What IS Renato Canova's Training Philosophy?

being fairly intelligent is not gonna help you.

You need the skills to interpret incoherent babble.

Canova is an excellent coach, but somebody at the IAAF

in command of the English language should help him rewrite the book. It is a shame that his insight and deep knowledge

of running won't be passed to the generation due to this

insurmountable language barrier.

Northern Star wrote:

If you are looking for a resource from Renato himself on his training methods, the most concise and comprehensive post he's made has been this one:

http://www.letsrun.com/forum/flat_read.php?thread=1363335&page=1

where he talks about all of the paces used in training, converted into paces for a 15:00 5k runner. Very useful and informative, especially when you are trying to understand why runner so-and-so is doing repeats at 105% of race pace or whatever.

Thanks for the link and also your 9 pager on Canova. I am just coming back to running now that I have hit the masters ranks (my best days were 15yrs ago). I am interested in trying some of Renato's idea's. When reading the links above and seeing all the paces and % you run certain workouts at it does get confusing.

If I want to start in The Fundamental Phase, alot of my running should be done in the 85% range, correct? Would that be 85% of current 5k best. At what point do you go from using your current paces, to training at a % of your goal paces?

I apologise if I seem super ignorant about all of this, but like I said I am just starting to piece together some of his stuff.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think most of the workouts are calculated off of current pace (date pace). Notice how many sessions are done at 103% of that pace or whatever.

mr. Toad RIP wrote:

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think most of the workouts are calculated off of current pace (date pace). Notice how many sessions are done at 103% of that pace or whatever.

Thanks Mr. Toad RIP

I want to thank Northern Star for his effort in trying to interpret my training phylosophy. I understand it's almost not possible to have a clear vision of my philosophy analysing the REAL training of my athletes.

The reason is very simple : when I follow an athlete almost daily, I change the particulars of his training according to the feeling they can give me looking at their training. So, it's really difficult to extrapolate from the PARTICULARS of one training the GENERAL phylosophy at the base of my programs.

However, I think the interpretation of Northern Star can be accepted, since is not far from what I think.

The main points that characterize my phylosophy are as follows :

a) Aerobic training is the most important part of the preparation. Without a wide aerobic base, in my opinion it's not possible to reach the top personal level. In this I have the same idea of Lydiard.

b) An athlete needs about 8-10 years for building his "aerobic house". The beginning of this process starts in natural way, well before the "official" training with a coach. This is what happens in Africa, where boys and girls have a way of life very active under the aerobic point of view. They play hours every day running at different speeds, and build their aerobic efficiency when still very young. That's the reason because in my programs Kenyan and Ethiopian runners can move to high intensity after 2-3 years of official training : they had already several years of general activity in natural way, accumulating mileage and increasing their strength, running on very hilly courses at different speeds.

But this situation is not different from the situation in America, Europe or Oceania 50 years ago. Of course Elliot, Snell, Walker, Dixon, Quax, Ryun, Prefontaine, Lindgren, Salazar, Nenow and many others had an activity when young very much different from the modern life.

c) The "Aerobic First" of Lydiard was the compensation of the lack of aerobic strength for people having a very high muscle strength. When the athletes of 1960 approached athletics, they were already very strong under the point of view of their muscle strength. They didn't use long run, but normally plaid sports as rugby, soccer, basket, football that gave power to their body. So, we can say that the RUNNERS of 50 years ago needed essentially long aerobic runs for supporting a high lactic capacity already in their characteristics, while African needs to increase that quality, starting directly with running and being weaker under the muscular point of view.

d) After no longer than 2-3 years, easy long run doesn't produce any effect. If somebody thinks the process of capillarization can last for ever, he's wrong. After opening ALL THE VESSELS that is possible to open in his body (and this happens during the first 3 years, if his training is enough), the only way for increasing the Aerobic Power is the intensity. In this point I'm very far from Lydiard.

e) Aerobic doesn't mean slow running. Now the WR of Marathon is at a pace of 2:55 per km or 4:41 per mile, AND IS FULLY AEROBIC. So, we can use from the beginning of the preparation (Fundamental period) this type of speed WITHOUT TOUCHING THE LACTIC SYSTEM. The idea that short and medium intervals are anaerobic is wrong : this depends on the speed, not on the distance. For that reason, I use ALWAYS this type of training, without fearing to burn the athletes. Also in this case, I'm very far from Lydiard.

f) In my training phylosophy, TRAINING IS INDIVIDUAL. Training is like the cloth for an athletes, and the coach is his taylor. You can see a model you like in a shop, but it's casual the size of the cloth in the window is your size. So, the MODEL is the training phylosophy, the SIZE is the individual program of the athlete.

g) The athletes don't follow the program, but is the program following the athletes. This means that the program MUST change according what the athlete needs at the moment. Training is something based on the REAL SITUATION at the moment, is not the real situation based on the training. This is the difference between working with theory or working with practice.

h) The succession of different periods of training (Fundamental, Special and Specific) involves different training phylosophies. It's like to build a house : the first step is to have the project, and this can be very different depending on the money I can have at my disposal.

(The money is the talent of the athlete). The second step is to buy the material. The third step is to start to build the house using the material I have, following the original project. Buying the material is what we do during the FUNDAMENTAL period : we work for increasing all the qualities we need to use for the performance. We try to work for increasing General Resistance, Rapidity, Coordination, Elasticity, Mobility, Muscle Strength, in separate way, BUT IN THE SAME PERIOD. That's the reason because we NEVER HAVE TO LOSE WHAT ALREADY HAVE.

Building the house using the material is what we do during the SPECIAL AND SPECIFIC PERIODS : we need to assemble all the qualities we have at the moment in order to build the performance. During the Fundamental Period we look at the INTERNAL LOAD (the level of effort used for every type of training), during the Special and Specific Period we look at the EXTERNAL LOAD. External Load means MATHEMATIC. If I want to run 27:30 in 10000m, THIS MEANS 2:45 PER KM AND 66.0 PER LAP. If I'm not able running around these speeds in training, NEVER I CAN RUN THAT TIME.

h) For that reason, training during the Fundamental Period means to build the base for supporting the SPECIFIC TRAINING, that has DIRECT INFLUENCE on the performance.

i) Being the training with the direct influence, THE GOAL IS TO INCREASE DURING YEARS THE VOLUME OF SPECIFIC TRAINING: MORE QUANTITY OF SPECIFIC TRAINING WE ARE ABLE TO DO, FASTER WE CAN RUN.

l) Because the Specific Training has a cost, if we do more specific training, we spend more energies, AND WE NEED MORE RECOVERY. For that reason, we can't follow simmetric schedules, because the athlete is ready for the next session of high specific intensity ONLY WHEN HAS RECOVERED FROM THE PREVIOUS SESSION. In this case, IT'S THE ATHLETE HIMSELF DECIDING WHEN HAS TO DO THE NEXT SESSION. Higher is the intensity, longer is the recovery. MODULATION IS THE SECRET OF A GOOD TRAINING AND THE SYSTEM FOR PEAKING IN THE RIGHT PERIOD.

At least, one comment about the fact that training African runners is very easy. Of course, with people of high talent, to train for beating European of today is not difficult. The small problem is that the best have to beat the other African bests, and that's the reason because the winners have good methodology. Their battle is not TALENT vs TRAINING, but TALENT vs TALENT, and in this case TRAINING becomes the reason because one is the winner and the other are the loser.

Renato, your message is very helpful to me and I'm sure for others. I am sharing it with my friend. Thank you very much.

Very, very interesting and wonderful post!

Renato, I'm undertsanding your system better and better each time. Could you answer this question:

Regarding the Fundamental period, do athletes run only at "aerobic threshold" pace ( around marathon pace ) during workouts? Is the rest of the mileage during the week at easy/recovery pace? What about developing pure speed? Is this period is where a runner gathers the tools necessary for later workouts, would this include basic speed as well?

and also,

when an athlete finishes a season and goes through all four phases, must he start again with an introductory period or do you go straight into a shortened fundamental period? Wouldn't this cycling be a case of "losing what you already have"

Many thank for using the time and effort to reply and type all that out, it's much appreciated and provides lots of food for thought. Thanks

Renato, thank you again for your comments. I have used some components of your general plan with good success these past 4 years.Best wishes for the comning season.

Many thanks both to Renato for a very carefully thought-out summary, and to Northern Star for his (now officially blessed) summary.

Northern Star, I suggest you paste the message above in as a suffix in your PDF, as it's now the official English language overview ;-)

Renato, you need to pick an English co-author and do a training book. It would fly off the shelves. One good collaborator has already proven his abilities...

Renato is the best person to write a book, explain his training and philosophy. I do not need nor want anyone else to try and translate what he's saying.

I'd like to see a book by Renato Canova, that is pure Renato Canova, nothing else.

He could use a good proofreader to clean up the english (minor bits, nothing major). However I am fine and prefer the way he expresses in english, the way that he does.

Abcdefghi...l. haha, many thanks Renato, and agreed about the book comments, would be great.

Renato Canova wrote:

d) After no longer than 2-3 years, easy long run doesn't produce any effect. If somebody thinks the process of capillarization can last for ever, he's wrong. After opening ALL THE VESSELS that is possible to open in his body (and this happens during the first 3 years, if his training is enough), the only way for increasing the Aerobic Power is the intensity. In this point I'm very far from Lydiard.

1. What pace do you consider easy for long run?

2. What about easy *short* runs? According to Mosop's training log before Boston, he did ~60% of mileage at "regeneration" pace (slower than 3'50), and ~20% at "basic endurance" pace (3'30-3'50). What is the purpose of regeneration runs? What is the purpose of "basic endurance" runs?

D.T. wrote:

Renato Canova wrote:

d) After no longer than 2-3 years, easy long run doesn't produce any effect. If somebody thinks the process of capillarization can last for ever, he's wrong. After opening ALL THE VESSELS that is possible to open in his body (and this happens during the first 3 years, if his training is enough), the only way for increasing the Aerobic Power is the intensity. In this point I'm very far from Lydiard.

1. What pace do you consider easy for long run?

2. What about easy *short* runs? According to Mosop's training log before Boston, he did ~60% of mileage at "regeneration" pace (slower than 3'50), and ~20% at "basic endurance" pace (3'30-3'50). What is the purpose of regeneration runs? What is the purpose of "basic endurance" runs?

D.T.

Renato has outlined his busy travelling schedule so I guess you might be waiting a while for a response. May I therefore assist.

Renato has mentioned that high modulation (hard/easy in other words) is one of the cornerstones of his system ....

To benefit fully from the most intense specific endurance sessions (e.g. 12-15 x 1K or 5-7 x 2K @ target race pace) it is critical that the athlete is fresh & fully rested before hand, and takes time to recover ("regenerate") afterwards. .... So the key specific endurance sessions are well spaced out with adequate periods of recovery/regeneration/easy running in between. ....

So, the purpose is "full" recovery to enable the key (specific endurance) sessions to be completed successfully. This is achieved through relatively easy aerobic running, which is why 60-80% of the mileage that Renato's athletes do is at a relatively comfortable pace.

This fact is totally overlooked by those idiots (they do not deserve the description "critics") who claim that Renato burns out his athletes in a short period of time. On the contrary, Renato's system is far more balanced than the typical western system that follows a weekly pattern with X done on Tuesday, Y on Thursday, & Z on Saturday etc.

bumping this up, great points

Especially as so many people hold full-time careers, families, and who knows what other time constraints and events that take up energy, the last thing most folks really need to worry about is easy day pace. I'd wager that most folks don't have the time to just focus on recovery as much or as well as elites do either so easy should really be easy.

But if recovery is so important, and slow longer runs do little to improve fitness after several years of training, why do his athletes often do double hour-long sessions at regeneration pace between workouts? If recovery were the only purpose of these easy runs, wouldn't they only do one or two shorter regeneration runs between workouts?

kang6789 wrote:

But if recovery is so important, and slow longer runs do little to improve fitness after several years of training, why do his athletes often do double hour-long sessions at regeneration pace between workouts?

For recovery and endurance, to help the body to relax.

It is not training, it's recovery.

There's a major difference, see. There's a balance. If you do only hard training then you get worn out and don't recover between sessions. If you do only recovery, then you're not really TRAINING, you're just running easy all the time.

If recovery were the only purpose of these easy runs, wouldn't they only do one or two shorter regeneration runs between workouts?

Because, sitting around doesn't help your muscles and body to relax and recover.

Let's say you do a fast intense session at your 5k-10k pace. Now you need to recover, with regeneration running. If you just sit around for days and do nothing, your muscles don't recover as well, maybe in some ways but mostly they get stiff, and also they don't RELAX, because you have done only the intensity. The more you can relax and recover with easy running the better, but it is not the same as TRAINING, i.e. training at your event pace and intensity. Even if reps are short, 400m for example, they are still at event pace and intensity, not jogging.

I would guess that they need the slower Regeneration pace for the mechanical and nervous system recovery, but still allowing for a higher volume (time-wise) of aerobic stimulation even if at a lower O2 comsumption. Just a hunch. It seems that it is one thing to lower the pace for recovery, but to lower the pace AND the the volume of time running would quite possibly be a step back overall.