|Pages: | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 ||
Sorry J.R., I over-reacted.
Yes, there are differences in the training. I would say, and did say, the DIFFERENT training is based on the SAME underlying principles. I thought this was clearly expressed.
You said your friend didn't understand "regeneration and recovery". This is the Lydiard thing I think he was "missing". But we can leave it at that -- he's a Lydiard advocate who doesn't fully understand recovery.
Thank you, Rekrunner, that is generous of you to day.
I feel the underlying principles you suggested are rather obscure, too general, not specific enough, and therefore not all that important as you think. For example if I specifically go to the grocery store at the periodicity of once a week - that doesn't mean that my shopping is the same as the training of Canova, nor of Lydiard.
In your explanation of Lydiard, to which we all seem to agree, the emphasis is on constantly increasing the overall aerobic pace and pressure on the heart, with a more or less daily emphasis throughout the training cycles.
I see these things as being a big difference between them in a number of ways. The biggest gap from my view is the contradiction between best aerobic pace every day, vs regeneration and recovery. Thse are not the same thing.
You say my friend doesn't understand this about Lydiard (though I think he understands better than you), however you both have the same view of Lydiard, and I have the same view of Lydiard, because that IS the Lydiard view, also published in his books. So it's hard to run and hide from that and to try and say it's something else, not the same.
JR .. you still have not answered my question .. How many Waiatarua's have you run ?.
Which leads me to your latest post to rekrunner. It is true that the Lydiard view is published as you say (in regard to Aerobics pace) ..... and as has been said many times .. AL never wanted schedules published .. I can't recall who it was said they struggled with much of what AL said in the books but on meeting him and talking with him made a huge difference.
Regarding .. Recovery and regeneration .. you will find nothing about this anywhere in his books written "as such" .. but I am aware that there have been athletes here in NZ advised to look at their "recovery". I have heard words like "Until the "zip" comes back to your legs".
I believe there is a lot of "misinterpretion" regarding AL .... I know he was quite dogmatic about things but his training was evolving .. Don't forget he did not start "Coaching" until into his 40's and he was still holding down a "normal' job until well into his 50's. Making comparison's with Professional athletes Coaching of the 2010's makes discussions quite difficult when one person has been dead for a number of years. Yet I see Renato writing "positively" about AL .. just because he may disagree with aspects to me is not a major .. after all AL was experimenting with all sorts of training to see what worked for the athletes he was working with at the time .. the modern Coaches have taken aspects of what the Coaches of the past (not just AL) did and developed them further.
But if we are both training for 10Ks, then specificity means something the same to the both of us. The difference is that Lydiard will only introduce specificity quite late in the cycle, in the coordination phase, while Canova introduces race related paces (general, special, specific) from the beginning. The principle is the same, but the implementation is different.
Principles are broad concepts, so I think it's incorrect to say that the main difference is coming from the principles. The main difference is in the implementation of the principles. This means that I think principles, themselves, are LESS important in explaining the source of the difference between different systems.
I think we all don't seem to agree what Lydiard is. My view is not the same. I don't know where "best aerobic pace every day" is coming from. I understand "best aerobic pace" some days, but not "every day", and not "more or less daily emphasis throught the training cycles". When I see an example schedule like this:
Monday - 10 miles (15km) at 1/2 effort over undulating course
Tuesday - 15 miles (25km) at 1/4 effort over reasonably flat
Wednesday - 12 miles (20km) at 1/2 effort over hilly course
Thursday - 18 miles (30km) at 1/4 effort over reasonably flat
Friday - 10 miles (15km) at 3/4 effort over flat course
Saturday - 22 miles (35km) at 1/4 effort over reasonably flat
Sunday - 15 miles (25km) at 1/4 effort over any type terrain
I don't see "best aerobic pace EVERY day". I see some longer slower days, and shorter faster days. For example, I wouldn't call 15 miles at 1/4 effort over flat terrain "best aerobic pace".
I found another sample schedule that says "Jog 1/2 hour", one day a week. This looks more like recovery than "best aerobic pace".
In other phases, aerobic efforts (best or not) may only appear 2-3 days each week, and not "every day", with other days being "sprint training" or "relaxed strides".
You said your friend didn't understand recovery, and I agreed with you. You said your friend is doing best aerobic pace every day, without regeneration and recovery. But this is not my view of Lydiard training at all, and I think I never explained it that way (nor did Lydiard). I don't have the same view as you and your friend. I don't see the contradiction coming from Lydiard, but from you and your friend, as you described him.
So it's the same, but totally different.
This is why I say the principles that you (not me or Canova) mentioned are not important. It is the implemation, i.e. what you are doing every day, that's important. As Canova says, this depends on the athlete, not the schedule, another major difference with Lydiard.
I see the principles as coming from the implementation, not the other way around. When they don't fit then, to me, this proves the principles were wrong and needed to be changed. By adhering to strict principles, no matter how obscure, endless time is wasted trying to fit the training to them. The training is real. The principles are simply theories and change with the fashion or guru.
Right. The principles are obscure and don't mean anything.
It's from the implementation, but not from the principles as you stated them. The principles come from the implementation.
Agreed. It would be a way to obscure the differences and try to say "well they're the same", or B came from A etc, when they are not the same at all, they are entirely different.
Your view looks the same to me. You are simply quoting what I already know about Lydiard, and that is in his books, which I have.
Thank you for grouping my friend with me, instead of with you and Lydiard. It is interesting that you see the same things we see in Lydiard and in his books, and think what we see is totally different. But when you see Canova vs Lydiard, you think they are the same, and I see them as being totally different.
I am kind of following and maybe i will read properly and catch up, however the immediate problem is we have someone espousing a system of coaching whilst not understanding the principles of training and therefore negating them as unimportant or even irrelevant. The principles of training underly everything J.R. and cannot be broken. It would be exactly the same as an engineer breaking the rules of phsyics. The project would fail. One fundamental mistake your guru makes is he breaks the rule of recovery. Over time what do you think this leads to, even in the most natural of runners?
|i dont understand|
Which is the rule of reach 100miles and no more?
Which is the rule of 100miles be a 800m specialist or a marathoner ?
Which is the rule of periodisation ?
Which is the rule of do weekend long run as 800m specialist ?
Which is the rule of the best aerobic pace ?
Which is the rule of intervals by feeling ?
Which is the rule of of hills ?
I'm going to answer anyway.
1. recovery rule - work and rest much be in proportion and balance - this works out to 48 hours when training is tuned to a professional level.
2. 100 miles is what Lydiard discovered as the minimum for correct aerobic development - note the keyword minimum
3. the 800m is an aerobic event primarily, even those some 40% of it is anaerobic. More effort must go into the 60% yes?
4. the rule of periodisation follow the natural rules of growth and decay - which all living things exhibit - so like the natural world we break our training plan up into periods.
5. the long run is the chance to exhaust everything. After a solid week of miles this end of week/microcyle training session does that, if done corrrectly. Remember volume is the first key in the aerobic conditioning phase.
6. best aerobic pace is individual to each athlete, just like your fingerprint or your personality - once an athlete has discovered the feeling that goes with this pace training becomes a lot easier. A good coach tuned you into this pace.
7. intervals by feeling is easy - you can start with farklek - simply accelerate and see how long it can be held, then relax and see how long it takes till you are ready for another acceleration. Extend this to the track and simply increase the intensity in the work phase and decrease intensity in the rest phase. Eventually you will be running true intervals, based on feeling and not a stop watch.
8. hills add strength to the already established endurance. So once pure endurance has been sufficiently developed for the timeframe available the only way to move forward is to add speed or add strength. Strength is prior to speed so hill are focused on between gaining enduarance and gaining speed.
there you go - critique that
|wow this is stupid|
Do you really think that David Rudisha, Wilson Kipketer, Sebastian Coe, or Joaquim Cruz were doing 100 mpw? Have ANY of the top 10 800m runners by time run 100 mpw? This fixation on 100 mpw by Lydiard is absurd. Why not 105 or 95? A hundred is just as arbitrary as either of these numbers would be, or for that matter, as 80 or 110 would be. And by examining the methods which have led to the greatest successes, we can clearly see that 100 mpw is too much for 800m runners, and probably more than 1500m runners need as well.
You're wasting your breath .... we've been through these "rules" of Gypsy before & exposed them as bunkum but he just keeps coming back with the same old sh#t
That's why he's a former athlete with no coaching success, trying to criticise a coaching genius (Canova)
He doesn't learn, & in all probability never will.
|just for the record|
Renato Canova by Renato Canova
The main points that characterize my phylosophy are as follows :
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.
b) An athlete needs about 8-10 years for building his "aerobic house". The beginning of this process starts in natural way, well before the "official" training with a coach. This is what happens in Africa, where boys and girls have a way of life very active under the aerobic point of view. They play hours every day running at different speeds, and build their aerobic efficiency when still very young. That's the reason because in my programs Kenyan and Ethiopian runners can move to high intensity after 2-3 years of official training : they had already several years of general activity in natural way, accumulating mileage and increasing their strength, running on very hilly courses at different speeds.
But this situation is not different from the situation in America, Europe or Oceania 50 years ago. Of course Elliot, Snell, Walker, Dixon, Quax, Ryun, Prefontaine, Lindgren, Salazar, Nenow and many others had an activity when young very much different from the modern life.
c) The "Aerobic First" of Lydiard was the compensation of the lack of aerobic strength for people having a very high muscle strength. When the athletes of 1960 approached athletics, they were already very strong under the point of view of their muscle strength. They didn't use long run, but normally plaid sports as rugby, soccer, basket, football that gave power to their body. So, we can say that the RUNNERS of 50 years ago needed essentially long aerobic runs for supporting a high lactic capacity already in their characteristics, while African needs to increase that quality, starting directly with running and being weaker under the muscular point of view.
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. Now the WR of Marathon is at a pace of 2:55 per km or 4:41 per mile, AND IS FULLY AEROBIC. So, we can use from the beginning of the preparation (Fundamental period) this type of speed WITHOUT TOUCHING THE LACTIC SYSTEM. The idea that short and medium intervals are anaerobic is wrong : this depends on the speed, not on the distance. For that reason, I use ALWAYS this type of training, without fearing to burn the athletes. Also in this case, I'm very far from Lydiard.
f) In my training phylosophy, TRAINING IS INDIVIDUAL. Training is like the cloth for an athletes, and the coach is his taylor. You can see a model you like in a shop, but it's casual the size of the cloth in the window is your size. So, the MODEL is the training phylosophy, the SIZE is the individual program of the athlete.
g) The athletes don't follow the program, but is the program following the athletes. This means that the program MUST change according what the athlete needs at the moment. Training is something based on the REAL SITUATION at the moment, is not the real situation based on the training. This is the difference between working with theory or working with practice.
h) The succession of different periods of training (Fundamental, Special and Specific) involves different training phylosophies. It's like to build a house : the first step is to have the project, and this can be very different depending on the money I can have at my disposal.
(The money is the talent of the athlete). The second step is to buy the material. The third step is to start to build the house using the material I have, following the original project. Buying the material is what we do during the FUNDAMENTAL period : we work for increasing all the qualities we need to use for the performance. We try to work for increasing General Resistance, Rapidity, Coordination, Elasticity, Mobility, Muscle Strength, in separate way, BUT IN THE SAME PERIOD. That's the reason because we NEVER HAVE TO LOSE WHAT ALREADY HAVE.
Building the house using the material is what we do during the SPECIAL AND SPECIFIC PERIODS : we need to assemble all the qualities we have at the moment in order to build the performance. During the Fundamental Period we look at the INTERNAL LOAD (the level of effort used for every type of training), during the Special and Specific Period we look at the EXTERNAL LOAD. External Load means MATHEMATIC. If I want to run 27:30 in 10000m, THIS MEANS 2:45 PER KM AND 66.0 PER LAP. If I'm not able running around these speeds in training, NEVER I CAN RUN THAT TIME.
h) For that reason, training during the Fundamental Period means to build the base for supporting the SPECIFIC TRAINING, that has DIRECT INFLUENCE on the performance.
i) Being the training with the direct influence, THE GOAL IS TO INCREASE DURING YEARS THE VOLUME OF SPECIFIC TRAINING: MORE QUANTITY OF SPECIFIC TRAINING WE ARE ABLE TO DO, FASTER WE CAN RUN.
l) Because the Specific Training has a cost, if we do more specific training, we spend more energies, AND WE NEED MORE RECOVERY. For that reason, we can't follow simmetric schedules, because the athlete is ready for the next session of high specific intensity ONLY WHEN HAS RECOVERED FROM THE PREVIOUS SESSION. In this case, IT'S THE ATHLETE HIMSELF DECIDING WHEN HAS TO DO THE NEXT SESSION. Higher is the intensity, longer is the recovery. MODULATION IS THE SECRET OF A GOOD TRAINING AND THE SYSTEM FOR PEAKING IN THE RIGHT PERIOD.
At least, one comment about the fact that training African runners is very easy. Of course, with people of high talent, to train for beating European of today is not difficult. The small problem is that the best have to beat the other African bests, and that's the reason because the winners have good methodology. Their battle is not TALENT vs TRAINING, but TALENT vs TALENT, and in this case TRAINING becomes the reason because one is the winner and the other are the loser.
If we have a completely different idea of what the word "principles" means, we will never converge. I prefer to stick with the idea of a set of constant basic training principles, such as from "Physiology of sport and exercise" by Jack Wilmore and David Costill:
If the question is to list all the differences between Canova and Lydiard, there are many possible answers, e.g. "philosophy", "methodology", "approach", "implementation", "focus", "timing", etc., but for me, "principles" is not one of them.
Regarding your Lydiard-advocate friend, if he thinks he has to run his best aerobic pace everyday, and he doesn't understand the concept of recovery, then I think he doesn't understand Lydiard the way I do. I see 1/4 efforts, 1/2 efforts, 1/2 hour jog, easy fartlek, etc. as something less than "best aerobic pace", designed to avoid accumulating the need for recovery. Many days are less than "best aerobic pace", every week of every phase of every year. If you see my views the same as your friend, in spite of this seemingly clear contradiction, I cannot help your vision.
What's also interesting, is that this originally comes from a statement where Canova says Lydiard's aerobic base-building paces are too slow. Canova claims to be very far from Lydiard on this point. I responded by saying maybe not so very far after all, because after a certain point, Lydiard says to start running your mileage faster. But your immediate response, ironically as a self-proclaimed Canova follower, is reminding me of the example of your Lydiard-advocate friend who runs too fast too often, and needs to slow down some days.
So what happens when we follow our guru, without breaking the rule of recovery, in a sort of "do as I say, not as I do" kind of way?
What do I care if another coach breaks certain rules, if I take care to follow them?
There is no 48 hours "rule of recovery" ... it's a "gypsy myth" .... the recovery period required depends on the intensity/duration of the work done on a given day .... this is where Canova's genius comes in .... he waits for the athlete to 'fully' recover (however long that takes) from a key session before subjecting him/her to another. That is why his published schedules from one athlete to another differ ... he follows the principle of "individualizing" training .... It's also why Canova's athletes can remain @ a given performance level for many years (again, counter to Gypsy's lies/distortions)
Again, you are posting obscure, meaningless terms. For example runner A's methodology is to run 10 miles once a week, runner B's methodology is to not run anything farther than 2 miles, but to run it fast every time. They both have "methodology, but nothing in common except running. You're the one who brought up principles.
Hehehehehe you keep trying to criticize my friend, who is much faster and also understands this much faster than you. For example, we understand quite well what the other is saying. I understand him and he understands me. There is none of this "your vision is not clear to me, because I'm a dumb Lydiard clone and can't think for myself" - NO, he never says anything stupid like that.
The fact is that what I see about you and your vision, is the same exact thing that you're saying, and you still can't see it! Amazing! Makes me laugh really.
No, that is not what he said - but still you think that it is, regardless this is what I've been saying to you this whole time, with examples that you STILL don't understand.
It is only because of your lack of understanding of what you are saying, and of what Canova has said, which I have already told you the differences of many times.
Again you are totally wrong. I have never "self-proclaimed" that I am a Canova follower, and am not. I have great respect for Renato Canova, I like his ideas, I like how he is very helpful to the athletes and their families, and how he teaches them to be self sufficient with their training and eventually coach themselves. I have great admiration for him. But I am not a "self-proclaimed" Canova follower, and have disagreed with some of the things he has said, the Boston course for example.
I like to be aware, and make up my own mind about what works, what is good for me and others, vs what is nonsense and hogwash.
I think my 1962 copy of Run to the Top says something like "I have found that the key to the success of my training is to run 100 mpw, and not more."
What is missing is that you keep missing the point!
As I said to you previously:
Instead of trying to teach me why you can't see anything, learn to open your eyes, look and see what is right in front of you.
Spend some time reading and reflecting Canova's very helpful post, repeated above by "just for the record", especially points c, d, e, and the entire context of his post. It is entirely different from what you keep saying.