|Pages: | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 ||
|physics and math fan|
Einstein's Nobel prize was not related to his work on relativity.
gypsy, I just want to say that you are a complete idiot. that is all, really.
Should i shout at you as well?
Fact is Renato none of your athletes have ever improved beyond the first three years. This is a statistical fact and shows beyond a shadow of a doubt that your system is a failure.
One athlete - show us the stats.[/quote]
no i'm just warning against danger[/quote]
You are NUTS. SEEK PROFESSIONAL HELP. NOW!!
Renato, gypsy is a failed athlete, coach (google Peter Winter assault) and person, and he is not worthy of your honest and excellent responses.
Interesting, instead of debate we have hostility. Of meaningful debate, we know the legendary Lydiard and Canova too, would embrace it. We learn from meaningful debate.
We have lost site of the fact that the underlying principles are similar/same. The specifics have differences.
Has anyone dared to read the entire document at Champions Everywhere?
In the Original Post, it was made clear that the Rountable was a group of very knowledgeable Lydiard coaches speaking. I don't care who you are comparing to, Lydiard will appear to come out on top, that is natural.
Try a Canova rountable....it will appear prejudiced in favour of Canova. So be it.
The principles of both systems are spot on. But please, read the document: http://www.championseverywhere.com/lydiardcanova2
Ok so the people who don't look information up themselves have responded, thanks for you comments, makes me feel warm and fuzzy :) But it did get me to research this out properly, so i thankyou for that inspiration.
Now lets actually look at this list of athletes but first must respond to this:
Renato i am talking about your posts. Where are your posts? Now we can find 4 posts in the last 20 pages of that thread. Prior to the removal there must have been a dozen at least. Where did they go? Magically disappeared? Included was the example your provided (whose name i cannot remember) to prove me last time we locked horns on this particular issue. Can you remind me who that was? Now we have this new list, which only serve to prove my point more strongly so i'm not sure why you posted them.
Onto the list - lets grab IAAF stats for a clearer picture. Now this list is missing one piece of essential information, except in one case. We don't know when you began coaching these people so cannot prove things one way or the other definitively. Perhaps you can add that information you forgot to include, except in that one case. Anyways i will still go ahead as things are pretty conclusive anyway.
FLORENCE KIPLAGAT (1987)
---this is the example mo'pak has already pointed out as an example supporting my theory; the stats show this to be true, 3 years. But then you moved her out distances.
STEPHEN CHERONO (Saaeed SHAHEEN) (1982)
---the stats you provided go back to 1999. Did you start coaching him when he was 17? The stats above show he peaks in the steeple, his main event, in 2004 aged 23. His 5k peaked in 2003. We do need to know when he started with you to be more decisive but this looks exactly like a case of early burnout. 23 is young to be stopping improvement is it not?
MOSES MOSOP (1985)
--again we don't know when you started with him but lets say in 2003 at 18. I do remember he stood out one year at the training camps and somehow an Italian agent got him to you. Do you get this service often? I guess this explains how the complaint i hear around is that you cheery pick your athletes. The stats below show he peaked in 3k and 5k in 2006 aged 21. This is very early! It is also 3 years. 2007 went backwards and you began to move him out distance. Again the short 3 year period of improvement at the original events before stagnation ... so you move them out distance. This is a trend that is becoming increasingly clearer.
PAUL KOSGEI (1978)
--- Interesting example. 2000, aged 22 saw him peak in 3k and 5k and seemingly peak in 10k, but 2003 saw a new 10k peak, as he was moving out distance now yes? His 10k road still from 2002 though. Later he ran a 209 marathon in 2008 aged 30. This probably led you to see he would have been better off going longer at a younger age. You have applied this lesson well to the athletes that have come since him. This moving out distances at younger and younger ages ... Still this example only shows a long career, not development at the original event/s past 3 years. Why did he stop improving at his original distances? I guess this question can be asked about most of your athletes.
MARK BETT (1976)
---good story about working around his physical problem, but he stopped improving at 3k and 5k so early again. The stats below show 5k pb in 2000 aged 24 and 3k in 2001 aged 25. 10k continued to improve to 2005 as he moved out distances and ended up running some half marathons, but no marathons. Maybe this example supports the experience of kosgei above. Still it is hard to say anything in this case because each year might have seen his problem worsen in the second half of his 20s. But then again perhaps not being able to train consistently saw his career lengthen more than the norm. When did you start with him?
RAKYA MARAOUI-QUETIER (1967)
---first question is when did you begin with her and what exactly was your involvement over those 22 years o your involvement with her. First i like this sort of career, even moreso from someone not at the top level, however, we again see the loss of her original events, those shorter faster ones that your athletes seem to stop doing fairly quickly and seem to stop improving in after 3 years.
DORCUS INZIKURU (1982)
---another moving up distance example, 3k pb in 2003 aged 21 an 5k in 2004 aged 22, both never improved on. Moving out
to steeple saw a pb in 2005 in her third year of racing the event. Almost the purest example in this list of someone who peaked early and performed at a lower level ever after.
SYLVIA KIBET (1984)
---here we could have a winner. 4 seasons of improvement is this true? 2010 peaking in most events but 2011 backwards and then career over? Anyway this sole example proves me wrong and her is someone improving in their 4th season.
I'm glad i put the effort into this. The above list not only further proves my point it expands it a little. It more clearly highlights the moving out of distances aspect to Canova's approach. Still, when it comes to the shorter faster distances, the ones requiring a higher degree of athleticism for success, the Canova approach doesn't seem to get anywhere. When it comes to marathons the jury i guess is still out. Bring on Mosop's next few marathons.
That is one of the more brilliant things i've read. So many ideas were coming out of that document i had to stop and ease my head. 'Fartlek and low things...' was definitely more fun to read :)
I have to read it again and grab some quotes as many things nicely support what i'm trying to show at the moment. It has stuff that is able to show the reasons why Canova has this short-term development problem. Note that this problem appears anywhere where aerobic power interval training overwhelms the aerobic capacity training which seems to be the majority of the US to be honest (and much of Australia too).
Regardless of the "spat" that Gypsy is having with Renato ... I am still waiting for the answer to my question to JR .. How many Waiatarua's have you run ?.
|demented crazy psychopath|
Yes, Wejos, please kick the sick idiot gypsy out of here.
A look at the all time lists suggests that the current training methods of Renato are only very effective for male marathoners.
He did in 2003 get Kemboi to improve from moderate performer to 26.30 10000m off 7 weeks specific training.
But in more recent times his track athletes have made no inroads to the top end of the all time lists.
Also his female athletes not only cannot climb to the top of the track all time lists but are not making much headway in the marathon and half marathon.
F.Kiplagat for instance is just a second or so faster over 10000m than Ingrid Kristiansen's 1986 time. Ingrid's best half marathon is around the same as Florence's and even the marathon only sees Forence at 2.19 not much quicker than Ingrid and Joan Benoit at 2.21 and 4 minutes slower than the World Best.
Looks like you are not making friends with your harsh perception of Canova. I thought the goal of training and racing was to win with fast times, and Canova has certainly had his share of successful wins. You seem to think that moving up in distance after 3 years is proof that the athlete is being somehow short changed by not reaching his potential at the original distance. There are other ways to look at this, i.e. he brings them to a peak in 3 years, and then he is able to bring these athletes to longer distances, because of improved endurance. But I think the best way to resolve this is for you to take some athletes and give them the ideal balanced and long term approach that maximizes their success, and see how your track record compares.
Anyway, for a change of subject, you asked me about some physiology questions about capillary beds and mitochondrial development.
The first point I will make is that, for me, aerobic capacity and VO2max are synonyms. "Aerobic capacity" is just one aerobic quality, of many. So when we talk about Canova's "aerobic houses", and "aerobic capacity" work, these are two different things. "Aerobic capacity" will be developed quite quickly (e.g. 1-2 years), while building your "aerobic house" includes other aerobic qualities, and may take 7-10 years to build.
But let me start with a little background of me and physiology. Some few years ago, I knew basically next to nothing about physiology, so was eager to learn a few things. Now my eagerness has disappeared, and been replaced with the opinion that knowledge of physiology isn't all that important in a practical sense. Talk of things like capillary density and mitochondrial density are completely useless, as these are not things easily measured by coaches or athletes on a daily basis. To guide your training, you need things you can measure, like time, heartrate, oxygen consumption, or things you can subjectively guage by feel. Capillaries and mitochondria do not fall in this category, so at best only serve for theoretical discussions.
My position on physiology is largely inline with what Stephen Seiler wrote in a bunch of pages on a Norwegian website (which has now disappeared). His claim was that it was state of the art (most of it was copyrighted 1996). The most valuable thing I took from that, was a graph illustrating "3 waves of change":
1) VO2max changes
2) Anaerobic threshold changes
3) Economy changes
When we look at these 3 things, we are looking at the main source of performance improvements. So in the beginning, for an untrained runner, the main source of improvements can be linked to VO2max changes. These tend to max out quite quickly. I often say 1-2 years. Changes may still occur later, but they are less significant when measured by the stopwatch.
The next important thing is improvements in your "anaerobic threshold". This is typically measured in terms of how much of your VO2max can you sustain. For example, a first time marathon beginner might be only 70% of VO2max, while a national class runner might be able to sustain 87% of VO2max. This tends to max out in the mid-term. I don't know, but maybe 5-7 years, or 7-10 years.
The final thing is economy. Sometimes I say efficiency and economy together, as they are similar in concept, but different in definition. The difference is efficiency is how much total energy ends up moving your legs, measured as a percentage, while economy is how fast you go, for the oxygen you are consuming. The main sources of this come from improved running form, and improved neuro-muscular conditioning. We can measure these kinds of improvements by observing our oxygen measurements stop improving in spite of faster times.
Now, maybe my perception is too simplistic, and fatally flawed, but I don't care, as I think it's really not that important to get this right. We know how to measure when training works, so physiology knowledge is at best of secondary importance, and at worst, superfluous. So I present the model I like, but won't spend much energy debating what's right or wrong about it. I don't need to complicate it with glycolysis, and neoglycogenesis, and Brooks lactate shuttle, and other fancy topics.
So you ask, how do we know mitochondrial density and capillary density max out? First, no one measures it, so we don't really know what's going on anyway. What we can measure is VO2max, and we can measure race times.
My best answer though is that these kinds of changes are a response to a stimulus. Increasing these densities requires increasing the stimulus. At some point, the athlete will max out, simply because the intensity required to produce the necessary stimulus, will require an increased recovery time. This will be limited by a balanced need for intensity and recovery.
When I say "max-out", it's possible that these things still improve slightly over time. The point is though that the main improvements occur in the short term and mid-term, and subsequent improvements become less relevant, when measured by a stopwatch.
The other thing to recall, for a reason you mention often, is that improving VO2max at all costs, can be counter-productive. The race may not require the highest possible VO2max, so training for that will mean other important training is sacrificed. The training needs to progress in a way that is balanced and holistic, advancing all of the variables in a way that is optimal for that athlete at his race distance.
But when your VO2max is maximized, this doesn't mean you stop doing VO2max training. You still need to provide a high stimulus to maintain your VO2max. This response is continuously adjusted to match the stimulus.
You mention "economy" as a negative thing, based on some assumption that by defining the term, no one asks the question "how do we improve running economy?" For me, it follows directly. Maybe it's not discussed as much as other juicy topics, but I've seen it discussed. You need to work on your form, and you need to keep running. Your body will eventually adapt in the long term to make running more economical. Matt Fitzgerald goes into a detailed description of improving running form in his book "Brain Training".
So my physiological conclusion, and why I think physiology is largely superfluous, is because training is composed of fast, medium, and slow paces. Once you've developed your VO2max, training is still composed of fast, medium, and slow paces. Once you've pushed your anaerobic threshold high, training is still composed of fast, medium, and slow paces. The knowledge of physiology doesn't seem to impact how you approach training.
Took your time to work that out mopak.
That's not like you.
I read it. I made some comments before which seemed to get little notice.
So far, I think it's largely an unfinished work. It needs to go into more details about the differences of the two approaches and the implications (something that was promised in Part 1). Then the discussion can get interesting.
My first comment is that it purports to be a frank discussion about the methods of Canova, and Lydiard, but I found next to nothing about Canova training. Early in the discussion, they take a break and spend 5 pages clarifying what Lydiard is. After reading that, I'm left wondering, what is Canova training, and what do they think Canova training is? Why doesn't Canova get a few pages too? Or at least a few paragraphs? The whole discussion is about 90% a discussion about Lydiard, 5% discussion about Canova, and at one point Horwill is discussed, getting almost equal airtime as Canova. What does Horwill have to do with a Canova-Lydiard comparison?
A few times it is mentioned that in fact Canova and Lydiard are virtually identical anyway, but Canova just doesn't know it because he only knows the Lydiard myth. So you could argue by virtue of being identical, that explaining Lydiard training also explains Canova training. But I wonder if the Lydiard Knights don't commit the same mistake, by not fully understanding what Canova does. And if they really are identical, then what's the point of a 3 part series analyzing the differences, and what kind of discussion could be generated from two identical methods?
My second comment is that this is Part 2 of a series. It might have been useful to link Part 1: http://www.championseverywhere.com/lydiardcanovacomparison
At least here there is a brief introduction to Canova's method that is being discussed, and an attempt to perform a comparison. In that respect Part 1 is much better. And Part 1 correctly points out that not nearly as much is written about Canova, as is Lydiard, so there is a chance that what they are criticizing is really misunderstood. The very first thing I noticed is a picture of a "Canova pyramid" which looks wrong. Someone put "SPECIAL" on top of "SPECIFIC", which looks upside down to me. The rest of the discussion (both Parts 1 and Parts 2) seem to indicate that they don't really understand some concepts of Canova's training, and some important deviations that Canova makes from Lydiard. (I mentioned a few in my previous post). Finally, the end of part 1 promises that Part 2 will provide us a "phase by phase" comparison. Part 2 doesn't address that at all. I assume that maybe the plan changed, and maybe a new Part 3 will, and a new Part 4 will "look at the long term implications", as promised at the end of "Part 1". Maybe then my conclusion is premature, and this will be corrected in the unwritten parts.
Part 1 suggests that they both use periodization, implying that this means they have a lot in common. While they do things in common, there are some important differences too. We've already had a few discussion in previous Lydiard threads about "linear periodization" versus "non-linear periodization". We really need the unwritten "Part 2" that promised this "phase by phase" comparison to see how well they understand the differences. Then the discussion here at letsrun could get more interesting.
In Part 2, Nobby talks about specificity in Lydiard. While he is right that the final 6 weeks includes specificity, an important thing to mention is that the previous 3-4 1/2 months had very little to do with specificity. Maybe, by chance, some of the same things are triggered in early phases with fartlek runs, and 3/4 efforts, but specificity isn't incorporated in the early phases by design, because the focus in Lydiard phases is very different. I hope we see that discussed in the promised "phase by phase" comparison.
Another undeveloped point is that they seem to think Canova is against Lydiard. Maybe this is just another misunderstanding. In the history of Letsrun, the most outspoken critic is Antonio Cabral. There are a few others (like J.R.), and some (Finnish?) guy who claims Lydiard is an exaggerator. (DUH!) But I always thought Canova was very diplomatic in his treatment of Lydiard. Canova talks often about the importance of Lydiard in history, and says that Lydiard is a very good starting point. But some coaches today have moved on. Canova started there, but his personal and professional experiences have led him to change a few things, and use a different focus. Isn't this what every great coach does? Isn't this what Lydiard did? I wonder if there was an "Igloi round table" to discuss Igloi myths versus Lydiard myths? Canova didn't ever dismiss Lydiard as contradictory or misguided. He just says that in the last 40 years, it's time to stop following him, and climb up on his shoulders. Lydiard was a small giant, but it's time to become bigger than Lydiard.
From now on, any time I see a post by the user "Gypsy" I will be forced to take it with a huge grain of salt or perhaps just ignore it outright.
I see no reason for this poster to have any credibility at this point.
|Not A Cultist|
You contradict yourself on thismpost and the original post. On one hand you try and be nice to everyone, then you take digs which are by no means well disguised. You cannot hide your obsessions.
But I think that's just it:
The principles of both systems are NOT spot on. This is precisely reflected in the differences between the two systems.
You can't say that they share the same principles when Canova specifically says things like this:
I read the whole round table thing and I agree that there's an extreme bias towards Lydiard and a lot of ignorance (and virtually no relevant discussion) concerning the principles of Canova.
No you are incorrect.
Canova admits that much of the quality work that he prescribes for his athletes, which we know are primarily East Africans, would not be appropriate for any non-top-level athletes. These East African, top-level athletes have thousands of miles behind them before many in the rest of the world begin running. And they live a different lifestyle that is closer to the earth, so can handle this. He also chooses only the best.
Now the other 99.9% of athletes, what do we prescribe for them? Canova's method because he is what we may refer to as "current" or "modern"? No! Because Canova said that they would not be able to handle this work.
There is little doubt that Lydiard, Vigil, Hermans, Rosa and many other top coaches could take the very best East Africans and help them get to the top of the game. In fact Lydiard was invited to Kenya to observe and provide feedback and he told them that they are already doing all the right things. He was right. They completely dominate the world.
Do they dominate the world because of Canova? Looking at his method that was linked earlier in the thread, and the fact that he has had great success, I would say that he must do many things right. Patrick Makau with the world marathon record of 2:03:38 is self-coached. Would you suggest he would run 2:02 under Canova?
You must understand that basic principles and the detailed specifics of a program for individual athletes are two different things. Learn that and you can appreciate the benefits of many coach's approach to their individual and unique athletes.
I only pointed to a document and gave fair warning that it comes from a Lydiard-friendly perspective.
Am I a cultist when I say in this very thread that I prefer Rosa's marathon program to Lydiard's (on paper anyway)? How could that be?
|you think about it|
YOU ARE SO HARSH ON RENATO - MOST RUNNERS DON'T LAST LONG. HERE IS MY POST FROM LYDIARD IMITATIONS. APPLY YOUR OWN HARD STANDARDS TO OTHER ATHLETES TOO
ryun peaked after two years, then declined
snell ran best in '62, then maintained, then dropped out
elliott couldn't go on after 2 or 3 years
walker peaked after a couple of years then matched that time many years later, but basically stopped improving
same with coe
same with ovett
same with cram - actually cram best was 85 then a gradual decline after that, his last couple of years were disappointing
vasalla - very briefly graced the international scene
cruz - same as others
bayi - same
morcelli - superstar fell away badly in the final years
bile - two or so years at the top
bekele , geb, komen, all slowed
as renato said - elg peaked then maintained
why focus so much on renato when it is the norm.
(MY REPSPNE IN BRACKETS)
I don't know about all of these, it seems they my not be your best examples.
When Snell ran his 1500pr it was 6 years after his first international.
(snell only ever ran one 1500, HE RAN HIS FASTEST IN 1962, gave up in 65 when he knew he could never match ryun)
Elliot - retired unbeaten and still improving. Certainly not close to his peak.
(elliott has said himself he retire at his peak - he couldn't face his training anymore)
Morceli - appeared 88/89, WR 95 and still 3:30 in 1999, hardly a good example
(fact is he slowed significantly - he had run 2.27)
Walker - appeared 74? ran 3:32.5 in 75, mile PR in 1982, 135 sub 4 min miles - regarded as having one of the greatest longevities.
(did he ever run under his 3.32 in 75?)
Coe - consecutive Olympic champ - say no more
(maintained - didn't improve - fastest 800 in primary event in 81 - never got near it again)
Ovett - 337 in 76 and PR 330 in 83, longevity of unbeaten performance must count high as well
(only ever raced to win until coe came along, then ran for fast times, many in the know, consider him to be at his best in 78)
Cram - 1981 ran sub 350 mile, PR mile 87, 330 in 88 over 1500
(peaked in 85 and was downhill after that)
Vasala - 68 OG came 41st, 4 years later gold, then retirement - i would like to know more - borderline case
(disappeared after the gold)
Cruz - 144.3 as a junior in 81 yet silver OG in 1988 with 143.90 with PR of 141.77 in 84, borderline case i concede.
(peaked at 21 in 84)
Bayi - cant find much but it appears he lost speed. meteoric rise from 339 to 332 from 72 to 74 but he is an african, yet pr mile 75, 3k 78 an steeple 80.
(downhill after 75, had to move to steeple)
bile - again african so we have that effect to acct for - 335 in 87 and PR 330 in 89, yet still 333 in 96, PR 3k in 94
(fact is he was at his top briefly, then slowed)
kenenisa - amazing - youth in 1999 2nd in 3k to 1320 5k, (cant find earlier 5k times) to PR/WR in 2004. But 10km PR in 2005 and close again in 2008. Still he exhibits some evidence of early decline.
(nowhere near his 12.37 or 26.17 for years)
geb - now you are joking yes? at age 19 in '92 he runs 13:36 and PR of 12:39 in '88 at 25, 10k 28.02 in '92 and PR in 1988 of 26.22 yet runs 26.29 in 2003 aged 30, moves out to marathon and pr there in 2008 aged 35. Quite a beautiful career, in contention for the best ever surely.
(peaked at 25/26 and slowed - had to move to the marathon)
komen - peaked his 3k at 20 and 5k at 21 - what happened there?
(obviously slowed down after early success)
el g - 333 in 94 (351 in 91 at 17) to 326 in 98 and again in 2001 and 2002 and 327 in 2004, pretty exceptional
(peaked at 26 - never ran quicker)
ad one i found on the way
Marius Bakken - 1998 343, 2005 338 PR nicely, 5k 1999 13:22 to PR 13.06 in 2004.
(did he have the same coach)