|Pages: | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 ||
I do not ever take these things personally, but was honestly just a little surprised. But I know you have some Latin roots.
When I asked you intially for a reference, it's because that particular discussion was going on for a couple of pages, and I really wanted an "undistorted" definition. I guess my tone was short, for other reasons, but how could I know it was you, when you posted under another name? It was not a question of doubting your conclusion without sources. I was doubting some anonymous poster with no previous history or reputation. Given our colorful history, I hope I would have chosen to be more diplomatic rather than impatient and condescending, at least for a little while.
Regarding the Portuguese study, OK I understand your points that your training beliefs is not Portuguese training, and it has nothing to do with Lydiard training. But in light of this discussion it was an honest question how these conclusions fit in.
About Renato's training being suitable for everyone, of course I don't suggest taking Moses Mosop's training log to my local high school to produce teenage world champions. I mean that all these concepts, like aerobic house building, general/special/specific paces, intensive, extensive, eventual increase in volume of intensity, etc. can be adapted to everyone's situation, and there is no unusual risk of injury or burnout, choosing this kind of approach, over a Lydiard approach, as long as other things like balance, and recovery, are also adapted. How far that approach can be taken is limited by the individual talent. It's my opinion that both are proven approaches for all kinds of runners.
Well, speaking for myself,
- While I admire gypsy's passion, his experience with Soviet periodization, and some of his fresh thinking, I'm on record as disagreeing with his conclusions about Renato burning out his athletes after 3 years.
- I don't mind if Antonio posts under other names. I prefer to judge the content in the "message" box, rather than the "name" box.
- I'm not disappointed with Renato's last post, or any of his posts for that matter.
Is "Annoucement(sic) to Everyone" part of the 95% of fake names?
Your question is a legitimately question or by the fact that you run anonymous might i ignore you ?
Itīs funny that you and many posters uses nicknames here and some of them they donīt reveal his identity. The anonymous They salute one each other as both well known individuals.
I donīt know, i donīt imagine who is Rekrunner by the way. If he posts undercovered and is a his own right of freedom from the Private Policy of this Forum, iīm also free to post under any name or nick name i want. Or the the Lydiardists like Gipsy, wetcoast and many more, they do the right to post undercover by nick name, but i donīt ?
Do you know iīm one of the fews the Lydiardism felt in trouble by my undercover posts. The resson is because i did the courage and the audace to comment on Lydiardism. All the other anonymous that post under uncovered nickname, they really donīt care. Several Lydiardists they post undercover with te same nickname since i read this forum. Try to post anonymous and said that Lydiard is very good, the worlds best coach, and that Antonio is a nasty fellow. That kind of silly things. No one from the Lydiardism will stand to judge you, no one of them will care, that you are anonymous as long as you say something bestifull about the Lydiard training. wetcoast, Nobby, Gipsy, HRE, they really donīt care about silly or clever posts as long as that posts are pro-Lydiardism or they willnīt reply to the anonymous posts But if itīs not Lydiardism apology, well... they consider the anonymity very negative, an infamous undercover option, almost a crime.
This time i did post as Joe maggio to remember the Lydiadism that on that matteri got the same rights that Kershall or any Lydiardist does. To post anonymous. Long ago that he posts alternated as Keshall and wetcoast nickname often without email address. Iīm no more no less than him on that my prerogative.
To consider outrageous anonymous posts when itīs not pleasent or different to our own idea, or to let it go and accept the anonymous posts because is in tune with what someone things, this is what is intellectual dishonesty. the use of 2 weights and 2 measures. Mr. John Hadd was accused many times by the fact that he did posts anonymous unpleasant posts to the Lydiardism.
To remember John Hadd, one free thinker, and how he was offended by wetcoast, is the other reason why i did post anonymous this time, but finally i did reveal my true identity.
In my language "everybody" means from Moses Mosop's training log to your local high school. But now i understand that is not what you want to mean by "everybody" and i accept that you werenīt thinking about the same Renatoīs schedule that is tailed for Moses Mosop acan be adapted for your local high school kid.
Agree with all that you said except what relates to Lydiard and Canova got near the same concepts. Some are the same, some others donīt.
This can start a big debate. But letīs resume my opinion with 3 basic principles common to both coaches .
For example. Both coaches emphasis on te aerobic training and the aerobic house, the aerobic need, what we might define. But the Renato Canova principle of aerobics of is far distant from the principle of aerobic Lydiard.
I got the same problem with the one interview with Keshall. I said "aerobic is very important", he taught that my aerobic principle, my define of aerobic training is the the same that the Lydiard one, the only one that he knows as Lydiardist parrot that he is. Renato Canova on one of his last posts wrote something like this - and please don īt ask me for the exact reference, the literal one. He says "the aerobic itīs m ore than slow runs". Remember ? He wanted to mean that for him something like 20X400m 10k pace with short recovery itīs also aerobic training. But to Lydiard this kind of training shall be avoid because that same workout isnīt relate on the Lydiard principle of aerobics. On another post Renato says " i hardly can discuss with people that thinks that 20X400m at at 10k pace". Continuous runs at 90-95% race pace is still aerobic training for Renato, but for Lydiard donīt.
Second example. Once in a while refers the specific training. But the concept of specific training itīs not the same from Renato or Lydiard. Of course that the specificity done by Lydiard with intervals by feeling or time-trail during the Lydiard anaerobic phase, that he sometimes advices of not use the watch to control the interval pace, itīs not the specific pace that Renato means. Renato talks about specific at race pace , and external load a quite mathematic pace related to the race pace of the distance event. Lydiard intervals are done by feeling-based.
Third example. Lydiard by Gi sometimes refers the need of training individualization. The problem is that the Lydiard principle of training individualization itīs not the same that the one of Canova.
Itīs not just the application as you well said in one your past posts. the application is different, but the principle with the same world or expression terminology got not the same meaning for both coaches. Of course that
the Lydiard marathon block with 100miles for everybody that can reach that volume, and since do the 100miles isnīt not very important whatīs the pace you do it, but the run it the best pace you can with the need of some easy runs to recover during the marathon block this is the opposite of training individualization. Or during the Lydiard anaerobic block itīs not important to define how many intervals you, and itīs not important see the pace of the intervals,, this is the opposite to training individualization, and very different from Renato Canova principle of training individualization. Lydiard individualization is the kind of "do it your own way as long as you feel tired" and doesnīt care what are the the different training need for training differentiation, what is not individualization really, or better said is distort the rich principle of training individualization on to profit from the benefice and efficiency that to training by each physical differentiation, from different VO2max, from different muscular fibers, lactate, to different body mass, to different biomechanics, etc.
I could go on and write more examples. Once itīs been said said "donīt give pearls to pigs". I said enough that you might understand that not just the application.
Renato's "aerobic more than slow" comment is in the list a couple pages back. I don't need a link. Also in the list is something about tailoring the training like clothes to the individual athletes.
My "same principles" comment did start a big debate I surely don't want to continue. When I said both coaches use largely the same principles, this was a semantic distinction, which I thought was quite clearly expressed including a dictionary definition and a list of examples. But in spite of that, it created more discussion than it was worth, and seemed unacceptable to at least one.
For example, both coaches incorporate the principle of specificity into their training, but in very different ways. Is this one same principle, or is every possible expression of specificity its own unique principle?
The question is rhetorical, but apparently my "same thing only different" viewpoint is simply too confusing for this forum.
Actually i say something different.
When I see intervals at 10k pace or slower than 10k pace, I know for best results I MUST see SHORT and ACTIVE recovery. If it is done with standstill recovery, I know from experience, this will not work well (espcially for FT) as an LT session. With standstill recovery I know the anaerobic system will recover like magic in very short time and will play too big a part in the next rep, and the next one and so on. So there will be too much lactate in each rep for good lactate management.
However the interest of intervals with short and active recovery at 10k to 10mile, or 10k to HM or 10k to Marathon pace as alternative design to continuous fast run (LT and LTp) runs, that are the typical Lydiard "best aerobic pace" is very effective indeed, especially if the runner is FT type.
FIRST TEST Out of training, done the fall of 2003 after the track summer season and before the start of the winter season training the transitory period, what supposed is supposed he is be out of shape.
TEST OF 600m -
Lactate: 14.4 mmol
O2 deficit: 36.24 mg/kg
Aerobic percent: 65.6%
Anaerobic percent: 34.4%
Max.VO2 72.25 mil/Kg/min
Maximum Aerobic Speed VMA - (or vVO2 max as you say): 2:38/kilo
Speed of Anaerobic Threshold (V4 test) : 3:02/kilo
SECOND TEST Early spring of 2004 after the winter season.
TEST OF 600m -
Lactate: 14.6 mmol
O2 deficit: 31.73 mg/kg
Aerobic percent: 72.0%
Anaerobic percent: 28.0%
Max.VO2 73.22 mil/Kg/min
Maximum Aerobic Speed VMA - (or vVO2 max as you say): 2:46/kilo
Speed of Anaerobic Threshold (V4 test) : 3:08/kilo
THIRD TEST Late 2004 season right after to win the 1500m bronze medal in the Athens Olympics.
TEST OF 600m -
Lactate: 15.4 mmol
O2 deficit: 31.74 mg/kg
Aerobic percent: 66.0%
Anaerobic percent: 34.0%
Max.VO2 71.12 mil/Kg/min
Maximum Aerobic Speed VMA - (or vVO2 max as you say): 2:48/kilo
Speed of Anaerobic Threshold (V4 test) : 3:12/kilo
The problem they got with me is not the use of nickname. Many persons do and the pro-Lydiardism does and the Lydiardism got no problem or complain. they just mind when is said something out of the Lydiardism.
Perhaps this what I say about training makes me seem like an unfriendly person for saying the obvious.
Thank you for those test results. Very interesting! Assuming the results are correct, looks like even a race as short as 600m can be as much as 72% aerobic for a 1500 guy. Also, you would think that an "out of shape" Silva would have worse VMA and V4 than an "in shape" Silva. The tests show the opposite. I don't blame anyone for saying "the hell with science" and instead choosing to use what works.
You might understand this. Donīt be betrayed by average percent. Do you know that story about the average of 2 people is 3 meals a day, but one did 4 a day and the other just 2. Average equals 3. What I want to say I guess itīs something similar to Renato Canova that the percent of aerobic versus anaerobic for every distance event itīs not correct. For instance same Rui Silva that might run 1500m and finish with something like 55-60% aerobic and 40-45% anaerobic final average result, but during the run both systems are solicited at different percents at different split parts of that same 1500m run. For example at the initial 600m and if the run doesnīt start very fast for him he might split the 600m mark 75% aerobic and 25% anaerobic. At 1100-1200m, 400m or 300m to go, he is something like 55%aerobic 45%anaerobic. At the last 200m to 150m 10om to go, he goes 35-40%aerobic 65-60%anaerobic, this is similar to the aerobic-anaerobic percent that exists in a 600-800m run !
Therefore at this last moment of an 1500m run, the anaerobic system is more solicited that the aerobic, and finally during the final quick he is 30%aerobic 70%anaerobic, something like one 600m or 800m event average.
Similar sitution of the anaerobic increase as the final part of the run approaches, it happens on every middle to long diatnce run, from 800m to the 5k 10k HM marathon. With different final percents, but as far as the run move on the aerobic percent reduces and the anaerobic moves up.
Of course that the basis that able the runner to outquick and speed up the last runs is his aerobic system that is very strong and he runs tranquil and in some comfort during the first part of the run, and this is this what permits him speed up the pace in the final part of the run. The better the aerobic capacity, then the smaller the anaerobic contribution at any submaximal pace and you can go faster for any given blood lactate concentration.
However to able this, he needs to exercise by training that transition from aerobic prevalent to anaerobic prevalent. To maximize this potential like one car to run with 2 turbos at maximum power, he needs to train during the same chronologic period both systems adequately. The rich training of that quickly anaerobic versus anaerobic transition, itīs not done if you separate or divide the season periodisation in one early period constituted by aerobic training, that is the aerobic first, and anaerobic late. The Lydiard-soviet periosidation is wrong about that training approach. What is needed is training the aerobic as the training fundamental, but also as soon as possible to introduce fast-anaerobic training, the anaerobic training in progressive dosage.
Progression is the key. . IN THE EARLY STAGE WORK FROM THE EXTREMES TOWARDS THE MIDDLE. OVERDISTANCE SESSIONS SHOULD BECOME FASTER, WHEREAS UNDERDISTANCE SESSIONS SHOULD BECOME LONGER. TRAINING SHALL BE GO FROM GENERIC TO SPECIFIC, aAND NOT FROM ONE PERIOD OF GENERIC, FOLLOWED BY ANOTHER PERIOD WITH JUST SPECIFIC.
Progressive dosage doesnīt mean from easy anaerobic to fast anaerobic, it means from less frequency, less number of sessions, to more number of sessions, from less anaerobic training total volume to high anaerobic total volume. This is why the typical Lydiard method with one early aerobic season block flowed by anaerobic block, itīs not as productive as mix-up and introduce n parsimony dosage anaerobic training in every block.
Once again. Rui Silva is a 1:44 something like the same 1:44 Peter Snell also did, but he is a 3:30 runner that got the ability to run in 3:28, but as his main goal when he was an olympic was just classification on big games and not chrono results when Peter Snell being much faster than Rui did a slower 1500m performance. The same with most of the Lydiard runners. They got poor index/ratio of resistant related to other training methods and the reason itīs not because they arenīt faster in short runs or they got no good aerobic condition. The reason itīs because they run with the aerobic system mostly and his second turbo that is the anaerobic system is not as efficient as should be, because they exercise it only during one very short limited period.
The Lydiard-Soviet system of periodisation is not right. The anaerobic training, might be introduced with the aerobic training during the same micro cycles and mesocycle on every phase of the season training process, with adequate need of recover and regeneration eventually.
Finally about Rui again. I Suppose the test data is correct. I repeat, if is correct, and I think so, itīs done by the portuguese best physiologists and by the protocol assistance of Madame Veronique Billat.
The interesting one data that I interpret is that measure of any physiological capacity just discriminate between athletes of wide ability ranges. It does not discriminate between a relatively homogeneous group of elite athletes in the same sport. I take a second interesting conclusion from the Ruiīs data. The top shape condition, the best season moment of shape condition that is shoed by the runner performance during that period, as Rui showed on with his borze medal in Athens Olympics, however the physiologic data doesnīt show that shape improve. Physiologic test data doesnīt prove great thing. Tests are useless to fine grain of consideration.
I can sort of follow you argument in places, but it then becomes difficult to follow when you start to say "had the ability" to run faster. When you do this, you open up too many possibilities for any definite conclusions to be drawn. For example, using the same assumptions, a hard-core Lydiardist could just as easily argue that Peter Snell had the ability to run a 3-26 1500m on a Mondo surface track with pacemakers but his main goal was just to win the 1500m event at the Olympic games; he managed this with no difficulty in 1964.
Your latest post (re Rui Silva etc.) is the reason why you should always be welcome on this forum ....
More posts like these please (rather than point scoring against others)
I can sort of follow you argument in places, but it then becomes difficult to follow when you start to say "had the ability" to run faster. When you do this, you open up too many possibilities for any definite conclusions to be drawn. For example, using the same assumptions, a hard-core Lydiardist could just as easily argue that Peter Snell had the ability to run a 3-26 1500m on a Mondo surface track with pacemakers but his main goal was just to win the 1500m event at the Olympic games; he managed this with no difficulty in 1964.[/quote]
Good comment. Thanks. I might confess that I hesitate to include that idea about Rui, and you are right itīs subjective.
But I decide to include this part by some reason.
One is that to emphasize that sometimes runners with the Rui profile a fast finisher - the goal is win runs or the better classification as possible at big competitions and not best chromos, pbs, etc. and consequently his training approach is according of one that wants peak performances at the determined moment and not a new pb or world class performance it doesnīt matter what moment of the season.
Secondly. What I say about Rui is the same that some experts say about peter Snell for example, that he could have done better. Therefore no one Lydiardist can accuse me of one thing I really think the same for Peter Snell and more.
Third, what I said is not to say that he could have done best performances with the training that he does, but to emphasize that he just runs for competition success rather than chrono performances.
As i agree with you I revised the sentence and I write new version. I should write: Despite that I personally think that Rui as well as Peter Snell, both would have run faster pbs if they focus on records instead of focus on major competitions, Rui with same 1:44 8000m speed support to run longer distances that Peter, he got slower basic speed that Peter did. However the rationale analyses both runners or Rui related with another Lydiard runner, trough rich methodology, we might see the index/ratio of Ruiīs resistance is far superior to Peter, or to most of the Lydiard genuine runners, and in my opinion this is due to Ruiīs different training approach, that WITH A GOOD AEROBIC TRAINING TO PROGRESS AND SUSTAIN HIS AEROBIC CONDITION HE INCLUDES ANAEROBIC TRAINING IN EVERY PHASE OF THE SEASON PERIODISATION.
Actually it took some 3-4 minutes to write my last post, and you see English itīs not my mother language, and I wrote it so quickly, without revision or read after that I wrote. I just write, copy and post. However I think that the core of the message, my main argument itīs still correct despite that incorrect sentence.
This is not a good start, telling me what i do and don't understand, however, we can put that aside as it's something you do quite often and i am almost used it by now.
This concept of 'feelings' is thrown around quite a bit and i don't think many people know what it means. I think when you equate it to your concept of internal load it shows how deeply you think about it. However, i could be wrong because to be honest i don't know exactly how you define Internal Load, perhaps you can explain this and external load for me?
If we are to look at 'feelings' as an idea of an entire range of human sensations which we as humans are capable of experiencing and understanding, then it is really pretty simple. There are really only two directions you can go - pain and pleasure. If we look at pain as seeminly the main area you are interested in, then we can find such a variety ... as i'm sure everyone's own memory can show them. The feeling from a pinch is different from a slap which is different from a punch. Different again is an ice burn, a burn from flames, a burn from boiling water. A knife cut is different from a knife stab which i imagine is different from a bullet wound. Looking at the training body - the pain from the burn at 20 seconds is different from the one at 40 which is different from the one at the end of an 800m which is different from the one at the end of the 1500m which is different from hitting the wall in a marathon. The pain from a heavy week is different from the pain of a heavy session which is different from the pain of a hard rep. The pain varies on how trained one is for a particular exercise and how much past their comfort zone they go in a particular session. The variables are immense and they have differing influences, both in scope of effect and range of time over which the effects take place. An athlete who can read all of this does not need a coach anymore. My intention as a coach is to have athletes arrive at enough self understanding that they can take over the reins and my role changes from coach to mentor. Note the importance of self-understanding in my way of thinking. This is far more important than any text book study.
Renato, somehow you assert that athletes have some limitation to development if they are solely focused on their 'feelings'. You think that 'feelings' somehow means people cannot extend themselves beyond their limits. This is pure fallacy and i say the reverse is true. When you rely on the stopwatch to tell you 'everything', what you sacrifice is the ability to crate a large peak. When an athlete is so tuned into 1% here and 1% there they cannot possibly be looking at the larger picture for their focus is in the opposite direction. This is in addition to the fact that the routine an athlete is accustomed to is the one they will repeat on race day. Accustom them to such rigid mathematics and they may repeat a rigid mathematical race and may be able to repeat it with regularity, but they won't be able to step outside that. The very prevention of the potential poor race negates the ability for the 'great' race.
So whilst you try to say that using 'feelings' are a great limitation, in fact the reverse is true - overstructure leads to a stagnant athlete. So when i said you burn your athletes out (and i said at the time this is not exactly the right word) and i say again now, it isn't the right word in all cases or even in many. This is one of the types i meant.
When you stifle an athletes creative capacity with this type of over-structure you limit their potential greatness. It only takes a few years of subjugating the free Kenyan mind into a mindless automaton on the track and sure enough they stop improving. So be it burnout from over-training to stifling of an athletes potential through an overly rigid structure or for one of the other reasons i haven't been able to go into yet, it all amounts to the same thing - a stop on improvement after 3 seasons.
What ? Many people don't now what you mean ? Is this a good start ?
You are a idiot. It's a good start.