Advertisement
How to add spoiler tags, edit posts, add images etc. How to - a user's guide to the new version of Boards
Mods please check the Moderators Group for an important update on Mod tools. If you do not have access to the group, please PM Niamh. Thanks!

Renato Canova's training ideas.

13

Comments



  • Some real gold here:

    http://www.letsrun.com/forum/flat_read.php?thread=4290090&page=35

    Canova chimes in around page 34 and on page 36 (I think) explains specifically the differences between marathon training now and 30 years ago. Says that Spedding would have run 2mins faster (2:07) with today's more specific training. Interestingly mentions that amateurs need to still train 'the old way' (meaning I suppose they wouldn't be able to tolerate the training).

    Says also that Mosop would have run faster if it wasn't for the fact that he had a problem with a tendon, so had to do a long warm up before the marathon - 40mins with 20mins hard, and so used up some glycogen before the start line :)

    Hi larry. Re. Amateur he was referring I think to an example of a 23' 5k runner trying to get down to 20'. (the old way may also refer to his 1999 manual). He stated there was no point in referring to VO2max etc for such a runner because the aerobic system is not developed. I think there are two separate things here:
    Canovas training ideas and how they apply to different runners. We know how they apply to elite Kenyan marathoners, we need to work out how they apply to slower runners. Remember canovas underlying philosophy is that the best training is specific and that all other training should support the specific training. The training most specific to a 23' 5k runner is aerobic. So advising such a runner to train aerobically as specific training is in line with canovas training.

    So can an amateur train like an elite Kenyan? Clearly not. Can an amateur use canovas ideas to lower his.her marathon time. I believe so.

    The old way of marathon training might involve bombarding the system with aerobic mileage, some specific yes and then tapering to race. Canovas approach involves increasing the ability to train specifically.

    Training for a sub 2:45 runner migt involve doing sessions such as 35km progression starting within 16-18%mp finishing within 5% mp. 5-6 by 4k at mp with a fast Km recovery. Or 18k of alternations as discussed a few posts back.
    Even a specific extensive block of 10k in 40min then 10k in 38min (race pace) morning and evening is doable.

    All this after a buildup phase building up AnT, stamina at AnT and milage. This has little resemblance to moses mosops schedule but is specific training such a time. Remember, canova claims that LSR does not prepare you for a lipid consumption of fat and glycogen at race pace. Only specific work close to race pace does. Specificty seems especially important for the marathon given that energy consumption issues adversly affect a large proportion of peoples marathons.

    LSR does help in preparing you for the specific phase as it gets the body used to time on feet. This allows you to carry out the fundamental long runs between 20-10% race pace (lipid) which along with the sessions in the special phase prepare you for the extended intense sessions in the specific stage. A high overall mileage before the special phase should alllow you to recover running high aerobic mileage between special sessions.

    Anyway im guinea pigging myself at the moment so ill start a log soon. (time is at issue)



    Thats amazing re Mosop: wonder what the finishing time would have been if Mosop had pushed Mutai further (or beaten him). Sub 2:03 without a shadow.




  • 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.

    Hi Larry. Just re-reading your posts re your marathon. I am coming around to agreement re aerobics elite vs amateur. As elite athletes alraedy have a highly developed aerobic system the balance of aerobic to aenaerobic work will be different. That might mean a fundamental phase more based on pushing the aerobic threshold to the right. From my own experience i think if you target a high kilometer count per week the vast majority of work must be at the aerobic T development level (at fundamental stage).

    It strikes me that the alternations session of 1km AnT 1 km AT might be a very useful session for amateurs. Maintaining one threshold while developing another depending on need and phase. More of en emphasis on AT for amateurs perhaps but this session could be used during the 5k-HM development phase to keep the emphasis more aerobic than for an elite. Still doing AnT work but moving the ratio toward aerobic work as an amateurs development might require

    As Canova says a runner must graduate from each year of his/her running university. So you complete your year before graduating. Most amateurs wont get past the aerobic development year. I guess that corresponds to the initial position of AT to the right. The amateur has more to gain by shifting this (and breaking new ground) to the right.




  • T runner wrote: »
    As elite athletes alraedy have a highly developed aerobic system the balance of aerobic to aenaerobic work will be different. That might mean a fundamental phase more based on pushing the aerobic threshold to the right. From my own experience i think if you target a high kilometer count per week the vast majority of work must be at the aerobic T development level (at fundamental stage).


    As Canova says a runner must graduate from each year of his/her running university. So you complete your year before graduating. Most amateurs wont get past the aerobic development year. I guess that corresponds to the initial position of AT to the right. The amateur has more to gain by shifting this (and breaking new ground) to the right.

    Canova has said that a well trained runner will get to the stage where the long run will no longer act as a stimulus. I think he may be alluding to the fact that the long run aims to increase capillaries and numbers of mitochondria and that there may be a limit to the amount of these that the muscle can have. So if you've been running 125miles per week for 5 or 6 years, you may have as many capillaries and mitochondria as you will ever have and so long running at easy pace will no longer have any effect - so you have to create a stimulus in another way, e.g. increase the pace.

    But you're right in that most amateurs (although I think Canova sees 2:10 or less as the time of an amateur :) ) won't be anywhere near this level of aerobic development. The fibres that they have trained won't have reached their full aerobic potential and also they won't have trained nearly enough fibres (they might only train e.g. 40% of their slow twitch fibres rather than all 100%). Improve both of these factors (by doing as much aerobic running as you can, with plenty mid-long and long runs) and you will last longer (improved aerobic endurance) but also and more importantly be able to run faster aerobically i.e. push aerobic threshold to the right. When you have done this you are ready to begin training :) i.e push the anaerobic threshold to the right, to increase capacity to push aerobic threshold further to the right again. Then repeat over and over!!!




  • Canova has said that a well trained runner will get to the stage where the long run will no longer act as a stimulus. I think he may be alluding to the fact that the long run aims to increase capillaries and numbers of mitochondria and that there may be a limit to the amount of these that the muscle can have. So if you've been running 125miles per week for 5 or 6 years, you may have as many capillaries and mitochondria as you will ever have and so long running at easy pace will no longer have any effect - so you have to create a stimulus in another way, e.g. increase the pace.

    But you're right in that most amateurs (although I think Canova sees 2:10 or less as the time of an amateur :) ) won't be anywhere near this level of aerobic development. The fibres that they have trained won't have reached their full aerobic potential and also they won't have trained nearly enough fibres (they might only train e.g. 40% of their slow twitch fibres rather than all 100%). Improve both of these factors (by doing as much aerobic running as you can, with plenty mid-long and long runs) and you will last longer (improved aerobic endurance) but also and more importantly be able to run faster aerobically i.e. push aerobic threshold to the right. When you have done this you are ready to begin training :) i.e push the anaerobic threshold to the right, to increase capacity to push aerobic threshold further to the right again. Then repeat over and over!!!

    I agree with most: however, for an amateur training for a marathon clearly they wont reach their full aerobic potential. I dont feel that this is a reason for them not to preclude developing their AnT and stamina at AnT in a marthon cycle as this will prepare them for marathon specific training ie bringing running speed at AT as close as possible to that of AnT and devloping stamina at race pace. Training at AnT as well as training at moderate (lipid) paces also allows the runner to recruit more fibres (progression runs for example) and then use them at moderate paces for medium to long distances. REmember AnT training also raises the AT.

    AnT training after the aerobic phase should push both thresholds to the right. The alternation sessions can aid this also. Then specific training will reduce the difference of speeds of each threshold as they both are still being raised.
    Specific sessions further teaching the body to burn glycogen and fat in the correct ratio (intensity) to last the distance (extension).

    I reckon to suceed in this final intense/extensive session putting it all together phase, the AnT will need to be well developed.




  • Just to clarify, I totally agree that amateurs should do anaerobic work and that a Canova approach (adapted for their level) would probably be the best approach. Was simply trying to point out to be able to do the full Canova training (running fast most days) you'd need a very well developed aerobic base. And similarly to reach your full potential you'd need to have this aerobic base developed as much as possible, but we've got to operate within the limits of our individual circumstances (i.e. time available for training).


  • Advertisement


  • T runner wrote: »
    I reckon to suceed in this final intense/extensive session putting it all together phase, the AnT will need to be well developed.

    On this point, I think I 'got away' with the training (i.e I was able to do the sessions) because my AnT was relatively well developed (ie my 10m time was better in comparison to other distances at the time). But having neglected long runs (hadn't gone over 12miles for a few years) and having 3-4 months of poor training prior to starting marathon training meant my aerobic base (and perhaps aerobic threshold) was way down so I got caught out in the race. If my AT had been closer to my AnT I might have lasted for longer but who knows...

    In relation to 'training to train' i.e. improving your aerobic condition (by a variety of means as you mentioned above, not simply aerobic running) to enable you to get stuck into the real/race specific training marius bakken has interesting pieces on Kenyan training http://www.mariusbakken.com/training-corner/kenyan-training/kenyan-principles.html

    Quote:
    It is in the basetraining phase LT training plays an extremely important part. My experience from training with the Kenyas, even the very young ones, is that they go right under their LT on almost all the sessions. They start out slow, on maybe an hour run. Then they go faster and faster as the go along, until they have reached the zone right below their LT. This is where they will continue for the rest of the run. EndQuote.

    From kiwirunners Iten log and a few others I've seen it seems like the Kenyans and Canovas athletes run fast nearly every day. But perhaps they can only get away with this due to their years of running 2 or 3 times a day. When Bakken started doing this himself, running at just below LT every day (carefully monitored via LT testing on every run) he made a massive breakthrough. Interesting how he says the Kenyans seem to know intuitively when they are at that point, right below AnT.

    I think an important part also is that they always start slow and some of their runs will be at 8-10min miles pace, the Kenyan shuffle. As such they always 'stay in touch' with all muscle fibres (fast, slow and very slow!), so that all muscle fibres can be called upon when needed, and when called upon they'll actually do a good job as they will be well trained. Also, I think in the bakken pieces he mentions how they are never 'out on their feet' after a track session. They know how to work hard without overdoing it. They could always do a couple of more reps at the end of a session.

    Going off the point now but read recently about the warm up Kenenisa and Tariku Bekeles did prior to a WR 10000m attempt in Oregon a few years ago (written by someone who was there watching them warming up and took splits). Kenenisa missed out on the record, not by too much but this was put down mainly to poor pacing. So it was a great run. The warm up consisted of about 30mins at 8-9min mile pace, some drills/stretches and strides which were very controlled.




  • I finally found some time to finish what proves to be just the first of a likely three instalment attempting to compare the Lydiard system to the Canova system:

    http://www.championseverywhere.com/lydiardcanovacomparison

    I would post it in full here but hope the mods will allow the linking as the images and bullet points do not transfer over very easily and this turned into a fairly long article in the end so the extra readability may take some of the strain of the eyes (if not the mind).

    I managed to get some comments from Keith Livingstone and Nobby both some of which made it into this instalment, others will hopefully make it into the next one. Apologies for the length of it but given how easy it is to build up to straw men and then set them on fire, I felt the need to begin with a fair bit of background and caveats.

    Writing it, it brought me the thought of great regret that we will never see the great experiment of the two coaches sitting down together at a table with the same runner staring across and showing us exactly how they would each have approached that particular individual. In the absence of such a meeting a fair bit of uncertainty will surround all such comparisons, so I think the greatest value of this comparison is to understand what background sets you up best to maximise both the physiological gains, long term and short term, of each system and your enjoyment factor.




  • Raighne wrote: »
    I finally found some time to finish what proves to be just the first of a likely three instalment attempting to compare the Lydiard system to the Canova system:

    http://www.championseverywhere.com/lydiardcanovacomparison

    I would post it in full here but hope the mods will allow the linking as the images and bullet points do not transfer over very easily and this turned into a fairly long article in the end so the extra readability may take some of the strain of the eyes (if not the mind).

    I managed to get some comments from Keith Livingstone and Nobby both some of which made it into this instalment, others will hopefully make it into the next one. Apologies for the length of it but given how easy it is to build up to straw men and then set them on fire, I felt the need to begin with a fair bit of background and caveats.

    Writing it, it brought me the thought of great regret that we will never see the great experiment of the two coaches sitting down together at a table with the same runner staring across and showing us exactly how they would each have approached that particular individual. In the absence of such a meeting a fair bit of uncertainty will surround all such comparisons, so I think the greatest value of this comparison is to understand what background sets you up best to maximise both the physiological gains, long term and short term, of each system and your enjoyment factor.

    Hi Raighne,

    Thanks a million for taking the time for the first instalment, it’s a fascinating read.

    Ill just post the points that come to mind for now to add to the discussion:

    Ill post a few more in separate postings. Quotes are from your article.
    Canova told Nobby: “My boys (red: Kenyans) run 150 miles a week. 100 is not enough.” What he missed was that Lydiard’s runners often did run more than 100 miles per week (some like Jeff Julian over 200 miles per week) but had to balance this training load against full-time jobs unlike the elite Kenyans and Italians with whom Canova did most of his work.

    I don’t think that Canova missed this. Full time jobs aside, the fact is that Canovas athletes all other things being equal DO superior aerobic mileage to Lydiard athletes. Not counting jogging in either system Canovas athletes run more often (more emphasis on similar doubles) and further than Lydiards athletes. One difference that I would see is Lydiard’s higher emphasis on the single long aerobic run citing beneficial adaptions for runs in excess of 90 mins. Canovas athletes do run long: up to 50k @110% of marathon race pace, but they do a lot of aerobic mileage in doubles at moderate paces.

    Cavovas emphasis is more on GLOBAL VOLUME and shocking the aerobic system with a high volume of different Stimulii. Not just different paces, but different types of runs: progression, fast progression, long progression. Continuous, continuous uphill etc etc. Variety is emphasized because the body “gets good” at runs and the benefits dwindle, he even says repeating a type of session 3 times is too much.
    This is relatively lacking in Lydiards philosophy (particularly the anaerobic phase where Lydiard clearly states that the distance of reps doesn’t matter so long as the runners PH is elevated. Canova would suggest that if you wanted to have a phase for anaerobic development a different method of inducing the heightened PH should be used every time).
    As Greg McMillan has repeatedly stated, the problem stopping Western runners is not that they are using the wrong training system but rather: As Greg had said it many times, the question is: “HOW DO WE GET AN ATHLETE TO THE LEVEL WHERE THEY COULD MANAGE WORKOUTS LIKE THAT? (red: Canova/Rosa style workouts)”

    (red: Canova/Rosa style workouts)”

    Id disagree with this interpretation: its not the style that’s difficult, it’s the paces (sub 2:05)

    Here is an example of a Canova style marathon buildup that McMillans runners could definitely master. Its for a 2:26 female marathoner. (shes now made the final 6 shortlist for Kenyan marathon team).

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

    Same style as the elite men just scheduled for a slower finishing time.
    Canova also has stated that his most satisfying result was by the teams Swiss Physio (amateur) who recorded a sub 2:20 marathon, often training late in the night. Same style of workout just done at different paces.
    We can push her so she can run 15 or 20 seconds faster next month, but then what’s gonna happen? We’ll destroy her potential. So we just take a long view and not worry about what others might say…”

    Canovas runners are fully developed aerobically often with 5 years or more at full aerobic training.
    In fact he reckons that many American runners some even who are adopting a Lydiardesque system are under developed aerobically. They may be misunterpreting that system, but aertobics and speed are underdeveloped compared to Canovas athletes.


    The fact that Canovas athletes are breaking world records indicates that they are not being burned out. Canovas variance of training for all distances at odds with Lydiards eliminates the possibil;ity largely of psychological burnout.
    Which might be more enjoyable: Canovas never repeat a workout approach or Lydiards grinding PH reps?

    Like Lydiard’s system Canova progresses his training through phases with emphasis on different physiological developments evermore specific to the athlete’s target race.

    And this is another fundamental difference. Canovas specialization starts with a fundamental
    run(and intervals) tailored to the target race. This is The fundamental phase occurs after a 10 week
    introduction. Therefore Canova is going specific 25% into the program. Lydiard doesn’t specialize to any great degree until the coordination phase when most of the cycle is completed.

    Every system is similar in that there is some emphasis on specializing. Canovas differs because the primary emphasis is always on training for the target race with other training only to support this.

    Therefore this is not a similarity: rather a very stark difference.

    Lactate buffering achieved through alternations sessions (1k at LT, 1k fast recovery: speed of fast and slow reps worked on with the idea of bringing LT down and then beinging AT close to LT) is a session that doesnt appear on a Lydiard marathon program. This is because Lydiard didnt realise the benefits of lactate buffering for a marathoner: the body can be trained to re-use lactate efficiently at marathon pace, increasing the sustaineable speed over the distance.

    This may be one reason why Lydiard predicted a 2:07 as the fastest possible marathon time: he had not calculated for lactate buffering. That is a fundamental difference at the very elite level.




  • Glad people enjoyed the piece and thank you for taking the time to respond t_runner. I will do my best to respond to the points both in the upcoming instalments and, where is not possible to fit in direct answers, in a reply here.

    The discussion will certainly become more interesting at the detailed level. I think as with everything else in life it is easier to agree on the broad strokes ("end poverty") than actual tactics ("imprison the poor", "wealth equalisation").

    Forgive the fact that my participation in the debate will have to continue at a snail's pace. A copy of the 1960 "Athletics - How to become a champion" by Percy Wells Cerutty was gracefully provided to me which both steals more of my time and adds to the number of articles that need to be written! (than you though to the donor!)




  • T runner wrote: »
    Canovas athletes do run long: up to 50k @110% of marathon race pace, but they do a lot of aerobic mileage in doubles at moderate paces.

    Btw, I take it this is a typo: 50k @ 110% of 42k race pace?

    Across the board, for all conditioned endurance athletes, this following ‘rule’ is pretty accurate, and varies little from source to source:

    Marathon pace = 84% VO2 max pace. 10000m =92% VO2 max pace. 5000m = 95% VO2max pace. 3000m = 100% VO2max pace.

    So, the pace or effort we’re talking about going at for 50k’s here is (110% x84% ) of VO2max pace, which is 92.4%, which is very close to 10000m race pace. Perhaps you can clarify what the original statement was as 50k at 10k pace would be good going :)


  • Advertisement


  • Raighne wrote: »
    Btw, I take it this is a typo: 50k @ 110% of 42k race pace?

    /QUOTE]

    Example 2:06 marathon runner

    Thats 180 seconds per Km

    110% = 180 + 18 secs = 198 secs or 3 mins 18 secs per Km




  • A note on percentages: Renato Canova calculates percentages of speeds differently than most Americans. For example, to calculate 90% of 5:00 mile pace, an American would do the following:
    5: 00 / 0.90 = 5: 33.3

    However, Renato Canova does the following:
    (5: 00 / 100) × 10 + 5: 00 = 5: 30.0

    While the difference here is small, it can become significant in different scenarios. The logic is that 90%
    slower than 5:00 pace is that same pace plus 10%.

    .




  • YFlyer wrote: »
    Raighne wrote: »
    Btw, I take it this is a typo: 50k @ 110% of 42k race pace?

    /QUOTE]

    Example 2:06 marathon runner

    Thats 180 seconds per Km

    110% = 180 + 18 secs = 198 secs or 3 mins 18 secs per Km

    Ah yes, I had forgotten he uses a different way of calculating from the traditional.




  • Raighne wrote: »

    Ah yes, I had forgotten he uses a different way of calculating from the traditional.

    Not only different but mathematically correct. An increase in pace as used in English does not mean an increase in the numeric value of pace. It means a decrease in this value.

    110% of race pace therefore does not mean an increase in race pace: it means an increase of 10% to the numeric value of race pace.

    This again highlights a fundamental difference. Canova describes paces in terms of the target race as early as 25% into a program.

    Its no wonder that Lydiard scholars have difficulties with percentages of race paces when it is a relative afterthought in the coordination phase! :pac:




  • T runner wrote: »
    Not only different but mathematically correct. An increase in pace as used in English does not mean an increase in the numeric value of pace. It means a decrease in this value.

    110% of race pace therefore does not mean an increase in race pace: it means an increase of 10% to the numeric value of race pace.

    This again highlights a fundamental difference. Canova describes paces in terms of the target race as early as 25% into a program.

    Its no wonder that Lydiard scholars have difficulties with percentages of race paces when it is a relative afterthought in the coordination phase! :pac:

    earned a cheeky jibe for not paying more attention, so while my previous post has undoubtedly left me seem a bit slow, I am aware that increasing speed decreases the numerical value of the number used to express it. The confusion stems from the fact that most running literature up to this point uses "% of VO2max" as an expression of relative paces (so 5k pace is generally 100% VO2max pace etc.).

    I can't leave "the after-thought" comment stand completely unanswered of course (well provoked!) because this is in actuality not what occurs in Lydiard system programmes (have one look at the current Lydiard Foundation programmes and you'll see it is all about progressing the relevant paces towards target race throughout the programme but there are some reasons why you do not become a slave to those paces and why Lydiard did not build in definitions as precise as Canova's in his original works. I'll clarify that in this evening's piece).

    Canova clearly has done well both in his terminology and prescription of target paces to always "dangle the carrot" in front of the athlete. But there are a number of different ways of doing this and this does not mean the foundation of the system is not essentially taking its roots in Lydiard. Keith Livingstone courteously replied to my inquiry about what his view was on the matter and I think his email addresses the more central point that I have been trying to get across when claiming that the difference between Lydiard and Canova is not what it seems in my initial post.

    I will try to get that up tonight as a "Canova Lydiard comparison" part 1.5 as I think that will allow me to refocus on what I believe are the really key questions when looking at two systems: e.g. moving away from a line of questioning that is "why do Canova over Lydiard or Lydiard over Canova" to salient questions like: “why does Canova use overdistance marathon runs buffered by several days of very slow running” and “how can the principle of balancing easy/hard be applied to athletes of different levels and backgrounds." When you investigate these questions in the context of what the two coaches were trying to do in the sample programmes they provided, and more importantly what their athletes actually tell us they did, you will see a strong convergence onto the same principles.

    That's very abstract, so hopefully the next instalments will put a more practical slant on it.




  • I got a bit more than I bargained for when I asked a panel of Lydiard coaches to contribute to this discussion, so had to do some major editing to produce a 16-page document that can be found here: http://www.championseverywhere.com/lydiardcanova2

    The discussion features Barry Magee, Nobby Hashizume, Keith Livingstone, Colin Livingstone, Trevor Vinzent and Christopher Kelsall and I hope people will feel satisfied that the original debate has been thoroughly dealt with in the round-table discussion.

    It get's quite nerdy, and there are several anecdotes and stories going on here, so it may not be for everyone, but many here with an interest in the real nitty-gritty parts of coaching should find this interesting.

    I believe a further instalment from my side would be an anti-climax after this, so we will finish our series on this topic at CE for now and give room for some other articles and interviews on the drawing board.




  • Raighne wrote: »
    I got a bit more than I bargained for when I asked a panel of Lydiard coaches to contribute to this discussion, so had to do some major editing to produce a 16-page document that can be found here: http://www.championseverywhere.com/lydiardcanova2

    The discussion features Barry Magee, Nobby Hashizume, Keith Livingstone, Colin Livingstone, Trevor Vinzent and Christopher Kelsall and I hope people will feel satisfied that the original debate has been thoroughly dealt with in the round-table discussion.

    It get's quite nerdy, and there are several anecdotes and stories going on here, so it may not be for everyone, but many here with an interest in the real nitty-gritty parts of coaching should find this interesting.

    I believe a further instalment from my side would be an anti-climax after this, so we will finish our series on this topic at CE for now and give room for some other articles and interviews on the drawing board.

    Good man Raighne, great stuff! Well Done. Look forward to reading this and you should be commended for involving such an expert group on any boards thread. Well done again.

    I hope youll advise the Lydiard foundation panel that we are gathering our own panel of formidable experts including Larry Brent, Krusty The Clown, T Runner, Slogger Jogger and Humpty Dumpty who will shortly be batting their arguments to pulp!




  • Raighne wrote: »
    I got a bit more than I bargained for when I asked a panel of Lydiard coaches to contribute to this discussion, so had to do some major editing to produce a 16-page document that can be found here: http://www.championseverywhere.com/lydiardcanova2

    The discussion features Barry Magee, Nobby Hashizume, Keith Livingstone, Colin Livingstone, Trevor Vinzent and Christopher Kelsall and I hope people will feel satisfied that the original debate has been thoroughly dealt with in the round-table discussion.

    It get's quite nerdy, and there are several anecdotes and stories going on here, so it may not be for everyone, but many here with an interest in the real nitty-gritty parts of coaching should find this interesting.

    I believe a further instalment from my side would be an anti-climax after this, so we will finish our series on this topic at CE for now and give room for some other articles and interviews on the drawing board.

    That's great. Thanks for that. Really looking forward to reading that later. Only problem will be trying to juggle that, the Steve Magness article I'm reading and Jersey Shore. The Shore ain't losing out I know that much!!!




  • Raighne wrote: »
    I got a bit more than I bargained for when I asked a panel of Lydiard coaches to contribute to this discussion, so had to do some major editing to produce a 16-page document that can be found here: http://www.championseverywhere.com/lydiardcanova2

    The discussion features Barry Magee, Nobby Hashizume, Keith Livingstone, Colin Livingstone, Trevor Vinzent and Christopher Kelsall and I hope people will feel satisfied that the original debate has been thoroughly dealt with in the round-table discussion.

    It get's quite nerdy, and there are several anecdotes and stories going on here, so it may not be for everyone, but many here with an interest in the real nitty-gritty parts of coaching should find this interesting.

    I believe a further instalment from my side would be an anti-climax after this, so we will finish our series on this topic at CE for now and give room for some other articles and interviews on the drawing board.

    Being an older chap, I'm a fan of the Lydiard 'stuff'. That said, I think Canova has upped the [ante] and Lydiardites are clinging on to an antediluvian doctrine...

    The 'Champions Everywhere' stuff is great and ironically, imo, evinces the 'dogma' of Lydiardites. I don't mean that in a disparaging way. But the ignorance of Canova's methods - shown in the aforementioned discussion - exemplifies the 'dogma' of the, Lydiard is God (a priori):), nonsense. Look at the misunderstanding of Canova's short hill reps (the Viren hill story is nuts). And where the whole thing really lacks credibility is in the 5 points that the discussion is predicated on. To suggest that Canova (a chap that has produced hundreds of the world's greatest distance runners) has little or no understanding of Lydiard is ridiculous. The argument is fallacious from the off: it's falsely premissed. The Lydiardites are jogging scared:).
    There's a new Gov'nor.

    Me, I'm starting off with a huge Lydiard base and some hills, followed by some Horwillian multi-paced stuff - so I can cope with the speed required for the final part of the jigsaw - and then onto the Gov'nor's marathon methods. Probably slip on some dog's dirt next week and get injured and give up running, but there you go.

    Seriously, Canova and any decent coach will start off with Lydiard -as a foundation - and then develop it.




  • Stazza wrote: »
    Being an older chap, I'm a fan of the Lydiard 'stuff'. That said, I think Canova has upped the [ante] and Lydiardites are clinging on to an antediluvian doctrine...

    The 'Champions Everywhere' stuff is great and ironically, imo, evinces the 'dogma' of Lydiardites. I don't mean that in a disparaging way. But the ignorance of Canova's methods - shown in the aforementioned discussion - exemplifies the 'dogma' of the, Lydiard is God (a priori):), nonsense. Look at the misunderstanding of Canova's short hill reps (the Viren hill story is nuts). And where the whole thing really lacks credibility is in the 5 points that the discussion is predicated on. To suggest that Canova (a chap that has produced hundreds of the world's greatest distance runners) has little or no understanding of Lydiard is ridiculous. The argument is fallacious from the off: it's falsely premissed. The Lydiardites are jogging scared:).
    There's a new Gov'nor.

    Me, I'm starting off with a huge Lydiard base and some hills, followed by some Horwillian multi-paced stuff - so I can cope with the speed required for the final part of the jigsaw - and then onto the Gov'nor's marathon methods. Probably slip on some dog's dirt next week and get injured and give up running, but there you go.

    Seriously, Canova and any decent coach will start off with Lydiard -as a foundation - and then develop it.

    <Yawn>

    Sorry, but this response is an example of why we cant have nice debates with experts in their field. Why would they bother? Smiley faces dont disguise the callowness of it.


  • Advertisement


  • Poor auld Nobby hasnt got a clue by the sounds of it. Did he really say that doing some short hill sprints between 8-10 seconds will make an athlete peak too early. What a load of horse manure. Also starts bashing Terrance McMahon too it his article. A very biased and selective piece of research. Cavona also trains Merga and Silas Kiplagat so this rejects the point whereby some Lydiard apostle claimed that Arthur's athletes were more versatile over a variety of race distances. If you ask anyone with an open mind about training methodology they will laugh at this 17 page paper.




  • jayok77 wrote: »
    <Yawn>

    Sorry, but this response is an example of why we cant have nice debates with experts in their field. Why would they bother? Smiley faces dont disguise the callowness of it.

    I'll take that on the chin, lad - it was deserved. I apologise. Now...

    Okay, no smiley faces. For me, Lydiard's place as one of the great coaches is indisputable. He created a basic system that produced great athletes and his system has stood the test of time. His system, although revised by his followers beyond recognition, forms the foundations of many of the more recent systems. Respect. I'd liken Lydiard to Homer (the poet) but Canova is Shakespeare.

    The debate about Lydiard and Canova is interesting - to a point. Where I struggle with Lydiard is not with his system but rather with those who advocate his system with the intransigence and zeal of a zealot. Unfortunately, many of the 'experts' are guilty of zealotry.

    The championseverywhere debate about Lydiard and Canova is seriously flawed, which is disappointing if the opinions espoused are genuinely those of the 'experts'. No smiley faces. No apologies.

    The article doesn't warrant analysis. First off, the tone of the article suggests to me that all of the contributors have a remarkably similar tone, which borders on cloning or something far more sinister. No smiley faces.

    The lack of respect the experts show Canova is disappointing, perhaps, even callow:) or pathetic. Of course Canova understands the Lydiard 'way'. To suggest the world's greatest distance coach (Canova) hasn't the foggiest about Lydiard is simply, ludicrous. Everything thereafter falls. The nonsense about emails and chats and Viren's hills beggars belief. The zenith of intelligence in the article is, unfortunately, the literary - hence my reference to Homer and Shakespeare -' Lost in Translation' - brilliant. Although I don't really give two hoots about Lydiard & co, I'm happy to have a 'nice debate' if and only if there's no skullduggerry, especially from experts.




  • Looks like the comparison document presented to this thread from the Lydiard foundation has blown up a stormy debate over on Lets Run which a few contributione even from Renato Canova himself!!!!




  • Took and edited this from Lets run.

    Looks simple enough. Pace Calculator attached


    Take 3 months. For 8 weeks you do three types of runs. Long easy runs, long steady runs, long medium runs. Build your kilometers each week. Start with many long easy runs, then progress to some long steady and long medium runs. 2nd moth add 8x100 meters two times per week. 3rd month you add tempo runs one time per week, maybe 8k - 10k runs, also it is important that you add hill fartlek workouts in the 3rd month one time per week. Everything else is long easy, long steady, and long medium runs. This three month cycle is very simple and easy. Why does Renato write workout plan for me that is not extreme, and complicated, and the same as he writes for his world class athletes? My friend, the reason is that the answer to your problem is to get simple, not complicated. But for now my friend, this will help you stay healthy.

    Speed/distance


    10000m

    Long slow 70/80 % of PB 20 / 30 km
    Long steady 85/90% PB 15 / 20 km
    Long medium 90/95% PB 10 / 12 km

    Marathon

    Long slow 75/85% of PB 30 / 45 km
    Long steady 90/95 % PB 20 / 35 km
    Long medium 95/100% PB 15 / 25 km

    I take these three paces that I mention to you, long easy, long steady, and long medium, and this is my way of as you call it "base training". And I do this for three months. My friend, I also mix training that is tempo and hill fartlek. I believe sometimes 8x100 meters that are hills is important. One day I have my athletes run 8x100 meters on grass, next day maybe they run this up hill. But first two months it is important to mix these three paces to get supercompensation base training. If you mix these paces in the right way, you will progress very much during next phase of training. This steady and medium pace that I talk about. This should mix with easy long runs. For instance, one day easy long run, one day steady long run, one day easy long run, one day medium long run. So you see, I always follow a steady long run with run that is easy. Athlete will need some tempo, hilly fartlek, and 8x100 during 3rd month of this training.

    Edit: Added distances to attachment




  • How far out from the marathon is this base training period? What's the training after that?




  • RayCun wrote: »
    How far out from the marathon is this base training period? What's the training after that?

    Something to be worked out Ray. You could add the last 5-8 weeks of ant schedule onto it. Daniels would suit.

    If i use it to prepare for Dublin, i wont be altering it too much. Ill just extend it for 6-8 weeks but adding sessions to sharpen me up. The energy systems will be right for a good marathon, just a matter of sharpening the speed at marathon effort..ie hold fitness while trying to get faster. Will be keeping it simple next time as Renato advocates for non-elites.




  • RayCun wrote: »
    How far out from the marathon is this base training period? What's the training after that?

    Canova speaks of the two systems necessary for marathon running: energy and biomechanical.

    If a training block was to take say two big sessions per week after the Base building above then each could originate as a continuing development of each of these systems.

    So youd have a long steady run getting faster and also a faster run (say long intervals) getting longer in lenght. These two sessions would monitor eachother so youd be able to ensure and tweak to make sure both systems were going to be balanced for the marathon.

    These two sessions get more similar as weeks go by and this is the funnel progression that Canova speaks of. At the end of this (Special) process you arrive at the Specific period.

    For us i think this period in itself is specific enough as our gains are quite specific to the aerobic systems.

    Id say 2 sessions like the above per week with a third alternated medium sized session thrown in to maintain the developments made in the base.

    Marathon effort should increase from the previous phase though.

    For people like us looking to develop aerobic capacity as the main breadwinner for bringing marathon times down, then i think 2.5 tougher runs should be sustaineable within a week between easy running. Ie if they arent sustaineable then they are too tough and paces should be adjusted accordingly.

    I did one or two big runs in my recent marathon buildup. They were beneficial but were not sustaineable without an excess of recovery. which hindered continuing aerobic development somewhat. This is anot an issue for elites as they Aerobic development is de facto maxed before this phase.




  • An interview with the man himself, havn't read it yet.
    http://athleticsillustrated.com/interviews/renato-canova/




  • T runner wrote: »
    Took and edited this from Lets run.

    Looks simple enough. Pace Calculator attached


    Take 3 months. For 8 weeks you do three types of runs. Long easy runs, long steady runs, long medium runs. Build your kilometers each week. Start with many long easy runs, then progress to some long steady and long medium runs. 2nd moth add 8x100 meters two times per week. 3rd month you add tempo runs one time per week, maybe 8k - 10k runs, also it is important that you add hill fartlek workouts in the 3rd month one time per week. Everything else is long easy, long steady, and long medium runs. This three month cycle is very simple and easy. Why does Renato write workout plan for me that is not extreme, and complicated, and the same as he writes for his world class athletes? My friend, the reason is that the answer to your problem is to get simple, not complicated. But for now my friend, this will help you stay healthy.

    Speed/distance


    10000m

    Long slow 70/80 % of PB 20 / 30 km
    Long steady 85/90% PB 15 / 20 km
    Long medium 90/95% PB 10 / 12 km

    Marathon

    Long slow 75/85% of PB 30 / 45 km
    Long steady 90/95 % PB 20 / 35 km
    Long medium 95/100% PB 15 / 25 km

    I take these three paces that I mention to you, long easy, long steady, and long medium, and this is my way of as you call it "base training". And I do this for three months. My friend, I also mix training that is tempo and hill fartlek. I believe sometimes 8x100 meters that are hills is important. One day I have my athletes run 8x100 meters on grass, next day maybe they run this up hill. But first two months it is important to mix these three paces to get supercompensation base training. If you mix these paces in the right way, you will progress very much during next phase of training. This steady and medium pace that I talk about. This should mix with easy long runs. For instance, one day easy long run, one day steady long run, one day easy long run, one day medium long run. So you see, I always follow a steady long run with run that is easy. Athlete will need some tempo, hilly fartlek, and 8x100 during 3rd month of this training.

    Edit: Added distances to attachment

    Heres a link to a recent RT article on Canovas approach adapted for non-elites which i guess was what this thread was trying to achieve. It contains an example 3 weeks from a specific period and also examples of Global period sessions.

    Hoping to have a crack at a spring marathon.

    My approach now would be:

    Base phase quoted above (with strenght exercises). 10-12 weeks

    Global phase: Train for a 10k (specific 10k training) but maintaining endurance (keeping a weekly long/medium steady run and long/medium long easy run). 6 weeks

    Transition (special): say 4 weeks adapting the sessions to be more specific to marathon. Fast runs get longer, sessions get longer and slower. 4 weeks

    E.g Transition session progression (Last week of Global phase 10 X 1k):

    WK1 SESSIONS: (transition) 6 X 2K; WK2 7 x 2k ; WK3 8 x 2k; WK4 4 X 2K, 3 X3K

    Transitioning to Special phase as in the article. 6-8 weeks.


  • Advertisement


  • So, just to clarify for the thick ones like myself, you would do a base phase, then a global phase, followed by a specific phase, with transitions in-between?

    The reason why I'm asking is because that RT article specifically mentioned that there is no base training in Canova's training any more, and now I'm starting to get more than a little bit confused.


Advertisement