| Pages: | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | |
| Joe maggio |
| ||
|
Specific training is the first priority. 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. The goal of Canova training is FASTER and LONGER. Increase the pace and the distance both. Increase the quantity and quality both. Increase the speed and the volume both. Canova by Canova http://www.letsrun.com/forum/flat_read.php?board=1&id=4023697&thread=4021862 in training, the priority is to improve the SPECIFIC ENDURANCE. This is the cake, every other thing is the cherry on the cake. http://www.letsrun.com/forum/flat_read.php?thread=4465229&page=1 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. Satisfied with the reference or you want more references ? You are so lazy that you donīt get there, 2 posts less than 2 months ago. |
| rekrunner |
| ||
|
That's a comment about Lydiard's paces. His aerobic paces also get faster. This was in response to Canova saying that aerobic intensity makes him different from Lydiard. Canova says he uses aerobic interval training. This makes him different from Lydiard. My Canova "comment" was an acknowledgement that, although Lydiard paces get faster, "maybe" still not as fast or intense as Canova's. As JR wants to say, they are "totally different". "Maybe" can also mean "Maybe not". Is that what you are arguing? "Maybe" is not a commentary on Canova's paces.
|
| rekrunner |
| ||
|
Oh yes I do. Let's back up once more to fully understand the context of the answer. You're good at finding my answers, but not the questions to which I responded. On page 10, "The Common Man" asks "Is (Canova's training) for the common western runner?" So yes, I answered this question about "the common western runner" with "It is suitable for everyone", with the common western runner in mind. Maybe "everyone" is an exaggeration. Canova's training is suitable for "every runner". Every runner can apply all the methods and philosophies to their training situation and event, without fear of risking injury or overtraining. I don't know why you talk about what Coach Canova can or cannot still do, when I'm talking about the suitability of applying his methods. It's unfortunate that Canova has lost the competence to train these common runners personally (I'll take your word for the sake of advancing the discussion), but luckily the concepts are all written down, and the runners can train themselves.
|
| Joe maggio |
| ||
You are wrong. Reference ? Lydiard by Lydiard Arthur Lydiard's Athletic Training by Arthur Lydiard, A Guide to the Brooks / American Track & Field, Lydiard Running Lecture Tour in 1999 http://www.fitnesssports.com/lyd_clinic_guide/Arthur_Lydiard.htm The fast aerobic running should be approached this way: Decide how much time you have daily for your training and balance your conditioning schedule upon this. Measure out several different courses over different terrain that allow for reasonable traction. One course for each week day, if possible. This for psychological reasons It does help to overcome the boredom that can be experienced at times during training. Rekrunner. Did i miss something ? Did i miss that the fast aerobic runnning (...) one course EVERYDAY IF POSSIBLE. You are just another Lydiard ignorant. The best aerobic run can be done everyday. End of this debate for me. |
| mo'pak |
| ||
|
Looking at all time lists and lists of medallists in recent times it is apparent that quite a number of non- Canova trained runners run as fast or faster than the best of the Canova trained runners. This isn't as a criticism of Renato but it leaves me with the question of whether these superior runners were/are using the same "modern" methods that he prescribes for his athletes. Guys like Bekele, Geb, Komen, Tergat, G.Mutai, Makau, Wanjiru, etc at the longer events and also the many faster women. I also note he does not appear to have coached many of the very fast 800-1500m runners of either sex.Is this just circumstances or were/are other coaches using superior methods. |
| Joe maggio |
| ||
Arthur Lydiard's Athletic Training by Arthur Lydiard, A Guide to the Brooks / American Track & Field, Lydiard Running Lecture Tour in 1999 http://www.fitnesssports.com/lyd_clinic_guide/Arthur_Lydiard.htm The more miles that you are able to run aerobically in training, then the greater endurance you will be able to develop. So there is really no limit to the mileage that a coach should place upon his athletes, provided that the supplementary miles run above the required faster aerobic running are as easy effort at the lower aerobic speeds. In other words; it is wise to run once a day at faster aerobic speeds and supplementary to this running, to jog as many miles as you find time and energy for; even if it is only for fifteen minutes jaunt. Read it again. Lydiard by Lydiard. ITīS WISE TO RUN ONCE A DAY AT FASTER AEROBIC SPEEDS AND SUPLEMENTRAY TO THIS RUNNING, and supplementary to this running, to jog as many miles as you find time and energy for; even if it is only for fifteen minutes jaunt. Rekrunner. You are Lydiard ignorant. I love people like you, that early did confesses self ignorance what are the Lydiard and Canova training difference, itīs what you post on the past, and quickly changes to fall from the sky in parachute to be the good student, that in fact is nothing but a Lydiard parrot that repeats some parts of the speech of the other. A poor parrot that canīt spell the same words and the same song that his owner tries to teach him. You are nothing but a poor Lydiard parrot. |
| rekrunner |
| ||
|
Yes. You missed giving me an authentic Lydiard definition for "best aerobic pace". Without it, you are arguing something completely different. You are confusing "best aerobic pace" with "fast aerobic running". For example, quarter-effort can be considered fast running, but not best pace.
|
| rekrunner |
| ||
|
I don't see how this extra-supplemental, yet off-topic, Canova lesson is related to Lydiard paces. I don't get to Canova because I'm talking about something else. Does that thread explore the question if Canova's paces are faster/slower/the same as Lydiard's?
|
| gypsy |
| ||
When you are feeling fresh 'best aerobic pace' would be quite different to when you are feeling flat. |
| J.R. |
| ||
You see them as different -- but the same? That's why I keep bringing this up, because it seems to me that you don't see any difference. Also you posted from Lydiard's books to try and prove it's the same, which to me, you proved the differences, which I already had said. If you want to prove to me that a rock is the same as a bird, you are welcome to think that if you wish. But still I know that a bird is a bird, a rock is a rock, and they are not the same thing. That some people are convinced they're the same, they are still what they are, not the same. The difference is between making a VERY general comparison, vs being able to see the distinctions - which I see as being quite clear. |
| Joe maggio |
| ||
[/quote] I see you are a Lydiard parrot as well as you suffer from functional analphabetism. Every you new post you go down and down, introducing new defines, just to deny the evidence. There are not one Lydiard refereence to avoid the best aerobic pace everyday. Authentic Lydiard definition for best aerobic pace. Pace speeds at a level just under your steady state or Maximum Oxygen Uptake. Or fast aerobic running is included in this define. Fast aerobic run is not the pace OVER OR UNDER VO2max. Over VO2max is anaerobic run. Under, under is easy slow run. The faster aerobic running is on the range of the fast aerobic running. The Lydiard paragraph does the subtitle Marathon Conditioning. Or if the fast aerobic pace its included in the marathon conditioning phase, the fast aerobic pace is not anaerobic for sure. There the fast aerobic run isnīt easy aerobic pace, isnīt LSD, jogging, easy pace, is faster aerobic pace and is on the range of the best aerobic pace. On the same marathon conditioning part you might read a week with quarter efforts. By instance 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 For instance. Friday Itīs not write 10 miles 3/4 FAST AEROBIC RUN, itīs write 3/4 effort what is different. Therefore Lydiard pace quarters itīs not quarter from FAST RUN, is Quarter effort. Again. Reference that the best aerobic pace canīt be done everyday ? You just donīt got it. Straight and clean. Again the best aerobic pace everyday isnīt Lydiard rule, but as option might be done. itīs your choice. |
| rekrunner |
| ||
|
J.R. When I say their methods are different, it's because I see many differences, despite seeing many similarities. Canova uses aerobic intervals. That's different. They both use fast aerobic paces. That's the same. These paces get faster over the years. That's the same. Canova uses more volume of intensity in the "aerobic" phase. That's different. Etc. Canova made some comments suggesting Lydiard's aerobic pace are slow and easy. I posted from Lydiard's book where Lydiard recommends to start running them faster once you are able. You agreed with me that the paces were faster, introducing the next discussion about "best aerobic pace", "everyday". Lydiard doesn't understand recovery/regeneration. I posted from Lydiard's book to show that many days are less than "best aerobic pace". It's "best aerobic pace" some days, and "half" best, or "quarter" best on other days. I posted from a book that the purpose of these short/easy days are recovery. You talk about me not seeing distinctions. You make no distinction between the words "methods" and "principles". You think I'm twisting definitions, when I point out what should be a clear distinction. I used two books, a dictionary and a textbook, to show what I mean when I say "principles". Rather than giving me your definition of principles, the way you meant it when you said it, and some concrete examples of the most important Lydiard principles, and the most important Canova principles, you completely avoid the issue by talking about birds, trees, and rocks. Do you have some issue which prevents you from actually connecting your conclusions to reality? There are many differences between Canova and Lydiard. There are many things the same. This is not a contradiction. Their methods are different, but the underlying principles are the same. This is not a contradiction. This is clear when you understand the correct meanings of the words. |
| Joe maggio |
| ||
On this your post you do nothing but relate Lydiard training with the Canova one. The difference and similarity between the two. Now you say you donīt comment on Canova ! Ok, and iīm not Antonio Cabral. However you refer Canova as "maybe Canova's paces end up faster". But this is not correct. Once again. Canova paces end up faster and LONGER as well. Canova training ends up faster is as important as end up LONGER. You keep in the denying process. My original post comment is about that you miss some understand of an importanat issue of Canova. On his training ends up faster itīs as important as end up distance. One more comment. Reference that Lydiard doesnīt prescribe weekly long run for the middle distance runner ? You are wrong again. For your information After that Snell was double olympic winner Lydiard shoots out Peter from his training advice just by the fact that Peter left out and miss the Lydiard weekly long run. Do you trust that the coach that shoots out his best middle distance runner of the period just because he misses the long run is the same coach that allows to miss the long run ? Reference ? 1976 Lydiard interview in Runners World. |
| J.R. |
| ||
No, that is NOT the same. That is exactly why you keep trying to prove a rock is a bird, because they both are on earth.
No, I agreed they are different - NOT THE SAME.
Again you think you proved the same, but you proved the DIFFERENCE. You posted Lydiard said to run 100 mpw, then run it faster. THE KEY --> Does he say to run 100 mpw at specific pace???????? NO! He says to run it at BEST AEROBIC PACE. That is the BIG DIFFERENCE SEE - I spelled it out for you. Now, study that, and figure it out. |
| rekrunner |
| ||
|
I asked this definition from the very beginning. 15 miles at 1/4 effort is not a pace "just under" steady state. It's not "best pace" but "quarter" best. You can't just chose to do steady state runs everyday. You have to respect recovery too. I gave you that reference. I get Lydiard. I don't get you. Your Lydiard reference doesn't say "best aerobic pace" every day. It says you need to do "faster aerobic running" (as opposed to slow and easy?) every day in order to get your "best aerobic pace" "at a high level". "Faster aerobic running" is also an undefined term, but it looks like a term used to avoid using the term LSD, indicating a broad range of paces, from less than marathon pace to 15K pace.
|
| rekrunner |
| ||
|
I said that the one paragraph you quoted before was not a commentary on Canova's paces, but on Lydiard's paces. The paragraph says "Lydiard paces are not slow. They may not be as fast as Canova's, but they are not slow." This is clearly a comment about Lydiard's paces. And you want to fault me, for what? Not for being wrong about Canova's faster paces, but because I forgot to mention volume? I didn't mention Canova's volume, not because I don't understand it, but because I was saying Lydiard's paces are not slow. In order to make your point seem valid, you have to change your story, quoting 7 more paragraphs, and changing "Canova's paces" to "Canova", to give the appearance I did something I said I didn't. But even my whole quote is not a commentary on Canova's aerobic paces. It's an answer that says, despite some differences, both approaches are proven on a wide range of runners with no extra risk of injury or burn-out. Regarding long runs for the middle distance runner, now you've lost me (again, a no substance allegation without a reference!). Exactly what did I say, and when, and where, that you now say I'm wrong again? I've always agreed that long runs are less important for shorter distances. When Canova says it's even "damageous" for certain kinds of runners, I tend to agree.
|
| rekrunner |
| ||
To fix your broken bird analogy, we should compare Lydiard and Canova training, not to birds and rocks, but to specific implementations of something, like birds, e.g. an eagle and a hawk. An eagle is not a hawk, but they are both birds. There are many differences between eagles and hawks, despite many similarities. Yet they share many of the same basic, general traits of all birds.
Let's study your KEY and see how well it fits in the door to the real world. The BIG DIFFERENCE I spelled out for you, by providing you an example you already new intimately, is that he doesn't actually say to run 100mpw at BEST AEROBIC PACE. Instead he says run 100 mpw at a variety of distances, and terrains, and paces, that range from something much slower than marathon pace, to just under 10 mile pace. Where you are wrong is to think that this broad range of paces can all be considered an umbrella called BEST AEROBIC PACE. It is you failing to make a distinction. Even Antonio's new slam-dunk example, using a similar marathon conditioning week, calls this broad range of paces "faster aerobic paces", and the goal of the marathon conditioning phase is to use these "faster aerobic paces" everyday to bring your "best aerobic pace" to a high level. Lydiard equates "best aerobic pace" and "best aerobic speed" to "steady state" and "maximum steady state". What I've said all along is that 15 miles at 1/4 effort is not "best aerobic pace", and it is surely not "maximum steady state". |
| rekrunner |
| ||
|
Correction (I forgot "just under"): Lydiard equates "best aerobic pace" and "best aerobic speed" to just under "steady state" and "maximum steady state". What I've said all along is that 15 miles at 1/4 effort is not "best aerobic pace", and it is surely not just under "maximum steady state". |
| gypsy |
| ||
|
I'm just looking at Run to the Top at the moment, page 90. for a 27 minute 6 miler 3/4 effort = 27:40 1/2 effort = 28:20 1/4 effort = 29:00 |
| Jackanory |
| ||
REK ... Only a fool would disagree with this. Unfortunately you are perpetuating 2 separete discussions here with fools ... you won't "win" the argumment with either, though yours is the only side of the argument based on logic and common sense. We could have a really fruitful and balanced discussion of training methodologies on this forum if certain people were not intent on incorrectly labelling people like you (& me) as pro Lydiard or pro Canova ... each "method" (Lydiard & Canova) has their merits (& drawbacks) ... but, as you note the underlying "principles" are the same. |