|
Nov 2013
10:03am, 7 Nov 2013
3,460 posts
|
daviec
I don't disagree with that stuff either NN, note I said LT and endurance are also significant for 5k (more so I think) and so in no way do I think that VO2 is the "single most important physiological capacity in determining endurance running performance" which is what that article is looking to disprove. Paul's basing his sessions on his 5k pace with a view to improving it. The science behind VO2 is whatever it is, but there's plenty of evidence that working at and around that pace will help improve that pace, and will have a knock on effect on 10k/HM/Mara pace.
I note you wished him luck, I just thought it was an interesting discussion worth pursuing. If I had the time and didn't beat myself up so much over poor results I'd try both methods and compare the outcomes.
|
|
Nov 2013
10:08am, 7 Nov 2013
3,461 posts
|
daviec
2nd article came up in between. Again I don't disagree with what's in it. I don't see anyone saying that intervals are anaerobic or that they can't be changed to produce different types of session. I think one of my early contributions to the thread was to suggest that some intervals that might be of use in base training were long ones in the high aerobic range maybe even up to LT effort.
|
|
Nov 2013
10:34am, 7 Nov 2013
18,847 posts
|
SPR
Short intervals are necessarily anaerobic either, it all depends on pace + recovery. I think my post about that may have followed your post Daviec
In fact Hadd's 100/100 is Pire light.
|
|
Nov 2013
10:51am, 7 Nov 2013
18,848 posts
|
SPR
*Aren't* Obviously
|
|
Nov 2013
11:13am, 7 Nov 2013
3,462 posts
|
daviec
Agreed. In fact short/fast intervals are probably aerobic even with short recoveries until you've done a few (from what I've read elsewhere). Hadd suggested 10k of 200 @ 5k /200 easy in base, and only occasionally. I've never tried it.
|
|
Nov 2013
11:16am, 7 Nov 2013
1,301 posts
|
Ninky Nonk
But those hadd 200/200 sessions are done with interval active and a few paces down from work part. As I've been doing recently.
This quite different from the classic gerschler protocol of 180 to 120 bpm.
I'm sure gerschler modified his protocol in his 50s renaissance to make the intervals more active with more sets with longer breaks between. Or maybe this was igloi/schul.
|
|
Nov 2013
12:12pm, 7 Nov 2013
18,849 posts
|
SPR
NN - Re Hadd, yes you're right. Also the 100/100 is at 400m to 800m pace, so a lot faster than Gerschler stuff.
Don't think I've read anything about Gerschler changing his approach.
|
|
Nov 2013
12:25pm, 7 Nov 2013
18,850 posts
|
SPR
Can remember where I read about 100/100. I have quoted it on page 9 here, but didn't link (poor form!)
200/200 is in the Hadd doc as I'm sure most know.
|
|
Nov 2013
11:31am, 8 Nov 2013
1,308 posts
|
Ninky Nonk
In the 1930s and 1940s, the Finnish approach was at the basis of a newtraining method developed in Sweden. ‘Fartlek’ (meaning playing with speed)was initially created by Omer and subsequently developed by Olander, andconsisted in combining – and alternating between - endurance, rhythm andspeed in a same training session, in continuous running in the nature, andover varied paths. Like the Finnish approach, it stressed the importance of‘quality training’, but simultaneously added the quantity dimension, andtraining sessions could last between 30 minutes and 2 hours. It suggestedthat the emphasis should alternate between quantity and quality, and thatintensity should increase gradually in the faster parts of the sessions.Also like the Finnish approach, the new method involved much more thandevising the contents of training sessions. In fact, ‘fartlek’ embodied anaturalist philosophy as it advocated that athletes should not make anypre-conceived efforts, but should rather follow their intuition and do whatthey were capable of at the moment. This prompted criticisms that it lackedthe necessary systematisation, whereas its advocates claimed that, on thecontrary, it was the ideal training method as it allowed athletes todevelop an appropriate understanding of their own personal characteristics.‘Fartlek’ became especially popular as a result of the achievements ofGunder Hagg and Arne Anderson between 1942 and 1945. Following theapproach, the two Swedish rivals managed to break several times the worldrecords in distances between 1500 and 5000 metres, challenging the notionof human physical resistance at the time. Hagg, in particular, had aremarkable achievement: in less than three months, between 1 July and 20September 1942, he broke seven world records (1500 m, twice in the mile,twice in 2000 m, 3000, and 5000 metres). However, in the decade followingtheir quitting of athletics, their world records in those distances couldnot be improved by other athletes using the ‘fartlek’ method, and as aconsequence it gradually started to be discredited.In parallel with ‘fartlek’, a new training method started to emerge inGermany just before the Second World War. Developed by Waldemar Gerschler,it was based on both the Finnish approach and ‘fartlek’ (i.e. emphasis on‘quality training’, and alternation between quality / intensity andquantity / slow, so as to allow the body to recover between intensiveefforts), and brought the athlete back to the track, thereforedifferentiating from the naturalist philosophy of ‘fartlek’. The new methodstarted to fascinate the world of athletics mainly through the achievementsof the German athlete Rudolf Harbig, who, training under the supervisor ofGerschler, broke the world records for the 400 m, 800 m, and 1000 m,between 1939 and 1941, thereby challenging the hegemony of the Americanathletes in those shorter distances. Athletes from all over the worldstarted to follow with increasing interest the new German ‘school oftraining’, based in Friburg. Initially, Gerschler recommended repetitions(usually between 8 and 12 in a session) over 100, 250, 300 and 500 metresfor sprinters and middle-distance runners, and over 300, 600 and 1200metres for long-distance runners. He also defended that winter trainingshould not be very different from spring and summer training, that is, theathlete should train at a competitive rhythm in winter as well. These twoprinciples caused perplexity at the time, as there wasn’t a differentiationbetween preparation and competition phases during the season, and becauseit was hard to believe that repetitions over so short distances could infact improve an athlete’s resistance.With the War (in which Harbig himself was killed in Malta in 1944), sportsin general took a ‘back seat’, and Gerschler’s method was temporarily‘forgotten’. However, the achievements of the Czech athlete Emil Zatopek,between 1947 and 1953, led to important new developments in the method.Zatopek had been influenced by a pre-War German magazine in whichGerschler’s method was outlined, and applied to his longdistance runningwhat Harbig had done for the shorter distances. However, instead of simplycopying Harbig’s training, Zatopek adapted it: he reduced the distances forthe repetitions (200 and 400 m were the standard distances used for that),and increased the number of repetitions (40 times 400 m – and even 60repetitions sometimes -, ran with moderate intensity, in a single session,with a short recovery interval between repetitions, was common in histraining). It should be noted that his adaptation of the Gerschler’s methodwas based on his own personal experience only, rather than influenced byany sort of scientific evidence. The results Zatopek achieved wereastonishing – 18 world records in distances from 5000 to 30000metres;Olympic champion in the 5000 m,10000, and the marathon in 1952 Games inHelsinki (a treble which was never repeated by any athlete since), after aprevious Olympic title in the 10000 m in 1948.Influenced by Zatopek’s experience and what he managed to achieve throughadapting his method, Gerschler later improved his own initial version.Working together with the physiologist Herber Reindell, he introducedseveral modifications (although maintaining the general idea behind themethod): shorter distances for the repetitions; a rigorous control ofintervals between repetitions; the pulse rate; the intensity ofrepetitions; and the number of repetitions. Through their joint research,Gerschler and Reindell concluded that the main effects of‘interval-training’ were produced during the interval between repetitionsrather than during repetitions. Hence the term ‘interval-training’ adoptedto designate the (modified) method, intervals between efforts being called‘active pauses’ or ‘profitable pauses’. After a long research period inFriburg, during which thousand of athletes from several countries weremonitored, the basic ‘toolkit’ of ‘interval-training’ was then established:distance for repetitions (100 m and 200 m; 400 m only occasionally in orderto break monotony); interval (30’’ to 60’’ for 100 m, and 70’’ to 90’’ for200 and 400 m); time to cover the distance in each repetition; number ofrepetitions (up to a maximum of 40x100 m, or 30x200 m, or 25x400 m); andaction during intervals (always ‘active intervals’). For the first timescience entered into the field of athletics training – a link ever presentsince.The diffusion of the ‘toolkit’ and basic rules of ‘interval training’ thenachieved such a level that, until the end of the 1950s, any non-controlledand non-measured (in terms of pulse rate, duration of efforts, intensityand number of repetitions) training session was dismissed as ‘outdated’ and‘non-scientific’. Other sports too (e.g. cycling and swimming) graduallystarted to adopt it. However, this euphoria was followed later on byimportant criticisms. It was argued that ‘interval-training’ produced amechanisation (biologically as well as mentally) of athletes, and thattraining around the track all the time was unbearably tedious. Theromanticism of athletics, which was arguably present in the previousmethods, was lost, and the practical results produced did not justify such‘un-human, monotonous’ training, the critics said.Meanwhile, several athletics coaches who had been influenced by the initialversion of the ‘interval-training’ method had gradually started tointroduce some adaptations themselves. It was the case of the HungarianMihaly Igloi, who integrated ‘interval training’ and the Swedish ‘fartlek’for ‘quality training’, and complemented it with a high volume of training(more than 200 Km per week sometimes). He also divided daily training intotwo sessions, and designed training sessions according to the individualcharacteristics of each athlete. Furthermore, Igloi also controlled theprivate life of his athletes with regards to what to eat and drink, andensured that they followed his indications regarding sleep. FollowingIgloi’s approach, Ilharos, Tabori and Rozsavolgi broke several worldrecords in distances ranging from 1000 to 10000 metres between 1955 and1956. At the time of the ‘Hungarian revolution’, in 1956, Igloi migrated tothe United States. Soon after, he started to influence the traditionalAmerican coaches, thereby contributing to substantially improve the resultsachieved by American distance runners. A visible effect of that influencewas the victory in the 5000 m in the Olympics in 1964 by Bob Schull. Inother countries, too, various new methods were developed on the basis of‘interval-training’, namely in the then Soviet Union, Vladimir Kutz beingits most emblematic athlete by winning both the 5000 and 10000 m in the1956 Olympics, and breaking the world records in both distances.
|
|
Nov 2013
12:22pm, 8 Nov 2013
18,852 posts
|
SPR
Nice post NN.
I only knew the modified version it seems.
I never knew Zatopek was influenced by Gerschler. I knew Pirie was influenced by Zatopek, so it all came back in a circle!
Is there a link for that?
|
Project Joker
Jun 2025