Gordon Pirier: Only doing shorter reps in the winter time

Well.....good evening Renato :) There are a couple of things that you overlook. Firstly the African running boom with a never ending storehouse of great talents fighting for their lives to succeed to secure their financial future. There are not so extreme difference in the training of for example the great Vladimir Kuts compared with many of the best Africans of today. To me it seems that the big difference in training systems of today and in the past , mostly consists of developed knowledge about the physiological processes that is behind optimal performance. Further I think you make a logical error when you say that it`s a mistake if we think systems of the past are still valid for producing top results of today.Many innovations in mankind history have been a result of former knowledge developed in more efficient and better versions. And can you say with credibility that the training of for example the great Lasse Viren back in -72- 76 had not worked today?

What I agree with you is that INTENSITY is of highest priority, right intensity up to the individual runner.

OF COURSE you’d show up here ☹️, JS.

Wish you’d just let the adults talk for once so we could learn from them.

yes, but polarized means a lot of slow volume, that Renato says is useless. I don't think is so useless, or maybe useless is a too strong definition, otherwise would be better running 40-50km per week, doing only intensity.

Poor comparison though. De Grasse is running on a gravel track with no competition and likely not in peak shape.

Definitely Owens would be faster in the modern era .

Owen it to him wrote:

Poor comparison though. De Grasse is running on a gravel track with no competition and likely not in peak shape.

Definitely Owens would be faster in the modern era .

Of course the conditions weren´t optimal for De Grasse, but he still ran 0,7 seconds slower than Owens, and that´s an eternity in the 100m. My point is that if you remove all the technological stuff the difference between today and yesterday is smaller than guys like Canova claims. If we remove all the East Africans, Derek Clayton would be one of the best marathoners in the world today.

This talk that today´s training methods are vastly superior to yesterday´s is mostly BS. The biggest difference is that today´s runners run full time, have access to an entire army of doctors, physios, dietists etc.

well,, wrote:

Owen it to him wrote:

Poor comparison though. De Grasse is running on a gravel track with no competition and likely not in peak shape.

Definitely Owens would be faster in the modern era .

Of course the conditions weren´t optimal for De Grasse, but he still ran 0,7 seconds slower than Owens, and that´s an eternity in the 100m. My point is that if you remove all the technological stuff the difference between today and yesterday is smaller than guys like Canova claims. If we remove all the East Africans, Derek Clayton would be one of the best marathoners in the world today.

This talk that today´s training methods are vastly superior to yesterday´s is mostly BS. The biggest difference is that today´s runners run full time, have access to an entire army of doctors, physios, dietists etc.

Hehe! Canova is great in many thoughts and have coached lots of great runners......but even he sometimes tells a blunder. When he is wrong he is wrong ;) ....and then he will get counter -thrust.....

J.S., yes, I can say that the training of Lasse Viren could not allow him to run in 26'17", neither in 26'38" (which is 1 minute faster than his PB).

I also say Lasse had the talent, physical and mental, for running 26'30", with the modern system.

Finnish coaches learnt a lot from Lydiard, we learnt a lot from finnish coaches (specifically Sinkkonen), and I never said the old systems were not the BASE for modern training.

This doesn't change the FACT that today ALL the top athletes use more intensity than in the past, for more long time, and that during the seasons there is no more a very long period of building-up like used in the past.

This of sure NOT before of developed knowledge about the physiological processes that is behind optimal performance.

Instead, it's true the opposite : PHYSIOLOGISTS TRY TO STUDY THE REASON THAT PROVOKED THE IMPROVED PERFORMANCES, and in the case of middle and especially long distances TILL NOW WERE NOT STILL ABLE TO EXPLAIN THE FULL PROCESS OF TRAINING (and this is one of the reasons because the blood doping at top level is overrated).

And don't forget the role of a change of mentality, in direction of specific intensity, at the base of the change in the interpretation of long distances (half marathon and full marathon), which are currently the only two distances attracting the African runners, because are the only event where it's possible to earn good money also if an athlete is at medium-high level (on track there is no more any chance not only to earn good money, but also to participate, if you are a Kenyan or Ethiopian with a PB of 13'10" in 5000m : so the only chance is to run an easy marathon, maybe in 2:12 in China, for winning more money than in 5 years of track).

So, I never denied the role of old systems (interval-training, Igloi, Lydiard, Van Aaken... etc) as BASIC KNOWLEDGE for developing the training system, but I deny the possibility to run, with the old systems, fast such as happens today, WITH THE SAME TALENT.

Personally, I think Viren could compete with the athletes of today, and of sure was not weaker than Mo Farah. Of sure, both Carlos Lopes and Steve Jones were more talented than Sondre Moen, but the result is they ran 1'30" slower.

And, because the level of short distances (800 - 1500m) didn't change in the last 30 years (or changed a little only, and now in some case can be worse than 30 years ago), but the level of long distances changed dramatically, we have to accept that the training too changed, in direction of specific intensity.

And it's a fact that NOBODY among the athletes top 100 in the world in HM and Marathon train only once per day, because the volume (also if no longer at the same level of 40-30 years ago) is still very important, and with one session only it's not possible to reach the minimal level at the base of every top performance.

Renato you make the assumption that runners in this case have maximized their “base aerobic foundation.” Lydiard would say that you can do one kind of training for some time but after a while you stop receiving any benefits. It is true that long slow distance on its own will not produce the best but it is also true that specific intensity on its own will not produce the best either. As you know, training is cyclical.

Yes, training is cyclical, but the cycle consists in alternating periods of recovery and aerobic building up with periods where the intensity and the volume are specific for the event.

All this happens maintaining almost the same volume (from 180 to 220 km per week, when there are no competitions), and the intensity NEVER has to go down under 85% of the maximal.

In a full career, we have, about volume, the first 4-5 years with continue increase of mileage (for example, 120 km when 18, 140 km when 19, 160 when 20, 180 when 21, 200 when 22 with some peak at 220). After that period, for 2-3 years the athlete can maintain the same volume, and after can start to REDUCE, cutting part of the slow run, that can have the only effect to destroy the body structure without giving any positive improvement.

At the same time, the intensity continues to grow.

The big difference between the building-up periods and the specific periods is that the intensity becomes more specific : in other words, we start to EXTEND the ability to last at the specific speed of the race.

The speed of the race is already present in the fundamental period, but only in short distances.

For example, if I want to prepare an athlete for running 10000m in 27'30" (2'45" per km), already in the general period we use some short test at the identified speed (for example, repetitions of 400m in 66" or/and 500m in 1'22"), for a total volume of about 10 km.

In the fundamental period, the same speed is used with a higher total volume (12-14 km) and the tests become longer (600m in 1'39" - 800m in 2'12" - 1000m in 2'45"), normally alternating the distances.

In the specific period, the same speed can be used with long repetitions (2 x 3000 in 8'15" + 3 x 2000 in 5'30"), and this makes the training more SPECIFIC.

After two weeks including 2-3 specific sessions of intensity, we need to go back for other two weeks where we reduce the volume of both SPECIFIC INTENSITY and REGENERATION )easy run, increasing the volume of continuous run at 85-90% of the speed of the race, and the volume of max speed with short distances (mainly uphill).

The modulation of all the parameters allow the athletes to maintain the optimal balance between aerobic power (which never has to lower) and specific volume, and the final combination is a continue improvement of the performances, because in thie way the body can use in the best way the super (or over) compensation.

Thank you for your response Renato. Your willingness to share on these boards is much appreciated. I have learned a lot from you coming from a Lydiard school of thought. However, I would argue that Lydiard was onto something when he said that anaerobic work (above 85% maximal) during the early period would lead to a loss of aerobic efficiency. I believe in intensity and extending that intensity to race-specific parameters but that can be accomplished in 4-6 weeks after which adaptations cease to be as effective. I also think that high-end aerobic runs especially when coupled with hilly terrain are “backdoor” methods to training fast twitch IIa muscle fibers and in turn staying in touch with basic speed without the associated acidosis. I have experienced this along with many other athletes that I have coached. What would you say to that?

Also, I believe that your system works very well for athletes who have built their aerobic house over many years to volumes that you speak of. In the case of most non-elite runners, worrying too much about intensity during mileage building periods would lead to injury/burnout.

Well.......I say against you Renato. If you look at Viren`s fastest races you will see he did them when taking Gold at tactical championship races.......he even fell in one of them and still won it. He didn`t have to run faster to take 4 Olympic golds! Maybe he wouldn`t run 26.17 because he was not a super talent and did quite mediocre times up to world class running between the Olympics. But there was nothing wrong with his training system and a great talent of today with that kind of training hade been close to 26.17. I`M SURE!

Then I must say against you one more time when you told Sondre Moen is less talented than Carlos Lopez and Steve Jones. He is not! He is even more talented than both of them. When Moen was 14-17 years age he was Norway`s most talented runner in his age groups.........but he trained very hard and got some injuries that delayed his development. He came after that to a point where he ran 2.13 at the marathon and I contacted him to try to convince him that he trained wrong. I told him his training needed more INTENSITY up to his individual potential. He told me that he knew how to train after had been at Kenya over 20 times..... Well, ....you were the coach that got the opportunity to prove to him exactly what I before had told him.

And at last for this time... :) ......It is possible to reach the world records at every event 800m-marathon ( even Ultra) on just 6 sessions per week for a great talent ! I`M SURE! But probably no one of the great talents will try it because they are "brainwashed " of many, that it`s not possible...... Cheers!

Renato, any thoughts on what a 40 year old should run in terms of mileage if racing between 10km-Marathon?

Well.......training don`t have to be cyclical. It`s possible to reach optimal individual performance on a linear basis. In this way the runner takes small steps ( sometimes big steps) with the basic law of training: enough effort- enough recovery= super compensation. The only similarity with "cyclic", that you defines it, is that the training week contains of "micro cyclic" factors that can be controlled perfect by the art of coaching.

There are Soviet studies (Verkhoshansky) that demonstrate the superiority of training cycles with a momentary increase in internal load for concentrated loads and effect LTDE effect:LONG TERM DELAYED EFFECT (for example, the Canova Fundamental or Special blocks) without supercompensing shortly each time.

The week that is good for all seasons with short-range supercompensation is good for young people and amateurs. it can give good results, but it is outdated.

Someone can still get some good time, especially if not yet expressed its potential, but can not solve the complexity and the number of the means of training within 7 days.

The finnish system put into practice the Lydiard seminars, the basic aerobic phase was monstrously long, even 34 weeks with maximum speeds of 3 and 10 at km on athletes that were worth 2 and 45 -48 at km on 10 k.

Dimitry wrote:

speeds of 3 and 10 at km on athletes that were worth 2 and 45 -48 at km on 10 k.

wtf is this shìt

Dimitry wrote:

There are Soviet studies (Verkhoshansky) that demonstrate the superiority of training cycles with a momentary increase in internal load for concentrated loads and effect LTDE effect:LONG TERM DELAYED EFFECT (for example, the Canova Fundamental or Special blocks) without supercompensing shortly each time.

The week that is good for all seasons with short-range supercompensation is good for young people and amateurs. it can give good results, but it is outdated.

Someone can still get some good time, especially if not yet expressed its potential, but can not solve the complexity and the number of the means of training within 7 days.

The finnish system put into practice the Lydiard seminars, the basic aerobic phase was monstrously long, even 34 weeks with maximum speeds of 3 and 10 at km on athletes that were worth 2 and 45 -48 at km on 10 k.

Hello Dimitry :) Well, tell me.....I don`t know. What are the performances of the runners you have coached so far? I have solved the complexity of training around 100 runners in 3 years and just 6 days training in the week, all of them! ....... and all of them developed. And the level of runners is from Gold label up to hobby joggers. What is outdated is opinions like this you just told....

Not sure how Swedish or whatever your native language is, but in English you usually say least important to most important. So, most would say hobby jogger up to gold label.