The conclusion I get from studying Renato Canova’s training system

obsghp wrote:

is that it really doesn’t apply and wouldn’t work for any of us amateur athletes.

He repeatedly talks about the volume of specific work and producing very high quality in training but the average joe would simply break down attempting to train in this manner

Is it really only the runners with a huge base and a lifetime at altitude that can benefit from this type of training? How does Brad Hudson interpret Canova?

He repeatedly says that his system is intended for elite athletes. He says he has had success with elite athletes who were not born at altitude as well as those born at altitude.

If you watch the recent video posted on these forums he addressed both of these points. It is weird, because he uses almost identical language in that video to what you used in your post...

But can it be adapted to us regular guys?

I took over a program that used a specific training plan developed by the coach before me back in the 1980's.

I was talking to Jack Daniels- we lived near each other at the time.

He said that it was basically his program adapted to teenagers who are training for a fall XC season.

No V-Dots, etc- very simple with target times they can understand.

What's really odd about it is that while there is high volume of mileage, there was typically only one workout per week, sometimes two, in Moen's training, plus strides or hill sprints of a limited #. The workout had very high volume but otherwise it was difficult to see what was there that would elevate him to that level.

runn wrote:

But can it be adapted to us regular guys?

I took over a program that used a specific training plan developed by the coach before me back in the 1980's.

I was talking to Jack Daniels- we lived near each other at the time.

He said that it was basically his program adapted to teenagers who are training for a fall XC season.

No V-Dots, etc- very simple with target times they can understand.

Daniels also adapts his elite marathon training schedules with limits.

For example, he recommends slower runners use 5 minutes as a T or M mile even if they are running 8 minute miles.

So, a workout of 4,3,2,1 miles at T pace would be 20,15,10,5 minutes for everyone but the elite would complete 10 hard miles but a runner running 7 minute miles would only complete about 7 miles.

obsghp wrote:

is that it really doesn’t apply and wouldn’t work for any of us amateur athletes.

Wrong. Canova principles are universal, you simply need to adapt to your situation.

If you read documents widely circulated online in the past like the training for kenyan juniores you will find same principles applied with lighter intensity. Focus is always on extending both volume and intensity gradually and modulating efforts/paces.

ReadBetter wrote:

Focus is always on extending both volume and intensity gradually and modulating efforts/paces.

It might take you 10 years to extend the volume and harden the body to withstand the intensity.

North Americans want every thing to happen over night.

Canova absolutely did not say that his system doesn't work for amateurs. He just warned that the specific examples he was using to illustrate it concern elite athletes. Any elite coach would say the same when talking about training. But the basic ideas are universally applicable: support work before specific work,intrinsic effort level before extrinsic pace, and extending race pace. This is basically what Hudson's book lays out.

Canova has noted that amateurs have less individualized training, but that's because: (1) it's impractical, (2) small pace differences are less significant for slower runners, (3) and amateur runners may get more benefit from group training than they would from getting precisely tailored training that they do alone.

Incidentally, a lot of posters on this board have done Canova style training with success, myself included. If my Strava feed is any indication, it's what basically every decent American marathoner other than Smoove is doing.

Who that is decent on Strava is using such a system? Not doubting, just curious.

and you need to be on a professional level of EPO usage. doc supervision and all that.

examplesplease wrote:

Who that is decent on Strava is using such a system? Not doubting, just curious.

By "decent," I mean men between 2:20 and 2:40 or so. I pretty much only follow people that I know personally, so I'd rather not post any specific examples, both because they probably don't want the attention and because it would make it pretty easy to figure out who I am.

Since when was 2:20 decent? You would get destroyed at most marathons.

Tonkotsu wrote:

Since when was 2:20 decent? You would get destroyed at most marathons.

The OP was asking if Canova training works for non-elites. I responded by saying, "yes, it seems like every decent runner I know uses Canova-style training." So in context, "decent" obviously means something less than elite. I used the word "decent" because I wanted to exclude the typical mid-packers for whom training methodology is largely irrelevant and for whom marathon pace isn't actually any faster than a normal distance run.

In any event, I realize that a lot of Letrunners are incredibly stingy about who has earned the right to various completely subjective and arbitrary labels such as "elite." But you're taking it to another level. Incidentally, most marathons are NOT won in under 2:20. If you mean major marathons, I don't think any reasonable person would interpret the term "decent" to mean "among the podium contenders in the world's most competitive sporting events" unless there were specific context in play, such as a discussion that was explicitly potential contenders. As I noted above, however, this was a discussion that was explicitly about "mortal" runners.

obsghp wrote:

is that it really doesn’t apply and wouldn’t work for any of us amateur athletes.

He repeatedly talks about the volume of specific work and producing very high quality in training but the average joe would simply break down attempting to train in this manner

Is it really only the runners with a huge base and a lifetime at altitude that can benefit from this type of training? How does Brad Hudson interpret Canova?

Canova himself has told he doubt his system is good for amateur athletes with other responsibilities than just run,eat and sleep.

I do believe there is other systems ,with less mileage and more time for social life, that will rule the world of running when it comes to amateur athletes in the future.

Daniels and other coaches like the new coachjs on the board , with less complicated translation , will probably suit amateur athletes better.

xcvxcvxcv wrote:

What's really odd about it is that while there is high volume of mileage, there was typically only one workout per week, sometimes two, in Moen's training, plus strides or hill sprints of a limited #. The workout had very high volume but otherwise it was difficult to see what was there that would elevate him to that level.

Just difficult for someone not being an experienced coach.

Very defensive. Long winded reply. In Japan 2;20 is not good at all. Regardless, I don't believe you when you say most decent runners use Canova's system. Most people train along more linear lines.

Tonkotsu wrote:

Very defensive. Long winded reply. In Japan 2;20 is not good at all. Regardless, I don't believe you when you say most decent runners use Canova's system. Most people train along more linear lines.

That was a good one! 10 points from me.

I'm as amateur as they come. I had a 5k/10k/half prs of 19:20, 40:02, 1:31 in May this year.

I decided to try and train by canova principles this summer. So basically fartlek/fast intervals , long fast run, very long run (max 25k for me in 2h), sprints once a week or every two weeks, drills. That's what I did all summer till September slowly increasing my long runs and running as much as I could. After that I started gradually converging faster and slower paces around my race pace (training for a half). Last month was almost always training at race pace or very close to it as all paces started to funnel into this one pace. I also didn't ditch the other training, I just stopped working on 7 days cycles, talking 2 or sometimes even 4 days off after a really hard workout.

Long story short, my aerobic went through the roof. I ran my half marathon (a little bit hilly) in 1;27, ran 18:30 on a really rainy 5k with puddles everywhere and I didn't even feel dead at the end. The biggest thing I learned from this is that rest is king, and I should run 3 easy days if I need to after a hard workout.

Tonkotsu wrote:

Since when was 2:20 decent? You would get destroyed at most marathons.

You mean most non-US marathons.... 30th in recent NYM ran 2.31'....

Guy is not talking elite so 2:20-2:40 is decent for the average joe with a job, a family and a lot of life's commitments... but of course this is letsrun....

Cool, but it's hard to tell if Canova's training was what did it for you or just training more volume and harder than you had previously. This kind of thing always makes it hard to evaluate coaching systems.