Capital Classic 2012

And for anyone wanting a nice summary of the benefits of those "long runs" and marathon training in general, here they are in possibly the best summary I've read:

* http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/special/section/Marine-Corps-Marathon-2010-Ready-or-not-graphic/index.html?hpid=artslot
Note 1 - graphic is Lisa Weightman, 2010 Comm Games marathon bronze medalist who's qualified for London and still works full time at IBM.
Note 2 - one of the sources of the info is “The Runner’s Body,” by Ross Tucker and Jonathan Dugas with Matt Fitzgerald. Great read for anyone wanting an easy to read exercise physiology book written specifically for runners.

I fart, ChCh boys busy getting weekend events going, need to stick something REALLY controversial on here to rattle some cages !!

With all the discussion lately, Just got this posted to my face book ; Peter Snell on training.
http://runningtimes.com/Article.aspx?ArticleID=25055&PageNum=1

Wow, great to see Nick's contribution here. And Physeder's fascinating and informative accounts of talented athletes of years gone by. He must have that stuff from his garage all archived in his head now. We should be glad he is putting all this in writing. And of course we can't forget DK's misoverepresentation of empirical evidence somewhat nullified by Andrew Maclennan's revealing statistics perhaps being empirical enough to make one wonder and ask more questions. Skillo causing consternation and confusion to DC with his take on Darwin. Ned70 about to make changes to his debilitating training regimen from all the stuff he haslearned here. Will Nick make changes to his training system due to all the new stuff he has discovered here? Got to head to work now, yes I can almost hear the sighs of relief coming through the I-cloud, but my mind is already forming words that are going to be splattered into sentences that are going to be elongated into paragraphs of pure mush to unleash on suspecting forum junkies. Run for the hills they're now only 18 miles away and getting closer.

How empirical is evidence then that a coach who followed AL's training methods for 30+ years in NZ yet never produced 1 Olympian? Just never had anyone talented or bad luck or ??

Skillo - care to clarify your 'Running Darwinism' terminology?

David, any measurement of VO2max or other physiological variable is irrelevant unless you have a sound application for the information you gain. A physiological value only guides training parameters but one should never expect that it tells us anything more - or anything real! Talent, or athletic ability, is determined by numerous factors which include physiological as well as structural, psychological and environmental variables. An assessment of talent/potential is thus always hypothetical and never empirical.

Your suggestion that Snell had limited speed and therefore relied entirely on endurance is relative and debatable - but cannot be disproved, let alone tested empirically. Again, to suggest that his athletes' success is evidence in itself of Lydiard getting 100% out of his athletes is pure speculation - how do we know that Snell, Halberg or Baillie ever achieved 100% of their potential - one could argue that Lydiards system prevented them from running faster, and you couldn't prove them wrong!
Also, just because I ask questions does not mean that I do not already know the answers. My understanding of Lydiard is satisfactory for my needs as a coach, athlete and amateur provocateur - dc

David, it looks like you're taking every other coaching or running system and saying that Lydiard 'invented' it all, when that's just not correct.
Brad Hudson, ex coach of Dathan Ritzenhein, a 12:55 5000m runner, interviewed Snell, and Snell stated that based on what he knows now, that he would've been much better served maintaining a higher aerobic conditioning/threshold, and interval type system throughout the year, instead of the long slow distance aspect that Lydiard promoted.
I have also read tin "No Bugles, No Drums' that Snell said that he was largely self coached due to a falling out with Lydiard before the 64 Olympics, and that he was following a slightly more interval type programme. Yes he asked Lydiard for advice, but it was asking for advice, and not coaching.

Rees, don't you have NZRun forum and Spanish Inquisition confused here somewhat?
David Kennedy=NZRun's answer to 'Running Darwinism'

That's the great thing about a forum like this Skillo, much of it's content and value to other users is determined by the knowledge and whims of the community itself.

Nick, cheers for the contribution, and right on cue.

David, I think you're letting yourself down by branching into irrelevant issues, but I'll bite:
All evidence is not anecdotal, and to imply that historical analysis of Lydiard's methods constitute anything approaching valid scientific enquiry is simply wrong. The value of the scientific method, to use your example of measuring VO2Max, is that it can differentiate the known from the unknown. To suggest that measuring physiological processes in order to assess, or predict with accuracy, other unrelated variables is not the goal or purpose of the scientific method, and coaches who use physiological information without understanding what the information is telling them are poor coaches.

And, the uncertainties in understanding the application of Lydaird's theories are huge and therefore cannot be compared to truly objective, empirical, reproducible and valid science.
On a side note - There is mathematical proof of Pi's irrational nature! This attempted comparison of mathematical conjecture with other verifiable and measurable science is dumb! - dc

DC ALL evidence is anecdotal, despite and including, even exacting empirical measurement. For example measuring VO2 max will give an empirical measure, but it cannot measure the WILL of someone to drive themselves beyond the point of VO2 Max.
Physics will tell you for example that a circle is made up of straight lines, it's diameter is measured imperically by the application of Pi (3.14). BUT no one has yet come to the end of the decimal points in measuring the cirference of a circle using Pi...therefore the evidence despite becoming more and more accurate the more decimal points that are added..is still anecdotal because we don't know if there is an endpoint.
So, what scientists and physiologists do, and also what we as coaches and athletes should do, is firstly go to the numbers..measure everything... this will over a period of time give what is called...
"A consistency, within the uncertainty, of the measurements which have been done"
To that increment of uncertainty we then apply intuition and experience, and that is the best that we as humans can do.
Oh, unless you also count arguing the Bejeezus out of it on this forum.
So getting back to the original thread ..which was that the current crop of 400/400H are too slow...the measurements (time) would indicate that they are..the measurements also indicate that 800m might be a better option. 47 secs (or 50 secs for H) for 1 lap will not get you to the Olympics, but 2 laps of 52 secs will. To get two laps of 52 secs though you have to train the athletes endurance, and then add speed. This is 'the consistent within the uncertainty'
The argument then was what is the optimum training to give this endurance. 'The consistency within the uncertainty' would seem to indicate a level of about 70-80 miles per week, with hills, tempo, flexibility/core, timetrials, intervals and races added and subtracted as experience and intuition dictates throughout the training process.
Incidently dc you will find that the core of Nick Willis training is on his website, and it follows quite closely 2 through 5 of the physiological training process outlined in my thread.
He skips the initial low intensity aerobic process and trains at medium intensity aerobic. He runs 70-80 miles a week with a long run of 18 miles ( that magical 2 hours), with hurdle step overs and 120 yd sprints (flexibility and core) this drops to 14 miles as he moves through the sequences. He says that "strength is the key to Ron's training Philosophy" He also does tempo runs and hill reps...as outlined in step 3 of the sequential process. My take on it, is that while there is probably a little more 'speed' than what physiologists would consider normal it certainly follows the same periodisation sequences, and in the same order (1-5) that Snell, Walker, Moller et al have all previously followed.
Now, if you will all excuse me I have to get back to my work on the 3k buildup, the flat earth and the Fir Tek conundrum...
...and Biltong, one should never overmisunderestimate the power of the English language.

Thanks Biltong for the complimentary remarks. I am actually quite fiery in some cirstances and the reason I am still a Physeder in a High School is I have told too many people the truth in so many words that I never got promotion when I applied for it. I have walked away from the Sport more times than I have had hot dinners because of some of the "Crap" Politics and conservative and some what behind the times thinking people involved at the lower levels . It took 20 years for anyone to talk me into joining the local athletic Club !!!!. Still not 100% convinced I have done the right thing !!
However, I enjoy the banter othat goes on at this site as well as Letsrun and also it keeps me up to date with what is happenig in the World of our Sport and with all the young people in the Sport who are trying to do their thing.
I am glad you mention the return to the topic. As I was thinking about that last night. But before I head to Ohope beach for the day I thought I would throw some Peter Snell Trivia at Ya !!.
Back in my early Physeding career I was in Charge of Athletics at Mt Albert Grammar School (My good mate Dave Long is now) At the time there was some old timers who were there in the time of Snell. What I picked up was he was a VERY gifted Sportsman .. whatever he did he could do well with out much 'Teaching" or practice. He was an excellent Tennis player .. something that helped him win Superstars in later years. He was a Competent Cricketer and Hockey player, Two or three old timers told me he could have been an All Black if he had chosen Rugby .. A classmate of his was All Black wing .. Rod Heeps. He ran a 1:59 880yds on a grass track on what he did in and around Sports fields .... Who can do that now !!!. He was not the best runner at MAGS. That was Mike Macky .. who still hold the MAGS 800 record ... Snell never got it !!. But it was Macky who introduced Snell to Arthur Lydiard. Mike could see the promise and potential that Peter had. I asked Arthur about Macky and how good he was. In Arthurs usual exerburance he said 'If Macky had stayed in the Sport and continued training he would have scared the hell out of Herb Elliot in the Rome Oly 1500 .. That is how good he was".
An aside : I was at Mt Smart one time when this kid, Built like Tayler, was giving Glen Le Gros (our MAGS Runner) a hard time in a 1500 when I asked who the kid was. I was told his name was "Macky" .. I said to whoever was with me at the time "I wonder if he is related to Mike Macky". ... A voice behind me said .. "Yes, He is .. he is my son and Mike Macky is my brother" ... the kid was good and later picked up a 2nd in NZ sec schools JB 1500 .. unfortunately faded from the Sport .. We are talking 1984/85. So the Macky genes were good !!!!!
Time for the beach !!!!!

This has been an fascinating discussion to follow. I've taken a few things out of it. One is that there is no one true, right way of doing things. Although some ways may be a bit more 'righter' than others. And this is great, because life would be very boring if in many aspects of life there was only one right way. Anyway, part of the fun is making the odd mistake during the journey and learning from them. Heck, sometimes even making the same mistake some time down the track and remembering the lesson. After all, didn't Lydiard refine his model through some brutal self experimentation? Is it so bad that others would want to explore their own model through experimentation?
Secondly, my weekly, hilly 22mile run home, often followed by mowing the lawns, then cooking and having dinner and then taking the dog out for a walk isn't really going to cut it. I think I need to add some real hard manual labour before bed time if I'm to get to the next level.

DK - Intervals of course. Geoffrey when winning the 10 miler at Heretaunga in 1986 was one of his best performances, beat some bloody good athletes that day..... Remember me?

Thankyou Mr Haswell, I do so stand...The conversation about Mr Shaws "Pot Guts" was far more interesting than getting the facts straight.
Tell me sir, as one of New Zealands finest distance runners...Endurance or Intervals?

Biltong I just had a look on Wikipedia at Jack Daniels. Now bearing in mind that, while I have heard of him, I have never looked at any of his training philosophies before today.
Here's what he says:
There are five specific training intensities.
Here's what I said.
'There are five sequences, all represent levels of training intensity.

He said 1) Easy long. the primary purpose is to build a base for more intense workouts later on.
I said 1)Low intensity aerobic. The larger the base the higher the glycolic peak later on.
He said 2) Marathon pace. these runs are continuous of up to two hours.
I said 2) Medium intensity Aerobic 6:00/6.30 min miles...and as we have discussed the runs are 22 miles (at 6:00 mile pace = 2:12.
He said 3)Threshold. Long reps
I said 3) sub threshold. Long reps.
He said 4) Intervals. Very intense pace, sustained for only 12 minutes. Intervals of 3-5 mins.
I said. 4) Anaerobic Threshold. Time trials. (To which I neglected to add in the post that we also do 3 x 1k)
He said 5) Very fast training, short intervals.
I said 5) VO2 Max. RACE. To get VO2 max we do 6 x 200m (ie short intervals)
Crikey Biltong...how close do I have to get?
With regards to Snell and Moens. Snell reached his peak in 1962 when he ran 1:44.3 for 800m. (four years after he started with Lydiard) He was still close to that peak when he went to Tokyo in 1964 and ran 1:45.1 (2nd fastest time in history) while adding the 1500m as well. (six years after he started with Lydiard)
Now here's why he won in 1960 after only two years with Lydiard, and while still two years away from his peak.
Snell PB 1:48.5 Rome 1:46.48
Moens PB 1:45.4 Rome 1:46.55
Kerr PB 1:46.4 Rome 1:47.25
If either Kerr or Moens had run their PB's in that race then Snell would have been third.
And if you think that Snell made Lydiard and not the other way around, then you would be wrong. The few games of tennis that Snell played before he started training with Lydiard did not give him the aerobic base that the Waiatarua's did.
Another Snell never appeared?...I suppose if you discount Walker, Dixon, Taylor, Quax, Roe, Audain, Euan Robertson, Mike Ryan, Moller, Willis, you might be right.
...and you can't dumb down the physiology of a programme,just because of it's human frailties and failures (it's not the physiology that fails)...you laud it because of it's successes...and at the risk of repeating myself there is no other programme that is more successful than this one.
Endurance over speed what on earth could be simpler? Or as Einstein once put it...
"keep things as simple as possible...but not simpler"
New Zealand Rugby too is not a lot different from Kenyan running, it has a huge base of failures in order to maintain it's level of successes.
And that Mr Biltong, is, as always, life.
In conclusion, just imagine Mr Biltong what a different world it would be if in that garden of Eden you referred to, God had said.... "now Adam, don't eat the bl*ody snake"