Is a PB in secondary event always significant for the main event ?

It's stated by "Roadrunner" from mariusbakken.com that Lopes had 56-speed.

Thanks a lot Renato, that's about what I had in mind, but it's reassuring for someone like you to explain.

sub4fella wrote:

Excellent post Renato!

How steep should the hills be?

Can you give us an example how much the 400m speed has improved in an athlete doing these hill-sprints for 6-8 weeks? If the athlete only was using 20% of his fibers before he started.

400m time before:

400m time after:

From what I understand, Renato wasn't speaking about 400m speed as that is a product of maximal speed and speed endurance. Renato explained how to use muscular strength and nervous capacity to improve maximal speed alone.

You talk about doping and Lagat being clean and then take Cova as an example?

Cova, Antibo, Panetta...all cheaters,sorry Renato but you must be joking.

I know, but as the maximal speed is highly related to 400m-speed, it's intresting to see how much this type of training could produce faster 400m-times.

And as most of us on this board are distance runners, I think the speed endurance is pretty good, you can hold your all-out speed for a longer time than a sprinter. The maximal speed is the limit for us.

If I have to prepare an athlete for an important race, I prefer to skip some weekly competition. You must think that is not easy to train using only 6 days between two different races. You have no time to train well, because you need some day of recovery AFTER the first race, but also to be FRESH before the second.

Personally, I prefer to assemble 3 races in one week, and then to leave 3 weeks only for training before the main event.

So, my personal advice is this one :

Week 1 :

Training based on endurance (long intervals) for one session, fast run (may be 8 km fast) for another session, short sprints uphill for speed (another session), with easy long run or easy fartlek during the other days (and eventually during the second session of the day).

No competitions at the end of the week.

Week 2 :

One session of speed-endurance (for example, 6 km of medium and short intervals like 5 x 600 in 1:33 rec. 1:30 + 5 x 400 in 60.0 rec. 1 min + 5 x 200 in 27.0 rec. 30 sec) at the middle of the week, and easy long run, easy fartlek during other days (at the end of easy run, short sprints uphill).

Competitions at the end of the week (5000m).

Week 3 :

Block of competitions : 1500m at the middle of the week, 3000m flat at the end (so are 3 competitions in 7-8 days).

In the middle, only easy run.

Week 4 :

Period of big modulation : workouts on track become more fast with longer recovery (ex. : 5 x 1000m in 2:30/2:33 rec. 4/6 min), alternated to one with more volume at low intensity (for ex., 3 x 2000 in 5:50 + 6 x 1000 in 2:50 rec. 1:30). In the middle, always easy run and short sprints uphill.

No competitions

Week 5 :

Period of speed with long recovery, for finding best capacity in speed (ex., 3 sets of 600/500/400/300m alternating speed : 1:35 / 1:12 / 62.0 / 42.0 with 1:30 recovery, the next 1:30 / 1:20 / 57.0 / 46.0, with 5 min among every set and 1:30 among tests) or facility in running (3 x 1000m alernating 200m in 28.0 and 200 in 36.0 for a total of 2:36, with 6 min recovery).

No competitions

Week 6 :

Very easy run, more short sprints uphill.

In the middle of the week, a session for technique of running, using short and fast tests with long recovery (for ex., 2 x 600 in 1:30 easy + 2 x 400 in 56.0 easy + 2 x 200 fast, recovery also 6/8 min. no important).

At the end, the main race.

Remember that is very important not to spend nervous energies. The athlete must be mentally free, and fresh.

that's why every runner should work on maximal speed.

I disagree. As long distance runners we are more aerobically fit than a sprinter, but speed endurance is anaerobic in nature. I'd bet almost any well trained 200m runner would kill the fittest distance runner when it comes to that.

But distance runners (by that I mean 800 and up)

they do train the anaerobic systems as well you now, 4x400m @ 800m pace for instance.

For example, a sprinter (200m) with a 60m PR of 8.00 and a distance runner (1500m) with a 60m PR of 8.00.......Who would win over 400m race?

The speed endurance will be the difference between them.

You can train your speed having two different aims :

1) To train your lactic anaerobic mechanism (enzymatic system, organic and methabolic system) for endurance

2) To train your strenght and nervous system (mechanical engine) for intensity attitudes.

So, I agree with you that the first type of training can be damageous for long runners. For example, to work too much in anerobic lactic level can be a mistake for a marathon runner, because you push your body in producing lactate, but this is possible with more consumption of glycogen, and the physiological goal of a marathon runner is to reduce the consumption of glycogen at the speed of the race. SO, THIS IS A PHYSIOLOGICAL MISTAKE.

But I don't agree when you think that speed is a damage for a long runner. If you have the capacity (mechanical capacity) of running fast (that means that you have more sensibility, more elasticity, more reactivity, and you are more "alive" in running), you have more margin running at your normal speed, and this means to save energies at your speed. You MUST not run fast, but you CAN. So, you have the possibility of choice. When you are limited in your speed, you cannot choose.

So, for example, if we speak about your time in 400m after using 2 months of sprints uphill (not high speed on track), the amount of your improvement depend on your level before (not only level in PB, but level in training).

If you are a sprinter that normally use all the exercises of sprinting, speed, weights, plyo, reactivity, you can improve very little (for ex., from 45.50 to 45.45.... or not !). But, if you are a marathon runner NEVER using any speed in your training before, you can improve very much (for ex., from 58.0 to 55.0) at the beginning of your new type of training. Of course, later your improvement is more reduced, but what you can see is that your decrease is very fast when you stop using this training (so, in 2 months without speed you can come back from 55 to 57).

I continue to see that some poster has not a rational idea of a discussion. At first, I already explained that Cova used self-transusion when this was allowed (till 1985), like Viren, Vaatainen and many other runners in those years. About Antibo, he used only in 1984, but reached his best in 1990, without using any type of support (neither integrators). At the end, about Panetta he never took anything, and if you could know him, you could understand his mentality (the same of Gelindo Bordin). So, don't speak about what you don't know, because you look a proper fool talking nonsense.

In any case, the fact that Cova had 52.8 in 400m when he ran 3:42 is a fact non depending on self-transfusion : IS A FACT.

When we speak about times, correlations and technical situations (not about training), we speak about FACTS.

So, try to be more pragmatic, and leave your obsession of doping that destroy yourself every minute.

Renato,

Many thanks for continuing to post on this forum.

How important do you think racing above and below your primary distance is (ie Coe racing 400m and 3000m in the indoor or early outdoor season, or Shaheen racing 5000m early and 1500m)?

But Renato it depends on who (body type) and long term periodization and age.

A typical good marathon runner that never went through the HS mile, 2 mile...NCAA 1500-5-10,000m will not get the same reaction- if they are, say 25-35 years old and started running good at that age. There are better ages to best maximize the body's system, just like it is easier to learn a language at a young age, same idea. The body responds better at certain ages and backgrounds/ muscular.

The 2:30 marathon runner that can only run an 800m in 2:15 is extremely slow twitch and will never react the same as faster natural runners or runners that maximized their speed at younger ages. Only to some degree, but may be very limited.

Renato Canova wrote:

But I don't agree when you think that speed is a damage for a long runner..

Thanks for your reply Renato, I will try to incorporate hill-sprints into my program.

Btw I never said that speed is damage for a long runner...

mudslinging wrote:

mud, you are an idiot. what phoenix has done is no different than what happens in court rooms across the country every day. he has introduced reasonable doubt, backed up with valid scientific information.

it is you, my friend, who does not have the open mind. phoenix has more sway because he is not just making a guess; he is presenting the various possibilities of what happened during testing (these are finite, by the way). your argument, as far as i can tell, boils down to, he tested positive, so he is guilty. wow, now that's compelling.

mudslinging,

Phoenix wrote about all the "finite" possibilities of how the test can go wrong. I have no reason to argue with that. I think we can all agree that mishandling by the testers and or not following proper protocol will ruin the test and give bad information. My argument is that Phoenix does NOT know how the A sample test was handled or he would not use the words "IF the A sample was....etc. etc". He would just use the words "The A sample was mishandled because A, B, C. Also, if Phoenix is arguing that the test is inherently bad, then he would have no basis to justify that the B sample test was valid. So, based on Phoenix?s argument, we can assume that the EPO test is valid if the testors follow proper protocol. Since Phoenix has no idea how the samples were handled or whether proper protocol was followed, he has no claim to make as to whether the A test was a bad result and the B test was a good one. This leaves him with just guessing about the test results, which is no better than my guess. Based on Phoenix?s statement about Lagat being a standup guy and all, we can be certain that Phoenix?s view is biased towards him being clean. My view is biased towards not clean. Neither one of us has any facts to back up our view. Phoenix would have to state some facts about what actually happened during the acquisition and handling of the samples to make any claim about the tests. He did not, so if he were in a courtroom, a prosecutor would rip his testimony to shreds. In summary, Phoenix makes an argument in favor of Lagat that is full of holes. I am just pointing out the holes to you while Phoenix?s skills in microbiology entrance you guys.

The IAAF did little to repair Lagat?s reputation. Instead, they treated Lagat as a cheater that got away with it. That is my opinion as well.

Mudslinging,

I don't know if any of what I wrote is above your head, but if it is not, then I expect you to agree with most of all that I wrote. If you somehow don't agree, then you have my condolences.

Thank you for the detailed layout Renato, you are an invaluable asset to the running community as a whole, and now, to my friend individually. We will look to incorporate much of what you said, as he's always had trouble peaking for a big race, and instead runs at a high level throughout the year, but never truly peaks in the true sense of the word.

read that Mr.Canova, Todd Williams about Panetta gettin caught in 93:

LetsRun.com: Looking at something that we at LetsRun.com like to talk about, drugs in the sport, how big of a concern was that for you? Is it something you thought about a lot?

Todd Williams: I mean everybody talked about it. When you go to the European circuit, that's what people talk about - who's on this, that guy's on that, she's on that ? and I got to the point where I was like either I'm going to quit...

"Because one year (1993) I ran world champs and I believe Francesco Panetta tested positive in front of me at the world champs - I think. If you look back at the IAAF records, it says there was a positive but that never became public but I saw the results and it said that beside his name."

The IAAF should fine Todd Williams, andLetsRun.com for publishing this crap.

"So, one thing is the statistic, another the capacity of coaching athletes. And really I see that the most part of readers have no idea about the training of top athletes."

true renato......question? why do you still come to this horrible website (the content, not the site itself--no offense wejo brothers) and try to help or aruge with lazy slow american distance runners? how did you find out about this site? not exactly the place wehre international elites hang out.

Truth guy, I'm in athletics from 45 years, as I had a big interest and a big passion when I was 14. I always was an "inconvenient" person for all people having power, because my first pleasure and motivation is to say what I know as truth, and to try to remove ignorance and bad informations. Athletics is my world, I appreciate it, and I fight with people trying to destroy the values of this world. Of course, I know that many things are not good, but I live ALWAYS for Athletics, and know also how much Athletics can give under an educational point of view.

So, the first way for stopping slanderers and stupid people is to teach what I know.

I think that a correct knowledge about any type of problem can solve many wrong ideas. In today's world is normal to speak about unknown situations, being the possibility of chating an outlet for the pressures of daily life.

While the most part of people speak about "professionalism", and everybody wants this type of behavior in his own job, the same persons think to be able to talk about any other argument. So, professionalism regarding THEIR PROFESSION, but not respect for OTHER'S PEOPLE PROFESSION.

I knew this site in September, during Bruxelles meeting, where was possible to find a lot of sites about track and fields. I read many stupid things about Bernard Lagat, and, knowing him directly, I decided to join my voice to the voice of other people. After the first days, realizing that the most part of posters had no technical informations, speaking about an amateurial athletics also when the argument was TOP ACTIVITY, I decided to try to explain something about methodology, training system and ambience of top runners. I cannot know if my posts can be accepted by the most part of readers, and can have some utility, but I saw that many good coaches followed me in explaining scientific bases of training in very good way. I received a lot of e-mail from athletes and coaches, and began a good change of experiences with coaches of many Countries. This is my pleasure and my interest. If is possible to do something for improving our world, I try to do it.

And, of course, I continue to read some post about situations completely wrong.

When I read what Todd Williams said, knowing EXACTLY the reality about Panetta (and, believe me, I have no fright of admitting the truth), I can only think that Todd is a cheater trying to put himself in evidence speaking about something that people want to hear, without any basis of truth. And is correct the idea that not only IAAF, but every correct society had to fine him for speaking in bad way without any proof, making up a lot of lies.

So, the reason because I started to post on letsrun is that I hope that many ignorants can improve in their knowledge, becoming "less" ignorant. At the same time, Athletics is something serious, and a correct knowledge about training can help runners of every level in reaching their dreams. At, at the end of every thing, I enjoy in reading comments and writing what I think. SO, EVERY DAY I SPEND 30 MINUTES FOR READING AND WRITING ON THE SITE.