Isn't "Event Specificity" More Important Than "VO2max" And "LT" Zones And All That?

This is not a case of Perfontaine or whatever. This is a case of regular use of doping among the Finns and Italians.

I know wrote:

In 1980 Lasse Viren lost to other runners and Finnish runners at the Olympics who it turned out later confessed to blood doping. Same thing in 1984 when Finnish runners were caught blood doping. It turned out that the Finnish federation knew about it and made sure every athlete had his own private doctor like Viren had had to take care of it. Better techniques were developed to detect blood doping and after 1985 you never heard of any great Finnnish runner again.

Some corrections.

First that´s not true that Viren did confess. He never confess it until today. Some other Finns they did confess. For example another 70s Finn runner Ala Lepilampi did confess about the drug blood use and said he wasn´t the only one from the top finns at that time to do it and also that t was done by the Finn federation implementation and supervison. Secondly i must remember that, at that time, the self-blood-transfusion was allowed, that was considered doping as that only after 1985, so is incorrect to speak about "legal doping" before that. But if It wasn’t doping why we consider that most what Viren and others they did achieve in that period mainly that have to do with blood transfusion benefits and not with Lydiard training or anything else – despite they must train properly ? Because . n this way, your capacity in transporting O2 was higher of 20% about. For those who claim that Lydiard training is based in the statement that the aerobic development is of main importance in the training context, for someone that high 20% his O2 transport artificially, Viren and all the other Finns they aren’t a trustful example of Lydiard training impact.

Therefore blood self transfusion is way of doping that some runners they use today. From cycling to athletics, because the science aren´t able to detected that doping usage yet.

48 wrote:

Maaninka never won the Euros though he did medal in the "80 10K, Vainio was second in the "84 10K but was DQ'ed for a positive drug test, Cova from Italy won.

Right. Maaninka won 10000m silver in Moscow 80. I wanted to say that Marti Vainio won the european, not Maaninka. Vainio he did won Prague 78 10000m european champ.

Do you know why Vainio was disqualified and how they discovered that he did blood transfusion for that Olympics ?

he took an illegal drug for personal treatment some months before the games, but as it was illegal he needs to let know and be authorized to take it by international federation what he did. It happens that right after the 10000m 84 LA olympics he was submitted to a drug test and that gave positive to the same drug substance that he was allow to take some months before. As he said that didn’t take that recently or before the games, the conclusion is that the presence of that drug substance was done because he reintroduce the earlier blood he took out and preserve during the period he took the substance consequently it was present in the urine some months after he took it. Conclusion. He did use blood doping. At that time he did confess the self blood usage.

In his book, Pfitzinger describes research that shows high monotony in training to singificantly increase the risk of injury, especially in marathon preparation.

Do those who habituate to long periods of Lydiard style base building of 100 mpw or more report more injuries than those who incorporate more variety year round?

I think in the context of this knowledge about the Finnish athletes of this time (before 1985 when blood doping became illegal) it is somewhat surprising that Lydiard is touted as being the force behind their success. I would be very interested to know more about the Finnish training and methods (not about blood doping) notwithstanding these claims. For my part I am very suspicious of an athlete (Viren) who runs so well at the Olympics but not so in between. Brendan Foster, in his book, laments the fact that he was beaten by Viren only three times out of about fifteen races (memory a bit sketchy here) but didn't feel able to state that he thought he had blood doped.

Paul

Didn't Frank Shorter do quality sessions year-round? I heard he was always doing weekly tempo and VO2Max runs.

Viren bronzed in the '74 Euros inspite of a leg injury, he would run 28: 11 10k between OGs, still respectable in that era, the year before Montreal he ran 28:04.4 in Brussels.in "74 he also ran 3;44.7 and 13:26. In January 1975 he underwent surgery to repair a damaged left leg.

Both Peltokallio his MD and his coach dismissed blood doping as dangerous and impractical with too high of a risk. Haikkola Viren's coach expressed his disappointment that Viren had no desire to chase records and only focused on winning gold medals, such is the discipline of a gold medalist.

I too would like to know some more specifics about Lydiard in Finland. I have looked as thoroughly as i can but can only satisfy myself as to the influence.

For one Vasala's form was Lydiard-like and his race-finish in the 1500m in 1972 was lydiard-like.

I still see Arthur lydiard as possibly the pre-eminent middle and long-distance coach the world has had. I take his knowledge and keep seeing deeper into it as i coach my squad.

He was a true visionary. But then so were many others.

Gallagher,

Are you refering to Pfitzinger's "Advanced Marathoning" or "Road Racing for Serious Distance runners"?

I'd say that those who have habituated to many years of building an aerobic base through high mileage and lots of easy running have developed a resistence to injury...and that allows them to do more intense workouts year-round.

In one of those books it mentions Bob Kennedy saying something like: you can touch on V02max, LT, and Speed workouts year round- its just the emphasis of one system or another can be emphsized.

I personally think Lydiard's strict system is outdated. I think most of his concepts though are very applicable to modern training programs and build the back bone of most succcesful training.

In the book "Run with the Best" and in Daniel's "Distance Running Formula" there is some structured periodization- but many of the weeks out of the training year include some element of V02max, LT, and basic speed stimuli.

Like Canova mentions, the human body is an organism that needs a wide variety of stimuli to respond to and continually adapt to in order for progress to be made. For example, having marathon runners do all-out hill sprints lasting only 10sec....or marathon runners doing plyos, drills, etc.

In terms of injury risk there seem to be too many variables involved (the individual, their running history, etc). However, history suggests that those who have adapted to high mileage through years of aerobic base building are able to withstand the demands of more intense (and increasingly higher mileage) workbouts during their mature years (ie mid to late 20s and early 30s).

sprinter800 wrote:

I too would like to know some more specifics about Lydiard in Finland. I have looked as thoroughly as i can but can only satisfy myself as to the influence.

For one Vasala's form was Lydiard-like and his race-finish in the 1500m in 1972 was lydiard-like.

I still see Arthur lydiard as possibly the pre-eminent middle and long-distance coach the world has had. I take his knowledge and keep seeing deeper into it as i coach my squad.

He was a true visionary. But then so were many others.

now lydiard myths infect this good thread. sprinter what is fom and finishing equals lydiard like?

Shorter in his prime periodized his training into blocks Fall, Winter, Spring, Summer. For about ten years he averaged about 120 miles per week. He was as high as 170 miles per week in Vail training for Munich. Very intuitive in his training, years ahead of his time in the respect of high /low training.

Did repetitions/intervals three times per week year around.In the fall longer stuff, he felt his fall schedule suited him well for XC nationals and Fukouka usually a week later. Reps/intervals got progressively less in distance as he progressed towards summer and become faster usually based his pace off what the world record was at the time.

Monday through Saturday was 7 miles in the am Tuesday, Thursday, Saturday 10 miles in the PM. Sunday year around was a 20 miler which got progressively faster as the distance increase ie second 10 miles faster than the first.

Will post Finns training if anyone is interested.

Don't know that Lydiard is anymore outdated than Igloi,Gerschler/Reindell ( by the way watch for the stuff coming out of Germany apparently they doped Bartels), Bowerman or Horwill for that matter. It really is what the individual best responds to as a training stimulus.

"Here we go again". Who is infecting threads. I have'nt seen any of the regular "Lydiardites" jumping on here.

Sprinter800 seems to be an Australian.

I heard somewhere that Lydiard liked rugby and he liked it more when New Zealand beat Australia. Is that a Lydiard myth too ???.

gallagher wrote:

In his book, Pfitzinger describes research that shows high monotony in training to singificantly increase the risk of injury, especially in marathon preparation.

Do those who habituate to long periods of Lydiard style base building of 100 mpw or more report more injuries than those who incorporate more variety year round?

If you look at the Lydiard schedules you'll see that there's enough variety that monotony is not an issue. You do something quite different every day in that 100mpw. Pfitzinger's point about monotony is more about microcycles than macrocycles as I understand it.

sprinter800 wrote:

I too would like to know some more specifics about Lydiard in Finland. I have looked as thoroughly as i can but can only satisfy myself as to the influence.

For one Vasala's form was Lydiard-like and his race-finish in the 1500m in 1972 was lydiard-like.

I still see Arthur lydiard as possibly the pre-eminent middle and long-distance coach the world has had. I take his knowledge and keep seeing deeper into it as i coach my squad.

He was a true visionary. But then so were many others.

people used to post examples of the sucess of Lydiard training and the importance of Lydiard direct coach. The case of Vasala that´s the opposite. While his coach influenced by Lydiard he did gold in 1500m 72 olympics. Hd did 3:36 PB. In the winter of 74 he did decide to go to New Zeland to train and be advised directly by Lydiard himself. He did stay there a long period until 74 euripean Champs but what he did ?

6th in the european champs - easier contest than the olympics of course, and a season PB of 3:41. Then he disapeared from the competitve scene. I see that Lydiard training works. Quite genious. To take a olympic winner, train him directly and made him 6th in an european champ. Well done Lydiard !

I finally am able to use in Eldoret Internet, and today (that is a day not too busy for me) I can read some interesting discussion. I had no time to read everything (last time I was at page 11...), but anyway I want to try to better explain my phylosophy, hoping that my English can be clear, also if not too much correct.

1) There is no training for one event, but for one athlete. Every event is a compromise between two typologies of athletes : FAST and RESISTANCE. If we look at 800m, for example, COE, OVETT, SNELL were RESISTANT, JUANTORENA, SUSANJ, FIASCONARO, KONCHELLAH were FAST. This means that their training must be completely different. For example, if Konchellah was able, at the beginning of his career as 400m runner, to run in 45.1 using in training 3 times 300m in 34.0 with 10:00 of rest, his development to ENDURANCE was to run 6 x 300 in 36.0 with 5:00 rest. On the contrary, CRAM was able to run 10 x 300m in 39.0 / 40.0 with 30.0 (30 seconds) of interval. The first is a training for an animal full of Fast fibers, the second for an animal very strong under the aerobic point of view. But 39.0 is already the pace for 1:44, so, with only 800m to run an without intervals, CRAM could run faster than Konchellah (1:42.88 against 1:43.07).

2) A good coach is like a good taylor : he must be able to make the clothe ON THE MEASURE AND ON THE SHAPE OF THE CLIENT. So, before making the cloth, ha has to check all the particulars of the client. Instead, when we speak about SCHEDULE FOR EVENTS, we want that everybody goes to adapt himself to some GENERAL TRAINING. In this case, his training remains GENERAL, never becoming SPECIFIC.

3) Regarding VO2 Max, my opinion is that is not possible to enhance it too much with proper training, because is more connected with genetic qualities. On the contrary, it's possible to enhance very much the LT, that becomes DIRECT SUPPORT for the distances between 3000 and HM. So, personally I'm not interested in VO2 max, because I don't think is important. I'm interested in HOW TO INCREASE THE LT, and expecially HOW TO INCREASE THE MAX LASS (maximum lactate steady state), that is the ability to last for long time at high level of lactate without too much increment. For the best specialists of 10000m, for example, is possible to remain for about 20:00 at a level from 12 and 14 mmol, that is like a Steady State at top level. I don't know exactly WHY it is possible to do this (I suppose that is possible to improve the permeability of the membrane, and to modify the level of acidity in the blood, and to increase the ability in tolerance of lactate in the fibres), but I know HOW to do this. This is the theme of a my seminar to European Coaches last year, and now is published in the EAA section for articles and researches.

4) There is a interconnection between INTENSITY and EXTENSION. I give a simple example. My athlete is able running 10 x 400m in 60.0, with 60.0 recovery, reaching after running the no. 10 a level of 16 mmol. I go for one month in training AROUND this type of speed (for me, between 95 and 105%), using some longer distance (for example, till 600 in 1:32) and some shorter distance (for example, 300 in 42), and, at the same time, I work for the LT with training of Aerobic Power (20-30 min very fast, or long intervals), with the support of LONG RUN AT 70% of the speed of the race, in case of distances like 5000m (if you run 13:20, that is 2:40 per km, the speed is 16.0 every 100m, so 16x3=48.0, and 2:40 + 48.0 = 3:28 pace).

After one month, my athlete is able running 15 times in 60.0 with 1 min recovery, reaching the same level of lactate (16 mmol). If we go to check the lactate AFTER 10, he reduced his level to 13 mmol. So, IF I ASK HIM TO RUN 10 x 400m WITH THE FINAL LEVEL OF LACTATE AT 16 (as one month before), HE CAN RUN IN 58 INSTEAD 60. So, working AROUND the specific speed, we improve ENDURANCE, but also SPEED ENDURANCE, because the athlete is able to run faster with the SAME INTERNAL LOAD.

Under this point of view, SPEED is the support for ENDURANCE, and ENDURANCE is a support for SPEED ENDURANCE, that is the SPECIFIC TRAINING.

We must always look for our 2 engines :

Mechanical (exercises for incresing strength and running economy)

Methabolic (that is the real source of every endurance)

Regarding the discussion about BLOOD SELF TRANSFUSION, I really don't believe in it. We had in Italy athletes running WITH (before 85) and WITHOUT (after), and they were able to improve. ANTIBO went in the program of blood self transfusion in 1982 till 1984, running 27:40. After, he didn't use anymore this system, and in 1989 ran 27:16 and, in 1990, was practically unbeatable, WITHOUT.

I had in my group athletes running in 2 month 26:30 from 28:19, or beating the WR in 7:53 (steeple), or winning medals in WCh (Moses Mosop, Shami, Dorcus Inzikuru) in several distances from 3000 to Marathon, not using anything (also integrators, only KENYAN FOOD) : why must I think that with some blood doping they can run faster ? So, my conclusion is that FOR WEAKER ATHLETES BLOOD DOPING CAN HAVE EFFECT ON THEIR PERFORMANCE, but for TOP TALENTED ATHLETES NO EFFECT.

I want to give an example : 99% of normal people can increase their strength using electrostimulation. But can somebody think that Hoffa or Cantwell or Alekna can increase their strength with this system ? Also for the AEROBIC POWER we have talented athletes, able to increase of 20-25% the global volume of blood in their body, during a very good training, AEROBIC, lasting 3-4 months. For these athletes, blood doping doesn't work. And we have LESS TALENTED ATHLETES, not able to change their physiology so much, that have advantages using blood doping. BUT, NORMALLY, ARE NOT THE BEST.

Renato, thanks for the detailed post.

I wonder if you might explain your ideas for effective workout sessions for a fairly average marathoner. (I'm describing myself, of course, but also most other readers on this board.)

So, for a resistance-oriented runner who does not have access to blood lactate sampling. Races marathons between 2:45 and 3:15, as a rough guide.

Any "bread and butter" workouts that this runner could incorporate into a weekly or monthly schedule? Obviously the workouts would evolve as the runner progresses ...

As I understand LT or lactate management training, there is no identified threshold. It is a number of thresholds, conventional AnT (85-90%), 15k pace, 10k pace even 5k pace training is in some way lactate management. Then there is a lower intensity AT threshold (60-75%) below which recovery. All are important in some way at various percentages depending upon the event. If marathon is the goal then it is important that the AT is in close proximity to the AnT (conventional). If 5k is the event then in the base and general period conventional, 15k and 10k pace is important. As the pre-competition period approaches then the support pace for RPTD (RACE PACE TARGET DISTANCE (terminology not mine but borrowed from a good friend) - viz., specific pace to the event + /- 5%) is mainly (if not exclusively) 10k pace or slightly faster. For 800 at this time (pre-competition) the support pace would be 1500 but 5k pace work would be important to enable that 1500 pace work to have some continued support itself. Speed for the 800 would be work at 400 pace. Ultimately the goal is RPTD and all other paces (including recovery) are important only in so far as they enable the runner to achieve RPTD.

Paul

Renato Canova wrote:

So, my conclusion is that FOR WEAKER ATHLETES BLOOD DOPING CAN HAVE EFFECT ON THEIR PERFORMANCE, but for TOP TALENTED ATHLETES NO EFFECT.

BUT, NORMALLY, ARE NOT THE BEST.

Renato

To say that they aren´t the best is this a kind of a joke?

Let me permit to post part of one personal e-mail you sent me some years ago. I do this for 2 reasons.

First. Once for all i want to use your own testimony to deny those who still insist that Viren didn’t took self blood transfusion. If we trust on you VIREN TOOK BLOOD really as well as most of the Finns from that period and we know the Finn Federation had a plan. I also may allow all that as you said, this wasnt doping before 1984.

Second reason to post this your e-mail is that IF YOU DON´T CONSIDER THE BEST OF THEIR TIMES Juha Vaatainen (double european champ), Viren (2 times winner of olymopic double 5000m-10000m and several world records, Pekka Vasala (1500m olympic winner), or Alberto Cova (84 10000m olympic winner), and as you may know that long list also includes the 76 and 80 double Olympic marathon winner Waldemar Cierpinsky THEN I ASK YOU:

IF ALL THAT RUNNERS AREN`T THE BEST, WHO ARE THE BEST ?

You all may read this Renato Canova e-mail you sent me a few years ago.

I want to specify some things, as you can better understand.

In Italy, at the beginning of 80 years, there was a program having a focus of increasing the Aerobic Power, using self-blood-transfusion. This type of intervent was used for the first time by Finnish scientists, at the end of 60-beginning of 70 years. Using this practice, Juha Vaatainen won one of the best 10000 ever run in European Championships '71, and Lasse Viren gold medals in 5000/10000m in both OG 72-76. Other Finnish runners using this practice were Maaninka (not top runner, after Viren) and Vainio. I don't know about other athlete in Europe, in different Countries.

In Italy, a scientist called Francesco Conconi had, from our Olympic Committee, the task to study this practice, and to develop for best athletes.

You must remember that, at that time, the self-blood-transfusion was allowed, so is incorrect to speak about "doping".

That practice consisted in taking your blood (about half liter) in two different times, 4-5 months far one another, preserving it under liquid nitrogen, at a temperature of -69°.

About two weeks before the race, this litre of your blood had to be reinfused. In this way, your capacity in transporting O2 was higher of 20% about.

After some experimentation (for example, for ECh '82 also with Maurizio Damilano and marathon runner Massimo Magnani), it was clear that, for very long run, this practice was damageous. In 82 both Damilano and Magnani had their worst race, and quickly refused to use this method.

Instead, for shorter distances (from 1500 to 10000), it seemed that results could be good.

But you understand that, having suddenly one liter of blood more in your blood circulation, for many athletes there were big problems. In fact, the elasticity of veins and arteries is individual, and the reaction to this practice was individual too. Who had low elasticity, got worse his performances; who had good elasticity, improved.

This practice was used also by ski-cross-runners, cyclists (like Francesco Moser, when broke the record of one hour in Mexico City) and swimmers, till OG 1984.

Regarding athletics, Italian runners using this practice were Cova (winner from 82 of the best important events), Antibo (4th in OG), Dorio (winning 1500 W), Fontanella (3:35.93 in 1500), the Selvaggio brothers (13:24/13:25 in 5000) and some other less important.

A group of athletes instead refused to do it. Among them, Stefano Mei (winning ECh '86 in 10000m), Francesco Panetta and all marathon runners and walkers (after the test in '82).

When this practice was considered "doping" in '85, Italians stopped to do it.

Thanks, Renato, for information about the fast 800 athlete and the resistnt 800 athlete.

I would love to learn more about this!