Where Your Dreams Become Reality

Non-SMA120x60NT

What's Let's Run.com?

Highschool Front Page

Training Advice

More News in Our:
News Section!

Message Boards
Main Message Board

Turn Back The Clock! Today's Top Runners Talk About Their High School Careers

RECOMMENDED
READS

Comments, questions, suggestions, story you'd like to submit?
Email us
 
 You are reporting the following post to the moderators for review and possible removal from the forum

Poster: J.R.
Subject: RE: Renato Canova - Arthur Lydiard Coaches Roundtable
Body:
rekrunner wrote:But if we are both training for 10Ks, then specificity means something the same to the both of us. The difference is that Lydiard will only introduce specificity quite late in the cycle, in the coordination phase, while Canova introduces race related paces (general, special, specific) from the beginning. The principle is the same, but the implementation is different.


So it's the same, but totally different.

This is why I say the principles that you (not me or Canova) mentioned are not important. It is the implemation, i.e. what you are doing every day, that's important. As Canova says, this depends on the athlete, not the schedule, another major difference with Lydiard.

I see the principles as coming from the implementation, not the other way around. When they don't fit then, to me, this proves the principles were wrong and needed to be changed. By adhering to strict principles, no matter how obscure, endless time is wasted trying to fit the training to them. The training is real. The principles are simply theories and change with the fashion or guru.

Principles are broad concepts, so I think it's incorrect to say that the main difference is coming from the principles.


Right. The principles are obscure and don't mean anything.

The main difference is in the implementation of the principles.


It's from the implementation, but not from the principles as you stated them. The principles come from the implementation.

This means that I think principles, themselves, are LESS important in explaining the source of the difference between different systems.


Agreed. It would be a way to obscure the differences and try to say "well they're the same", or B came from A etc, when they are not the same at all, they are entirely different.

I think we all don't seem to agree what Lydiard is. My view is not the same. I don't know where "best aerobic pace every day" is coming from. I understand "best aerobic pace" some days, but not "every day", and not "more or less daily emphasis throught the training cycles".


Your view looks the same to me. You are simply quoting what I already know about Lydiard, and that is in his books, which I have.

I found another sample schedule that says "Jog 1/2 hour", one day a week. This looks more like recovery than "best aerobic pace".


Major difference.

In other phases, aerobic efforts (best or not) may only appear 2-3 days each week, and not "every day", with other days being "sprint training" or "relaxed strides".


Right.

You said your friend didn't understand recovery, and I agreed with you. You said your friend is doing best aerobic pace every day, without regeneration and recovery. But this is not my view of Lydiard training at all, and I think I never explained it that way (nor did Lydiard). I don't have the same view as you and your friend. I don't see the contradiction coming from Lydiard, but from you and your friend, as you described him.


Thank you for grouping my friend with me, instead of with you and Lydiard. It is interesting that you see the same things we see in Lydiard and in his books, and think what we see is totally different. But when you see Canova vs Lydiard, you think they are the same, and I see them as being totally different.
Hit the submit button below if you want us to review the post. If you feel this is urgent or want a reply, email us at letsrun@letsrun.com about the post and please include a link to the thread the post is on and what page number/post on that page it is
Your name:

 

Quantcast