|Pages: | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 ||
I want to put an stop on this debate with you.
The story of this debate is simple and straight and the conclusion is also straight and simple.
the story of this debate is that you were the first to ask me about references to what i said, but you have nothing to offer as undeniable references what you say. You just zig-zag and you present tranversal and not direct and straight references to your points.
In one issue of debate you said didnīt post about Canova on that post but name of Canova is on the post. With you reference to Canova you still miss to confess the obvious that you refer Canova. What you want as more evidence that your are an functional analphabet ? This you deny that you write about Canova aerobic training, is a your self-defense to catch your ignorance about Canova training.
In the other issue of debate, you acting as many of you as Lydist parrots, You asked about one reference that Lydiard interdicts best aerobic pace everyday basis or so. But actually you arenīt able to present just one LITERALLY straight and clear Lydiard reference which the meaning is the kind of "donīt do the best aerobic pace everyday" or the kind of "do the aerobic pace x days of the week". Just one Rekrunner.
What you present is some Lydiard parrot ideas that even with good will i might consider that does a direct recommendation that best aerobic pace canīt be done on everyday basis or just, Even if itīs just one mile or so everyday at the final part of one daily run. You donīt got it actually. What you did are to elaborate dubious applications as is the effort fractions or you take one recommendation from one schedule to extrapolate as Lydiard universal and undeniable rule to every Kind of runner. Of course that not everybody can train at his best aerobic pace everyday. that might be the case of the runner you present one Lydiard recommendation. But canīt be take for granted that specific Lydiard example can canīt be a Lydiard rule. The other your last argument is something silly and out of any mathematic criteria, a mathematic absurd. Lydiard advices fractions of effort (or percents, because a fractions is also a percent). Therefore the source of calculus itīs the unity, or 100%, and in the Lydiard recommendation you got the calculus of the fraction from 100% effort, or from the 4/4 effort. Or the 100%=4/4 of effort run isnīt got from the best aerobic pace, itīs got from the "best" effort run. The best effort (100% or 4/4 effort) itīs not on the Lydiard aerobic effort. Everyone runs,
letīs say, 30-50min or longer at his best (100% or 4/4) effort aerobically ? You are out of your mind.
Resuming. Next time that you ask for references, that you ask me often, be sure that you have your own to support your own opinion. Anyhow, i took many time to be a teacher to someone that doesnīt deserve, because someone that asks often about reference, source, site address and about the same matter doesnīt got his own undeniable reference to support his own opinion is a hypocrite. Conclusion. I might post about what you say, itīs my own freedom and my own right, but i will never reply your reference asks, in what book, where, because you donīt got trustufull source what you say. Your silly asks for references while be one Lydiard parrot.
And yes, iīm Antonio Cabral. No doubt.
The first thing Rekrunner is that you need to take my advice, study what I said, what Renato Canova said, instead of continuing to spew out the same nonsense in long paragraphs over and over.
You posted from his book he said to first run 100 mpw, and then to run the 100 mpw FASTER. What's the problem here?
I layed it out for you, now take some time to study, reflect, and figure it out for yourself.
Every training got difference and similarity, be in concepts or methodology or application what so ever.
The issue of what is different and what similar is at a different level to what was been said. The main issue is why those folks, instead of each training characterize, instead of each training define, they take time promote the similarities and the differences. When one individual thinks that his training got a strong training character, itīs a rich training method he doesnīt make that training relate.
When one individual takes his time and argument to relate his own training with other other, named the famous one training methods it reveals a complex of inferiority. That constant relate reveals that he isnīt so sure that his training is rich training. Otherwise he wouldnīt spend his time to emphasize the similarity with his training wit other ones - the famous ones. Itīs like to say: Ok i got a Ford car but he is similar to my friendīs Ferrari. Ok, both our cars are red color, both got 4 heels.
Everyone understands that as in the example of 2 cars, one is a old american Ford and the other a new fast Ferrari, is not because they both got heels, motor, chassis, the same color, both work with gasoline that what really matters, itīs not what similar what characterize each car. Itīs the parts of the car that are different what accentuates each one own characterization.
Itīs really silly the attempt to relate every other training with Renato Canova training by the similarities that eventually might exist or existed. Itīs silly the attempt to relate any training with the any other one. If one training is 99.9% similar with other one, is the 0.1% of difference what identifies one training from the other. Without difference, or with plenty similarity, what means that 2 train methods or several training methods, would be equal, every one training wouldnīt character, would not name, wouldnīt identification.
For instance. What makes Zatopec training be different than Lydiard ? What identifies Zatopec from Lydiard training or Canova training ? Itīs not by the fact that both Zatopec and Lydiard do 100miles a week approx. run. What identifies the Zatopec training from Lydiard is that Zatopec does he 100miles different way Lydiard did. Zatopec did it with just intermittent and interval training and Lydiard does it with continuous runs.
What identifies Renato Canova training from Lydiard and vice versa is not the fcat that both might do some kind of specific training. Spefici training might be similar to both training. What identifies and characterizes Lydiard training from Canova training and vice versa is the fact that both did different kind of specific training.
Therefore the difference, be one major difference or one little difference is the difference and not the similarity, the only way to discriminate and identify and characterize each one training, or one training from another.
All this attempt to characterize training by similarity itīs the strategy of the Lydiardism parrot. I know one parrot that sings the same song that his owner did teach. I know another parrot that repeats exactly the sentences that his owner did teach. The parrots are perfect at that exhibitionism. However the parrots donīt know the meaning of the singing.
The search of some similarity from Lydiard training with the Canova one got no interest for the methodology debate. Itīs low level of training understand and one complex of inferiority from the individuals that l
try it. To relate by the similarity aspects Zatopec, with Gersheler-Reindell, with Igloi,with Lydiard, Fracinetti, with Renato, what so ever, itīs an exercise for the methodology student. To relate each one of this training method by the differences is the work of the expert.
Did you ever find the data on Rui Silva where his VO2 max, LT, etc. were at the worst levels right after his Olypmic bronze? You said (maybe in another thread)that the information was in a different computer.
If I understand you correctly, you recommnd that FT runners jog the pause in fast interval training to get rid of the lactate and teach the muscles to use lactate as fuel, and for ST runners to stand during the pause in similar training. If I understand Renato correctly, he recommends the opposite, in other words ST jog, FT stand. I would love for Antonio and Renato to discuss this and elaborate.
Good to have you back on the forum!
I kind of agree but disagree with what you have to say.
Any good coach would have confidence in his/her OWN methods/methodology ... & would have the confidence to both change things in response to experience or new knowledge, & to individualize training for different athletes.
However, I can not see the harm for a coach to say that "I have been influenced by X and/or Y" ... this does not diminish his/her own system/methods ... it can still be a "rich" training method he/she uses.
In terms of a training methodology discussion ... clearly we highlight the differences between one coaching approach/method and another, & try to understand the reasons for such differences. But at the same time there is no harm in also noting where there are common principles underlying the training methods used.
Name calling? Really? Parrot? Ignorant? Analphabet? Hypocrite?
Straight and simple? From you?
I won't go into these personal comments, except to say you are wrong on all counts. But let's address some of the other points you raised.
My Canova comment -- Canova didn't mention it, why should I?:
Here is the initial Canova quote, to which I responded.
Here's my direct reply to that specific comment:
Canova only mentions "intensity". He doesn't mention increasing "volume", or running "faster and longer", in his comment. Although I have a good understanding of also increasing the volume, I don't see why it's appropriate to mention these things in my direct reply to that specific comment that doesn't mention these things. And my comment only says Lydiard's "easy long run" get faster over time.
Regarding my lack of references:
I provided you many references that say things like "long/hard followed by short/easy", and "short/easy gives your body a chance to recover and consolidate", and "many variations rejected except for the one I recommend now". The combination of all these things really suggest against "best aerobic pace" everyday.
The example schedule I gave (and that you gave), shows only 1 day (Friday) at "best aerobic pace". If we are generous, maybe 2 more days (Monday and Wednesday). The remaining days are easy efforts, hardly trying. I've claimed for 8 pages that these can not reasonably be considered "best aerobic pace". This is what's behind my request for a reference, a conversation you jumped into the middle of, probably oblivious that it was going on for several pages already. Your "thread ending" "Lydiard by Lydiard" example only re-affirms my position (see below).
You are looking for loopholes to touch this "best aerobic pace", e.g. last mile of every run, and faulting me for not finding a quote that exactly forbids all of your creative scenarios. These scenarios are all very far from the main line of what Lydiard recommends in every reference, including yours, for the reasons I gave in the quotes I provided. I don't think I can find a direct Lydiard quote that precisely forbids doing workouts on a bicycle, either. We have to draw some kind of reasonable boundary around the main recommendations. Modifying an example from 1-3 "best aerobic pace" workouts a week to 7 "best aerobic pace" workouts week, seems excessively unreasonable.
But if you think you've found a way that meets all the Lydiard variety requirements, and provides adequate recovery, then I have nothing more to say about that.
The mathematics of fractional efforts:
Let's look at your "Lydiard by Lydiard" reference a little more deeply, and try to make sense of the paces related to fractional efforts.
Lydiard defines "best aerobic pace" and "best aerobic as "just under (maximum) steady state".
There is still some fuzziness, because of "just under", but usually "steady state" is something like a 1-hour tempo run, but I'll look at some other possibilities too. For good runners, this is something around 10-13 mile pace. Let's say for now, "just under" means "12-15" mile pace.
Lydiard also says to run "faster aerobic paces" everyday. This is a different term, which is undefined. But he gives an example of what he means with a weekly marathon conditioning schedule. I will also propose what kind of paces are we talking about with these fractional efforts, suggesting what I think is a reasonable, if not generous, range:
Mon - 10 miles at 1/2 effort - 16-20 mile pace?
Tue - 15 miles at 1/4 effort - 30-45 mile pace?
Wed - 12 miles at 1/2 effort - 19-24 mile pace?
Thur - 18 miles at 1/4 effort - 36-54 mile pace?
Fri - 10 miles at 3/4 effort - 12 mile pace?
Sat - 22 miles at 1/4 effort - 44-66 mile pace?
Sun - 15 miles at 1/4 effort - 30-45 mile pace?
We could spend a lot of time trying to negotiate and refine these numbers, but we don't really need to do that to form some basic conclusions.
The problem here, is still the phrase "best aerobic pace", which has been equated to "just under steady state". "Just under" leaves this particular point still subject to personal interpretation. How much under is still considered "just under"?
I see three possibilities:
1) In my frank opinion, only Friday can be called "best aerobic pace", because it is run at something close to 1 hour tempo pace.
2) If we want to be generous, and say "best aerobic pace" is really 1-2 hour race pace, we might also include Monday and Wednesday as "best aerobic pace".
3) The remaining days, at 1/4 effort are all aerobic runs surely slower than marathon pace. Saturday may be 30,45,60 seconds slower/km than marathon pace. (A common Lydiard example is the 3:15/km marathon pace athlete who runs long runs in 3:45/km pace).
The only way to conclude that Lydiard recommends "best aerobic pace" "everyday", is to relax the definition of "best aerobic pace" to include a broad range from +/-12 mile pace to marathon pace + 30 (or more) seconds/km, as if the term really only serves to distinguish these "faster" aerobic paces from the problematic and misunderstood LSD acronym.
I will take part of your advice. I will continue reading what Canova says.
It doesn't take that long to study what you say, since they are short, lacking substance, mainly baseless opinions (often contradicted by real world examples, or basic texts, like dictionaries) or personal insults. My experience so far suggests that even that little time invested would be completely wasted.
If you want to know what my problems are, I've already layed it all out for you. I suggest you take your own advice and figure it out for yourself.
Stop and think. Iīm upset that you since long ago and sistematically you ask me for books, references, "where itīs said" and finnaly on this case of best aerobic pace eveyday, you ask for reference, but you got not your own one. One with undoubtly prove, one stright sentence, from Lydiard "donīt do it everyday" or "do just X days odf the week". Something very focused and objective. Again, what you present is one by one your own interpertation that in my opinion itīs not correct to extrapolate fro the matter of best aerobic pace everyday.
This is the main reason of the names i name you.
But i want to say something more. This is similar to my last post. What you said about the relate of Lydiard training with Renato i agree mostly. But what is the interest to express what i agree what you post, in debate as in training, the main core of the debate is about what i disagree, as your main core what you reply is what you disagree, not what you agree.
Now the debate.
Intensity is similar to pace define and itīs similar to speed define
intensity=pace (quality) over distance (quantity), More intense means faster pace and longer distance.
pace = time over distance expressed in unity (of time or distance). Ex. 3:00min per kilometer, 5:20min per mile, 15kilos per hour.
speed=the average of the time spent over a determined distance, also express in unity.
intensity= the level of effort, or the energy spent. More intense in the rujnning sport means more faster or fast pace.
You do the mistake thatīs to take from one Renato Canova post, the one that Just for the record did post in this thread to elaborate your conclusion. But you are wrong.
Iīm so sure that all Renatoīs aerobic phase approach and modulation is done increase mileage/volume as well as intensity. In Renatoīs training philosophy increase volume (quantity) is AS IMPORTANT as increase pace or pace speed (the quality). Understood my opinion ? Or you donīt
Or in your comment you want pass the idea that the difference between Lydiard and canova relate to mileage is that Lydiard mileage target is 100miles, and from that on Lydiard advices the same 100miles with fast pace, or speed the pace of that same 100miles. But you said that Renato continues to the volume. Or itīs not right, itīs incomplete. Again Renatoīs training philosophy is "go faster and go longer". INTENSIVE and EXTENSIVE PROCESS, Of course the Renatoīs " aerobic fasterr and longer" is general principle, fondamental principle. He does different training aplication each single runner case, related to training individualization.
The second issue is more complex. I concede that the best aerobic pace is somehing vague and inaccurate and donīt know whatīs Lydiard undoubted and accuracy best aerobic pace define. i also doubt that he wants to precise that pace, but this is just my personal opinion.
Iīm an ignorant of Lydiard training, but i didnīt know different define of best aerobic pace from Lydiard himself, different from the one that i quote "just under max.VO2". Do you know other one ? If you do, reference, please.
Relate the best aerobic pace or other Lydiard aerobic to marathon pace, LT, whatever, I would love to read something original from Lydiard, What i read is from Lydiardism what is not the same. Some Lydiard parrots did the attempt to define Lydiard paces by physiologic parameters or pace from event reference (marathon pace, etc). I got no guarantee that what they say itīs what Lydiard wanted to mean. Everyone is free to say what pleases him, but i only accept that Lydiardism pace proposal or physiology proposal, the day they quote Lydiard with an undoubtedly reference that is what Lydiard wants to mean by ideas like the best aerobic pace. Otherwise itīs just the usual speculation without substantial prove.
Oops Antonio you put the wrong name down on your last post.
What is vague to you is not to others. A good coach will know the right effort levels for each athlete and will tune them into these levels. It is very simple - run as fast as you can without allowing strain to enter the situation. Once the athlete knows the 'feeling' of their best aerobic pace, then one of the coaches main roles is accomplished. The instructions might be as simple as 'faster' 'slower', 'shorter', 'longer'. This negates the need for instructions like 102.78% of MP for 18 miles, a type of instruction that initially comes out of a lab instead of a coaches mind.
- - - - - - -
|time out rob|
"We had to obtain the best possible result in the limited time that we had and the best way to develop aerobic capacity was to train at higher aerobic speed. My runners did a very hilly 22-mile course, with one hill of three miles, somewhere around 2:10 and 2:15. We used to do our Monday 10-mile run in about 55 minutes. They were all aerobic running, but we weren't mucking around at all."
Weren't mucking around at all - a lot of running at a good clip.
What you are not able to understand, looking at the classic "Lydiard marathon training", is that everything, during the first training periods, depends on the "internal load". Of course the performances becomes better with training, PRESERVING THE SAME INTERNAL LOAD. This is what happens when athletes follow their feeling only. Of course an athlete is able to understand the level of his effort, BUT ALWAYS REMAINING INSIDE HIS CURRENT LIMITS.
My phylosophy, under this point of view, is very different. Remember I work for producing top results, not for increasing the fitness of the athletes : this is another job. When I said that currently I'm almost analphabet about training young people, of course doesn't mean I cant do it, but I'm not interested at the moment, and, if and when I could be interested again, I NEED TO RESET MY MIND, however using the same principles I use with top runners.
If you want to overtake your limits, YOU NEED TO OVERTAKE THEM IN TRAINING, too. Using the personal feeling means to STAY INSIDE YOUR LIMITS, using always the same internal load. THIS IS THE REASON TO REDUCE THE LEVEL OF STIMULI FOR THE BODY, CONSEQUENTELY TO STOP THE PROCESS OF IMPROVEMENT.
Remember the ADAPTATION is the main enemy for the improvement of personal performances.
So, after a period (I call GENERAL, including TRANSITION and FUNDAMENTAL) when athletes use the same internal load, WE NEED A SPECIAL/SPECIFIC PERIOD WHEN ATHLETES HAVE SOME SESSION WITH A SUPERIOR QUALITY, taking care of the EXTERNAL LOAD.
External load is MATHEMATICS. Also Peter Snell, if wanted running 1:44 in 800m, NEEDED TO EXTEND HIS ABILITY IN RUNNING AT THE PACE OF 13.0 every 100m (that is lactic), and in his last period looked at the External load, overtaking his Internal load.
Increasing the level of training, if we don't want to kill the athletes we need to extend the recovery. This means your rule of 48 hours is a "not-existing rule", because recovery times depends on the intensity and the quantity of training.
Your point is to put as FIXED REFEREMENT the period of recovery. This is something, I repeat, working very well with amateurs, BUT COMPLETELY WRONG WHEN WE LOOK AT TOP PERFORMANCES.
Instead, there is one referement only when we speak about maximal performances : THE LEVEL OF TRAINING, both in SPECIFIC INTENSITY and in SPECIFIC EXTENSION.
Under this point of view, it's clear that the SPECIFIC INTENSITY occurring for running 800m (12.8 / 14.0 every 100m for athletes like Rudisha or a normal runner able to do 1:52) has nothing to do with the one occurring for 10000m (15.77 / 18.0 for Bekele or a normal athlete able running 30:00) and the one occurring for Marathon (17.5 / 20.0 for Geoffrey Mutai and Mosop or a normal athlete for 2:20:40).
This is one of the principles of INDIVIDUALIZATION.
If an athlete has a good coach and is able to understand WHERE he can have the best personal performance, HE MUST USE DIFFERENT SYSTEM FROM OTHER ATHLETES BECAUSE HIS ATTITUDES ARE DIFFERENT AND THE SPECIFICISM OF HIS BEST EVENT IS DIFFERENT.
I'm not interested in deciding where I'm similar to Lydiard and where I'm different. I'm interested in explaining MY RULES : INDIVIDUALIZATION BECAUSE EVERYBODY IS DIFFERENT, AND GROWING OF SPECIFIC INTENSITY DURING THE SPECIFIC PERIOD BECAUSE ATHLETES HAVE TO OVERTAKE THEIR CURRENT LIMITS. And, of course, as final consequence of this process, more recovery, how everybody with normal brain can understand after sessions very much more tough.
In any human activity, the basis for what we are able to do in the present are in the past, BUT WE RECOGNIZE THERE IS AN EVOLUTION. I recognize my methodological basis were in Lydiard, Cerutty, Igloi, Gerschler, because I studied their methodology and I knew it well, exactly like Einstein studied mathematics as base for developing his theory, or Barnard studied medicine before becoming able to implant (or traplant ?) for the first time a new heart.
I'm not Einstein, but this is the example for showing how every activity is based on what other people were able to do BEFORE, and some other can develop what they did, having the fortune to start from the previous final point.
I hope in the future somebody doesn't waste other time in discussing stupidity like "who is the best between Lydiard and Canova", but try very simple to start from Canova's phylosophy (of course, trying to understand the principles) that is more advanced than Lydiard's phylosophy for the simple reason we are 50 years after the beginning of Lydiard. At the same time, Lydiard's phylosophy changed during his life, and the Lydiard 1990 was not the Lydiard 1960, and Renato 2012 is not Renato 1980 working with Italian runners only.
When you can work with the best machines in the world, you discover something different in the human possibilities, SOMETHING THAT THE CLASSIC PHYSIOLOGY DOESN'T KNOW. And, if you have attention for what happens in training and the right sensibility for learning from the reality, YOU CAN WORK IN AN AREA COMPLETELY DIFFERENT FROM WHAT NORMAL PEOPLE THINK.
About the other stupid point "Renato had the opportunity to work with the best, but there are many coaches not having the same opportunity", I don't have any doubt there are many coaches able to do what I did or also better. The fact is I didn't have any opportunity : very simply, I WENT KENYA LIKE EVERYBODY CAN DO, and this was why I had the opportunity.
I don't have any doubt a lot of mechanics working in a normal garage can have the attitude for working in a Formula One Team. The fact is they don't do it, so their SPECIFIC EXPERIENCE at the moment is not the same, and when somebody speaks about Formula One, who works professionally with the Teams knows more than who works in a normal garage.
I always supposed American people and generally people of English language were very pragmatics, looking at the reality first. Instead, I continue to read a lot of discussions about "what could be if...", typical of Latin people. May be the history we learnt in the school is not correct ?
i know intimately the methods of three great coaches.
alfred groom - canadian pole vaulter turned coach, used a mixture of interval and lydiard
arch jelley - lydiard based system, coached john walker, advised dixon, many other world class new zealanders
bill dellinger - of oregon fame. coach of salazar, chappa, mcchesney, etc, etc...
trust me when i say that guys like Renato Canova and Alberto Salazar have advanced the sport greatly over the quoted coaches above, lydiard too.
all the great coaches listed above have shared their knowledge
for the benefit of the sport and science.
all these coaches are really good people i'd say.
Renato, I asked this some time back but everyone was too busy arguing about "best aerobic pace" etc. Do you have a response to this?
I think you were right before that it's time to end this debate, and move on. Sometimes you are wiser than I am.
Of course I asked you books, and some other material, in part because you said we should broaden and modernize our knowledge, and break out of our Lydiard mindset. I don't want to burden top coaches or knowledgeable coaches with my trivial questions on a regular basis. You said yourself that would be too much burden to support.
Regarding touching aerobic base everyday, and me not giving you an "exact" reference for my opinion, I gave you references, and my conclusion. If you agree with the Lydiard references, but not my conclusion, that's actually fine with me. Please give more weight to Lydiard's words than mine -- that's why I provide them. (And that's what I do with everyone here who is nameless.) I know you have some practical experience, and these things are very individual anyway. So if you still think it's a Lydiard option to go 7 days a week, in spite of my provided quotes, I don't quite agree, but I have nothing more to say. But don't be upset and accuse me of not providing references, when I did.
By the way, wasn't it you that posted some kind of survey of top Portuguese athletes, that asked how much of their training was LT training? If I recall:
- Top athletes did less LT training
- National class did more LT training
- More LT training led to quicker improvement, but they also reached their peak sooner, and didn't improve after
- Generally 1-2 LT was OK; 3-4 was too much
Given that, I'm surprised that you insist on touching best aerobic pace (something I think is around LT) 7 days a week, not breaking any Lydiard rules. I'm even more surprised when you say you think best aerobic pace is just under VO2max. Is this just a theoretical point you wanted to make?
Regarding best aerobic pace, if you think it's VO2max, I think it's LT, and someone else thinks MP+30s, there is no way to have a common understanding what "best aerobic pace everyday" means. This is the main reason I ask for a reference in this case, because everything hinges on two questions: "did he really say it", and "what does that phrase really mean?". Even with your "Lydiard by Lydiard" reference, it looks like there is still room for interpretation, because of "just under", not to mention the much-discussed fractional efforts. I don't have a better definition. I agree with "just below maximum steady state". But it's not my term -- I didn't bring it into the discussion. I just disputed it, because it sounds to me like doing 7 continuous tempo runs a week. I still don't believe Lydiard (or Nobby or the Foundation) ever said that exactly, to run "best aerobic pace everyday". But if he (or they) did, I'm very interested in reading the rest of the material, with examples.
Regarding Lydiard's long run pace, I really only wanted to make a small and narrow point about long runs being fast. I didn't think it was that controversial. (And I think no one actually disagreed or contradicted it). Since fast and slow is relative, I conceded the possibility that Canova's aerobic intensity may still be faster. Therefore Canova calls Lydiard long runs slow, even if they get faster with each year. I didn't want to exhaustively list all the differences between the two aerobic phases. I get all those Canova concepts about aerobic house, adding more volume of intensity, general/special/specific paces, progression, intensive then extensive, constant vs. increasing internal load, external load, etc. But that's not part of the small, uncontroversial point I wanted to make, in response to a question about increased risk of injury and Canova's intensity versus Lydiard. Aren't my posts long enough? You really want me to add more?
Regarding this quote, I couldn't agree more. That's exactly what I was trying to do.
itīs good that you ask for books, itīs good that you try learn more, that you investigate, do your research your analysis and you are free to express yourself, to express your opinion. Itīs good for your own education.
But itīs not good that doubt of what i say when you didnīt know my source of conclusion, that not always are books or edit material or internet material.
Worst if you doubt that i got a reference when you donīt have a strong, undoubtfull reference that denies my opinion. This case you didnīt, you just got a debatable interpretation of what was been said by Lydiard and Canova.
In the case of Lydiard, i may accept that your prevention of donīt run the best aerobic pace everyday, be the best aerobic pace what would be, i might accept your or Lydiard recommendation.
I might accept as you might agree that is not said by Lydiard with total objectivity that canīt be done everyday or, how much a week can be done.
In the quote you post about my description of the portuguese training, you miss also to understand. I said it many times i want to repeat once again. The portuguese training itīs not my training or my own opinion about training approach. My posts about portuguese training itīs like an historian does history. He describe facts, not opinions. So, donīt engage me on the portuguese training as is my own opinion. I got influences, i respect many coaches, and a few portugueses among many, but itīs not my training neither my training opinion.
Therefore itīs not correct, itīs wrong to take my opinion by what i describe from the portuguese training that i agree or i donīt agree with what they do, and that doesnīt link with Lydiard training either.
The fact that the portuguese did - Top athletes did less LT training
- National class did more LT training
- More LT training led to quicker improvement, but they also reached their peak sooner, and didn't improve after
- Generally 1-2 LT was OK; 3-4 was too much
This is true, just factual, but donīt take it for my opinion or that by that fact i tend to agree whatever would be by the best aerobic pace ever or relate that to Lydiard training.
About the other 2 issues of debate, i guess that while read Renato canova last post you see things clear actually. To Renato Canova and as a general principle of his training methodology itīs as important the quantity/extensive/mileage volume as is the quality/pace/speed/intensity.Both got the same interest. Therefore you might have relate Lydiard to canova on the aerobic training this way. Lydiard stops at 100miles and from that on advice to speed up the pace of that same 100miles (if possible). Renato Canova got no voulme rigid limit AND IN THE MEANTIME HIS TRAINING EXPAND THE VOLUME MILEAGE (extensive process) he also tries to sapped up the pace of that mileage or some of that mileage by qualify that volume mileage.
About the othere Renato issue of course that whe he says that isnīt able to train average runners, itīs by lack of motivation and too many time out of coach that average level of runners, and the same with juniors. But of course he knows how to train every type of runner, by the same princples, but not by the ssme training precisely. You said that the same training that he described to be for top-class runners, africans eventually, fits on everybody. But donīt.
He would have different schedules for one jogger, one junior italian, for one fast kenyan junior or for a senior of world class african and also different for one italian of world class, if itīs the case.
For the rest forgive my attitude to call you undesired names. Pardon me. We did disagree, but you got the debate as a polite one and polite level of debate, itīs I that i got out emotional. Excuse me.
I had been a lurker and a big-time follower of Canova posts. But I have to say I was a bit disappointed with his last post here. It seems to me that he had been trying to promote himself as a new and inovative modern training creator who is light years ahead of Arthur Lydiard, trying to point out why his methodology is better than that of Lydiard. But it seems almost he's running out of reasons and now he's simply saying, well, my training is better because my training pushes athletes beyond their mental limits.... I don't think it's a training method. I read somewhere where Greg McMillan said something about anybody can prescribe tough workouts (beyond the athlete's mental limits) but that's not "developing" athletes which I believe Lydiard did. It really sounded, to me, that he's saying, okay guys, here's the workouts for 2:03 marathon. Anybody who survived this, I'll take you to Boston or London or Rotterdam. At first, I thought Gypsy was wrong to say Canova's runners burn out after 3 years. But now I feel maybe it is true because that is the exact mentality, to be tough and break the pain barrier in workouts, that does burn out athletes. If that's Canova's "method", then it is nothing to do with developing athletes.
I really don't think, and it's almost an insult to runners and coaches in the 60s and 70s, runners like Snell or Clarke or Mills or Shorter or Walker or Bedford were thinking, well, I want to train feeling-based so if I feel tough, I'll back off and go easy.... I don't think that's the reason why their times are a minute slower in 10000m than runners today. I don't think it's got nothing to do with "training method" of Renato Canova that broke the mental barrier that his runners are running 2:03 or 2:04.
I also found it's interesting how, self-claim Canova followers like Antonio (=Joe or JR) criticize Lyidard being wrong because it's running too hard everyday (whether it's just under LT or VO2Max or Steady State or whatever) while Canova himself criticize Lydiard for being too easy and not suitable for today's competitive racing circuit. Something doesn't add up here.
Antonio, if you legitimately think about certain things, how come you always post under different names as some bogus individuals? And, really, what's with all this name-calling? You come out as "Antonio" and say forgive me or excuse me, but you always come out as someone else and be so nasty anyway.
|Annoucement to Everyone|
Rekrunner, ClearNow, Anti-tonio (fake) and probably 95 percent of the fake names on this thread, are ALL the same person.
The El Stupido Grande, Gypsy.