Why isn't it possible to compare athletes in running? Minus shoes changed this isnt football or golf or something where athletes have got completely new gear in the last few years. The sport is essentially the same.


Grant

---

Grant
----------------------------------------------------
Proudly sponsored by Desoto Sports
Please Support CAF every little bit helps http://raceforareason.kintera.org/grantreuter

tracks have changed too, which isn't huge, but the difference (for me) between running intervals on an old cinder track in my hometown vs on a new track was ~.25 sec/lap.

spikes are slightly better, but I'm guessing that makes less of a difference. It's probably easier to compare times run for road races, as I doubt the surfaces have changed all that much through the years..

I think there are other factors equally important as training or genetics (and tracks/equipment for that matter) that have influenced the improvement in running performaces. There is a factor that seems to be a mental one: After a world record has been lowered, the previous times seem to be easier achievable for many athletes. Look at the graph someone posted about marathon records. The women's record stayed over 2:20 quite some time, it wasn't lowered by more than a minute for over 15 years and runners didn't seem able to break the barrier. But after the record was broken in 2001, it has been lowered substantially and a lot of women have since broken 2:20. It was the same with the 4 minute mile. It seems that if one knows what is achievable (or what must be achieved to be competitive), then it is a lot easier to do it.

I personally have this experience with my own pr's. In order to lower my 10k pr, I have to train quite hard. But afterwards, I need a lot less training to come again near a mark I have already achieved.

They have broken 8 hours, just not at Hawai'i. :)

Eric

Yeah...what does skid know about hardcore training and racing. ;-)

Dude, when YOU get the facts, you may want to re-think your post...I'm just sayin'.

---

Dan
***********
póg mo thóin

Re: Arthur Lydiard

am i missing something or is this the same thing as every other training program (for every sport since the 70's when the east europeans "discovered" periodization (and steroids))...and is pretty obvious...what is with all these running posts this week by people who think they have discovered something special?

_________________________

Kiri, it's funny what you can find with a quick search. Thank you for your wonderful contributions to the forum. The ST community is lucky to have you.

---

-----------------------------Baron Von Speedypants
-----------------------------RunTraining articles here:
http://forum.slowtwitch.com/...runtraining;#1612485

re: Zatopek - obviously did what worked for him. I think it's very preposterous, and pompous, to come back 50 years later and talk like he was a dufus. Ignore for a moment that it isn't fair to compare athletes 50 years ago to athletes today, for a variety of reasons (most of which are socio-economic), just focus on the fact that he dominated his field in his day. Just because Ali could've easily dispatched Louis doesn't mean that Louis wasn't a great fighter.
___________________

Frank, I was expecting at least one response like this. Nowhere in my post did I dengegrade Zatopek. I tried to make it very clear that he was the class of the 50s and that he was quite an inovator.

The point of the post was to show how training methods have advanced to allow 1000s of runners today to be able to achieve what only one amazing person was able to achieve 50 years ago.

Using your analogy of boxing, yes Louis was a great fighter, but if you wanted to learn to box, you'd be better served by learning from the advances in training and strategy from Ali's era (or more importantly the modern era) than to go back and mimic an antiquated (though highly respected) form of fighting.

I hope this clears it up. Sorry I wasn't able to do so in the OP.

---

-----------------------------Baron Von Speedypants
-----------------------------RunTraining articles here:
http://forum.slowtwitch.com/...runtraining;#1612485

Scott,

I understand the gist of your post. Yes, many assumptions have to be made and no, I can't offer you *proof* that modern training techniques have, in fact, improved since the 50s. I can only give you what I consider overwhelming evidence.

The post isn't about Zatopke vrs the current world record holder. It's about comparing a very large population of runners 50 years ago to a very large population of runners today. The times that people ran back then, though very impressive *for the times* just don't stand up to today's standards. Like I said in my post, a 14:07 won't even get you into the US trials today.

The simple fact is, there just is no science supporting Zatopek's training techniques being comprable to what coaches and researches have been able to develop today. There are certainly MANY elements of his training that they use and *have* refined, but given different populations of runners today they produce better results with modern techniques.

........maybe they are missing something.

---

-----------------------------Baron Von Speedypants
-----------------------------RunTraining articles here:
http://forum.slowtwitch.com/...runtraining;#1612485

You missed the point: I contend that socio-economic conditions account for the major differences.
_______________________

So you don't believe that modern training techniques have advanced since the 50s?

_______________________

And sorry, you should reread your post, because it was denigrating Z. You basically said his methods weren't any good because there's a lot of people today that could beat him. Non sequitur.

_____________________

So if I said you should build a plane the way Boeing would than the way the Wright brothers did, I'd be dengrating the inventors of the airplane?

---

-----------------------------Baron Von Speedypants
-----------------------------RunTraining articles here:
http://forum.slowtwitch.com/...runtraining;#1612485

So you don't believe that modern training techniques have advanced since the 50s?

oh brother. typical turn that most threads take on slowtwitch. read what I wrote: the major differences.

I hope you don't need me to explain that argument by analogy doesn't hold for your airplane example.
____________________

Frank, I think you are creating an argument out of nothing. The point of my post was to illustrate how humans have become faster over time and give examples of what modern training techniques have accomplished. Decade after decade people have gotten faster, though sometimes we've taken a step backward only to move two steps forward later.

If you think this is not the case, then please feel free to express that point. If you think it is the case and that I am not fairly illustrating this, then please make a positive contribution and give a better example.

I you feel that I am dengrading Zatopek, then once again I apologize. I reread my post several times and I still don't feel that is the case. I don't think he is any more of a "dufus" than anyone else that we have learned from, yet have advanced beyond. If I didn't say it there, then I am saying it here - he was very inovative and helped us take a huge step forward in run training, however, there have been many since then who have been able to piggy back off of his advances to allow us to do even more.

---

-----------------------------Baron Von Speedypants
-----------------------------RunTraining articles here:
http://forum.slowtwitch.com/...runtraining;#1612485

It all depends on the person, the amount of training they've done in the past, and as much as we hate to admit it.....genetics!


So could the genetics of the latest phenom determine the current training theory?

Diet has changed and dare I say ....the PED of choice too.

Zatopek was a great man as well as a great runner. He gave Ron Clarke one of his Helsinki gold medals, saying that he'd deserved it..
After the Prague Spring, he spoke out in favor of democracy, and was demoted from major in the army to janitor at a uranium mine, but continued to live without bitterness.

"I was not talented enough to run and smile at the same time."
"It is not gymnastics or ice skating you know."

"Men, today we die a little."
Emil Zatopek at the start of the 1956 Olympic Marathon.

"Very interesting was Paavo Nurmi's method of training. He said that it is not enough to run with your legs, it is also necessary to run with your head."

Zatopek's training methods aside, a large part of his success was indubitably in his 'head'..

seems that coachs in general and most people as well agree that genetics has a lot to do with being a good runner but then many go on to say that running has improved because of good coaching or this or that (usually what they are involved in or selling) ...

maybe running times have improved because of good mating and the improvement of the genetics of the population of runners in spite of coaching, running shoes, tracks....!

i remember reading many years back that at the turn of the century 95% of americans had not traveled more than 50 miles from their home. with the incredible travel people do today combined with places and events for good runner to meet maybe we are just breeding some better stock of runners?
combine that with some big money (sponsors and prize money - relative to years ago) bringing in more people, you would expect the times to improve.

i wonder what Darwin would think?

just a thought.

---

______________________________________
"Competetive sport begins where healthy sport ends"

Another great post...thanks!!

But please, tell me one thing. I really, really want to break 40 minutes in a 10K. How many miles per week do I need to run?

:-)

---

Dan DeMaio
---------------------------------------------------------
Life is like riding a bicycle.
To keep your balance you must keep moving.
- Albert Einstein

He did...sort of

30miles to do 18min at 5km....and if you do that you should be able to do 40min at 10km ;-)

40 miles = 17 min at 5km
50 miles = 16 min at 5km
60 miles = 15.5 min at 5km
70 miles = 15 min at 5km



And you know this is the truth b/c you saw it on ST! :-D

I get your point--it's a good post.

Your original post has so little information on (his) "training methods" that to even think you can hold a reasoned discussion on what he did is hard to fathom, much less create a "paradox" from it. Saying that "he trained hard all the time" isn't exactly a thorough review of his protocol...particularly when others offer anecdotes that you seem to miss. Chalk this up hearing one's self talk/post about nothing. Save the pseudo-coaching for your spin class.

I think it is a good idea to look at training schedules of the legends to see what they did and didn't do.. but we must be careful in our conclusions.... for instance, who's to say a periodized program is ideal for the triathlete? or a runner? Is it really ideal or is it because standard dogma run deep and thick?

I personally follow a periodized program... but primarily because my professors taught me that periodization was the "only" way to train... (professors are great at passing on thier views as "truth" but I may have been ignorant and immature in my learning abilities too?) AND because books like Triathlete's Training Bible exist. I do find myself shifting away from a periodization thought process more and more.

Back to running and analyzing great runners training programs: Check out Mark Nenow's approach

http://www.trackshark.com/.../2006/mark_nenow.php

An example of specificity at work. As a member of the Todd's Road Stumblers, I hear stories and tales of his training and running while he lived here and they almost always support what they say in the article.

---

--

garyd
endurancebasecamp.com

Ischmidt,

I didn't intend for the OP to serve as *proof* that advancement in training techniques have lead to faster times. In fact, that in and of itself is not posible to prove. So if this were intended to be an entry in a scientific journal, then you are correct - I have failed.

My inention was to bring light to the fact that people are running much faster today than ever before and that in my humble opinion this can serve as evidence that HOW you train does make a difference.

I thought that the example of a world record falling by a minute and a half over 50 years could be enlightening to some. If you were not enlightened then you were probably not the target audience of the post.

As for *my* qualifications - 20 years in the sport with relative coaching success (including 2 state champions), relative running success, read lots of books and articles, and having made and witnessed many mistakes. I never expect anyone to take my word for gospel - I'm just another man with an opinion and a keyboard.

---

-----------------------------Baron Von Speedypants
-----------------------------RunTraining articles here:
http://forum.slowtwitch.com/...runtraining;#1612485

Reggiedog,

Thank you for your polite and constructive response. We are lucky to have people like you make such wonderful contributions to the forum so that we might learn more about the sport.

I agree that it IS difficult to have a meaningful discussion about how someone trained without showing exactly how that person trained. At the time I wrote the original post, I really didn't feel that the specifics were pertinent to the discussion since it was more focused on the number of people today who are able to do what no one was capable of 50 years ago. I had, perhaps, assumed too much knowledge on the part of the audience.

Below I've included a link to a search engine that might help you discover more about Zatopek's training methods. It's actualy quite powerful. It has links to all sorts of great training articles.


http://www.google.com

Good luck!

---

-----------------------------Baron Von Speedypants
-----------------------------RunTraining articles here:
http://forum.slowtwitch.com/...runtraining;#1612485

Nice post Barry...Have to agree on the genetics thing. Many folks get pissed when you suggest there may actually be a limit to how fast they are or how far they can go and it's based on their genetics.
I wonder though,what does improved medical care and nutrition coupled with better training methods play in how athletes have improved from the great Z's time?