| Pages: | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | |
| J.R. |
| ||
Why don't you let him answer it, and in the meantime read what he's said already - instead of making up crap about Lydiard which is totally wrong. No one who is any good these days learned it from Lydiard.
See what I'm saying, you keep going on and on about Lydiard, making up stuff trying to present it as fact, and you want no one to respond to you???? That is just nuts. You sound like gypsy. In fact I wonder how many nicknames gypsy has used on this thread. |
| a closer look |
| ||
but do they really run faster and work harder? I was just looking at Kiplagat's and Mosop's schedules for Dec 08 and Jan-Feb 09 and they were running +50% of their miles at regeneration/recovery pace. Aerobic/easy miles usually made up another 20-30%. Actual fast running wasn't that much. Sure, it seemed mind boggling how fast and long they were running, but if you convert it to your own times it really isn't that much faster or harder than I see most people training at already. In fact, my first thought was that WE train too hard when looking at the bulk of regeneration and easy miles they were doing. |
| The Common Man |
| ||
|
--------------------------- See what I'm saying, you keep going on and on about Lydiard, making up stuff trying to present it as fact, and you want no one to respond to you???? That is just nuts. You sound like gypsy. In fact I wonder how many nicknames gypsy has used on this thread. --------------------------- The only thing I'm perhaps making up is the top 1%~ figure (the type of athletes C's methods have been shown to work on ), that's why I have a '~' at the end as it's just a guess really. I would not try to present any of my views as fact as it could be quite embarrassing if I was then shown to be wrong. I don't understand your problem with talking about Lydiard as you pointed to a post where the first sentence C wrote was: "a) Aerobic training is the most important part of the preparation. Without a wide aerobic base, in my opinion it's not possible to reach the top personal level. In this I have the same idea of Lydiard." So I'm not making anything up. This is C's own opinion which characterize his philosophy and "is the most important part of the preparation". It would be really helpful if you could detail the success you and your friends had in your C type training. Hopefully I could learn a few things from you, providing you are not some type of super runners and it can work for the common man like me. Please JR? tks! |
| Jackanory |
| ||
but do they really run faster and work harder? I was just looking at Kiplagat's and Mosop's schedules for Dec 08 and Jan-Feb 09 and they were running +50% of their miles at regeneration/recovery pace. Aerobic/easy miles usually made up another 20-30%. Actual fast running wasn't that much. Sure, it seemed mind boggling how fast and long they were running, but if you convert it to your own times it really isn't that much faster or harder than I see most people training at already. In fact, my first thought was that WE train too hard when looking at the bulk of regeneration and easy miles they were doing.[/quote] That's an observation that I would tend to agree with. Though, as many of Canova's athletes are running up to 150 miles per week .... the proportion of faster running may be relatively small but key workouts (e.g. 10-15 x 1K) can be very taxing ... after all that's the crux of the training .... key sessions that match the intensity/length of the specific race target. Western runners have a tendency to run inapproriately fast session (e.g. 5/10K runners running 10 x 400m @ mile pace), & running their "easy" / "recovery" mileage too fast. |
| J.R. |
| ||
Well said. |
| J.R. |
| ||
The thing is, you said therefore he got the idea from Lydiard. NO, he did not say he got the idea from Lydiard, any more than Lydiard got the idea from him. Canova said they have the same (or similar) idea. That's it, period. I have the same idea too. So do many others have this idea. But not the same as Lydiard see. Paavo Nurmi had this idea, and he also ran sprints up steep hills. See what I'm saying. So it's a general idea, but not a Lydiard idea. In the case of Canova, it's a Canova idea, because Canova sets up his programs the way that he sets them up, not the same as anyone else. |
| another canuck |
| ||
|
No, I think you are wildly misinterpreting his program.The last thing he is saying is that we are training too hard. The first part of my comment relates to the fact that traditionally, we never do things like 2x3k @95% 5k pace. In fact we (generalizing) think a big workout is 10x400@60 etc. The other thing we never do is 8k hard tempo in the morning followed by 6x600 hard in the pm. Those are just two examples. The second part of my comment relates to the fact that Canova says after a couple of years, easy long running is not adding anything. He doesn't mean (nor do I) on recovery days after hard workouts, but on general distance days. What I have personally taken from his program, and used with reasonable success the past few years, is the long fast interval (3x2k for 3k-5k guys, and 2k +2k +1k for my 800/1500 guys) I think his program works well at all levels, and whether you are either coach or athlete, you simply try and see what works for you, with appropriate adaptations. To make an obvious point, he is not suggesting 4x1600@3:56 for anyone unless you can run 7:30, 12:48! But for we lesser mortals who can run 3:50, 8:20, perhaps try 3x1600@4:05-4:08. All I can tell you is that it has worked fairly well for my group, which reflects a typical range of good high school and univ runners. |
| ggg |
| ||
|
When Canova says that after a couple of years, easy long running is not adding anything shows he has not understood Lydiard. In his book Arthur makes a huge point that you should run at your best aerobic pace. For elite runners he says typically 3.15-3.45 per kilometer. This is not easy long running. |
| ordinary man |
| ||
d) After no longer than 2-3 years, easy long run doesn't produce any effect. If somebody thinks the process of capillarization can last for ever, he's wrong. After opening ALL THE VESSELS that is possible to open in his body (and this happens during the first 3 years, if his training is enough), the only way for increasing the Aerobic Power is the intensity. In this point I'm very far from Lydiard. e) Aerobic doesn't mean slow running. Truth for world class runner as well as average talent. |
| retarded poster |
| ||
Go away, Gypsy. |
| rekrunner |
| ||
|
Elephant in the room? Canova's training is suitable for everyone. There is no reason to think you are at increased risk of getting injured/burned out, so long as you respect certain principles. When we speak of principles, these are broad concepts like "overload", "recovery", "super-compensation", "specificity", "progression", "reversibility", "balance", "individualization", maybe more, maybe less. Lydiard principles and Canova principles are largely, if not exactly, the same, although there are some differences in emphasis and approach, for example with "progression", and "specificity". When we speak of injury and burn-out, this is avoided by applying principles like "balance", "recovery", "variation", and "individualization". These are principles emphasized by both Canova and Lydiard, not to mention every long term successful coach. But there are important differences between Canova's and Lydiard's application of the principles, and in their training focus and methods. For example, although both use periodization, the individual phases are completely different. Lydiard recommended a "simple non-linear" approach structured to peak at a certain point in the training, while Canova uses a "complex linear" approach, that develops qualities in a progressive fashion. Both approaches are field proven to work well for a wide range of athletes. Let's look more deeply how Canova says he is "very far from Lydiard". Without commenting on how far is "very far", he used it in two cases, to talk about "easy long runs", and using "aerobic" intervals. In the first case, Lydiard says in one of his books, regarding 100 mpw, something like "when you can run 100mpw, don't run more, but run them faster". Lydiard also increased the intensity of the easy runs, as the athlete progresses. Maybe Canova's paces end up faster, but it seems a common mistake to think that all of Lydiard's "aerobic" mileage remains slow and easy as the athlete progresses over the years. In the second case, if we imagine that intervals can be either "aerobic" or "anaerobic", then Canova uses both kinds of interval training in the different phases. Lydiard only used "anaerobic" interval training, and only during the "anaerobic phase". In the aerobic base-building phase, Lydiard might have you doing fartlek training, or running on undulating courses, and over time you might get a variety of aerobic intensities, but Lydiard didn't have a bunch of different names for these different aerobic intensities. He just emphasized variety which likely covered a lot of bases. Lydiard often described anaerobic training, not in terms of speed, but simply as training that brings down the arterial blood pH. Using this definition, Canova's "aerobic" interval session could be included in a Lydiard base-building phase, without violating the aerobic/anaerobic concept, but I think it's safe to say that Lydiard simply didn't use these kind of structured "aerobic" interval sessions, especially the precise way Canova does. But nothing in these two points, "very far from Lydiard", suggests an increased risk of injury or burning-out, so long as you properly combine and apply the previously mentioned principles.
|
| ggg |
| ||
|
I am not gypsy! I think WEJO can confirm that this is a different IP address. |
| Euro Runner |
| ||
Do you mean 3:50 for the mile and 8:20 for the 2 mile? If you mean for the 1500m and 3000m then that 3x1600m workout seems VERY fast (1500m PB pace). |
| another canuck |
| ||
|
Good catch. I meant 1500m @ 4:05-08 |
| Jackanory |
| ||
|
[quote]rekrunner wrote: Elephant in the room? Canova's training is suitable for everyone. There is no reason to think you are at increased risk of getting injured/burned out, so long as you respect certain principles. ... When we speak of principles, these are broad concepts like "overload", "recovery", "super-compensation", "specificity", "progression", "reversibility", "balance", "individualization", maybe more, maybe less. Lydiard principles and Canova principles are largely, if not exactly, the same, although there are some differences in emphasis and approach, for example with "progression", and "specificity". ...When we speak of injury and burn-out, this is avoided by applying principles like "balance", "recovery", "variation", and "individualization". These are principles emphasized by both Canova and Lydiard, not to mention every long term successful coach. ...But there are important differences between Canova's and Lydiard's application of the principles, and in their training focus and methods. For example, although both use periodization, the individual phases are completely different. Lydiard recommended a "simple non-linear" approach structured to peak at a certain point in the training, while Canova uses a "complex linear" approach, that develops qualities in a progressive fashion. Both approaches are field proven to work well for a wide range of athletes. ... Let's look more deeply how Canova says he is "very far from Lydiard". Without commenting on how far is "very far", he used it in two cases, to talk about "easy long runs", and using "aerobic" intervals. ...In the first case, Lydiard says in one of his books, regarding 100 mpw, something like "when you can run 100mpw, don't run more, but run them faster". Lydiard also increased the intensity of the easy runs, as the athlete progresses. Maybe Canova's paces end up faster, but it seems a common mistake to think that all of Lydiard's "aerobic" mileage remains slow and easy as the athlete progresses over the years. ... In the second case, if we imagine that intervals can be either "aerobic" or "anaerobic", then Canova uses both kinds of interval training in the different phases. Lydiard only used "anaerobic" interval training, and only during the "anaerobic phase". In the aerobic base-building phase, Lydiard might have you doing fartlek training, or running on undulating courses, and over time you might get a variety of aerobic intensities, but Lydiard didn't have a bunch of different names for these different aerobic intensities. He just emphasized variety which likely covered a lot of bases. Lydiard often described anaerobic training, not in terms of speed, but simply as training that brings down the arterial blood pH. Using this definition, Canova's "aerobic" interval session could be included in a Lydiard base-building phase, without violating the aerobic/anaerobic concept, but I think it's safe to say that Lydiard simply didn't use these kind of structured "aerobic" interval sessions, especially the precise way Canova does. ...But nothing in these two points, "very far from Lydiard", suggests an increased risk of injury or burning-out, so long as you properly combine and apply the previously mentioned principles. (Quote) REK, That's just about the most sensible, intelligent, balanced post I've read on these forums. |
| J.R. |
| ||
??????
This is exactly one of the big DIFFERENCES between the Lydiard and Canova training programs. I already pointed this out with the example of my friend, a long term Lydiard proponent. |
| ggg |
| ||
|
yeah one wonders why he keeps coming back. But not all criticism is idiotic. |
| rekrunner |
| ||
|
Thanks for noticing.
|
| rekrunner |
| ||
|
J.R. Do you have a question? Yes the words "principles", "focus", "method", "approach", "emphasis", are different English words, with different meanings. Underlying principles can be the same, yet lead to vastly different implementations. Lydiard applied the principles of "progression" and "specificity", as does Canova, but they are applied differently. Yes, you gave us yet another anecdote, about your friend, whom you conveniently labeled as a Lydiard advocate, yet concede that he gets one part of Lydiard, but not another. What exactly did you point out again? When you say "this is the big DIFFERENCE", what do you mean by "this"? Try to be more clear when you post. Try to give some objective data to support your viewpoints, instead of subjective anecdotes.
|
| J.R. |
| ||
The question was, what the blazes are you going on about.
No, the only story of my friend was several pages ago. No, I did not conveniently label him. No, I did not concede anything. My friend's and my view of Lydiard is much the same as your view about Lydiard. In fact I agree with what you said about Lydiard. It is interesting that you think he is missing something, since you both think the same.
Why don't you go back and read it, instead of to ask me again. Where you said they are the same, that Canova's is the same, it is not the SAME, it is totally different, which I stated in the example of my friend several pages ago (not "new" anecdote).
That this is not clear to you, shows that it's where you're stuck and probably have been stuck in that same place for awhile. So it can take a lot of work to get past that point, to move from being stuck to enlightenment. The first step is to open your mind, to be aware, and open to new possibilities. Most of all to have the intention to learn. |