Renato Canova's training ideas.

T runner

His training has been widely lauded but not much literature exists on it.

I found the below which is a PDF from a natural English speaker summarising his posts on letsrun.com.

FULL TEXT

I have summarized the sessions below.

His training philosophy; namely, that the most important training is that which is conducted at the speed of the race you want to run. That is, your “specific training” matters most. All other training exists
solely to support the specific training.

If you look at the specific training below you will see teh amount of other training to support this. Thats what i like about this. Its full commitment training at each stage to facilitate the specific training to facilitate a fast time.

The sessions are for elite (2:05) PR marathoners but it suggests using similar duration times (rather than distances) for slower runners.

Im looking for a discussion on these training principles and also any more online (or offline) info people might be aware of regarding him. As this type of training seems to ahve been influential in the improvement to some of the Kenyan marathon times it should be explored. Ive put my own interpretations for arguments sake.


Summary:


Regeneration is easy running that is designed to expedite recovery from hard training sessions. According to Canova, blood lactate levels can remain elevated for 2-3 days after a hard effort if a
regeneration run is not used to ‘flush out’ the body. Regeneration is a pace approximately 60-70% of
the anaerobic threshold (AnT).


(After an intro period of 3 weeks) Fundamental training is comprised of long, continuous runs at roughly the aerobic threshold (AeT) or a bit slower. Canova illustrates this pace with a 15:00 5k runner (presumably female). Her
pace for “fundamental” workouts would be in the range of 5:33 to 6:00 per mile.

E.G. Marathon 105-150 min 1.10-1.20x slower than RP

T Runner: Im guessing 1-3 medium long/long runs per week at this pace.

Fundamental training lasts 2 months.


Special training focuses on extending endurance at about 90% of the speed of your primary
event, as well as improving mechanics at faster than race pace—105% or more of the speed of your
primary event. So, a 13:00 5k runner might do 2000m repeats at 14:10 pace, but at a high volume, or he
might run fast 300m repeats with long recovery. Longer competitions (cross country and 10,000m for a
5k runner) are also classified as “special training.” For marathoners, however, special training is
exclusively faster and shorter than marathon pace.

The long-distance (10km and up) specialists work at speeds of 102-105% of race pace for their reps: Covering distances of 20-30k

T Runner: Reps at HM-25k pace.

eg 10 by 2k..........5 by 5k

Marathon

45-50km (150-166min) at 87.5% RP

T Runner: Slower runners running tehse by time but possibly covering that marathon distance once at this pace????

Special training lasts 2 months.



Specific training is focused on the speeds most pertinent to your specific event. In short, specific
training occurs at 95% to 105% of the speed of your event.

Marathon (2:05 PR)
- 6 x 4000m at 102% RP, 1000m recovery at 89% RP
- 5 x 5000m at 101% RP, 1000m recovery at 89% RP
- 4 x 6000m at 101% RP, 1000m recovery at 89% RP
- 4 x 7000m at 99% RP, 1000m recovery at 91% RP
- 5 x 2000m at 105% RP during a 35km (22mi) long run at 91% RP
- 25 km (15.5mi) long run at 102% RP
- 30 km (18.5mi) long run at RP
- 35 km (22mi) long run at 97% RP
- 40 km (25mi) long run at 92% RP

T Runner: 2 of these per week????

ThePiedPiper

Agreed, some of his atheletes are racing amazing times at the moment.

A lot of authors and coaches have advocated long slow runs to be slow, easy miles to be very easy and tempo miles a fair bit faster than marathon race pace. The possible problem with this is that there are very few sessions were there are consistent marathon race pace miles. Canova would seem to advocate a lot of training at or within 30 seconds of race pace.

Looking back over my logs for my most recent marathon, I had some quality tempo work with plenty of miles 40-60 seconds than planned marathon pace. I had a good few sessions of intervals that would have been about 100-120 seconds per mile faster than PMP. I had plenty of recovery runs at about 80 seconds slower than marathon race pace. However, the only consistent miles at PMP were coming in my weekend long runs, and even at that there was only 5 sessions that had 10 miles or more of consecutive race pace miles. The result in the marathon was poor compared to a previous schedule where I had a mid-week run of 10+ miles at race pace instead of tempo.

Looking at Canova's runners and my own experiences, I would guess that a lot of his principles worked for me in one marathon and as I sort of regressed to more mixed sessions, times went backwards.

T runner

RunForestRun wrote: »

Agreed, some of his atheletes are racing amazing times at the moment.

A lot of authors and coaches have advocated long slow runs to be slow, easy miles to be very easy and tempo miles a fair bit faster than marathon race pace. The possible problem with this is that there are very few sessions were there are consistent marathon race pace miles. Canova would seem to advocate a lot of training at or within 30 seconds of race pace.

Looking back over my logs for my most recent marathon, I had some quality tempo work with plenty of miles 40-60 seconds than planned marathon pace. I had a good few sessions of intervals that would have been about 100-120 seconds per mile faster than PMP. I had plenty of recovery runs at about 80 seconds slower than marathon race pace. However, the only consistent miles at PMP were coming in my weekend long runs, and even at that there was only 5 sessions that had 10 miles or more of consecutive race pace miles. The result in the marathon was poor compared to a previous schedule where I had a mid-week run of 10+ miles at race pace instead of tempo.

Looking at Canova's runners and my own experiences, I would guess that a lot of his principles worked for me in one marathon and as I sort of regressed to more mixed sessions, times went backwards.

I had one good marathon myself but it was off the back of P and D training and mainly as a result of a good few fast paced long runs very similar to whats suggested as the long tempos in Canovas fundamental period.

They were mainly run at between 1 min of Predicted Marathon Pace with the last 5 miles at 30s slower than PMP.

Using this phase to support a "special phase" of paces closer to PMP which in turn supports a "specific phase" at or very close to PMP sounds like it might work very well.

T runner

Heres the last 10 weeks of Lydia Cheromeis marathon programme for Rotterdam (she won in 2:26).

https://docs.google.com/Doc?id=ddpx5gb6_19g2nx2rnp&hl=en

Shows more clearly how the special and specific periods are structured. Good examples also of his "special intensive blocks". ( two hard sessions in one day to promote specific event endurance).

Larry Brent

His book can be ordered from IAAF website. Only about 80 pages but well worth he read. About 6 euro.

Alternatively he's posted a lot on letsrun. After Boston he posted up the training that Mosop did every day in the build up. Paces are given but knowing his marathon time % of race pace could we worked out and applied to other goal times. Canova does say though that less elite would do less of the hard sessions as due to years of building their aerobic base the people he trains can run somewhat hard most days.

An interesting key session he has is 20k in the am with last 10k pretty hard (marathon pace?) and the same in the afternoon. In between sessions he doesn't advocate eating too much to stimulate running hard on low glycogen.

The sessions of 4 x 5k etc. at race pace are classic, but he likes the recovery to be not too slow - 1k in maybe only 30s or so slower than the hard bit per km. I think these are called specific extensive.

Specific intensive sessions consist of perhaps 16k continuous with every 2nd km at 97% and 103% marathon pace.

He recommends to improve fat burning as opposed to using glycogen running at 90-100% marathon pace needs to be used.

Lastly he also recommends a % pace zone for improving ability to reuse produced lactic acid for energy. I think this may be 97-103% mp but would have to check.

ecoli

Larry Brent wrote: »

Canova does say though that less elite would do less of the hard sessions as due to years of building their aerobic base the people he trains can run somewhat hard most days.

I think this is a crucial factor when looking at training and training philosophies. Many of the athletes he works with have huge aerobic bases built over years to get to the point where this training is applied to them. In terms of amount of hard days/ intensity of runs etc these are all to be taken into account when applying the philosophies to your own training you must take into account your running history

In terms of special block training he wrote a great thread on the build up to worlds of many of his athletes

One other aspect of his training which is of interest is his lactate removal sessions

ecoli

Larry Brent wrote: »

He recommends to improve fat burning as opposed to using glycogen running at 90-100% marathon pace needs to be used.

I think McMillan advocates similar in terms of Long runs on empty stomach IIRC?

Also in terms of fueling this is only applicable when the target is the marathon. If you are aiming for 10k/half (this Quality double days also recommended for these types of runners) then the fueling strategy does not play as big a role in non marathon specific training

Gringo78

ecoli wrote: »

Larry Brent wrote: »

Canova does say though that less elite would do less of the hard sessions as due to years of building their aerobic base the people he trains can run somewhat hard most days.

I think this is a crucial factor when looking at training and training philosophies. Many of the athletes he works with have huge aerobic bases built over years to get to the point where this training is applied to them. In terms of amount of hard days/ intensity of runs etc these are all to be taken into account when applying the philosophies to your own training you must take into account your running history

In terms of special block training he wrote a great thread on the build up to worlds of many of his athletes

One other aspect of his training which is of interest is his lactate removal sessions

In a recent interview on marathontalk, Rob Di Castela said it took him 5 years to slowly build up to the weekly training load which lead him to break marathon world record.

T runner

ecoli wrote: »

I think this is a crucial factor when looking at training and training philosophies. Many of the athletes he works with have huge aerobic bases built over years to get to the point where this training is applied to them. In terms of amount of hard days/ intensity of runs etc these are all to be taken into account when applying the philosophies to your own training you must take into account your running history

That is true and partly the reason why i started the thread. To see how his training might be applied to people aspiring to improve marathon times here. I believe his training could benefit most runners, not just elites.

In my summary i described the type of key sessions that were carried out in each phase. These type of sessions in suitable duration and frequency should work for any runner.

T runner

ecoli wrote: »

I think McMillan advocates similar in terms of Long runs on empty stomach IIRC?

Also in terms of fueling this is only applicable when the target is the marathon. If you are aiming for 10k/half (this Quality double days also recommended for these types of runners) then the fueling strategy does not play as big a role in non marathon specific training

Thanks for the link.

The first 4 weeks of that schedule would correspond to the special phase of his traing: intervals at faster than race pace (T pace) and fast long runs.

The last 8 weeks are the specific phase. Canova adds sessions to existing ones so the T pace session remains on consecutive weeks and the progression run is alternated with the existing Steady runs. The steady runs are actually a part of the fundamental phase which should build the mileage up to max before the special phase starts.

Raighne

Thanks T_Runner, a very informative read. My only disagreement with the author is one of the final lines "clearly Canova takes a significantly different approach to training than any other well-known coach". The system is essentially a very slight modification of Lydiard training with a few specific elements spelled out more clearly than Arthur did in his own books (but elements that are readily understandable when you talk to his former athletes and read their programmes).

I will put it on my list to dedicate an article to showcasing the similarities and, very few, differences that exist between the two systems.

donothoponpop

Raighne wrote: »

Thanks T_Runner, a very informative read.

+1

Raighne wrote: »

I will put it on my list to dedicate an article to showcasing the similarities and, very few, differences that exist between the two systems.

It would be great to see you doing a similar thread for Lydiard.

Krusty_Clown

I bought the book on Larry Brent's recommendations, and it has a great chapter (4) on different types of hill runs, progressive runs, etc and their physiological benefits for marathon programs. Well worth the €5.50 buying price (even if you do have to jump through a few hoops to order the book).

You do have to translate some of the tables/examples to more realistic numbers, as they are often based on a 2:08 (male)/2:28(female) marathon performances!

Clearlier

Raighne wrote: »

Thanks T_Runner, a very informative read. My only disagreement with the author is one of the final lines "clearly Canova takes a significantly different approach to training than any other well-known coach". The system is essentially a very slight modification of Lydiard training with a few specific elements spelled out more clearly than Arthur did in his own books (but elements that are readily understandable when you talk to his former athletes and read their programmes).

I will put it on my list to dedicate an article to showcasing the similarities and, very few, differences that exist between the two systems.

Raighne - I'd be really interested to see an analysis of the differences between Lydiard and Canova. I've read a couple of the monster threads on letsrun about Lydiard and the PDF of a presentation he gave that Nobby (IIRC) pulled together and feel like I have a reasonable grasp of what Lydiard was trying to do from at least a macro perspective. I struggle to get the big picture from Canova though (I should probably buy that book) even though (or perhaps because) I've read quite a few of the things that he has written on letsrun.

T runner

Raighne wrote: »

Thanks T_Runner, a very informative read. My only disagreement with the author is one of the final lines "clearly Canova takes a significantly different approach to training than any other well-known coach". The system is essentially a very slight modification of Lydiard training with a few specific elements spelled out more clearly than Arthur did in his own books (but elements that are readily understandable when you talk to his former athletes and read their programmes).

I will put it on my list to dedicate an article to showcasing the similarities and, very few, differences that exist between the two systems.

Fair enough Raighne, that will be very interesting and should help us greatly undertsanding both systems. I believe Canovas Philosophy might tie a little closer to Lydiards than an actual study of their respective elite schedules though.

Canovas fundamental period has similarities to Lydiards Marathon conditioning phase: The goals may be similar but the methodology is different.

Canova concentrating on long tempo runs while the pacier runs in Lydiards build up are usually shorter although long runs were included and at brisk paces. Aerobic power reps are included at this stage which was anathema to Lydiard. That may have been because he viewed any anaerobic work as destructive to the aerobic base. If these reps are shown not to be destructive: they fit with Lydiards general philosophy.

The main difference as id see it is the emphasis on specifity early in the schedules of Canova. This ties in with Canovas "race pace is best" defining outlook.

Canovas sessions are based with the event in mind after the fundamental phase: In the special phase interval and tempo paces are influenced by race pace and the defined threshold for that athlete.

Lydiards hill and LT reps although helping the runner lack the specifity of the equivalent Canova timeline phases.

Lydiards coordination phase does embrace some specifity, but not as much as Canovas and the reason being that Canovas earlier phases prepare for substantial specifity which prepares the athlete better for completing the distance at race pace in the particular event.

Their philosphies are similar: but Canovas coordination phase (specific phase) has better training results on the athlete than Lydiards due to what transpired.

It could be argued that elements are there in both coaching systems (and many others) : Aerobic capacity, lactic buffering, speed, coordination. How they are put together differs, the sessions that achieve them differ and that is how you must compare them in my opinion.

Just thought id play devils advocate (although i believe everything i wrote) and through this in before the comparison.

T runner

Krusty_Clown wrote: »

I bought the book on Larry Brent's recommendations, and it has a great chapter (4) on different types of hill runs, progressive runs, etc and their physiological benefits for marathon programs. Well worth the €5.50 buying price (even if you do have to jump through a few hoops to order the book).

You do have to translate some of the tables/examples to more realistic numbers, as they are often based on a 2:08 (male)/2:28(female) marathon performances!

Thanks Krusty and Larry. Ill order a copy. The PDF in the OP has some percentages for paces which should serve as a reference to compare to the actual paces in the book.

Raighne

T runner wrote: »

Fair enough Raighne, that will be very interesting and should help us greatly undertsanding both systems. I believe Canovas Philosophy might tie a little closer to Lydiards than an actual study of their respective elite schedules though.

Canovas fundamental period has similarities to Lydiards Marathon conditioning phase: The goals may be similar but the methodology is different.

Canova concentrating on long tempo runs while the pacier runs in Lydiards build up are usually shorter although long runs were included and at brisk paces. Aerobic power reps are included at this stage which was anathema to Lydiard. That may have been because he viewed any anaerobic work as destructive to the aerobic base. If these reps are shown not to be destructive: they fit with Lydiards general philosophy.

The main difference as id see it is the emphasis on specifity early in the schedules of Canova. This ties in with Canovas "race pace is best" defining outlook.

Canovas sessions are based with the event in mind after the fundamental phase: In the special phase interval and tempo paces are influenced by race pace and the defined threshold for that athlete.

Lydiards hill and LT reps although helping the runner lack the specifity of the equivalent Canova timeline phases.

Lydiards coordination phase does embrace some specifity, but not as much as Canovas and the reason being that Canovas earlier phases prepare for substantial specifity which prepares the athlete better for completing the distance at race pace in the particular event.

Their philosphies are similar: but Canovas coordination phase (specific phase) has better training results on the athlete than Lydiards due to what transpired.

It could be argued that elements are there in both coaching systems (and many others) : Aerobic capacity, lactic buffering, speed, coordination. How they are put together differs, the sessions that achieve them differ and that is how you must compare them in my opinion.

Just thought id play devils advocate (although i believe everything i wrote) and through this in before the comparison.

A good summary of the two systems. I believe some of the points are less different than is outlined but that is because there is unfortunately a difference between the schedules published in his books, public perception of the Lydiard system and what he actually had his athletes do. Some of these nuances only became apparent to me once I had talked to Peter Snell, Lorraine Moller and Nobby. Incidentally, Ron Daws' book "Running Your Best" probably describes the Lydiard system more precisely than any of his own books (although Lydiard's prose is more inspirational).

I would need some time and thought to reply properly to the above so let me hold it for the article but for now I'll mention that I will be using the comparison with the Lydiard training programmes as they are produced by the Lydiard Foundation today. At the seminar, one section also covered some differences to training that can be made to marathoners who run faster than 2:05 (but that shouldn't be adopted by runners running slower). This also included an interesting discussion around the Rosa versus Lydiard pyramid. Hopefully, we will be able to release some of the 25 hours of footage we have, including this, but it is the property of the Lydiard Foundation so they have final say on the release of the video and we are holding off until then.

Various coaches have adapted the Lydiard system, some declaring it and some not, but made significant changes without breaking the underlying principles. A quick example is Mark Wetmore, coach of the Colorado Buffaloes, he removed the hill phase between aerobic and anaerobic because he had found from experience that the plyometric drills were incomplete and for time reasons (the high school season does not make proper peaking easy). But they still ensure that the correct muscular flexibility and tendon strength is created by doing ten plyometric drills (including Lydiard's original three) on a regular basis, side-by-side with the regular training. Unfortunately, he did not feel obliged to share the details of these ten at the seminar!

In my article, I would not attempt to compare the merits of the system by the success they have had. At first sight its unfair on Canova because he's had a lot less time to get it but the era and the athletes coached are so different as to make that a difficult assessment to make. It would have been interesting to see what Lydiard could have made of a group of Kenyans given what he made of a bunch of lads from his neighbourhood. Snell's 1:44 800m remains the fastest 800m ever run on grass. There is a list of some of the champions who used it: http://www.go2lydiard.com/whouseslydiard.htm

Larry Brent

I think something worth pointing out to anyone totally new to the Canova approach might be his lack of long runs done at easy pace in marathon training. The long runs typically have a significant proportion at or about marathon pace, often broken up interval style as in some of the examples in preceding posts.

As an extreme example of this in the build up to Chicago, Mosop ran 40k in 2:06 or something (2:14 marathon pace) at altitude. To put this in perspective it's probably equivalent to someone training for a 3hour marathon here running for 2:55 at 3:05 pace (considering the altitude effect). I'm not advocating people should try that, just giving an example!

Larry Brent

Krusty_Clown wrote: »

it has a great chapter (4) on different types of hill runs, progressive runs, etc and their physiological benefits for marathon programs.

He claims that to improve stroke volume and thus cardiac output (so you can get more oxygenated blood to exercising muscles per minute) you need to raise HR as high as possible as quickly as possible. So full on, short, steep hill sprints are recommended - i.e. go up a steep hill, hard, for about 8 seconds.

I like the way in the book he goes through in basic terms the physiology of running - need to get air into the lungs, get that transported to the muscles, get the oxygen into the muscle fibres and so on and then details specific training required to improve the bodies ability to do each of these things.

Something that appeals to me about the Canova approach is the use of percentages as these can be applied to all levels/paces.

A word of warning about the pdf, when the author initially released this certain aspects were criticised on letsrun as not been an accurate interpretation. Perhaps it has been amended since then, in any case criticism on letsrun might not necessarily count for much! Also in the book, one of the tables of recommended paces is incorrect, but based on the text you can amend tis yourself.

T runner

Ordered the book. You need to send a form (attached) to IAAF headquarters (also on form).
$8...good value.

YFlyer

He often responds on letsrun.com when people be raving about the monster sessions that the likes of Bekele or El G be doing. Paraphrasing 'you have to look at what the athlete was doing for years prior to these sessions'.

T runner

YFlyer wrote: »

He often responds on letsrun.com when people be raving about the monster sessions that the likes of Bekele or El G be doing. Paraphrasing 'you have to look at what the athlete was doing for years prior to these sessions'.

Thats right. Im doing a Spring marathon. A difficulty will be tailoring a Canovian schedule to suit based on my own background. I suppose a method is to workout sessions of a maximal frequency and size relative to the elite ones that are also sustaineable and suitable for the athlete.

The big sessions also give you an incentive to put in a big initial fundamental phase. The more you put into this phase: the more you can get out of the race specific sessions and the marathon itself.

ThePiedPiper

Some fantastic food for thought in this tread. Many thanks to T Runner, Raighne, Larry Brent, etc. for their obviously highly knowledgeable thoughts on the methods.

I'd definitely nominate this for the "Best Of" thread.

T runner

RunForestRun wrote: »

Some fantastic food for thought in this tread. Many thanks to T Runner, Raighne, Larry Brent, etc. for their obviously highly knowledgeable thoughts on the methods.

I'd definitely nominate this for the "Best Of" thread.

Too early for that yet. With till after Raighne faces the firing squad with his comparison of the running coaches, resplendant in Ned Kelly outfit!!!!!



The fundamental phase of Canovas training is described as an attack on all the systems. Intervals dont exceed 110% of M pace in general but they can take a variety of interesting forms.

One of the reps that exceed this pace is the all out uphill sprints. As well as stimulating cardiac output they have the effect of utilizing 100% of muscle fibres. The short progression runs (30-45m) in this phase from marathon pace to 108% of marathon pace are also designed to utilize new fibres as the pace increses. This is important because even in a steady long run only 20% of fibres may be utilized. During a marathon the slower twitch fibres are depleted first. As the second half progresses more and more fast twitch fibres are recruited.

Training that regularly recruits these fibres means that they can be more easily recruited during specific training later and therefore will also adapt to using less glycogen at race pace...aparently an essential adaption for an even or negative split marathon for a runner running to race day poteantial.

If these fast fibres only burn glycogen and cannot lipidly function (trained to use fat and carb mix) the runner will slow when these fibres take over the running and burn the stores out around 30k.

(all this according to Canova obviously)

Raighne

T runner wrote: »

Too early for that yet. With till after Raighne faces the firing squad with his comparison of the running coaches, resplendant in Ned Kelly outfit!!!!!



The fundamental phase of Canovas training is described as an attack on all the systems. Intervals dont exceed 110% of M pace in general but they can take a variety of interesting forms.

One of the reps that exceed this pace is the all out uphill sprints. As well as stimulating cardiac output they have the effect of utilizing 100% of muscle fibres. The short progression runs (30-45m) in this phase from marathon pace to 108% of marathon pace are also designed to utilize new fibres as the pace increses. This is important because even in a steady long run only 20% of fibres may be utilized. During a marathon the slower twitch fibres are depleted first. As the second half progresses more and more fast twitch fibres are recruited.

Training that regularly recruits these fibres means that they can be more easily recruited during specific training later and therefore will also adapt to using less glycogen at race pace...aparently an essential adaption for an even or negative split marathon for a runner running to race day poteantial.

If these fast fibres only burn glycogen and cannot lipidly function (trained to use fat and carb mix) the runner will slow when these fibres take over the running and burn the stores out around 30k.

(all this according to Canova obviously)

Haha, fair enough. With the launch of ChampionsEverywhere my article backlog is up to somewhat like thirty but I will do my best to shift this to the top of the pile, although with a few coaching sessions to run this weekend, I imagine it will likely be after my holidays so early December some time.

In the meantime, I will order the book. It seems unbalanced to have all the Lydiard literature on one side of the comparison and only an internet article on the other.

As an act of laziness, I have popped the question past Nobby and the Foundation as well. They have been evaluating the training against other methods for past 30 years and with scientists such as Dave Martin, Peter Snell, Greg McMillan, Nic Bideau and Dick Browne on the advisory board they must have had some intense discussions over the last few years. They are very busy with their own launch of the new software but thought I'd chance it.

T runner

Ive attached a spreadsheet where you can put in a marathon time and it will compute the paces for teh sessions during the different phases (robbed from Cool running Australia).

As far as i know 10k pace interrval sessions can be added in to the fundamental phase evntually lenghtening and increasing in volume and slowing in pace to the HM sessions in the Special stage.

Krusty_Clown

45-50k@ MP+12% ? That's a tough run. But the hero award goes to the 30k @MP. Ouch. There are some real killer sessions in there. You'd really want to be a serious high mileage runner to take some of them on.

T runner

Krusty_Clown wrote: »

45-50k@ MP+12% ? That's a tough run. But the hero award goes to the 30k @MP. Ouch. There are some real killer sessions in there. You'd really want to be a serious high mileage runner to take some of them on.

Thats true. If forces you start working early i guess. A long buildup is necessary and youd need to be in very decent aerobic form starting even the fundamental stage. Apparently in the specific stage the 2 big sessions account for as much as 30-40 % of total mileage. All other runs are regeneration runs.

I reckon that the sessions should be reduced in some proportion to finishing time and mileage (speed and/or distance).
Canova suggests that it shouldnt matter as everyone must run 42. However he is referring to differences between elites. As Canovas basis is a 2:05 marathon i reckon i will calculate teh times for these elites and use it as a basis for teh duration of my sessions. I will update with these.

The pace given opposite 20k in the special phase seems to be marathon pace.
Im guessing that this is the target of the average pace between the workbout and the recovery. The speed of the workbout is improved earlier in teh specific phase, and the speed of the reoveries is worked at later. This brings marathon pace closer to HM pace and maked the athlete better able to endure the long and hard sessions to follow in teh Specific period. (I hope)

Krusty_Clown

Really liking the look of those 30k long interval runs during the specific phase. Are they progressive? i.e. do you start with:
4k x 6
and move onto:
5k x 5
etc.
Would you aim to do the every week or every other week? Could you alternate them with the continuous runs (which would give you about 9 weeks of long runs).

I know the spreadsheet isn't exhaustive (i.e. doesn't contain every type of session in the Canova booklet), but there's nothing that would be considered 5k pace in there. In fact, there's barely any 10k pace running, so quite different to the likes of P&D.

T runner

Krusty_Clown wrote: »

Really liking the look of those 30k long interval runs during the specific phase. Are they progressive? i.e. do you start with:
4k x 6
and move onto:
5k x 5
etc.
Would you aim to do the every week or every other week? Could you alternate them with the continuous runs (which would give you about 9 weeks of long runs).

I know the spreadsheet isn't exhaustive (i.e. doesn't contain every type of session in the Canova booklet), but there's nothing that would be considered 5k pace in there. In fact, there's barely any 10k pace running, so quite different to the likes of P&D.

His athletes do 10ks, XCs and HMs in special period.

These are the specific sessions from a female marathoners specific block. I plugged 2:26 into the spreadsheet and mcmillan.

Lydia Cheromei last 10 weeks 2:26 marathon

Looks like 8 of these rep sessions. He has 3 special blocks where the athlete does a double session: AM and PM. A couple of rep sessions are in these blocks. When a Block is scheduled for a week, there is no second hard session that week. There may be a moderate progressive run on hills or flat scheduled instead.
He has only 4 long runs down. 2 fast ones and two slow ones although the special blocks obviously provide the extension with one block in particular being over 50k.
There are some medium runs (14k) at 1.1 times race pace which are a maintenance of the fundamental long run paces i guess.
I am taking this to mean that there are several; building blocks that should be arreanged to suit the particular runner, but become more marathon specific as D Day nears.

Week1: One big session (A Canova special BLOCK session)

AM: 8 km briskish (3’44” pace) +

10 km (3’24” pace) (Pace is 20 mile race pace)

(18 km)


PM: 8 km briskish” (3’42” pace) +

10 x 1000m (track) in (15kpace increasing to-10k) ave 3:10 rec. 200m (average 1’18”)

Week2

Session 1:

20’ warm-up 7 x 2000 in (25k pace increasing to 10 mile pace ave HM pace) rec. 600m in 2’44“ >< 3’02“ (22 km)


Session 2: 35k inc speed variations, 10k at PMP, 3k max uphill to finish OMG

Week 3: (another block)
S1
AM: 10k at PMP + 10k at HMP
PM: 10k @2-3% slower than PMP. + 10 x 1000m in 3’11”3 >< 3’03”4 (av. 3’08”8) (10k race pace is 3:06 for her) recovery 200m in 1’45” (track)

S2: 20’ warm-up 25k hilly progressive running (average PMP (3’34”))

2:15 easy by feel

Week 4:
S1: 6 by 3k at HM pace rec (600 in 3')
S2: Half marathon race.

Week5: Recovery week
Near week end.....20’ warm-up 25k hilly progressive running (average PMP (3’34”))

2hrs 30 easy by feel.

Week 6:

More recovery:

20’ warm-up 5 x 4k increasing pace every time MP---->HM pace (24 km) rec 4' ave

Week 7
(Special extensive block)
AM 1 hr 30’ moderate-progressive pace (3’45” > 3’30”) for 24.5 km
PM 1 hr 30’ moderate-fast progressive pace (3’40” > 3’26”) for 25.5 km

S2: 30’ warm-up 20 km alternating 1 km fast (10mile race pace) and 1 km moderate (PMP * 102%)
S3: 20 km progressive running (110%MP--->MP)

Week 8:
S1: 10’ warm-up + 34 km progressive running
(10 km at 105% MP + 10 km at 102% MP + 10 km MP + 4 km at 99% MP) in 2 hr 01’10“

S2: (4 x 5k at MP) + (1 x 3k at 10 mile Pace) rec. 1 km in 4’15” ave

Week 9
(Special mixed block)
AM 10k @ 103% PMP + 12k @ 20mile race pace.
PM 10k @ 103% PMP + 6k @ just over 10k pace.

S2: 1 hour easy + 15k PMP

Week 10: Race week

T runner

Krusty_Clown wrote: »

Really liking the look of those 30k long interval runs during the specific phase. Are they progressive? i.e. do you start with:
4k x 6
and move onto:
5k x 5
etc.

Just to answer this one: I think they are progressive, getting longer and more specific.

Would you aim to do the every week or every other week? Could you alternate them with the continuous runs (which would give you about 9 weeks of long runs).

You could and maybe do one of the supplemental sessions: Progressive hilly run of around 20k as a second session. Im also keeping the P+D run as a backup for weeks when im too tired or cant do second session for another reason.

I know the spreadsheet isn't exhaustive (i.e. doesn't contain every type of session in the Canova booklet), but there's nothing that would be considered 5k pace in there. In fact, there's barely any 10k pace running, so quite different to the likes of P&D.

From what ive read elsewhere Canova lets his athletes run races from 5k to cross country to Half Marathon during second half of findamental/early part of special. He describes this as building aerobic power i.e elevating AT. He has stated that 10k races are perfect for developing aerobic power.

As the volume of the intervals get longer the emphasis is on maintaining Aerobic Power but increasing aerobic resistance. Resistance would be stamina at AT or slower.

With this in mind im going to do some 5k sessions, races, 10k sessions, races, all the time having slighly more emphasis on volume until i reach the sessions of the special phase and the specific phase. All teh way though i will be doing the P+D style long run @120-110% MP. I might go up to 40k with it.

2nd half of special and specific will be sessions only.
This is a big divergence with P+D. Canova believes any training that is too fast will taech the body to burn too much glycogen and bring the wall into play.

theboyblunder

this is a super thread - thanks T Runner

Larry Brent

T runner wrote: »

Canova believes any training that is too fast will taech the body to burn too much glycogen and bring the wall into play.

This is particularly true if you're a 'fast-twitch' type. John 'Hadd' Walsh said that if a fast-twitch runner was in good 5-10k shape 4 weeks before a marathon there's no point in him turning up for the marathon. I've learned this the hard way.

T runner

Larry Brent wrote: »

This is particularly true if you're a 'fast-twitch' type. John 'Hadd' Walsh said that if a fast-twitch runner was in good 5-10k shape 4 weeks before a marathon there's no point in him turning up for the marathon. I've learned this the hard way.

There also seems to be a very fine balance even for the very elites at the front of major marathons. These races now seem to be between a group of 4-5 up until after 34k when the liklihood emerges that the strong runner will break. It is not unusual for this runner to put up 90s -120s on his rivals in the remaining kilometres.

A reason could be that he is the only one of the group running at the correct intsensity. In order to keep up, the slighly weaker runners are burning too much glygogen relative to fat.
So when the strong runner realises he has enough in his fibrers (fast and slow) to run strongly to the line: he takes off. His rivals have for some kilometres been burning fuel from their tiring fast twitch fibres and that is why the strong runner puts so much time into ALL his rivals.

ecoli

T runner wrote: »

There also seems to be a very fine balance even for the very elites at the front of major marathons. These races now seem to be between a group of 4-5 up until after 34k when the liklihood emerges that the strong runner will break. It is not unusual for this runner to put up 90s -120s on his rivals in the remaining kilometres.

A reason could be that he is the only one of the group running at the correct intsensity. In order to keep up, the slighly weaker runners are burning too much glygogen relative to fat.
So when the strong runner realises he has enough in his fibrers (fast and slow) to run strongly to the line: he takes off. His rivals have for some kilometres been burning fuel from their tiring fast twitch fibres and that is why the strong runner puts so much time into ALL his rivals.

I think this is where progression runs also come into effect with Canova. Have yet to read in depth his book but from what I have read of it (cheers Krusty:D).

The idea of these progression runs is to exhaust slow twitch fibres early on and aim to develop fast twitch oxidative fibres to act much like the slow twitch fibres as well as developing a third fast twitch fibre type known as an intermediate fibre type which again can be developed to show aerobic tyoe characteristics.

By doing this come race day these fast twitch fibres no longer possess the typical attributes associated with with fast twitch glycolytic fibres but act similar to the slow twitch fibres in the second half of the race allowing runners to put in surges which many people interpret as their naturally speed kicking in but moreso their strength

In relation to Krusty's previous post on 5k training I think this is one of the main reasons for the lack of 5k paced sessions in an attempt to keep the type II fast twitch fibres that in most 5k runners from developing anaerobic characteristics associated with speed the aim is to make these imitate the more slow twitch fibres associated with marathon running. He goes on to describe these types of runners as "fast marathon runners" who come from a 10k track background and muscle composition is roughly 2/3 s of type one fibres but also contain a significant amount of type II (oxidative) muscles also as opposed to "endurance marathon runners" who would derive most of their muscle composition from type I fibres (almost 90%)

(Again havent read it fully cover to cover just yet so just going on knowledge of it from lets run and other posts for the most part)

Krusty_Clown

Indeed! Great to have the interpretation as well as the raw information.
Much to think about..

The thing I like about P&D is that it is a complete plan, covering the all of the week's activities for the entire duration, whereas Canova would represent a complete change in strategy, a leap into the unknown. I was looking for a hybrid plan, but it seems that some of the fundamentals are different. With P&D you do your hardest 5k session two weeks before the goal race (3 x 1 mile @ 5k pace), whereas with Canova, you leave all that stuff behind in the early parts of your training and focus on specificity. A hybrid plan might be difficult to achieve, given that tough P&D 5k intervals will not align very well with a Canova long run interval session a couple of days later.

T runner

ecoli wrote: »

I think this is where progression runs also come into effect with Canova. Have yet to read in depth his book but from what I have read of it (cheers Krusty:D).

The idea of these progression runs is to exhaust slow twitch fibres early on and aim to develop fast twitch oxidative fibres to act much like the slow twitch fibres as well as developing a third fast twitch fibre type known as an intermediate fibre type which again can be developed to show aerobic tyoe characteristics.

By doing this come race day these fast twitch fibres no longer possess the typical attributes associated with with fast twitch glycolytic fibres but act similar to the slow twitch fibres in the second half of the race allowing runners to put in surges which many people interpret as their naturally speed kicking in but moreso their strength

In relation to Krusty's previous post on 5k training I think this is one of the main reasons for the lack of 5k paced sessions in an attempt to keep the type II fast twitch fibres that in most 5k runners from developing anaerobic characteristics associated with speed the aim is to make these imitate the more slow twitch fibres associated with marathon running. He goes on to describe these types of runners as "fast marathon runners" who come from a 10k track background and muscle composition is roughly 2/3 s of type one fibres but also contain a significant amount of type II (oxidative) muscles also as opposed to "endurance marathon runners" who would derive most of their muscle composition from type I fibres (almost 90%)

(Again havent read it fully cover to cover just yet so just going on knowledge of it from lets run and other posts for the most part)

The long progression runs certainly have this affect apparently. He also does a 35k run with 5 by 2k at HM pace near the end. THis is forcing these fibres to take on endurance qualitites. In fact the athlete is expected to "bonk" during one of the 2k reps. The adaption from one of these bonks will push the bonk 2k further down the road so to speak, one of the adaptions obviouly being these fibres ability to endure (like Type Is).

As only 20% or so of muscle fibres are used in any kind of endurance run until depletion: he uses the uphill sprints and shorter fast progressive runs to actually get the body used to recruiting a high percentage of fibres. After depletion of Type Is late in those long progression runs and other horror sessions: the job of recruiting these fibres is easier so more can be called upon to take over the endurance work from the Type 1s.

That said the stronger athlete in the leading group will be recruiting these fibres later in the race than the weaker ones who are running too fast in order to keep up. He will be powering away on his type II's long after their turbos have burned the Glycogen stores, and will ship a disproportiontly big time gap compared with their very tiny differences in standards.

Thats why i think his concentration on specifics is especially important in the marathon: If you pace it correctly you can negatively split with a last fast section. That is a big swing campared to the usual fade when depletion usually spells minutes towards the end and attaineable by concentarting the efforts around marathon pace in the 2 month prior to the event.

ecoli

Krusty_Clown wrote: »

Indeed! Great to have the interpretation as well as the raw information.
Much to think about..

The thing I like about P&D is that it is a complete plan, covering the all of the week's activities for the entire duration, whereas Canova would represent a complete change in strategy, a leap into the unknown. I was looking for a hybrid plan, but it seems that some of the fundamentals are different. With P&D you do your hardest 5k session two weeks before the goal race (3 x 1 mile @ 5k pace), whereas with Canova, you leave all that stuff behind in the early parts of your training and focus on specificity. A hybrid plan might be difficult to achieve, given that tough P&D 5k intervals will not align very well with a Canova long run interval session a couple of days later.

Personally I like the idea of having a hard Vo2 session ten days out from goal race (much like P & Ds 3x1 mile) to help enhance oxygen uptake within the body. This is along the same lines as Joe Rubio (high mileage MD coach) and comes from the idea that it takes roughly 10 days to get the benefit from a very hard session which can help boost overall fitness levels come race day. I think though while i like this in terms of my own training in distances up until HM I can see the drawbacks of trying to include this template to a marathon training plan

Interestingly enough I am racing Waterford 10 days from now and have the same idea in mind so have lined up a tune up race just to aim to boost fitness levels (3 mile)

There is a coach from the US (Mark Hadley) who has had some notable success with coaching methods similar to Canova in terms of specific phase in the 8 weeks coming up to target race. While he does include 5k paced work early on but like Canova advocates high volume of short reps. I think he gives an example outline of a schedule for a marathon (I know he does for half marathons also) in his coaching book which is similar to Canova in that it is more so training principles as opposed to actual schedules

I know these aren't for everyone but I like the why behind a schedule rather than just a laid out plan personally

Larry Brent

As well as maximising the oxidative capacity of the relevant fast twitch fibres, it would be desirable to recruit as many slow twitch fibres as possible. The more of these that can be recruited and fatigued prior to having to rely on fast twitch fibres the longer you'll last. The assumption is made that Canova's athletes start this training on top of a massive base of years of big mileage.

Lots of aerobic running, with long runs and limited (or none?) anaerobic running (prior to starting this programme) might be the best way to bring about adaptations needed in as many slow twitch fibres as possible, i.e. greater capillary density and numbers of mitochondria. Hadd reckoned that many runners (due to either a) not running enough or b) running too fast all the time, or both did not have sufficient numbers of slow twitch fibres trained, so they had to 'dip into' fast twitch fibres earlier and so increased glycogen usage bringing the wall closer.

T runner

Krusty_Clown wrote: »

Indeed! Great to have the interpretation as well as the raw information.
Much to think about..

The thing I like about P&D is that it is a complete plan, covering the all of the week's activities for the entire duration, whereas Canova would represent a complete change in strategy, a leap into the unknown. I was looking for a hybrid plan, but it seems that some of the fundamentals are different. With P&D you do your hardest 5k session two weeks before the goal race (3 x 1 mile @ 5k pace), whereas with Canova, you leave all that stuff behind in the early parts of your training and focus on specificity. A hybrid plan might be difficult to achieve, given that tough P&D 5k intervals will not align very well with a Canova long run interval session a couple of days later.

Ill be trying to get a schedule together in the couple of weeks. Ill send iot your way when ive it finalised. Ill start a log too. Youre welcome to follow it and perhaps try something for the next marathon (after Spring) if my effort hasnt resembled a train crash!.

My schedule for the fundamental phase so far has been a long P+D run, and laods of miles in between some tempos, some long tempos. Canova has said thsi period should involve many stimulii so im goingt o enjoy it and push all buttons. 10 by 100 all out uphill after tonights run (more like 5 but well see).
Doing the Clonliffe 5k, so ill do some 400s at 5k pace with 1 minute rest.

A week now might be:

S long 2:15m 115% PMP
M 2 recovery runs
T 12 by 400 @ 5k pace with 1 min rest
W Lunch Progression run 30-40 mins ending at 10k pace and 8 by 80 uphill hard.
PM rtecovery
T P+D Medium long run 85mins
F As monday
S WU AT pace 30 mins 8 by 80 uphill at end.

Closer to special phase:

S long 2:40m 115% PMP
M 2 recovery runs
T 5 by 2k at T pace + 6 by 1k at 10k pace
W Lunch: fast continous run 30-40 mins and 10 by 100m uphill hard.
PM rtecovery
T P+D Medium long run 95mins
F As monday
S WU AT pace 20 mins at HM pace+15 mins at HM pace + 10 + 5. recovery is 1k at PMP + 30-40 s per Km.

Ill be keeping the structure the same. Will be trying new sessions all the time but keeping the slow tendency towards specifity.
The specific phase will be most difficult. But after one or two sessions i should be able to work out how to modify the remainder to suit. I reckon i will still be doing a P + D long run every 2 weeks even in the specific stage. I can try and increase the pace slighly to get a stronger stimulus if necessary.

ecoli

Larry Brent wrote: »

The assumption is made that Canova's athletes start this training on top of a massive base of years of big mileage.

Lots of aerobic running, with long runs and limited (or none?) anaerobic running (prior to starting this programme) might be the best way to bring about adaptations needed in as many slow twitch fibres as possible, i.e. greater capillary density and numbers of mitochondria. Hadd reckoned that many runners (due to either a) not running enough or b) running too fast all the time, or both did not have sufficient numbers of slow twitch fibres trained, so they had to 'dip into' fast twitch fibres earlier and so increased glycogen usage bringing the wall closer.

I think this is a very important factor when dealing with Canova's training philosophies. You are talking of a coach who deals with predominantly east Africans.These are athletes who have spent years building the aerobic endurance to handle such training. This is evident in his ideas of mileage in the book when he talks of athletes training for the marathon must be covering +140 miles a week and even as high as 190 during peak training.

T runner

Larry Brent wrote: »

As well as maximising the oxidative capacity of the relevant fast twitch fibres, it would be desirable to recruit as many slow twitch fibres as possible. The more of these that can be recruited and fatigued prior to having to rely on fast twitch fibres the longer you'll last. The assumption is made that Canova's athletes start this training on top of a massive base of years of big mileage.

Lots of aerobic running, with long runs and limited (or none?) anaerobic running (prior to starting this programme) might be the best way to bring about adaptations needed in as many slow twitch fibres as possible, i.e. greater capillary density and numbers of mitochondria. Hadd reckoned that many runners (due to either a) not running enough or b) running too fast all the time, or both did not have sufficient numbers of slow twitch fibres trained, so they had to 'dip into' fast twitch fibres earlier and so increased glycogen usage bringing the wall closer.

Thats all true. And the implication is that the proportion of training where afst twitch fibres are used might need to be reduced for athletes (like myself) with relatively less of a base.

The fundamental stage-- which is quite demanding--- is built on this aerobic base. The athletes base will most likely determine how big a fundamental phase he can do, which in turn determines the quality of the important special and crucial specific phases. So, on paper, the specific phase will be as hard as the base allows.


The runner may not mirror a final 10 weeks of a Kenyan elite, but if he/she sticks to the philosphy of specifity: he will burn less glycogen at race pace in the slow fibres he has trained and in the fast fibres that his condition has allowed him to train.

Perhaps if sessions should be dropped from an an elite scedule, favouritism should go to preserving proportionately more sessions that would develop slow twitch endurance?

I do feel that the runner, in most cases, will make more beneficial adaptions to running a marathon by applying Canovas specifity than by the less specific build ups.

T runner

ecoli wrote: »

I think this is a very important factor when dealing with Canova's training philosophies. You are talking of a coach who deals with predominantly east Africans.These are athletes who have spent years building the aerobic endurance to handle such training. This is evident in his ideas of mileage in the book when he talks of athletes training for the marathon must be covering +140 miles a week and even as high as 190 during peak training.

True but the philosphy is (paraphrase) : the best training is specific, all other training's sole purpose is to support this specific training.

This philosophy should apply equally to a novice 5k schedule, an intermediate 10k schedule or a world marathon champion's schedule.

Larry Brent

T runner wrote: »

Ill be trying to get a schedule together in the couple of weeks.

I recently followed a self-made programme trying to incorporate Canova sessions as much as I could. It didn't end as I'd have liked. Having dipped under 58 at Ballycotton but knowing I'm weaker the longer it gets and a PB of 2:59, initial target was 2:50 with possibility of changing to 2:45 if training went well. Here is what I did: 2 sessions a week, easy runs all other days. Ran every day, doubled only maybe 4 or 5 times.

Wk 1: long run - 14m with last 3 MP effort

Wk 2: 6x1m HMP (6:05); long run with 90mins continuous in middle, 30 at 90% MP, 30 at 95%, 30 at 100% (bailed on 100% segment at 25mins)

Wk 3: 5x2k 108% MP (6:00); long run with 3x3m MP (6:20)

Wk 4: 4x2m HMP (drifted from 6:00s to 6:20s, very hot and humid); 13m 32mins continuous, 8mins each at 102,104,106,108% MP (struggled at 104 and 106, couldn't seem to speed up from 102, but 108 segment was 5:58 pace, felt better as it went on)

Wk 5: (unplanned originally but wanted to do some fast running prior to 10m race) 6x1k at 10k pace; 10m race just under 61, happy with effort, was very hot and very humid

Wk 6: (unplanned) 10k no looking at watch tempo (6:00); long run with 3x4m MP (6:20)

Wk 7: 3x5k off 3mins at 103/105/107% MP (got slower rather than faster with each rep, 6:00, 6:05, 6:11); long run 10m 90% MP, 8m MP, 2m 105% MP (6:26 for MP effort, 6:00 for last 2)

Wk 8: planned 3x3m HMP, changed this to 4x2m a few days beforehand, started at just under 6:00, finished at 5:48; 20m easy last 2-3m at MP (only managed 2 at MP, things weren't good)

Wk 9: planned 36mins cont. 9 each @ 102,104,106,108%, ended up doing 6 x 1k with HM coming up; HM race just over 80mins, about 5mins slower than hoped, put it down to weather, hills, running alone for most, not fully recovered from big weeks/long runs, so was still confident of 2:45.

Wk 10: 10k no look at watch tempo (6:18); long run planned 10m easy, 10m MP, 2m 105%, did 8m easy, 10m at 6:26, 3.3 at 6:15. Writing was on the wall here, frustrated with HM race ran too long and too hard all week and the paces during the long run suffered.

Wk 11: planned 8x1k 103% MP, Recovery 1k 97% MP (couldn't manage to lift the pace every 2nd k, so ended up doing 2 x 3m at 6:45, massive effort for poor run. This was when I knew it was time to back off but it was too late, damage was done); Long run - just 18m easy

Wk 12: 5,4,3,2,1 at MP off 2mins (the belated easing up may have had some effect, hit 6:16 pace and it felt good); 15 easy

Wk 13: 5x1m at lactate threshold off 2mins (went from 5:55 to 5:42); 11m easy

Wk 14: 2 x 1m at 10k pace off 3mins (5:35. 5:25), marathon just under 2:54, struggled with a bit of leg pain at 10m, struggled to maintain pace at 14m, still on target for 2:48 at 30km out the back door then.

So it didn't work out well but I think that was my fault rather than due to the sessions not suiting me. Two things, firstly I didn't have a good enough base and didn't do a fundamental stage. Having run under 58 in Ballycotton, I then took the foot off the pedal, only managed 30-40m a week (with no weekend runs, no long runs, new baby) for a few months during the 5k prep phase. Hence ended up running 40s slower than planned for 5k which was right before week 1 above. Secondly, I overcooked the easy days. Ran too far, did 10m most days rather than going shorter and easier. In particular after build up races I did too much the following week, deviated from the plan trying to restore confidence. So I think I was in great shape about 5-6 weeks out but after that it was game over. Saying all of that I thoroughly enjoyed it and am looking forward to the next one where I correct the mistakes made.

I think you mentioned that you were not looking forward to the specific phase. While I didn't do it correctly I found it relatively easy and very enjoyable training. Because the paces were MP or HMP, no faster there were no lung bursting runs, little 'acidity' and so not overly taxing the way 10k training might be, IMO. Also as a fast twitcher, I previously dreaded the long easy runs, i.e. 20-22 milers at 10-20% slower than MP. On this occasion, I was going out to do a 3x4m interval session and it simply ended up being 22miles, personally I found this a lot more enjoyable.

Larry Brent

Larry Brent wrote: »

I didn't have a good enough base

Just to elaborate on this - the effect this had, I think, was that my aerobic threshold was way too low, despite the fact that my lactate turnpoint/threshold might have been okay. So even at relatively slow paces I was using too much glycogen, the cardinal sin of marathon running, hence I only lasted about 14m on the day. That will be the main thing I'll be trying to rectify before next time. Push aerobic threshold as far as I can to the right in base training, then push LT to the right (5k-HM phase training), to allow more room to push aerobic training further to the right again in the marathon specific phase training.

T runner

Larry Brent wrote: »

Just to elaborate on this - the effect this had, I think, was that my aerobic threshold was way too low, despite the fact that my lactate turnpoint/threshold might have been okay. So even at relatively slow paces I was using too much glycogen, the cardinal sin of marathon running, hence I only lasted about 14m on the day. That will be the main thing I'll be trying to rectify before next time. Push aerobic threshold as far as I can to the right in base training, then push LT to the right (5k-HM phase training), to allow more room to push aerobic training further to the right again in the marathon specific phase training.

Thanks a million for that! Great points: importance of raising lactic threshold as high as possible early, importance of recovery once the bigger HM and M pace sessions start. Will take all on board.

I linked a schedule from one of the elite females he trained earlier. The recovery from her half marathon was very substantial. She did one session about 5-6 days after. After this there was 3 days earmarked for recovery: with double regeneration runs every day.

I guess the session after proved she wasnt recovered. So Canova enforced a 3 day (relatively) complete rest to nip it in the bud. Tjhat made 10 days recivery (albeit with 1 session) I would never rest that long after a HM! Just shows the vital importance of adequate recovery and teh advantage of having a coach whispering in your ear.

I did the same myself training for a marathon last year. I trained hard before and after a very tough 1 hour race which was 4 weeks before my target. Didnt run again until the marathon. Did OK until mile 12. Lets just say teh second half was an hour slower then the first half.

It is so difficult to think straight and adjust youre training when youre tired.
Because of the point you raised i may have a mini module optional in the training in the event of overtraining, a weeks contingency plan that i can switch too if i feel symtoms. With a formula of perhaps having the first session after the reovery module as a half session. eg medium lenght P + D run.

seanynova

interesting thread....cheers.

have been doing some hill strints recently, read some of tergats posts regarding the same....running 5:05-5:15m/m @15% incline on tredmill, a good addition to the end of easy runs, too early to tell the benifits but its a hard 6x 10sec run. but hopefully it will raise the leg strength.

Ceepo

Great thread......

keep it going,
some very interesting points been brought up.

1 that stands out to me but has got very little comment is the regeneration run,
this is a fundamental part if training but probably the most over looked, as most athlete's focus on the key sessions. (what will make faster/better)

Imo most people train to hard all the time not just in sessions but easy run's as well.
I seen a week's training from the great H Geb, one of his runs was 12k in 50 mins, and this is a man who runs 4.30 miles. if some one suggested to a 6 m/ml 10k runner to do some runs @ 8.30 pm, as a % it would be even slower, they would probably tell you wher to go.

T runner

Ceepo wrote: »

Great thread......

keep it going,
some very interesting points been brought up.

1 that stands out to me but has got very little comment is the regeneration run,
this is a fundamental part if training but probably the most over looked, as most athlete's focus on the key sessions. (what will make faster/better)

Imo most people train to hard all the time not just in sessions but easy run's as well.
I seen a week's training from the great H Geb, one of his runs was 12k in 50 mins, and this is a man who runs 4.30 miles. if some one suggested to a 6 m/ml 10k runner to do some runs @ 8.30 pm, as a % it would be even slower, they would probably tell you wher to go.

The regeneration runs seem to play a more promonent part in the specific period where Canova says there is more emphasis on modulation (hard specifi sessions with recovery emphasised in between). He stresses the recovery here as vital. He says the "external load" is more important here. By this he means that the exercise is measured by hitting distances and paces, so the athlete needs to be rested to make these times.

In the fundamental phase he says that internal loads are stressed. Most of the paces are moderate in this phase with a long run at 20-10% PMP and a briskish 10-12k fast/progression run. So its the acummulated stimulii that makes the change rather than exactly measured external measures.

As an example an athlete might do 6 by 2k by HM speed early in specific phase. 3 weeks later he does 8 by 2k. The avarage amount of lactic in the blood is the same in both sessions with the lactic at the end being similar.

That means that the internal load on the body is the same but that the external load has increased.

So the fundamental period prepares the body to be able to handle the internal load of the specific period sessions. If it can, then the external load can be developed.

This means that non elite athletes/ and elite athletes would have not dissimilar internal loads to manage in the specific period. The external load would look quite different of course. This might be a reason for estimating the time that these external sessions take the elites and using it to judge the specific sessions (for non-elites). The internal loads will be slightly different (for a 3 hour marathoner the internal load will be similar to an elite racing for 3 hours).

So the sessions should take longer than the elite runners sessions, but be slightly less intense.

Itziger

Hope I'm not the only person who finds this fascinating yet devilishly difficult to follow.

Maybe ya have to be good at Maths.

T runner

Itziger wrote: »

Hope I'm not the only person who finds this fascinating yet devilishly difficult to follow.

Maybe ya have to be good at Maths.

Hope to have a schedule done soon.

Heres a quick summary:

Keep in mind the sessions can be cut by up to

Base/intro phase. Easy, steady runs, circuits, weights, slowly increasing aerobic pace and total kilometers.

Fundamental phase:

Moderate paces, building mileage to max, then instensity slowly increased.

Sessions: Long run between 20% and 10% of PMP. This should be increased to 2:45 mins.

fast runs: 20-40 mins---- even paced or progressive, getting more intense until they take the form of intervals eg 5 by 2000 at LT pace.

Varying these gives best results.

Twice weekly steep uphill sprints.

Special phase: Sessions get more specific. More regeneration runs between sessions but mileage remains high.

Long run is run at closer to race pace (87.5%).

Moderate run retained but extended. eg 55 mins at moderate pace.

The sessions get longer in number and volume. e.g 4 by 3k, 3 by4k, 3 by 5k etc.

Some sessions inserted with brisk recovery. e.g 10 x 1k at HM with 1k moderate recovery. (the ave pace will be slower than PMP): to increase intensity the reps are run faster. As the specific phase nears the reps remain constant and the recovery speeds up.

1 Special block:

EG am 25k progressive run: PM same: afternoon spent doing continuous pressups in gym (still reading good!)

Marathon pace segments added to long run and the reps are further extended till we arrive at the Specific phase.

Mileage reduced
Athlete should recover between 2 key sessions.

Moderate session/run retained but extended. eg 60-70 mins at moderate pace.

Two big sessions.

Long run at close to PMP or long run by Duration alternated every 10 days.

Long intervals with fast recoverys

eg 7 by 3k at M pace with recovery within 10% of M pace.

2 special blocks:

eg 10k 10% slower than PMP then 15k at PMP. AM and PM.