Gordon Pirier: Only doing shorter reps in the winter time

There is no mention of any three hour runs in the profile he gave to Fred Wilt. Wilt mentions that Pirie's sessions lasted 2-4 hours but it was all interval work. The closest thing to a steady run given is an hour of fartlek that he did on Sundays in the winter.

HRE wrote:

There is no mention of any three hour runs in the profile he gave to Fred Wilt. Wilt mentions that Pirie's sessions lasted 2-4 hours but it was all interval work. The closest thing to a steady run given is an hour of fartlek that he did on Sundays in the winter.

So? You just said Pirie was always dashing off madly in all directions with his training .

This training week is from the period BEFORE Gerschler started to coach him. In the book he gives another sample week from the period AFTER Gerschler began to coach him.

Interestingly, the basis of Gerschler's interval training is the same as Lydiard's distance orientated approach. building up of volume, mainly aerobic in nature, before progressing to more intensive stuff as the racing season gets closer.

The 100-200 reps Pirie mentions are done at such a speed and in such volume deliberately to prevent the runner getting into heavy oxygen debt. During the build up phase Igloi worked on the same principle. Also, the interval trained athletes in the 1950s were doing big mileage before Lydiard's methods became popular. There is an obvious difference as to how that mileage is covered but the idea that Lydiard somehow "invented" the idea of high mileage is wrong!

milermb wrote:

This training week is from the period BEFORE Gerschler started to coach him. In the book he gives another sample week from the period AFTER Gerschler began to coach him.

Interestingly, the basis of Gerschler's interval training is the same as Lydiard's distance orientated approach. building up of volume, mainly aerobic in nature, before progressing to more intensive stuff as the racing season gets closer.

The 100-200 reps Pirie mentions are done at such a speed and in such volume deliberately to prevent the runner getting into heavy oxygen debt. During the build up phase Igloi worked on the same principle. Also, the interval trained athletes in the 1950s were doing big mileage before Lydiard's methods became popular. There is an obvious difference as to how that mileage is covered but the idea that Lydiard somehow "invented" the idea of high mileage is wrong!

True. The Hungarian boys was doing well over 100+ mile weeks in 13 sessions of intervals in the '50s.

nm wrote:

His training makes for slow running.

Just like Bob Schul?

workout of the month wrote:

HRE wrote:

There is no mention of any three hour runs in the profile he gave to Fred Wilt. Wilt mentions that Pirie's sessions lasted 2-4 hours but it was all interval work. The closest thing to a steady run given is an hour of fartlek that he did on Sundays in the winter.

So? You just said Pirie was always dashing off madly in all directions with his training .

Yes, I was underscoring and expanding on an earlier point that I'd said I wasn't completely sure about.

Lydiard Cerutty wrote:

SUPERIOR COACH JS wrote:

Well.......it has got a renaissance with my system . But in a different form.....

Yeah, but no. If you actually read up on his system it wasn't just rest down to 120 BPM. It was within a certain amount of time. For example, if some one took longer than 65 seconds for the heart to recover back to 120 BPM from the 200m reps they were done for the day with intervals. There were no set in stone workouts. It was adapting with how the athlete was reacting to the workout.

Yes, and No. If you actually read up on his (and Ph Reindel) system it was within 90 sec , not 65. Just correct you. And I told my system is in a different form......

I think he did this film while training in France:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rRIRACUmTPE

Reading about the top athletes of the past, we can clearly understand the big changes in training, at the base of the big improvement in the performances.

Of course, to know the training of top athletes of 70-40 years ago is very interesting under two perspectives : the HISTORICAL period, that was a period of transition between an amateur mentality and a professional mentality, and the TECHNICAL period, that can show the various schools and the results achieved using their principles.

To know about the history of the methodology is very interesting, because can give us the base for understanding why we DON'T HAVE to follow the same principles today, if we want results. And the analysis of the TECHNICAL periods give us NUMBERS for corroborating what I said above.

The PB of Gordon Pirie were 3'59"9 in one mile (which puts him in the position 1252 all time at the moment), 7'52"8 in 3000m (n. 1349 all time), 13'36"8 in 5000m (n. 2006 all time) and a ridiculous 29'15"49 in 10000m, events he didn't like and ran 3 times only, dropping out in Melbourne Olympics when understood could not win against Vladimir Kuts.

Only for giving some data, till now 4780 athletes ran under 29', and probably with the update of the lists at the end of the season we can have almost 5000 athletes under that limit.

What can se learn from the old system ? We can learn what we have NOT to do : a lot of volume at very slow intensity, that is completely useless for running long distances fast.

Look, for example, at Emil Zatopek. He was already the WR holder of 5000m and 1000m, and in 1954 was able to improve both the WR in 48 hours, running under 14' (13'57"2) and under 29' (28'54"2), becoming the first man under 29'. These are two performances by far better of the current WR of women. Instead, his PB in marathon, achieved winning Olympics in 1952 (performance which put Emil at top level in the athletic history, because till now nobody was able to win Olympic Gold in 5000m, 10000m and Marathon in the same edition), that is 2h23'03", only in this season was already achieved by 30 athletes, and in the all time list 106 athletes till now were able running faster.

Which the technical teachment can be ? That volume at low intensity, after the period of BASIC AEROBIC FUNDATION, doesn't have any reason to remain in the training of top athletes, if not as REGENERATION of the real training. All the processes that physiologists discovered from 80 years ago (interval - training for improving the heart activity, long continuous slow run for increasing the capillarization), in different Countries, and that are still at the base of the preparation, now have a short duration, because the change of physiological parameters can be achieved in short time, and later we need to look at a continuous increase of the INTENSITY.

Some time, we look at the past with nostalgy : this can teach us something interesting about the evolution of the methods, but is a mistake if we think those system are still valid for producing top results.

One of the main reasons to go on letsrun, thank you Canova for your insights.

Canova, what are your thoughts on running form and shoes? Pirie makes a big deal of this, what are your thoughts on this, zero drop shoes and the Japanese training a lot in racing flats even for their easy runs.

Renato Canova wrote:

Look, for example, at Emil Zatopek ,,, was able to win Olympic Gold in 5000m, 10000m and Marathon in the same edition), that is 2h23'03", only in this season was already achieved by 30 athletes, and in the all time list 106 athletes till now were able running faster.

Apparently meaning women athletes.

That volume at low intensity, after the period of BASIC AEROBIC FUNDATION, doesn't have any reason to remain in the training of top athletes, if not as REGENERATION of the real training.

Thus low intensity remains, as regeneration from training.

[/quote]All the processes that physiologists discovered from 80 years ago (interval - training for improving the heart activity, long continuous slow run for increasing the capillarization), in different Countries, and that are still at the base of the preparation, now have a short duration, because the change of physiological parameters can be achieved in short time, and later we need to look at a continuous increase of the INTENSITY.[/quote]

A program and how to progress the intensity for each event would be nice to have; likewise for the amount of volume, including regeneration.

It is true that to run faster, you have to increase intensity. But many Kenyans after a hard training session are seen shuffling along very slowly for many days at a time.

"a ridiculous 29'15"49 in 10000m, events he didn't like and ran 3 times only, dropping out in Melbourne Olympics when understood could not win against Vladimir Kuts."

Pirie did not drop out of the 1965 Olympic 10,000. He ran with Kuts - the only athlete in the field willing/able to do this -until a mile from the end when he cracked completely. But he did finish! If he had not risked everything in an attempt to win gold he was almost certainly capable of winning a silver medal.

He ran 10K/6 miles many times early in his career - although he states in his autobiography that his real ability was always at half that distance or less.

Lydiard Cerutty wrote:

The site which I copied the text from has lots of typos. For example, run is spelled mn.

Gordon Pirier did three hour mns at Tooting Bee.

Subway Surfers wrote:

It is true that to run faster, you have to increase intensity. But many Kenyans after a hard training session are seen shuffling along very slowly for many days at a time.

That's regeneration, which is good, as opposed to constant slow running with an absence of intensity.

Renato Canova wrote:

What can se learn from the old system ? We can learn what we have NOT to do : a lot of volume at very slow intensity, that is completely useless for running long distances fast.

Which the technical teachment can be ? That volume at low intensity, after the period of BASIC AEROBIC FUNDATION, doesn't have any reason to remain in the training of top athletes, if not as REGENERATION of the real training. All the processes that physiologists discovered from 80 years ago (interval - training for improving the heart activity, long continuous slow run for increasing the capillarization), in different Countries, and that are still at the base of the preparation, now have a short duration, because the change of physiological parameters can be achieved in short time, and later we need to look at a continuous increase of the INTENSITY.

So why modern runners however run 170-180km per week with much of regenerating running? Would not be better 2-3-4 intense workouts and then total rest for the rest of the week, instead of doing 11-12 runs a week?

Thank you for answer

Yes I read something that "polarized training" was the way the top athletes of today trained with around 80% of their training at easy intensities while in the past athletes training with a higher percentage of their training at higher intensities which effetively burnt them out before they reached their full potential.

It would also be interesting to see how fast the top athletes today would run if they had to train around a full time job, run in those awful leather shoes on sand tracks. The difference would probably be much reduced, and the training they would be able to do would be very different.

There are many people who claim they have a training plan that is best

but you cannot rely on those plans because they only trained a few athletes.

From what I'm reading Gordon Pirie seems to be one of those dudes.