Omnes viae Romam ducunt

I like Latin. So brief and dry, always to the point. The expression in the title means "all roads lead to Rome", meaning that there are many ways to get to where you want.

A few days ago I bought the fourth edition of the Lore of Running, a comprehensive reference book by Tim Noakes, Prof. of sports sciences at the University of Cape Town. It covers everything, from physiology to methods of training to specific training programs for chosen distances to dealing with injuries. The chapter on training methods of champions is the most interesting - and most relevant for those who practice the sport, and not necessarily only runners. Running is primarily endurance sport, and many of its features may be extrapolated to other activities, in our case to the beloved girevoy sport.

One chapter that caught my attention is about Emil zatopek, one of the greates runners ever existed. When he started training there was no running tradition in Czechoslovakia, and he had to find what works all by himself.

Classical training for long distance running consists of building a base with long slow runs, then speed work is added: intervals, hills etc. Against all the rules Zatopek made interval training his basic training activity. That's what he said about his training (taken from http://www.ioa.leeds.ac.uk/1960s/66163.htm:

I started running during the war, and there were no books at that time to speak about interval training, or what the Fartlek system was ... But I thought that in order to improve my running, I should be able to run faster, and it is not possible to learn how to run fast if I ran long distances at a slow pace as other long distance runners did. To run fast it is possible to sprint 100-200 metres, that is all, but it is not possible to sprint 5000 metres. What is possible is to divide the distance, to run 500 metres fast, then to run easy, then again fast, then again easy, and again fast. Running 10 times 200 metres, means to run 2 kilometres in sprint.

It was like a small revolution in our sporting club as I said, "Good-bye my friends, I will try another system". I ran 100 metres, as fast as possible in a straight line, on the track, and again another athlete told me, "You are crazy, what are you doing, you want to change your distance and become a sprinter?" If something is new you are never clever enough, you never know if it will prove good or not, and I thought, well we shall see. Next year I was the best in our club and the young boys came to me saying, "You are right, we will try to run with you," and I said, "Yes come, we will run together," but I was little more progressive and I was better and as I tried to run 10 times 200 metres fast my friends told me, "We are not able to follow you". Later, I tried to run 400 metres fast and 200 metres slowly, only to relax to get new energy.

Zatopek's training program consisted of lots of 400 m intervals run at various speeds. According to some, he did as many as 100 of those in a session. That's volume of 40 km. IN the Lore of Running though Noakes mentions that usually Zatopek ran about 18 - 20 km in a day, later increasing his training to two times a day.

Searching the Net I come across a very good article on interval training at http://www.pponline.co.uk/encyc/0600.htm I highly recommend reading the whole article to those interested in this method of training.

Zatopek's philosophy was simple. He said that he needed to run fast, and for that running short distances was best. He said he needed endurance, and for that he ran short distances many times. The logic is unbeatable, though I suspect never mind how Zatopek trained he would still be a champion.

I don't want to simplify things and simply put up an argument of "this against that", fast short sets against long timed ones. I suspect Zatopek had a good aerobic base achieved by running in the snow in the army boots before he started his intervals. My argument is against anything set in stone.

I personally believe in volume training. This method is used in every endurance based sport. For instance, when you start training for middle distance running they recommend starting from walking. In fact, for many early marathon champions walking constituted the main mode of training, with relatively little running added here and there.

Let’s say you want to start training for 5000 m distance running and achieve Rank 1, which requires you to cover this distance under 15 minutes (not a real rank requirement). Which training method makes more sense to you?

Method 1. Your main goal is to be able to run for 15 minutes. Once you can do this try run faster and faster, until you can fit 5 km into this time frame.

Method 2. Your goal is to be able to run 5 km. You start by alternating running and walking, gradually training yourself to run 5 km non-stop. Then you add some speed work and try run this distance within the required time frame.

Which one is more logical? For me, the second one. In fact, it has been used by running coaches for generations. Classing running adage says: first run for the distance, then for speed.

Interesting, that among OTW crowd definitions sometimes are mixed up. I heard the following several times: do jerks at low cadence for time until you can last the distance, 10 minutes. Then work on increasing cadence. I wonder, since when distance is measured in minutes, the units usually reserved for time.

I am not exercising in eloquence. Distance in GS is the number of repetitions. You want to achieve WKC Rank 1 under 70 kg – make sure you can do 50 jerks (the requirement) with 2 x 20 kg bells, at all, never mind the time. Starting with 10 sets of 5 reps is fine. It even makes sense to aim for higher number of reps, say 75 or 100. Just doing 100 jerks in a session will make you much stronger. Working on density at later stages will get you to your goal. This is similar to Zatopek’s 50 intervals of 400 m, though you don’t have to sprint. Does it work? Anecdotally at least, there were several reports from Dragondoor guys who tried GS-like sets for the first time and demonstrated the ability to last full 10 minutes.

A provocative thought. The number of GS participants in the US is not skyrocketing. You may say it is because GS is very hard. Well, marathon is also extremely demanding, however the number of crazy runners is enormous. It also seems to me that the number of MS in GS in America is not growing as fast as the number of Black Belts after the introduction of Judo and Karate in this country. Could it be that many trainees are put off – or injured – by long timed sets, dominating methodology of the dominating GS body in the USA, AKC?

Whatever. As I always said, there are many ways to achieve the goal. What to use depends on your determination and other factors, including age.

Omnes viae Romam ducunt.

Oh yeah, a little addition. Don't misunderstand me: timed sets are not worthless, I never said that. Everything in training has context, and GS is not an exception: every method has its place. Volume training is valuable for building a strong strength and endurance base and improving technique. When preparing for competition timed sets are invaluable. as Ecclesiastes said, there is time for everything. But this is the topic for another post.