high - that´s high really after 1 min stop. Eventually this is a once/tice a season workout if you understands me, that you may do in a peak period, very good shape condition, but not a weekly routine workouts along the season that´s what we are commenting about.

Anyhow - anything may be wrong in that long reps with 1min recover relate to your run performance fi you do that in a weekly basis, and the benefits of that aren´t so good as you do a longer recover - most they need 3-4min recover, some needs 2:30-3:00 buit only the very good ones they needs only 2:30-2:00 but one minute...? - , because 1 min that´s not enough to recover in a race pace. In HM or marathon pace i believe, but 1500m to 10000m i doubt that most of you are able to do that.

But most of the times or the performance or the workout or both that are wrong and innadequate. But you thinbks that´s good, try it, don´t pay attention to what i say and then let me know the result.

You are using such a pace intensity, and for so many minutes/time duration that you don´t need to use the artifice that´s an incomplete recover - to produce the desired lactic acid concentration, as you need if you run the short reps suggested by Tinman - 200m to 400m short reps in 75%. With such a short duration (a little more than 1 minute run for 400m) and with a such a slow intense pace, if you don´t use short and a few times ALSO ACTIVE, recover periods, you will never obtian the level of desired acid lactic concentration. This is my disagreement with Tinman - but no problem i thanks the change to discuss that. That´s right that in the early interval training Gresheler did mentioned 120 beats as an exemple of the recover he estimates someone needs to recover. But soon Gresheler and Reindel they discovered that for top class runners - at that time - in 75%-80% of the PB in that short distance a trained runner is able to recover in less than 40seconds standing. And quickly all over the world, the precaution fo the 120 beats that´s outdate. Of course that the advise 120 beats/minute that depends of each individual and the rate of the min and Max heart beats, besides we are also different about lacid acid concentration. But the portuguese - i may say that most of us - after some introductory period we are able to run interval training in short reps for a pace 105% faster than race pace going to 175-180-185 beats, and the recover is some 40sec-45sec active pause - 100m ahead on track and we re~start soon we get down the beats to 150-160 beats. This workout is considered even more powerful than long reps - considering the effort demand, we create a very high lacid acid concentration that with a very short recover period we are able to manage. This is the end of the history. Because since long ago that the modern use of the interval training

- as the germans and the spanish they use - they have a similar concept than our. the classic 120 beats is complete out of date. This is used just in the case that you run that "crazy speed short reps in quite all-out pace" this is when you need to get back to 120 beats. But of course while doing reps with such a intensity and such a recover you are doing speed-endurance and not aerobic power endurance. Aerobic power endurance you do with long reps, or with short reps incomplete interval.

Further up i will send you some true examples and some original texts from Reindel that proves what i defend. that the essence of the interval training focus that´s the incomplete interval.

One more obsrvation. A portuguese my friend - Rodrigo - recently he did call me to say that he reads this thread and also ask me if what he did read once in Malmo article -that if you run 400s and you rest the same period than the time you spend to run that quarter isn´t effective. I don´t know if quote the right Malmo sentence - but if the idea is right i do agree, that´s to much time, but eventually the heart didn+t get back to 120 beats yet in some cases - well it depends of the pace.

Concretly about Greston post question relate with Lydiard, we know that Lydiard did a season periodisation wich i may resume like that a long duration basic training/aerobic and a short period with a peak intention - some 6 weeks. Duringb that short peak period, Lydiard did reduce the mileage training to just some jogs, and he sis use the 6 weeks german peak concept from Matveiev cycles of periodisation that says that the peak period lasts only 6 weeks and after that period decreases. Then, Lydiard - during that period - apart from the weekly long run the runner do short reps, quite anaerobic sometimes - to able to ruinner to peak quickly. That´s what i tyhink why he uses short reps/very fast pace - and of course that needs long recover. I+´ve said earlier on that the short reps that+s the easy and effective way to peak in a short period of you have followed a previous aerobic/mileage training. previously.

But in my opinion the Lydiard concept - despite he uses some interval training concepts - Lydiard training have nothing to do with Gresheler interval training or the interval training that did spread all over the world - with several , because the use of the reps (shorter and longer) they are in a entire season base, and not just for a reduced period.

Please give examples of aerobic power workouts for a 10K runner.

Sir Lance-alot wrote:

* ZERO LONG RUNS

*ZERO temp runs

* ZERO "LONG REPEATS"

Bob Schul, and other Igloi disciples, tore Lydiards comments/theory to pieces. It is something to consider.

Lance

I´ve said that, but let me repeat - the short runs - i don´t consider what´s the intensity - but that mostly are done with active recover - that have a similar effect than the long continuous runs. We may discuss what´s best, but the reason why people that did have sucess but they mainly uses short reps that´s or because the use very short intervals, or because they use active pauses. I remeber that the great Brendan Foster used to run 5 or 10 kilos on track during the winter season running short bouts (100m/200m/300m/400m) with the same distance of active run.

ex:25X400/fast rec=400m. This works (replaces) as he did long reps or continous LT workout - depending of the pace intensity he uses - despite he is doing really short reps with active pause. Also Paula Radcliffe in a track workout focused in the marathon event she uses to run 12kilos in Ex:12X(400m+300m+200m+100m) in her 10000m pace (close to 30min means 400m/72sec+300m/54sec+200m/36sec+100m/18sec, with 3:20 kilo pace for the active pauses. She is doing a short reps session really , but she is doing a intense intremittent workout with active recover. This have the value of a long run. That´s the same with the hungarians.

But s you see, she didn´t need to get his heart down to 120beats - this is too much easy

Since long ago that i said that we may train for the improve of our condition in a determined effort zone. no matter waht´s the zone - ex: aerobic, lactic acid management, race pace, etc - but we don´t need necessary to run in the pace intensity than that zone is reached. We may do LT runs if we dely the effort of short reps, IF we don´t have a complete recover (but a short one) pause and IF we extend that run, not that 10X200m in race pace coming down the pulse to 120 beats that works. No, but if we do an active recover and we do more reps - ex:50X200m with 20m intervals - we are doing LT training, but in afadster pace than that anaerobic threshold occurs. This new concept that´s fantastic - i call that artificial training or sophisticate training that´s what happens in the short active reps wityh imcomplete recover. Wer are training in different pace than we use for the Race pace in long reps, but with a similar effect with some benefice - fast pace promotes muscular strength/power and more running economy and running in an high lactic acid plateau without the need

to run so many distance as you would need with long reps, and besides the recover - even active that promotes neuro-muscular recover. If we see things from a different angule (the speed need) - while doing short reps/active pause we run in a faster pace than long reps in race pace - and this is also good - but that´s also true that we don´t need to run so fast as we did need if we use short/fast reps BUT with long recover. That last ones each time you re-start that´s like you get your machine to Zero and that you need to repeat the process to get that to 180beats (as to say). Look for your beats in 400s reps. Only after (let´s say) some 250m is when you get 180beats, before that the heart is simply going up from 120beats (or the beats we have when we start) to 180beats. In some way you lost 250m to go up to the intensity you want to train, but if you use a short recover, imcomplete and yiu start (let´s say) in 150beats, in some 40metres ahead you are in beat zone you want to train. Try it and check for yourself.

That are some reasons you may use that short reps run with short recover and not fast short reps with quite complete recover.

GregstonYour post asks are so intersting that i will try to post some more ideas, and discuss a bit more. Of course that Tinmam explain did said enough. But let me try to say the same but with other key ideas.

One of the reasons i think your post is so interesting is that i´ve seen and discuss so many times your ask that is like a FAQ questions about interval training.

Tinman made that clear, i also did, some of you did, but let me repeat. The greatest mistake about short reps and interval workouts are that people only thinks about the pace - the faster the better. After doing workouts regularly the portuguese runners and coaches they are used to it. They know that the main task of that workouts are to create a good shape condition, not workout PBs. If you rin that in fast pace - too much fasyter than race pace, but you have a long recover - your workouts is speed endurance. not aerobic power, no matter that you do more reps. But if the pace that you run your reps is too much faster/intense than race pace the workout do´n´t simulate the real run. How can that be? Besides if you do short reps with long recover, this doesn´t simulate a real run - what are the run that yiou start fast and then after a short distance/time duration you stop, rest, repeat the process and then you go on and on to the end of the run...NO run is like that. But if you do long reps as Tinman said, that´s ok, you do run for such a long period - considereed as a fraction of the total run event distance - that you may have a long pause/rest/stop to able you to continue.

Of course that the perfect workout would be a long run with short recover, but as i did discuss earlier on this is not possible, or you are running a race in the workout !

THis is also intersting to comment. If you go to the altitude, you may consider that you need more recover and/or also less speed for the same workout. But i may confess that i´m not an expert in altitude, and bsides experience i have with Alberto Chaiça when he did train for the olympoic and world champs both marathons he did several altitude stays, but he is so motivate that the results are inconclusive. hew traisns as hard as in the sea level as in altitude. he uses the same interval pauses and he feels that´s ok. May be the pace that´s a bit slower for the same effort level, but the recover are the same. Also, despite he did born and live and trains in sea level - he doesn´t have need to altitude adaptation. Sine the first day that he arruives from the sea level to 3000m (9000feet?) altitude he keps on going with the same training plan that he does in the sea level and he doesn´t feel tired at all.

But one final comment about what you said, I think that the materail that you refer you may not relate that workouts to the interval training KNown as the Freiburg school or Gresheler and Reindell interval method.

Yes, 120 beats per minute isn't such a perfect number that Reindell and Gerscler said originally, in the 1930s. The real point is that the speed of the shorter runs (say 400m) is faster than the current race pace and the interval recovery is just enough to allow the next repetition to be run at the same speed, no slower. A 5k runner who can run 64 seconds per 400m in a race might run 61-62 per lap in short interval training. The recovery period is less for fitter runners. I normally say jog about 1/4th of the distance of the repetition, which is what is seems that Antonio has been doing. So maybe my recommendation is a good one.

I find that runners who are fitter will jog the 100m afer a 400m in a shorter amount of time because they are recovered enough. A les fit runner needs more time to recovver, so their 100m jog tends to be quite a bit slower. So, a fit runner may jog 100m in 35 seconds for recovery, but an unfit runner may jog the same 100m in 50-60 seconds.

I caution runners to include longer repetitions in their training schedules in addition to short intervals. Balance is important. Tinman

10K wrote:

Please give examples of aerobic power workouts for a 10K runner.

10000m european champ José Manuel Martinez from Spain-Madrid, know as "Chema" Martinez, in my opinion actually one of the best european runners at the moment, and the best 1000m european runner in the last 2004 Athens olympics (if you consider only those that did born in european countries - real europeans), with 13:13/27:30/2:08 PBs. He uses to train that aerobic power workouts for the 10000 event.

(you may click in his name to see his biography)

Aerobic power workouts done in short reps for Chema

- in altitude:

15-20X300m/100%+5% 10000m Race Pace rec=45sec going ahead in the track for 100m.

that means 300m for 51sec at sea level

- sea level:

15-20X300m/3000m race Pace rec=45sec going ahead in the track for 100m.

that means 300m for 46sec at sea level.

This KInd of workouts is what i consider modern version of interval training - that one of short reps/short rest - active intervals.

Now, from times to times he uses to do some hard/long distance/check tests before peak runs, as 3-4X3000m /10000m race pace rec=9minutes.

For thise who thinks that 300s are done very fast and short recover, remember that´s a 7:35/13:13/27:30 runner. Check that workout for your pace category.

He also uses do one rest day every week.

Tinman,I agree with most of what you said about Schul. I never said he ran "low volume" or "low mileage." I acknowledge that the put in the miles, and I acknowledge that the majority of those miles was likely aerobic running (below his anerobic threshhold). But what was UNIQUE about his training the training of other Igloi disciples is HOW he/they ran that reasonably high volume of aerobic mileage: through the use of SHORT fairly FAST repeats. Just because I say the pace he ran them was fairly "fast" does not mean one can not also say that the pace was " fairly relaxed and aerobic." You see, that is the BEAUTY of short (100-200 meter) repeats, they can be both pretty fast (at race 5k race pace or below), remain aerobic, and one can do also squeeze lots of mileage out of such workouts. I think that was/is the secrect of his success. Now I understand that 10 miles of aerobic running is 10 miles of aerobic running, but there IS a difference between running 10 miles steady at 5:30 pace(more of a Lydiard run), and running 10 miles of 100 -150 meter repeats, where the repeats are run at 4:40 pace (only 70 second 400 pace, so not blazing) and the rest intervals are short 50 meter walks. The first workout contains NON-STOP continuous running (no breaks), which is of course a good stimulation. But the pace is much slower than race pace. On the other hand, the second workout, the repeat workout (the Schul-type workout) , ALL of the running parts are run at a much faster pace, near race-pace. I think the neuromuscular conditioning of that second workout is better. But of course there are breaks. But even during these breaks, the Hear Rate likely does not drop below a 70% max level so there is still aerobic conditioning occuring.

Tinman wrote: I ordered and read both of his books, figured out the paces and percentages and realized he did a lot of volume of work that would promote endurance, while a reasonable and smaller percentage was quick. He appears to have balanced out the key elements of performance: endurance, strength, and speed. Tinman

I read both his books too.

There may have been a balance of conditioning, and he may have used different distances for his repeats, and he certainly had a program that promoted endurance, BUT........the majority of his running was at paces faster than most people ever would think of training at. And he was able to do that through the use of SHORT (100-200 was the HUGE majority of his repeats) pretty fast repeats mostly, with lots of short rest intervals.

It is a very interesting system, one that I think many could benefit from trying.

thanks for the reply,

I am really weak at long intervals and have been incorporating them in my training (like the ones below). I can handle the short faster intervals but the longer ones are very difficult.

What kind of rest between intervals would you prescibe for the following workouts at 10k pace and are they adequate workouts for a 10k type runner

8-10 x 1k

4-5 x 2k

3-4 x 3k (I know you mentioned this in the reply post but were you just referring to a pre race workout)

Sir Lance a lot:

You make good points. I will suggest that the vast majority of Bob Schul's training was not slow (moderate to strong aerobic pace), which is good and a necessity for elite runners, but not 100% optimal. I would like to offer that Bob might have performed even faster had his training included longer reps at race pace. I don't intend to diminish his accomplisments at all. I respect him greatly. I think he was mentally tough, physically talented, and very dedicated, but his program lacked race specificity. It is my belief that he had the toughness to run 10 seconds faster than his nearest competitor at the time if his schedule had included workouts that the Portugese do or ones I prescribe which are similar. He was a beast on the track, competitive, driven and tactically skilled, so it would have been interesting to see what might have happened.

If Bob were running on today's tracks, using long reps plus his unique approach of somewhat quick but short reps that were highly aerobic in nature, I believe he would run 13:10 for 5,000m. He would be our current top runner in America. If he used only his origninal method (one that was obviously good and well conceived), he would run 13:16, I believe, and still bu number one in America. So the change, overall would be small, but significant on a world scene.

It is easy to be reflective and say that if something had been changed the results would have been even better, I know, but I offer this as an opinion, nothing more. Again, I respect Bob greatly. Tinman

10K

I don´t like to advise in an individual base, or a individual case. Each one is a specific case, i ignore completly your running profile, your biography - in what running category and talent and competition categories you are, what moment of your running career you are - your training schedules and what´s unique in you that would make me change from my limited concepts and my training discrimination (my standard workouts)to fit in your individual case.

and as you know the train is holistic, and to advise in a single workout direction, we need to combine that your particular workout answer - about how to run interval training/aerobic power short reps/short active pauses - with all the rest of your 10kilo training. I also pay a lot of attention to rest and what we call - invisible training -from your training facilities to your social life.

Resuming i´m able to send such an advise only if i coach you directly.

But, i don´t want to run away from your question, and i want to profit your ask - a good one ask - to make you know my personal opinion about that kind of workouts.

First. What you said "...I am really weak at long intervals" you aren´t a unique, single, solo case. Oh no. First you may understand what is the reason that you are weaker in that intervals than the other runners ? Lack of endurance? Lack of mileage training? Lack of resistance ?

To much workouts in short reps ? Phychologic weakness to cover log distances in a track (boaredom laps)? Start too faster in first reps that enables you to cover the last reps ? Shorter interval than it might be (like 1min intervals)?

When you find the reasons of that weakness - is when you try to focus in the improvement of that your lack. But since i´ve seen someone like you - lackness in long reps - that´s the opportunity to use a lot that short reps/interval training aerobic power.

My concept formula is this one:

All is done progressively. From short reps. distance to a little longer, from less total distance to longer total distance, from long intervals to shorter intervals.

Only when you felt confortable in an workout plateau is when you think about to change for demanding/hard workout.

Let´s think that you estimate that your actual condition is a 30:00m in 10000m. one important detail, when you estimate race Pace for your event distance that you go to compete right away you can´t live with HISTORIC PERFORMANCES. This is a big mistake, to have historic performances or PB´s as a referencee. may be you did that your PB in the past, but now you are distant from that PB - then when you estimte your race pace - that´s estimate in your actual shape condition, not past performances.

Ok, your estimate condition is a 30:00.

Start with short distance sets - 300m, and in te future then move on to 400m or 500m 600m reps. Why you move to short reps to longer reps. the reason i explain earlier on - tyraining modulation goes to the extensive direction in middle and long distance approach - to spend a longer period of time in pace zone.

My key formula is this one

10X300m(or 400m or 500m or 600m)/Race Pace event distance less 5% to 10% race pace=300m RP=54sec less 5%(2.7)=51.3 average.

The recover that´s in 50% race pace + 10% to 20% RP to cover 100m or 200m ahead on track. In your 300m example

50%RP+10% for 100m ahed on track =36sec+3.6=39.6sec and 50%RP+15%=46.8sec. In first attemps use conservative recover, that of 50% pace + 20%. Despite i said conservative that´s hard as well. May be you like to rest for 200m - that´s easy than 100m, despite that´s the same pace and also imcomplte receover, you have more time to recover. so mthat´s easy.

Further up, when you fell comfortable move up for longer reps, in the same logic. This aren´t easy workouts, it needs some period of adaptation, especially for the runners that are used to do reps all-out or very fast pace. This aerobic power workouts ´despite that aren´t in a faster pace that hard to complete. They aren´t very intense but a great "density" because you need to manage short/active pauses. Don´t try this workout more than once a week.

Then, as soon as you understood this workout model, individualize your workout to create a your "standard". Later on, you don´t need my advise, no one knows - as you know - what´s the proper pace you may use that, what is the best active rest time duration etc. You did broke my fix rule/formula to use your one, but influenced by my advise.

2 more advises.

1/Don´t think that i only prescribe this workouts. We also need to use explosive reaction. fast pace, all out pace workouts, but for those i use short bouts with complete recover. A 1500m,3000m,5000m or 10000m or even HM or Marathon runner they may also train SPEED, all out pace, explosive reaction, no matter what´s the workout model/design - fast pace, long/complte recover.

The fact that you are weak in that your "8-10 x 1k

4-5 x 2k", i don´t advise you to give up. My advise is this one, seems me logic, why are you confine to the number of reps and the pace or the interval we use the people does.

May be you think this simplistic but that´s my advise - you you don´t limit the number of reps and isntead OF 8-10x1000M why not do try just an half 4-5X1000m, or 2X2000m in the same race pace. What´s the recover ? I don´t know but why you don´t essay to run that in a long recover period 5 to 10min pause ? And even with my advise to reduce the total distance and to use a longer recover you aren´t able to complete that workouts why don´t you redice the pace just to 90% race pace? Please, don´t be fixed in the standard workouts you know that the other they do. Lots of times people thinks that if you are n´t able to train the same and similar to the other you aren´t able to improve - which isn´t true. Open your mind. Be flexible. Don´t use fixed rules.

Tinman,

I agree with your analysis. As much as I love the Igloi/Schul program and think is is very ingenious,

1) no program is perfect, and

2) Yes, any program that focuses on one type of workout too much could certainly be slightly tweaked to be even better. And this fact is even proven out in Schul's own comments that he later decided that such short sprint-repeats every day was not necessary, and that he could have backed of some of that intensity and remained healthier, and that he incoporated such changes in the workouts that he gave/gives his own athletes (in other words: he does not train anyone with the EVERYDAY-TWICE-A-DAY repeats that he did. He still makes that those workouts the "bread and butter/"backbone" of the training regimen he gives his athletes, but now he mixes in some other elements too)

So I agree Schul could have indeed mixed in some long repeats to his schedule. But do YOU agree that most other runners could tweak THEIR schedules by adding in some Igloi/Schul short-repeat high end aerobic work ? I don't think the majority of runners use this method at all. And this is a point that fits in with this overall discussion, and with Antonio's point about Americans' (and others) incorrect ideas about interval and repeat training:

* When most people think aerobic work, they think that means ONLY "slow" (much slower than race 5k race pace) long, steady(no breaks) work.

* and when they think repeats/sprints/interval work, they think the ONLY possibilities are:

a) all-out, pure creatine system power work (all out 100's with full rest)

b) or all out 400's, ie, anerobic lactic management work

They seem to not realize that one can use short rep intermittent training to achieve a high volume of aerobic conditioning AND race-pace neuromuscular efficiences, without going above their LASS (anerobic thresshold). That's quite a lethal combination for one workout! And that is basically my whole point, that people misinterpret or understimate or underuse such workouts.

I do not think it is necessary to run a one hundred repeat 100s at a somewhat fast pace to improve aerobic power or aerobic endurance. I think it is inefficient training. I would stick with the basics: one longer rep session, one short interval session, and either one longer run with some of it faster or something like an aerobic fartlek (pickups at about 15k race pace; my definition).

I think that short, quick reps after the main part of a rep or interval session is a good idea. I have prescribed for many years 3 x 200m at about 800m speed or 4-6 x 150m at 800m speed (I just tell people to run quick but not hard; don't strain but run with good turnover, race like strides for the closing of a race, but save the pure sprinting for small periods each year...don't do it every session, every week; this would be a mistake). So, I might prescribe 4 x 1200m or 5-6 x 1,000m, or 3-4 x 1500-1600m at 10k or 5k or 3k pace, then afterward, the athlete might run 5 x 150m quick, jog 150m between. So, the long reps are race specificity training for aerobic power and aerobic endurance (the volume creates endurance), then the 150s or 200s are race specificity for the kick or finish to a race, but they are not done in too much volume (not too many reps). The 150s and 200s also improve neural coordination and thus provide improved power output at the same energy level. This is just one way to add shorter, quick reps to training. Your imagination is the only limit. Tinman

Thanks for the comments Tinman.But......., as far as this quote goes:

Tinman wrote:

I do not think it is necessary to run a one hundred repeat 100s at a somewhat fast pace to improve aerobic power or aerobic endurance. I think it is inefficient training.......

I can only respond with: such training may not be "necessary ....to improve aerobic power," that is possible, but as far as such a workout being "inefficient training"......I really DON'T KNOW about that.

Igloi's athletes' results speak for themselves. Hungarians holding every WR from 1500-10,000 at one time, and then great success with the Americans (Schul, Beatty, and several others). Such success on two continents for such a range of events could hardly have been achieved from a training method that has as it backbone "inefficient" workouts. I really doubt that.

But lets drop it for now ( we can go back to it later as Antonio's "history" moves forward. I can feel another chapter on its way! But Antonio, what I am really looking forward to is a detailed discussion of the German "true interval" method that originally got you going on this topic. I want to know more exact details on how the Germans trained under the Reindell/Gerschler method. THANKS)

Igloi's athletes had their explosion at a time when training was still experimental.

There was no hard and fast model and no coach really, truly knew the exact science behind WHY performance improved.

Now we have seen today, even with all thos cinder track conversions, that Schul's marks have been surpassed a thousand times over by athletes training more intelligently and not hammering themselves into the ground.

Simply put, doing "70% high anaerobic" training, as Schul put it in his own words, is not the ideal recipe for success.

That he had success speaks to his great talent, but his potential was surely better with his great 400 speed, had he taken time to aerobically develop himself.

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

How they did it in 1915 ?

Did they run intermittent training in the deep past? If so, how did they use it? Did they run short reps or also long reps ? In what intensity ?

From the French book “La fatigue et l´entrainement physique" by Dr. Philippe Tissié, there are some interesting data/info that may help us to know how they trained in those early days.

The book opens with preparatory exercises and follows with subjects like Nutrition, Correct Breath, Training and Running Strategy.

Of course this book appeared in the beginning of the 20th Century, when the knowledge concerning athletic physiology wasn´t large. Those runners who did try running long distances were consider “strange people”, by the sprinters and other athletes of other events.

1915 WORKOUTS examples

The author says that the "Modern training" needs that a runner have the perfect control of the pace intensity of the event that he goes to compete. He says as a example that I runner that wants to do 17:30 in the 5000m, may work to run several reps which the pace that´s 21sec for each 100m, and that´s trough several repetitions in that event pace that he will need to train for that performance.

My comment is that, as I said before, the idea of fractional training - to run parts of the distance event in the race pace, and also repetition training - to run several number of times that fractional distance also in event pace, that´s what the germans they call tempo run. This race pace/tempo run is in the origin of first attempts as a method to prepare the long running distances events.

But let´s see the schedule for 2 weeks for that 17:30 runner during the summer season

FIRST WEEK

Monday

500m fast+15min rest+3000m in 12min

Tuesday

80m all out +10min rest + 3.500m easy with fast 50m bouts every 500m. (time 13:45)

Wednesday

200m fast + 12 min rest + 4500m long steps with the last 600m fast (time 17:40)

Thursday

400m all out + 12min rest + 4000m moderate (15:42)

Friday - rest

Saturday

3000m all out (14:00)

Sunday

100m all out + 12min rest + 3X1000m/3:30 pace rec=5minutes

SECOND WEEK

Monday - 6000m, fast the first 2000m, then easy the next one 2000m and last 2000m easy but each 500m a fast bout.

Tuesday

800m very fast + 4X800m/3:12 pace + 800m very easy rec=5minutes

Wednesday

200m fast + 12 min rest + 4500m long steps with the last 600m fast (time 17:40)

Thursday

80m all out +10min rest + 3.500m easy with fast 50m bouts every 500m. (time 13:45)

Friday - rest

Saturday - 3X500m fast+20min rest+1000m fast (3:30 pace)

Sunday - 100m all out + 12min rest + 3X1000m/3:30 pace rec=5minutes

He advises to rest 2 days before the competition, and 4 days of the last week before that competition that shall be done with 3000m to 4000m in easy to moderate pace "Not tiring you". With so the overtraining willn´t occur.

During the winter months due to the wind, rain and coldness, he advises the distance runners to do other sports as soccer, hockey, or rugby.

I appreciate all you comments and doubts and questions.

António Cabral

(end of part 2)

Sorry, but I could not agree with you less.

When did Lydiard's athletes have "their explosion" ?? Oh yeah, a LOOOOOOOONG time ago. But I assume you like some of his ideas??? If not, WHO do you like? And haven't Lydiards' "marks...been surpassed a thousand times over by athletes training more intelligently and not hammering themselves into the ground" with too much mileage?? So because Lydiards athletes' "have been surpassed" by many, many others, should we discard all of his ideas???

Ok, if that's what you think. Let's discard Lydiard, lets discard Igloi.....who else? Frankly, the only athletes whose marks have not been destroyed by many other runners are.......the East Africans. So I guess we should only copy their methods and listen to the ideas of their coaches, right? I don't think so.

So let's see, who has been around for a long time who has not had his marks surpassed by lots of modern athletes. Oh yes, Seb Coe in the 800!!! So, should we all listen to Seb and his Dad?? But they believed in low mileage and HIGH intensity and lots of weight/gym work. Are you fan of all that? Somewho I have a feeling you are not.

Time for you to clear some things up for me. Until you are more convincing, I am not disgarding the ideas of Igloi (of COURSE I am willing to modify them, like Schul has, by not having EVERY workout be repeats/intermittent training, and of course doing those repeats at a "fresh"/relexed intensity[as Schul often did] and at an aeorobic effort level is advised, but such ideas are small modifications, not full overhauls. Running repeats all the time does NOT have to mean doing "70% high anaerobic" training. And THAT is my whole point ).

Antonio

"...Alas, the body is not a mathematical equation. It is, however, extremely adept at adapting to specific physiological stressors. With that in mind, whatever your goal pace and distance, you almost certainly need to regularly cover one-third to two-thirds of the goal distance at goal pace. Someone shooting for a 40:00 10K might do three- to four-mile runs at 6:30 pace, or perhaps five repeat miles in 6:20 each with a two-minute rest - NOT 10 x 400 in 80 seconds with a 400 jog. There is a role for "supramaximal" speed sessions (discussed in a July 2000 Running Times article), but they shouldn't account for the bulk of your intense preparation." - George "malmo" Malley

in

http://www.kemibe.com/training.htm

Regards / Um abraço

Rodrigo