Mike Boyle Aerobic Base


At the 6min point he reference Charlie Francis…

Didn’t see the comment about me- what did he say?
I just saw his remarks about the vo2max being lower in stronger guys, which is obvious- Canadian Int hockey team used to loose the the Chez team- Can avr 62.5 and Cz 54.
That really has to do with priorities and how to maximise them.
I’ve found that an optimal ratio between Hi and Low intensity for sprints is 35/65 of overall running vol and also found a similar ration optimal for maximising HI work with hockey, which is really the only true objective- it’s just a matter of how to get there. The HI work is the priority and LI is a supporting/recovery means.

Boyle first mentions you at about the 2:20 mark. He references “Training for Speed” and calls you the greatest sprint coach in history.

He also said, that Charlie said, “if you want to develop sprinters do not do any aerobic work.”


The Role of Aerobic Fitness in Recovery and Performance During High Intensity Intermittent Exercise (HIIE): Implications for the Training of Athletes
By Scott Vass

Aerobic Work - gets thrown around too loosly at times. There are many ways to get your O2 up. The main thing when somebody says, Aerobic work is bad for sprinters, Generally they mean Long Slow 10Mile Runs!
Give me 10x200’s anyday…

Exactly Bold.

I think the debate is more of the means to acheive it, rather than the fitness itself.

That’s why I prefer to discuss the nature of the work and not it’s alleged role- especially Lactate. If you have the SE in place, surely the lactate required for it is in place also but there is no guarantee the reverse is true.


here is a pic i took of mike at the recent conference.

We can’t see him cause you completely blocked him out! (Nice outfit though)

Why all the hate towards Boyle, most of the coaches on the forum don’t know enough to open criticize other good coaches. Besides Charlie I think the rest of us should ease off of Boyle and stop the hate. BTW I am not saying there are not smart coaches on the forum but leave that for the great coaches like CF to criticize other good coaches etc.

Yeah, far better to be an apologist for him then point out how full of crap he is.

Mikey seems to like changing his ideas to get his name ringing… cha-ching.

I haven’t really said much related to any of this.
I just listened to the clip which sounded reasonabe.

Why the hate towards Boyle?

Because every 3-4 months or so, conveniently packaged with his new overpriced DVD set, he decides taht ‘everything he’s ever known about training is wrong’ and that it’s time to make a bunch of absolute (and usually wrong) proclamations about his ‘entirely new concept of training’.

Which will then change 3-4 months later when he has a new product to sell.

A coach with 30 years of experience should not show that level of flip flopping or be that attracted to fads and bs. He should have a core philosophy that, at most gets updated or modified as he learns. He shouldn’t be throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

Or deciding after 30 years that

  1. Oh noes, back squats should never be done
  2. Oh noes, the CNS is important (this was after he read a T-nation article by Jason Ferrugia last year).
  3. Oh noes, aerobic work should never be done

If at this point in his career, he’s still this unaware of how to coach people, well…

That’s why the hate for Boyle.



I know you used to frequent his forum. I left a while ago. I also see the issue of changing and selling new products.

However, training wise, Boyle hasn’t had athletes backsquat in years, which he favored front squats. A few years ago, he leaned towards one leg squats (not bulg split squats). Now it appears he favors the bulg split squats.

Looking at his training programs, he still favors tri and quad sets, rotating upper, lower and core training with keiser type exercises. It appears the exerciss he chooses has changed over the course of the past few years.

Can’t say I subscribe to Boyle’s thoughts on training

What did he read that was printed in 1984?

MB made reference to reading something that was printed in 1984. Does anyone know what material he’s talking about?

I wonder if he meant 94. That would appear to make more sense than 84.