Is this correct about the Training of Carlos Lopes

X-Runner:

Good contributions! Tinman

Tinman:

- PHYSIOLOGY versus TRAINING TECNIQUE -

I did a physiology teacher that told me once “if you want to learn physiology after the first book that´s better to change for a book about anthropology. Physiology that´s a great intellectual exercise for the and brains, but they say all the same or similar”.

In my opinion that´s a kind of a mistake/error to train/coach distance runner´s according physiologic targets mainly. Training technique and training methods they are the prime priority.

If we Portuguese we don´t use the physiology as training guideline as I se the other people used, that´s not by laziness, ignorance, acknowledge, or underestimate all that stuff, but by a conscientious option take by experience, and that by see that the training training in the “real terrain terrain” they get more benefits – real results and larger improvement in runner´s progress than simply acting according physiologic principles

Ok, there are physiologic knowledge and physiologic principles or biomechanics or whatever support science that help us to understand how things are in your body, what are the main factors, the effects, the consequences of s certain physical exercise. But despite all that knowledge that comes from the science and lab tests, and despite different runner talents and different individuals and different target goal distances– all runners they may to train all main qualities - from speed/maximum pace (Renato´s Pure Speed - over 110% RPTD) to Race Pace Target Distance to Intense runs but slower than RPTD, to pure aerobic runs, what you call “Maintenance” to easy runs, Renato´s Regeneration.

That´s prove that that´s not by doing any of that paces or any for no matter what running event that you don´t progress. Renato says the same “…DOESN'T EXIST ANY TYPE OF TRAINING LIMITING QUALITIES….” Or when he says “…The elements of training are always present in a good training-schedule….”

Unless that you felt exhaust by the extensively or weekly frequency that you do that intense run paces, thus you may train the most intense of that paces with “moderation”.

I think that´s in that detail, training charge and training frequency, lots of times desadequate and not according to individual training capacity that the train fails to fit into a schedule. Ther´s a proper or a wrong use of “quality/intensity” hard workouts as ther´s also a good or a poor use from mileage volume as well. This doen´t mean that one or other are/aren´t usefull. This means that you need to decide according the frequency and optimize all that specifics - and that options are training technique mainly.

Now you need to define to approaches: the basic/intro period and later on the specific period. During the basic period I agree that you train for physiologic targets. That´s where Renato says “…So, during the FUNDAMENTAL PERIOD you must work for increasing your qualities : general resistance, strength, rapidity, flexibility, coordination…”.

What are general resistance, strength and so? Physiologic targets.

But…later on, closer to the competition when you start training into the Specific Period – the physiology principles they may take just the “background” and not the “front line”. The front line may be Specifics for the Target Goal Distance. Thus Race Pace that´s prime/first priority interest as “the guide” of all paces above or bellow. Let´s repeat that mileage stuff and basic pace and regeneration, to a certain extend they are also important – don´t loose that direction.

- AnT/LT – CLASSIC/CONVENTIONAL STYLE versus “CONTINUE RUNS”

The case of LT runs or AnT runs that´s paradigmatic – that´s not the name designation that it matters but what´s the real meaning of that exercise activity.

For what I read in Let´sRunCom thread posts and also in other places, if a runner MAY NEED to train close to that AnT pace IN the BASIC PERIOD - that you did define by 95% 5000m pace, and in other several mathematic formulas, trying to come the closest as possible to the “curve to the right” I acid lactic concentration, theorically defined as 4mmol, when SPECIFIC PERIOD arrives, the 4mmol or any other acid lactic value or any pace calcul THAT´s not effective as specific to train MASS LASS for the target goal distance, particularly for shorter distances than marathon or the half marathon.

That´s here that “enters” the continue intense runs concepts, accordind to the Race Pace Target Distance, and that runners like Lopes – despite they don´t estimate the pace they do that – they try as possible to come close to the Race Pace for longer periods, to abale to body to run “IN THE COMFORT UNDER THE DISCONFORT” that’s to run 20-30-40min in a continuous run in that high intensity. Lopes and many other they think that they take great benefits from that Races, and they use that training format also very close to the peak competitions. Thus in a strict sense that are specifics for the lactate management, but not LT runs in the classic concept/or scientific support. Even the long reps ex: 3X3000m or 3-4X2000m that Lopes did in the track often, I think that they go in that concept, despite that are done in reps/set format with pauses. 3 minutes intervals. The pauses he uses here, means “neuro-muscular” recover mainly, more than an cardio-vascular target efficiency, or the change that large pauses brings to be able to do the sets in faster pace intensities.

Let´s repeat once again that was just possible because, in a certain degree, because he doesn´t pay too much attention to “physiologic knowledge” at that time, and actually as well, but more to what is the pace he needs to train in continue runs for a determined target. By “what are the paces” I don´t mean an accurate pace, Don´t come ask me once again for a pace formula. He did that by “pace feeling, close to race pace as possible in the specific periods”. He simply did try harder you see… But Renato comes to the same conclusion when he said a few time ago when he talked about Sergey Lebid and the preparation fior clong events as the cross runs “…short tests doesn't allow to increase your capacity in running FAST FOR LONG TIME. For doing this, you need LONG INTERVALS AT HIGH SPEED (may be 102-105% of the Race Pace), …”… “Without long intervals (3000/2000, and 6-10 Km very fast continuous running) you cannot win a medal in World CC.”

I remember you that Carlos Lopes he was the last non African born to win WCC champs in the senior event. 3 times with 2 second places. Last time almost 20 years ago. That´s not by chance, despite the Africans they are much stronger now that in that past years.

The best from then on, for no African runners that´s French Paul Arpin (3rd), Portuguese Paulo Guerra (3rd) and also Sergey Lebid.

All those did train that “fast continuous runs.

Tinman., eventually it was a surprise for you that when Renato say to us what I´m tolding you long ago. Your LT/AnT formula that´s good, but we can generalise that much. If that´s a runner non-specialist for longer distances, or poor “lactate management” the lactate threshold that´s in a slower pace than you advise. Those who are beginners or average runners are in this class. If that´s a experienced well trained runner, and they want to train for distance events as 3000m/5000m/10000m cross/road at a certain moment they ned to train in a faster pace/different than conventional AnT. But that “continue intense runs” that may be seen as a hard workout/specific workout withn the need recover/regeneration runs that follows, not everyday runs.

Let´s wait and see what Renato may tell us about this subject. He promises us that after the Olympics he will post about AnT. I´m waiting. As far as I know he is very sincere and a man of compromise, so I believe he will keep his promise, despite he is “persona non-grata” for many of you. But not like others that cache them in anonymity undercover in false identities or unidentified nicknames.

Antonio Cabral

When I have an hour to kill, I will look more closely through your post.

For now, realize that your belief in Maximum Steady State Lactate is no different than what I do. Zero difference. I use race pace for all my training formulas, just like Renato, Ferrara, and all the other scientists who coach athletes. Anybody who has my training charts knows how much I believe in using percentages of race pace in training environment.

I simply use an understanding of science research to create and training schedule that is systematic, progressive but controlled, specific to individual talents, and focused on steady development both in fitness and towards a race goal.

We are on the same page but speaking a different language. If I had never mentioned that I enjoy pysiologic research and instead just talked about my use of percentages of race pace, you would allow me the opportunity to coach fine Portugese athletes too.

Take care, Tinman

Tinman:

This time ther´s no need to answer my posts even without look more closely through them. Read that with attention all care and then answer not emotional. Just an opinion. Thanks.

If that´s a question to your usual self-defense question: kind of “yes I also do/use that”, please don´t waste your time. You are just repeating yourself.

ABOUT CONVENTIONAL LT versus 2 CONTINUOUS RUNS

Let´s face the facts and the opinions using what is post in LetsRunCom recently (resuming) but you can read the entire thread:

http://www.letsrun.com/forum/flat_read.php?thread=517058

A thread discussion/ask starts about:

Mr. Renato Canova: Could You Please Answer a Question About Effective Ways to Improve the Lactate Threshold? By Leonard Luchaine

http://www.letsrun.com/forum/flat_read.php?thread=517058

Leonard Luchaine <<…2…Can you provide 2-3 workouts directed that are particularly improving the lactate threshold 2 months before a racing period (cross-country)?..>>

Even before let Renato answers you post this:

Tinman <<…Lactate Threshold pace is about 8% slower than your 5k/3-mile pace. If you run 5:30 per mile (330 seconds), for example, then your LT is 330 x 1.08 = 356.4 seconds or 5:56.4. You can run a local race and then use the pace from it to calculate your LT. Otherwise, just ran at a strong effort, but slower than 5k pace…>>

Later one, it comes Renato (with a VERY different answer than your own !) or don´t you agree?

Reanato Canova <<…Hallo, I'm the REAL Renato Canova…if I have the goal to increase the AnT of an athlete running, for example, 5000m, the system must be different. I have to use a combined work that has different means : short and continue distance at 95-98% of the race pace (4-6 km, that we call "fast short continue run") ; long intervals at a speed of 2-3% faster than the race pace (for ex., 4 x 2000 rec. 3 min, or 3 x 3000 rec. 3 min, for an amount of about 2 times the length of the race); medium intervals at a speed of 3-5 % faster than the race pace, using very short intervals (f.e., 3 sets of 6 x 500m rec. 45 sec. between tests, 4-5 min between tests). The combined action of these workouts provokes an increment in the level of AnT. You must support all this type of work with a very big volume of full Aerobic run (70-85% of the pace of the race, if you are a specialist of 5000m). Without this, the AnT grows in short time, but the athlete cannot preserve his shape for long time….>>

Now, after a few posts it comes John Andrews surprised by the Renato´s answer:

Jonh Andrews <<…These sessions, if I read them right, seem extraordinarily difficult for a runner to complete.

For instance, you said long intervals at a pace 2-3% faster than race pace (5000 meter pace) and gave the example of 3x3000m. But let us look at a very top athlete attempting to do this session, like Gebrselassie>…>>

You Tinman you come once again, saying that Renato he did a mistake:

Tinman <<…am guessing that Renato was mixing his race distances. In previous posts, Renato has discussed using paces in the 2-5% faster than marathon race pace for marathoners and 3-5% faster than half-marathon pace for 5k-10k runners. I think this is a simple mistake due to writing quickly and in a language that is not his primary one….

The concept, as I took it, is not different in context than that of JK, Dr Daniels, or me. Simply put, running some longer tempo runs or long reps at a modest pace (near half marathon race pace or the equivalent (I said 8% slower than 5k pace, for example) is one good possiblity. Doing reps at 12k to 10k pace is another good possibility for improving LT. …>>

It seems that all the people understoods that you disagree and didn´t understood correctly the previous Renato´s Post not just about the paces related to the AnT effort as well as the training concept. But read what you say in the last paragraph once again “…doing reps at 12Km 10Km pace is another possibility for improving LT>>

Atonish ! What for me that´s atonish that´s You, Mr. Tinman that I read lots of posts - and I collect them all – you say often things that goes in a rather different training direction that of moderate “LT pace” like that “take care…run into Lactate Threshold , not faster (i´m not quoting you literally just quoting by memory but I think I that this my words legitimate your main idea…since you quote Belgian Jan Olbrecht's and other physiologists as Perronet and Thiebault that you defend that lactate threshold occurs in not very intense paces as we used to train and that´s not efficient/proper to train faster than that for lactate improvement, now you say that “…doing reps at 12Km 10Km pace is another possibility for improving LT…>> ?? So, what? You did take lots of posts saying American runners do that faster than it should, now “That´s another training possibility for LT improvement”? Atonishing….After all what do you defend, what do you prescribe in terms of training ? What are youir options really? The THING and also the opposite or a different thing for the same? LT improves mainly in a “moderate pace half marathon pace to 10000m pace for 45min – a good formula you say or reps in 102-108% race Pace?”, Thus what? Because the “fast paces gets you our of shape”, or do you prescribe the improvement of LT by fast runs (98-102% Race pace? Do you prescribe both? Now, I´m very surprised if you prescribe both…

Renato is he wrong or is he right?

How amazing…With all respect it seems to me that you zig-zag from one side to another just you don´t want to miss “the last IN concept” about LT.

But let´s continue…with the post discussion…

Thus i post to say that you are wrong, that eventually that the Renato different concept than your own that´s not a “pace mistake but mainly a different concept to improve lactate management. Thus I said:

X-RUNNER <<…Thus Tinman he is wrong saying that Renato wrotes quickly in a different language than his own and thus the mistake. Simply Tinman and didn´t understood. Eventually the workout paces and workout total set distances that are a bit inflated in long reps as 3X3000m example. You see Renato deals with world top clsss runners and forgets the average runners. Eventually 3X3000m in 102-105% RP that´s more typical workout for a 10000 specialist. But the whole idea remains correct in Renato post…>>

Now, Renato posts once again correcting some details, but he I says:

Renato Canova<<…But you must not think of the type of workout (that is clearly over the Threshold, and can reach 11 - 13 mmol for a top runner well trained), but of the EFFECT of this training. The question was : what type of training do you use for improving AnT ? The answer is : a lot of run that we can check between 95 and 105 % of the speed of the race….>>

This – from my opinion dismiss you completely, your original idea. But let´s keep on…

Renato (in aonther thread) clarifies Lt problem saying:

With all respect it seems to me that you zig-zag from one side to another just for don´t miss the last word about that concept.

Renato Canova<<…But what is important to remember, is that every distance needs a specific Aerobic Support, that is not the real AnT. For example, in the case of 3000 SC/5000, we can create a MAX LASS (Maximum Lactate Steady State) of 6/8 min at a level of 11-13 mmol of lactate, and the AnT that we need is the speed at a level of 8 mmol about. So, don`t pay attention at the CONVENTIONAL THRESHOLD of 4 mmol, because is something for physiologists, but really in many case doesn´t mean anything….>>

This is complete in disagreement to what i´ve read of your posts that and your original idea that the main training for AnT that´s in “moderate paces mainly”. Can you tell me when you did say such Renato´s similar idea?

That´s not enough to say <…For now, realize that your belief in Maximum Steady State Lactate is no different than what I do. Zero difference. I use race pace for all my training formulas, just like Renato, Ferrara, and all the other scientists who coach athletes. Anybody who has my training charts knows how much I believe in using percentages of race pace in training environment….>>

That your last post idea that´s a new one (at least in that site), believe me, I collect all your posts and your express AnT training concept that´s againt this your “new” concept.

ABOUT PHYSIOLOGY VESUS TRAINING TECNIQUE

Once again, all the schedules you send me, fictitious or real you mention (you send me both) they are in physiologic paces mainly Ex: “3X1000m VO2 pace int. 3min” or “3X200m LT run”. If that´s the way you write your training schedules and you send that to your runners or don´t I don´t know, we don´t know. But take a look in your past posts here right on Let´s Run Com and that´s will be no hard to find some training schedule your advise and read “LT workout” or “Race Pace workout” or even “maintenance run”. If that names aren´t related to physiologic activity more than Paces according to Race Pace excuse-me my poor English.

Tinman. Did you also invent the wheel before me?

Take your time

Antonio Cabral

X-Runner:

Because we have different primary languages, I think it is difficult for me to understand your messages fully. I am sorry if I offended you in any way. That is not my intention.

All I know is this:

It seems to me that the training which I suggest is not too different than those used by successful Portugese runners and Italian based runners. No, I did not invent the wheel, nor did I want to imply that I am the beginning of anything, either. I have given credit often to many great coaches and runners who have helped me grow in knowledge about training and racing. YOU are included on my list of coaches that I respect and listen to. Renato is another one. I do not respect Renato any more than you just because Renato works with runners who run faster. He has much better natural talent to start with in the Kenyans. I think you have much to offer to anybody who will listen, equal to Renato.

I am very aware that some people who grew-up in the sport of running before science was strongly involved resist the use of science. You were a runner who succeeded long before you were aware of science facts, so good for you. There are some people in the world who are more inclined towards precision and as such tend to value contributions science can make. Science, however, does not detract from running or any other sport unless we choose to let it interfere. I like science because it provides me with better clarification as to why certain workouts are good to use and others are not. You may intutitively know that repeat 1000s at 5k pace minus 3% is good training, but for me, I need to have more information so that I can help others when I coach them. I hope you don't consider me a fool for wanting to learn more so that I understand more.

Regarding training, I wish to emphasize these points:

Training can be abusive for some runners if they do not have an understanding of what is appropriate. Many great athletes in the world intuitively know when to run faster and when to run slower. Many can "feel" the pace that is right and know when enough is enough. I imagine Carlos Lopes was one of those types. Great, that is just great for him...and perhaps you too!

There are others that struggle to do an amount and intensity that improves them in the long term. I am one of those types. I trained too hard and my willpower pushed me faster and longer and more often than my body could handle. Sure it was stupid of me. Sure I have regrets.

"If only I could do more. If only I would run harder and faster in practice, then I will run faster in races" Those were statements in my head. Those were what pushed me over the edge where I never could recover. It is from those failures that I asked questions such as "How much is too much? How fast is too fast? How often is too often?"

It is that desire to understand more so that I can pass on more definite benchmarks for others to follow that spurs me on. I do want others to BOTH love the sport and be successful at it. For that reason, I try to answer the questions with precision. So, I do calculate percentages of race pace for workouts. The one big difference, as I see it now, is that YOU choose to use goal (target) race pace (in the future) and I choose to use what an athlete can do now. Maybe I am wrong on this one but I am going by my experience just as you go by yours.

Some common ground:

I think we share an opinion that multiple paces are good and not just one pace.

I think we both believe that one can be quite fast in races without having to run mega-mileage. I say that good performances in the 5k can come from running roughly 130-140km per week, on average. Is that about what you would say?

I think that 10k and shorter distance runners do not need to regularly run more than 90 minutes for long runs if the pace is strong. Is that a fair statement also of your opinion on the subject?

I think that many distance runners rely on base training in which they emphasize just mileage is not necessary in many situations. I think that multiple paced training throughout the year can be used effectively, especially if one races often. What is your opinion?

I think that fast continous runs fall into two categories or tempo runs: short tempo runs and long tempo runs. Shorter tempo runs are faster. Longer tempo runs are a little slower. I often suggest that that tempo runs be part of every weekly cycle of training. Isn't that what successful Portugese runners have been doing? If that is true, then the difference is that I attach a specific velocity to the running of shorter or longer tempo runs while the Portugese run by feel at a strong effort. Is there much difference? To me, sure, there is...for those of us who lack a natural ability to know exactly what to do. We are the ones that push too hard and do not improve because we bury ourselves in training.

I think that terms like aerobic threshold and lactate threshold define workouts as within a certain range of velocities that promote certain physiologic improvements. It is my impression that you think that such terms are merely fictional (do not represent anything). This, we disagree on, for sure, but that doesn't mean that your athletes don't use this type of training. I call a flower a primrose and you call it a rosette, but is it less beautiful or smell less wonderful?

I don not want to be anybody's enemy, so let's not go at each other's throats. If my mother were alive and well, she would ask us to be friends and get along. Perhaps we can be on the same side and find way to advance running adn runners to higher levels? Tinman

Mr. Cabral,

Thank you for your thoughtful and informative messages.

I have taken much time to read through and consider them now, and am saving them to my computer for reference.

Your contributions and clarifications are much appreciated.

I have read your other messages as well, when I have been able to find them.

Thank you.

DR

Tinman wrote:

The one big difference, as I see it now, is that YOU choose to use goal (target) race pace (in the future) and I choose to use what an athlete can do now.

My impression is, and I believe this has been stated before numerouss times, this is meant to be CURRENT RACE PACE, not some fictitious or fantasy time in the future.

Since you are interested in progression, might I offer the suggestion to be more quiet and observant, as this way you might learn more? I have also noticed that your messages jump around with ideas, and thus don't have any time to read them, whereas with being more reflective and observant they might also be more useful to read.

Ok, I will try to be more reflective and observant. Thanks for being kind and not abusive. I appreciate that very much. Sincerely, Tinman

Tinman

Once again excuse me for my poor english. Eventually i made not myself clear because the language barrier. I appreciate your love running passion and your knowledge as wellc as your generous help - i said that a lot of times - but the question is that i don´t agree with you.

The world doesn´t be in tragedy or disaster because we disagree...i´m trying simply to be sincere. So, i beg you, you can say or think whatever you wish, but i need to made myself clear - about this item "training running technique" (i don´t know if that the english expression do the same meaning to you than i do) but in both items "AnT" and "training technique" I DISAGREE you with.

So how can one disagree (me) with the other (you) and you agree with me? This is in conflict/contradiction. There must be something wrong or that we miss somewhere.

Nothing personal, this is a discussion in the ideas field with polite people. But i must be sincere and say that i don´t agree with you and try to show why, the best am able, with all my language limitations. As soon i did read this your last post in this same thread i see more points of disagreement.

I thanks this discussion, this gave me an idea, there are some friends in Portugal that they do the interest and they want that i write a little article about this same subject. The supremacy of the training technique over training science. Then later on, with the help of my englsh friends, they would me help to translate that to correct my wrong english. Let´s see if that helps that then you may understand better my point of view, my own ideas. But let me take my time. After the Olympics.

But the point is that in your last post, you keep saying that you agree with me, but i don´t agree with yo. This is not a question that i want or wish that you agree with me or you don´t. This is a matter that we can call a flower a primerose or a rosette but we can´t call black to the blue, or darkness to the bright light.

Just a few more quotes from your last post that i disagree.

<<<...I like science because it provides me with better clarification as to why certain workouts are good to use and others are not. You may intuitively know that repeat 1000s at 5k pace minus 3% is good training, but for me, I need to have more information so that I can help others when I coach them. I hope you don't consider me a fool for wanting to learn more so that I understand more. >>>

Tinman. This is not true ! With all respect you turn the arguments for your party/side. You classify the workout validation by intuition, but they aren´t. What tell us that they are good or bad that knowledge that´s "training running technique" that´s also a science based on the systematic direct experience in the concrete/real terrain - not intuition. It could be start as intuition, but after a while you collect the fruits of that experience. A little more ahead and you will tell me that´s metaphysics...

First i don´t know "intuitively" nether by the "science" that 1000m reps at a 5k pace minus 3% is a good training. We all know that a long ago by the "training technique" - because training technique validate that, or you were not here talking about such a workout, because the science didn´t invent that. This your workout (right that´s a mere example) was invented, created, defined, used as a "training workout standard" some decades ago then and later on WAS APPROPRIATED by the physiologists and then (now i agree) you study with your so called new knowledge the science and most of the times come back the same as it did go: 4-5-1000m with 3min intervals for a 5000m target i´ve read that in a book from 1912 year !

Do you think that´s a coincidence that after so long studies, test labs, investigation, the physiologists they come out with the same workouts that they did exist previously.

One more example. Recently i read a article from French Madame Billat. She is considered a world expert in VO2 tests and physiology for long distances (triathlon, running...). She do that for years. After a long experience she gets the conclusion that the best specific workouts for distance running improvement are 20X200m with 200m jog and 10-20X1min IN-OUT and also 3min IN-OUT or 5X1000m with 3 minutes jog. What? The mountain did born a rat? That workouts aren´t familiar to us all since a long ago? What´s new? I did read another book recently that the title is "Was ist modern training ?" 1966 from the great Tony Nett. Fist Chapters he talks about training science. Late chapters that´s the schedules of world top class runner all over the world. What i see? a few of them they did 10-20X1min IN-OUT; Gaston Roelants usual workouts they are 20X200m and 5X1000m with 3 minutes pause. This is in 1963, before he win the Olympics in the steeple. What a coincidence ! But that´s not that he did that by intuition, but by training technique. Ans that a long experience in the "field terrain" that did "validate" those workouts that they exist, even before the science study and analyse them.

The science simply pick that from the runners, and later on send them back, and what to make us believe that´s new, that´s modern.

Recently i read another book from Peter Coe and Martin, you know. Martin talks about physiology, biomechanics and good science concepts, but when it comes to train Sebastian Coe really, the hill workouts, the track workouts, they weren´t created by Martin, but by Peter with the help of the "training technique" mainly in the good stuff workouts of the english tradition, not in science concepts. It worked and did success in the case of Sebastian as we know. Coe did the performances and the results. Now, that´s easy to write a book with lots of physiologic concepts according to what he did. But you want to know - it was all "training technique. Believe me. That´s what i want to say by "they think that they invented the wheel".

In respect for your good standard workouts (those i know)they are so similar to all the rest, that i don´t believe that´s your science Knowledge support that "validate" them.

If they are originals - and they are also, not in the inner structure but more in the formats - that´s because you check them in the terrain with your runners an operation that have little to do with science. As i say, science that´s just the "background" not the "frontline"

You say "...I think we both believe ....that good performances in the 5k can come from running roughly 130-140km per week, on average. I think that 10k and shorter distance runners do not need to regularly run more than 90 minutes for long runs if the pace is strong. ...I think that many distance runners rely on base training in which they emphasize just mileage is not necessary in many situations. I think that multiple paced training throughout the year can be used effectively, especially if one races often. What is your opinion?..."

Yes i agree, as concepts, but as you agree we need to study each individual case. But ther´s no valid science to support that. I agree, by "trail and error", experience that it transfers that to "training technique" not for science conclusions. Besides science don´t contribute at all or gives a small contribution to all that above conclusions we both agree.

i hope this time you will understand better my main idea - not that you agree with me or ther´s no discussion...

Finnaly, I advise you to read a Renato Canova that he posts earlier. I imagine that it would helps you to understand my own idea, if I don´t betray Renato´s ideas.

<<…I want to explain better because I don't believe very much in science about running. There are two kinds of science : one is INDUCTIVE SCIENCE, as for ex. mathematics or physics, in which you can plan a project and build the action following what you planned at the table before.

Another is DEDUCTIVE or EXPERIMENTAL SCIENCE, like medicine, in which you can only explain what happens. So, for explaining a phenomenon, you must investigate itself. The question is : how many times scientists were able to investigate top athletes, and in this case top runners, expecially if kenyans ? I read books in which one of the reasons of top kenyan results was individuated in a "very high level of hematocrite", for ex. I tested not only all my athletes, many times, but also 64 athletes very young, in Eldoret, in '99, when I was responsable for IAAF of a stage with 22 African Countries (each one with one coach, two youth male and two youth female), and I found levels of hemoglobin very low (9.5 - 11) and of hematocrite the same (32-36). I thought that was another calibration in the machine, so I tested like control myself : I had my normal values (14.8 and 42), so the difference was really in the blood, not in the machine !

But this means that who wrote the books, NEVER TESTED ANYONE, WRITING FALSE INFORMATIONS. So, you read many times something not true, thinking that that is SPECIFIC KNOWLEDGE, and you think to know. NOTHING MORE WRONG !

I also thought that training was different, till when I could coach directly african runners, appreciating the difference and giving them something from our knowledge.

For ex., top runners of 5000 can run for about 8 min at a steady state level of 9-10 mmol of lactate, having a MAX LASS so high that all physiologists don't think possible. But THIS IS WHAT HAPPENS, not what is possible to investigate having a group of students like models…>>

Take your time

Antonio Cabral

It is incorrect to base training strategy purely on physiological principles. One of the main reasons for this is that we still do not know exactly what the limiting factors to human performance are. Without knowing this it is impossible to target specific training at reducing the effect of these factors.

Tim Noakes is a physiologist who claims to be believing more and more that psychological and other factors effect performance more than was once believed. He has also demonstrated that running performance is a better predictor of running performance than any physiological variable (surprise surprise!). There are just too many interrelated variables to base training on physiology alone. Look at the links below:

http://www-rohan.sdsu.edu/dept/coachsci/csa/vol31/rushall1.htm

http://www-rohan.sdsu.edu/dept/coachsci/csa/vol71/noakes.htm

You are right Dunes. That´s by the Current/Average Pace in "specific control tests" or "time-trails" that we estimate/extrapolate the Race Pace for the Target Goal Distance, not "in the future Race Pace". Anyhow that´s a prediction, but as we have an average range to work (98% to 102%), that´s no problem at all.

BECAUSE THE SPECIFIC WORKOUT IS MATHEMATIC : 10 times 3 min are 30 min, and if you are not able running 3 times 3 min, you are not ready for running in 30'. External Load is objective, beeing the same for everyone.

That´s not me that say this last paragraph, that´s Roberto Canova in a old post.

X-Runner: OK, science sucks! It is all wrong. You win. Let us move on. Tinman

Tinman -

It's not right or wrong, just irrelevant. ;^)

irrrelevent is not a word.

dunes runner wrote:

Tinman -

It's not right or wrong, just irrelevant. ;^)

Somehow i just get the idea that X-Runner has misinterpreted Tinman.

"Tinman. This is not true ! With all respect you turn the arguments for your party/side. You classify the workout validation by intuition, but they aren´t. What tell us that they are good or bad that knowledge that´s "training running technique" that´s also a science based on the systematic direct experience in the concrete/real terrain - not intuition. It could be start as intuition, but after a while you collect the fruits of that experience. A little more ahead and you will tell me that´s metaphysics..."

I believe that Tinman's appeal to science is just to understand what the effects of a workout are on the body. I think that helps him create better inductive generalizations regarding workouts, etc, so that he can understand training better. The "Training Running Techniue" is indeed a form of science--using methodology, experience. I believe Lydiard appeals to it in his books--discussing the superiority of Aerobic training--as well as practical experience. yet, its the kind of common language, like Max VO2, that allows people to grasp the intracacies of a workout, and help coaches effectively impement it.

Just some thoughts said in respect...

Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary

One entry found for irrelevant.

Main Entry: ir·rel·e·vant

Pronunciation: -v&nt

Function: adjective

: not relevant : INAPPLICABLE

http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?irrelevant

bumper, let's hear some more about why science is not relevant in training.

X-RUNNER wrote:

In that aspect Lopes was also a unique case, a great mystery. I know that there are coaches - nowdays - that they say: if i did train Lopes he will be even better thah he was, but i guess they are completly wrong i guess.

Renato Canova wrote:

(Kemboi ran) 4 sets of 600/500/400/300/200m (2 min rec. and 5 min among sets) in 1'33" / 1'16" / 60" / 44" / 28", he was able running the last 200m (free) in 23"7 ! So, speaking with him, I understood that he was not fast BECAUSE WAS SURE TO BE SLOW. He decided to try, changing his mentality.

Mr. Cabral,

Do you think workouts such as this by Nicolas Kemboi would have any significance for a runner such as Carlos Lopes, at any portion of training? Or if not for Lopes, then for a runner with good endurance but lacking speed.

I remember you saying the 1-2-3 program gives ehough speed but am curious if you have more to comment on this.

Thank you.

The running technique comes mainly through experience and the use.

EXPERIENCE - The apprehension of an object, thought, or emotion through the senses or mind. Active participation in events or activities, leading to the accumulation of knowledge or skill. The knowledge or skill so derived. An event or a series of events participated in or lived through. The totality of such events in the past of an individual or group.

The experience that´s the number of times you do (see) real actions and the fruits (knowledge) becomes “running technique”.

The running science comes mainly through experiments.

EXPERIMENT - A test under controlled conditions that is made to demonstrate a known truth, examine the validity of a hypothesis, or determine the efficacy of something previously untried. The process of conducting such a test; experimentation.

The experimentation, that´s the act to work with experiences, that´s the prime method of the “physic” sciences as physiology. Thus in labs or follow a preview protocol, taking accurate “measures”, but mainly are provoke activities. The experimentation that´s the prime method of the science. The fruits (knowledge) that you get from a oriented running experiments that´s “running science” as exercise physiology that´s a science department.