Isn't "Event Specificity" More Important Than "VO2max" And "LT" Zones And All That?

I read, when I can (in Kenya we had a week of blackout...), with very much interest all the messages on this argument.

If I well remember, somebody asked to define the difference between GENERAL, SPECIAL and SPECIFIC.

a) GENERAL is all that training that has the goal to increase our qualities, like base for improving the performance.

I want to explain this with an example.

The TALENT of an athlete is like MONEY for somebody wanting to build his house. If you are Gebre, your house can be a skyscraper of 60 floors. If you are a normal athlete, may be a house of 10 floors. But, in any case, BEFORE BUILDING THE HOUSE, YOU HAVE TO BUY THE MATERIAL YOU WANT TO USE.

This is the General period. You must look for increasing your general resistance (basic for every sport), your strength, your cohordination, your rapidity (don't make confusion between RAPIDITY, that is a NERVOUS QUALITY, and SPEED : Speed is a combination of STRENGTH and RAPIDITY).

We work for several months (depending on the event) for increasing these qualities.

b) SPECIAL is that training that is connected with the Specifity of the event, but not still very specific. For example, if we use plyometric exercises for a jumper, THIS IS A SPECIAL EXERCISES : SPECIFIC is when we really jump, giving particular attention to the TECHNIQUE of the event.

In the case of a runner, when we go for speed that are faster than 10% of the speed of the race, or slower than 10%/15% (depending on the event), we can speak about SPECIAL SPEED TRAINING. When we work for increasing STRENGTH, we work in GENERAL WAY, but when we work for incresing STRENGTH ENDURANCE, extending the duration of the exercises, we work in SPECIAL WAY.

c) SPECIFIC is that training DIRECTLY connected with the event. Running 3 x 600m in 1'18" with 10' recovery for a runner of 1'44" is SPECIFIC, running 8 x 600m in 1'24" with 5' is SPECIAL, running 12 x 600m in 1'30" with 2' is GENERAL.

So, during the SPECIAL period we have already some SPECIFIC workout, and during the SPECIFIC period we continue with some SPECIAL workout. The limit between SPECIAL and SPECIFIC is very little, we move from one period to the other only modifying the percentage of one type of training compared with the other.

Also during the SPECIFIC period, we need to have, every 3 weeks about, a SPECIAL period lasting the same time, for refreshing the SPECIFIC qualities that we use for the performance, in SPECIAL way. This means to reduce a little the intensity (but not so much), to go for some SPECIAL exercise again (for example, we don't use plyometric exercises during the main 3 weeks of competitions, but, during the next period of 3 weeks WITHOUT competitions, we use them again), and to increase the volume again. Only using in correct way a modulation between intensity and quantity, and between Special and Specific training, during the competitive season, we can maintain for long time a top pick of shape.

Other thing : I see a lot of messages about the influence of Lydiard. I was, of sure, very much influenced by Lydiard, also because I started to coach very young, in 1965, and Lydiard was a winning model with his theories. But, frankly, this querelle seems to me ridicolous.

If we want that every kind of research, and every invention, can be useful for the future, we ALWAYS have to give a big merit to the beginner of the development, but we cannot stop at his beginning point. So, one thing are the principles and the phylosophy, that are still a basic "law" for all the best coaches for middle and long distances in the World, another thing their application, because science, methodology, experiences and research were able to go ahead during the last 40 years.

If somebody knows the history of methodology, knows that we had in the past several coaches that influenced full generations of athletes. Mihail Igloi, for example, the Hungarian that coached Iharos (WRH from 1500 to 10000 in the years 1955-56), Szabo, Rozsavolgyi. Or Van Aaken, the first studying the effects of long, long run on capyllarization. Or the French Frassinelli, coach of Michel Jazy (running 3 hours at very slow pace, also after beating the record of 2000 and 5000m with 13'24").

You have particular attention for Lydiard, because he was a coach of English language, and wrote books in this language. But you don't know the ideas and the phylosophy of coaches from eastern Countries, for example, that influenced the guru of Ethiopia, Woldemastre Kostre, going in Hungarian University for his scientific preparation.

I don't understand, and don't know, and I'm not interested in knowing, anything about electricity, but I'm very happy that somebody discovered and invented and developed it, so, when I go in a dark room, I have to press the bottom only for lightning it. This means that I don't waste time in trying to understand what is COMMON USE, but I start from there for going ahead with my job.

You are in the Country of the Phylosopher of Pragmatism, James. Try to be more pragmatic : the final goal is not to discuss who was, or is, better between the great coaches of the history, but to know the way for making the athletes faster. For doing this, you have to use ALL YOUR KNOWLEDGE, not limiting yourself to one source only.

See here we have a man who is a master coach! We can surely develop ourselves just by taking in some of his lifetime of accumulated knowledge.

The final statement he makes sums everything up.

"the final goal is not to discuss who was, or is, better between the great coaches of the history, but to know the way for making the athletes faster. For doing this, you have to use ALL YOUR KNOWLEDGE, not limiting yourself to one source only." quote

So we can research Mr Canovo himself, or Mr Lydiard or Mr Igloi or Peter Coe. We can look up the training of all the greats of each event and study them. We can define the principles by which the sport works and develop a philosophy of our own. We can do the thinking and the analysis and increase our understanding. And we can practise coaching.

It's not a process of creating dichotomies as i mentioned before. It's a process of removing them.

To say long running is better than interval training or physiological development is more important than race pace training is merely a naive approach. A more developed approach is already saying - how do we balance these two factors up.

It is not being judgemental and saying one way is better than the other. It has accepted that neither is superior.

Now it can get on with the job of blending both together in a training program, for a specific event and then for a specific person.

Blend - Balance

A good cake needs so much flour and so much sugar and so many eggs etc. We can measure out the proportions of each. I think this is like what Renato is saying about purchasing the materials. A scientist/coach can read the science behind running and can discover those proportions.

Next is the time for the artist/coach. How to blend those ingredients together at the right times, in the right combinations. How long to let it simmer before adding the next ingredient. How slowly or quickly to add the next ingredient. And so on.

Be like a cake-baker my coach.

Skuj wrote:

Training to train? :) And "specific" training is training to race.

?????????

"Training to train" is a phrase that has always bugged the heck out of me. All training is geared toward racing. Sure as one becomes fitter, one becomes able to do more challenging training. But the ultimate goal is always the race. Let's not forget that.

Skuj wrote:

I was trying to save this thread. Did I? :)

If insulting positive contributors to this thread is your idea of a save, then you have succeeded in spades.

(My apologies to the rest of you, but I did not take kindly to this guy's undeserved insults.)

Renato:

Thank you for explaining Specific, Special, etc.

In the example of 600 repeats, assuming Konchellah and Cram were both 1:44 athletes, how would you approach their workout? I'm guessing Konchellah would need more rest than Cram. Would they be good workouts for both athletes at the speeds given in the example?

Thank you.

Kuoy wrote:

Skuj wrote:

I was trying to save this thread. Did I? :)

If insulting positive contributors to this thread is your idea of a save, then you have succeeded in spades.

(My apologies to the rest of you, but I did not take kindly to this guy's undeserved insults.)

wtf are you talking about? are you cracked? what insults?

The "events" of pages 22-24 will give some indication of Kuoy's motives. As long as I'm at letsrun, I have to accept that Andrew Skujins will hound me, twist my words, etc etc. I'll move past it.

Renato, thank you again for your time / comments.....digesting....

I believe you Skuj for what it's worth.

Renato Canova wrote:

Also during the SPECIFIC period, we need to have, every 3 weeks about, a SPECIAL period lasting the same time, for refreshing the SPECIFIC qualities that we use for the performance, in SPECIAL way. This means to reduce a little the intensity (but not so much), to go for some SPECIAL exercise again (for example, we don't use plyometric exercises during the main 3 weeks of competitions, but, during the next period of 3 weeks WITHOUT competitions, we use them again), and to increase the volume again. Only using in correct way a modulation between intensity and quantity, and between Special and Specific training, during the competitive season, we can maintain for long time a top pick of shape.

Fascinating! Modulating DURING the race season!? There must be much picking and choosing of the races to do.

Thanks again, Renato.

Any comments on 2:04:26? :) I'm seeing in various forums that 7:20, 12:37, 26:17 are considered "harder", and I feel that many don't give 2:04:26 the untimate respect mostly because at 34, Geb is "past his prime", and maybe he would do 2:03 if he concentrated on the Marathon in his 20s.

lbj wrote:

wtf are you talking about? are you cracked? what insults?

See page 24. Skuj was commenting on someone stealing his name and I asked him how that could be. The next thing I know he's accusing me of trying to destroy the thread. With the exception of this post and my previous one defending my honor, I have tried to offer positive contributions to this thread. Alas, we cannot say the same for Skuj.

Kuoy wrote:

This is important. While the Law of Specificity cannot be ignored, general training -- including weights, plyos, hills, striders, flying sprints, etc. -- all play an important role in the overall success of a runner.

Please reference any exact quotes. ;0

are you referring to the Miller article?

Renato Canova wrote:

Also during the SPECIFIC period, we need to have, every 3 weeks about, a SPECIAL period lasting the same time, for refreshing the SPECIFIC qualities that we use for the performance, in SPECIAL way. This means to reduce a little the intensity (but not so much), to go for some SPECIAL exercise again (for example, we don't use plyometric exercises during the main 3 weeks of competitions, but, during the next period of 3 weeks WITHOUT competitions, we use them again), and to increase the volume again. Only using in correct way a modulation between intensity and quantity, and between Special and Specific training, during the competitive season, we can maintain for long time a top pick of shape.

An example of going to more special training in the middle of the racing period would be Steve Scott. In 1982 steve had 8 weeks from 1/4 to 2/28 racing just about every week (sometimes twice) with race specific track work and lower overall mileage. Then for 4 weeks from 3/1 to 3/28 Scott raised his mileage up to the 90's and goes back to "base training" for a bit before coming down in mileage a bit and returining with renewed "special" race specific qualities.

I hope I didn't say 65% more O2 for fat, because I left out a decimal if I did -- 6.5% (actually more like 7%). The point is that the kcalories provided from fat metabolism are about 7% less for each liter of Oxygen consumed -- you get 4.7Kcals from a liter of O2 burning fat and 5.05 Kcals from a liter of Oxygen using carbohydrate, thus we tend to say carbohydrate is a more effective fuel for the amount of oxygen you consume.

In the German speaking part of the world we use the long run (for marathons) as "fat-metabolism-run". The hope is, that by "burning" more fat its metabolism is trained somehow, so that at the same effort more fat is used than before in order to get the marathon done without running out of glycogene.

Your figures suggest, that it might be better to just optimize the glycogene stores, so that they reach as long as possible (maybe by doing a lot of glycogene depletion runs, eg. long runs in the morning without breakfast before).

Concerning specificity: I find it strange, that only target speed is seen as specific. You can also see target distance as specific or any other parameter that supports you in the given race. Some parameters have an obvious contribution to the race and for others it is not so "visible".

In German methodology Neumann and Hottenrott distinguish between steady, repeating and complex efforts in training, where complex is mostly a race or a trial.

I think it depends on the race distance (and of course of the athlete) how much target pace is necessary. For the 5k and the halfmarathon you may benefit a lot, because the pace is near VO2max and threshold pace. For marathon pace it is more brain that is trained (or the nervous system) as well as to build some confidence (I don't have experience in middle distances).

If you have a target (a race with a specific pace) you mostly have a point where to start (the state of the athelete). This starting point is commonly overseen. Renato Canova goes into the right direction in analyzing the abilities of the athlete first, before setting up a training schedule.

To sum up Mr. Canovas idea: find the "bottle neck" (speed, endurance,...) in the training of the athlete and work against it.

What is this German word translator?

sprinter800 wrote:

What is this German word translator?

I don't understand your question. It's an English word, I think.

ah - no i meant the word for 'fat-matabolism-run'

We call it "Fettstoffwechsellauf" (Fett -> fat, Stoffwechsel -> metabolism, Lauf -> run). The idea is, that you have a maximum of fat encyme activity in the blood at a certain effort (eg. 75% of HFmax). By having this activity for a longer time, it is thought, that this activity is somehow "trained", so you are using more fat at a quicker pace and therefore you can run longer with your glycogene. But as jtupper showed, you will also need more oxygene for it. So I have no idea, where the optimum is. And by the way: you do not only train the fat metabolism with the long run but also the glycogene storage and maybe other systems as well. So I am a little bit confused, to get this all into a right order.