The revenue generated from the adverts on the site is a critical part of our funding - and it's because of these ads that I can offer the site for free.
But using the site for free AND blocking the ads doesn't feel like a great thing to do, which is why this box is so large and inconvenient.
Some sites will completely block your access, but I'm not doing that - I'm appealing to your good nature instead.
Did you know that you can allow ads for specific sites, whilst still blocking them on others?
Without diminishing Hill’s great performances it is reasonable to speculate on whether he might have performed more consistently if he had trained differently. He achievements include winning Boston in 1970, and the Edinburgh Commonwealth games marathon in 2:09:28, but his disappointing performances included 9th in Fukuoka in 1970 (maybe too many marathons in the same year), and 6th in the 1972 Olympics.
In his analysis of the training of elites chapter 6 of Lore of Running, Tim Noakes concluded:
‘Hill’s racing record again confirms that heavier training is as likely to produce worse racing performance as it is to produce better performances’
Like Radcliffe, Hill missed Olympic gold. Whether he would ever had achieved 2:09:28 with a training regime that was kinder to his body we will never know, but I think it is plausible that he would have performed more consistently if he had done so.
Thanks Canute, I would like to strongly deny I was in any way diminishing Hill's performances, just daring to suggest with slightly smarter training he could have been even better/faster?
All fair points Canute and in Hill's case he almost certainly over raced (at all distances) but is it simply a risk/reward equation? Hill risked breaking himself and in the process produced some outstanding performances that have stood the test of time. The modern science based trend, governed by HRMs etc (and I speak as someone who has used one for nearly 25 years) may produce more consistency with less risk of breaking but is it at a lower level and at the expense of producing outstanding individual runs? Hill and Radcliffe may have both missed out on Olympic golds but would they have swapped their outstanding pbs for an the possibility that it might increase their chance of winning a single race given all the other factors (many of which they couldn't control) that could impact that?
Arguing consistency makes more sense to me than better. Very hard to say someone at that level would have been better (especially as it unquantifiable), consistency is a different question though as you're saying they would have stayed closer to their best times.
In Paula's case though, she was very consistent when she was fit. Guess the question is did training cause the injuries or was there always something underlying?
We will never know whether either Ron Hill or Paula Radcliff would have achieved their brilliant performances using a more ‘body friendly’ training program. Nonetheless, it is well worth discussing the issue of whether as aspiring elite (or indeed a serious recreational runner) should place a strong emphasis on the ‘body friendliness’ of their training.
‘Going for broke’ can look like a good strategy in hindsight, I doubt it is the most sensible strategy when planning one’s future. There is abundant evidence that the many of the world’s best marathon runners have achieved excellent performances with an approach that take greater care of the body. For the era before the African dominance of the marathon, Rob de Castella is an interesting example. As I understand it, he was careful not to push too hard in training. He won the 1981 Fukuoka Marathon in a time of 2:08:18. However he too failed to win Olympic gold. He was a disappointing 5th in the Los Angeles Olympics. He lost contact with the leaders when he stopped to drink.
As indicated by Canova, in the current era, most of the Africans do a substantial amount of low intensity running. However, as we have recently discussed, Canova also recommends an appreciable amount of at S4 intensity (roughly speaking ‘sub-threshold’)
My view is that the 80:10:10 recommendation is the best strategy if you want to achieve longevity as a top level runner. But perhaps, if you want to achieve your ultimate best and are prepared to take a small risk, you would be better advised to include a somewhat larger amount of ‘sub-threshold’ effort in the mix. But take careful note of how well you recover from these sessions.
It noteworthy that Hadd specifically identified the importance of the sub-threshold zone. As I see it, Hadd largely followed the Lydiard approach to base-building, but with more specific guidance based on heart rate. In contrast Lydiard advised listening to the body. From the anecdotes regarding the famous Sunday morning runs in the Waitakere hills, I think many of Lydiard’s athletes turned that run into a progressive run. In Canova’s terms, it might have been described as starting in S3 and increasing to S4.
When I was a serious runner 50 years ago, I used breathing as my main guide to effort. Apart from specific interval sessions, I mostly ran near VT1 (upper level of Seiler’s zone 1) but often increased into the subthreshold zone in the final stages.
J2R I think it depends on your state of fitness. When you are very fit you can probably get to MP +15s without excessive stress, but for many people I think MP+15 would be a bit too demanding for regular sub-threshold.
For me, 'sub=threshold' meant moderately effortful breathing that was exhilarating rather than unpleasant. You are unlikely to do harm with a few MP + 15s runs , but take note of how well you recover, before deciding how often to do such runs
Polarised training is a form of training that places emphasis on the two extremes of intensity. There is a large amount of low intensity training (comfortably below lactate threshold) and an appreciable minority of high intensity training (above LT).
Polarised training does also include some training near lactate threshold, but the amount of threshold training is modest, in contrast to the relatively high proportion of threshold running that is popular among some recreational runners.
Polarised training is not new. It has been used for many years by many elites and some recreational runners. However, it has attracted great interest in recent years for two reasons.
First, detailed reviews of the training of many elite endurance athletes confirms that they employ a polarised approach (typically 80% low intensity, 10% threshold and 10% high intensity. )
Secondly, several scientific studies have demonstrated that for well trained athletes who have reached a plateau of performance, polarised training produces greater gains in fitness and performance, than other forms of training such as threshold training on the one hand, or high volume, low intensity training on the other.
Much of the this evidence was reviewed by Stephen Seiler in a lecture delivered in Paris in 2013 . vimeo.com
In case you cannot access that lecture by Seiler in 2013, here is a link to his more recent TED talk.
ted.com This has less technical detail than his 2013 talk, but is nonetheless a very good introduction to the topic. It should be noted that from the historical perspective, Seiler shows a US bias.
Here is another useful video by Stephen Seiler in which he discusses the question of the optimum intensity and duration of low intensity sessions. Although the answer ‘depends on circumstances’ he proposes that a low intensity session should be long enough to reach the point where there are detectable indications of rising stress (either the beginning of upwards drift of HR or increased in perceived effort). If longer than this, there is increasing risk of damaging effects. A session shorter than this might not be enough to produce enough stress to achieve a useful training effect.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3GXc474Hu5U
The coach who probably deserves the greatest credit for emphasis on the value of low intensity training was Arthur Lydiard, who coached some of the great New Zealanders in the 1960's and Scandinavians in the 1970’s. One of his catch-phrases was 'train, don't strain'. However Lydiard never made it really clear what he meant by ‘quarter effort’. I have discussed Lydiard’s ideas on several occasions on my Wordpress blog. For example: canute1.wordpress.com
You can report any content you believe to be unsafe.
Please let me know why you believe this content is unsafe by choosing a category below.
Thank you for your report. The content will be assessed as soon as possible.
Back To Top
Tag A User
To tag a user, start typing their name here:
X
Free training & racing tools for runners, cyclists, swimmers & walkers.
Fetcheveryone lets you analyse your training, find races, plot routes, chat in our forum, get advice, play games - and more!
Nothing is behind a paywall, and it'll stay that way thanks to our awesome community!