So - the best option is to live high and train high? Even if that means you are running solwer than at sea level in training?
How many runners are there in Iten?
I know there is Renato and his group - and the Chasing Kimbia group. But who else is there?
Quite a groundbreaking answer. (Rupp, Goucher and some other OTC-runners do cycles of sleeping in altitude air at sea level.)
Regarding altitude training, couple of more questions:
1. What is minimal altitude to get altitude training benefits, is 1300-1400 m (e.g. Potchefstroom) enough?
2. How do Kenyan milers and half-milers deal with circumstance, that doing intervals with very short recovery in altitude is very complicated?
3. Maybe you can illustrate altitude training combination [(c) Living at sea level and training in altitude] with some examples.
Tommmmmy wrote:
So - the best option is to live high and train high? Even if that means you are running solwer than at sea level in training?
I think that, from reading Renato's schedule above, that the answer is obvious. Focus on the power and mechanics needed to run fast using techniques that are for the most part oxygen independent.
120m hill sprints
80m hill sprints
gym work
strength circuit
The rest of the general prep work seems to be easy running or fast distance running. Both are exercises that would be done far slower than race pace even if the athlete were training at sea level. The intervals that are run are based on time (and presumably) intensity, not on specific distances or paces. I've always thought that the "live high, train low" approach was a misalocation of resources. I'm glad to see such a respected coach say so as well.
Renato, can you address how an athlete in an event that is more run close to VO2 max pace would adjust his training at high elevation? Do you bother trying to have the athlete run at sea level race pace for very long durations or do you just allow that the "race pace" interval work (1000s for instance) will be slower than sea level race pace?
Don't you people see what Canova is saying? The devil is not in these tiny details, the difference between training at altitude or training at sea level. Or whether you spend 17 or 18 minutes at a certain lactate level.
All of your nit-picking little questions, trying to pick up the answer like it's a piece of lint that can only be handled with tweezers. That's the last gasp of a will that has lost its power, thinking that the answer is some tiny adjustment.
What your athletes need from you is not micro-adjustments to training. They need inspiration. Canova is not a great coach because of his grasp of physiology. He is great because he is an explorer. Not a sycophant. He develops in his athletes the spirit that they need to explore new realms of self-knowledge, new realms of possibility in running. That's the function of training--to FIND these things.
Physiological science can only explore the normal, but in coaching, in athletics, in training, in racing you are looking for the extraordinary. And that is not yet known, nor can it be gathered with tweezers.
When we train in altitude, we need to follow some principle, that is common for African people like for European or American people :
a) The first effect of training in altitude is TO IMPROVE THE AEROBIC POWER. So, altitude is not DIRECTLY effective for those distances NOT DIRECTLY DIPENDING ON AEROBIC POWER.
b) Which are the event DIRECTLY connected with the AEROBIC POWER ? Are 5000 / 10000 / HM. For those events, ALTITUDE TRAINING IS A DIRECT MEAN OF TRAINING.
c) For shorter distances (800 / 1500) or longer distances (Marathon), ALTITUDE TRAINING HAS EFFECT ON... THE SPECIFIC TRAINING, but not on the performance. In other words, training in altitude allows the athlete in having more basic support for developing (may be at sea level) the SPECIFIC SPEED ENDURANCE (that is in lactic area for short distances, of course over the Threshold, while is in full aerobic area for marathon, under the Threshold).
d) Methodologically speaking, in altitude we cant use the same system we use at sea level. We MUST train with high volume,limiting lactic workouts. We cant use, for example, SHORT RECOVERY, because the REMOVAL of lactate is slower, due to the lack of Oxygen. Or, if we want to maintain the same recovery time, we need to run slower.
The normal rule is as follows :
1- Tests very short and fast (100-300m) : a little bit faster than at sea level, same recovery time
2- Tests of medium length (400-600m) : same speed of sea level, recovery time 3/2 of the normal time (for example, if we use 2' at sea level, in altitude becomes 3')
3- Tests for Aerobic Power (1000-3000m) : pace slower (about 97% of the speed at sea level), and recovery time 3/2 of the normal. For example, if at sea level you run 2000m in 6' (360", 3% is about 11"), at altitude of 2000m you run at 6'10" / 6'12".
4- Long continuous run : the difference of pace can be about 5" - 8" per km for athelets living at sea level, after a period of adaptation, while is under 5" for people living in altitude. For example, last year at the end of May, Florence Kiplagat ran in a hilly road between Iten and Eldoret (Kaptuli) 15 km (measured with GPS) in 48'47", that can mean like 47'30" at sea level.
5- When the pace is moderate, there is no difference. For example, an athlete able running in 28' (10000m) or 2:10 (Marathon) can run 20 km at 3'45" pace at sea level, exactly how in altitude.
For having some effect of training in altitude, we need to go higher than 1800m, also if for athletes never going in altitude before already 1400m can have some effect.
We need increase the level of the altitude using several periods : if the first period (normally we use 3 weeks for athletes living at sea level) is at 1400m (South Africa, for example), a second period can be a St. Moritz (1800) and a third period in Sestriere (2000m), for having more physiological stimula and consequentely more supercompensation.
Big risk is to run too fast in training of LACTIC CAPACITY, connected with the LACTIC POWER. Since there are different ways in terminology, LACTIC POWER is,practically, the PB of 600m (for example, 1'16"), and LACTIC CAPACITY is 3x600 in 1'21" with 7'-8' recovery.
In 1988, the team of East Germany went to Sestriere for preparing OG of Seoul, with their best group of sprinters. Among them, there was the World Champion of 400m of the previous year, Schoenlebe (winner in Rome in 44"33). I saw one incredible training of Lactic Capacity : 3 x 500m with 7' of recovery, in 59"7 - 59"5 - 59"6 (the official World Best performance was 60"02 !). I was sure he could win Olympic running under 44". Instead, he ended his career going out in qf running 46"60 !
Only several years later, studying the lactic reaction in altitude with a group of French scientists, we discovered that SO HIGH INTENSITY FOR A LACTIC WORKOUT COULD PROVOKE A REVERSAL OF THE POLARITY OF THE MEMBRANE. Practically, the athlete is no more able to eliminate the rubbish rimaining in his cells, and the cells cannot receive the right nutrition. In this case, the sensation is to have legs always very heavy, a feeling of "chocking", like a stagnation of lactate inside. The problem is that, ecceeding in this type of training, this situation becomes irreversible, and the athlete is no more able to have any type of endurance for ever.
Finally, my advice for all the athletes going to altitude is : go for running VOLUME, not INTENSITY. In any case, you can have advantage under Aerobic point of view, and don't risk any mistake.
Big risk is to run too fast in training of LACTIC CAPACITY, connected with the LACTIC POWER. Since there are different ways in terminology, LACTIC POWER is,practically, the PB of 600m (for example, 1'16"), and LACTIC CAPACITY is 3x600 in 1'21" with 7'-8' recovery.
In 1988, the team of East Germany went to Sestriere for preparing OG of Seoul, with their best group of sprinters. Among them, there was the World Champion of 400m of the previous year, Schoenlebe (winner in Rome in 44"33). I saw one incredible training of Lactic Capacity : 3 x 500m with 7' of recovery, in 59"7 - 59"5 - 59"6 (the official World Best performance was 60"02 !). I was sure he could win Olympic running under 44". Instead, he ended his career going out in qf running 46"60 !
Only several years later, studying the lactic reaction in altitude with a group of French scientists, we discovered that SO HIGH INTENSITY FOR A LACTIC WORKOUT COULD PROVOKE A REVERSAL OF THE POLARITY OF THE MEMBRANE. Practically, the athlete is no more able to eliminate the rubbish rimaining in his cells, and the cells cannot receive the right nutrition. In this case, the sensation is to have legs always very heavy, a feeling of "chocking", like a stagnation of lactate inside. The problem is that, ecceeding in this type of training, this situation becomes irreversible, and the athlete is no more able to have any type of endurance for ever.
Finally, my advice for all the athletes going to altitude is : go for running VOLUME, not INTENSITY. In any case, you can have advantage under Aerobic point of view, and don't risk any mistake.
Mr. Canova,
I have a few a questions regarding your last post. Can you elaborate further on the "reversal of the polarity of membrane?" I am assuming that you are referring to the membranes of skeletal muscle cells. How is it that the membrane polarities cannot reset after a period of complete rest and recovery? Is the reversal of polarity of membrane capable of occurring in lactic capacity sessions at both altitude AND sea level? Why is it that you think Schoenlebe was able to complete this session without failing on the final repetition? Would such a physiological reaction have occurred if we assumed (hypothetically) that Schoenlebe's lactic capacity was completed at sea level? Thanks in advance.
It hasn't really been said yet on this thread but thank you Mr. Canova for your thoughtful and detailed responses! It really is a privilege to learn from you and your generosity is much appreciated!
post of the decade
deluze
Good response. I'm still curious how do guys like Rudisha, Silas Kiplagat and Kenyan other middle distance runners their training of lactic capacity in altitude or is it absolutely needful for them to go for example to Italy (prior to racing season) and do some very intensive intervals there?
How much time is it necessary to left between coming down from altitude and first race at sea level?. I have read that Bordin's OG was 23/24th day after altitude and Baldini's OG 17th or 18th day after altitude.
Only several years later, studying the lactic reaction in altitude with a group of French scientists, we discovered that SO HIGH INTENSITY FOR A LACTIC WORKOUT COULD PROVOKE A REVERSAL OF THE POLARITY OF THE MEMBRANE. Practically, the athlete is no more able to eliminate the rubbish rimaining in his cells, and the cells cannot receive the right nutrition. In this case, the sensation is to have legs always very heavy, a feeling of "chocking", like a stagnation of lactate inside. The problem is that, ecceeding in this type of training, this situation becomes irreversible, and the athlete is no more able to have any type of endurance for ever.
That's a very interesting note- and I think a good reason why you see many kids not getting better in college based on their high school success. You'll see people blame "burnout" on mileage- but I have always argued intensity was the culprit.
I have always thought this was a fault of some high school coaches- hammering away at workouts so intense, like the 3x500 @ 59 mentioned by Renato above (obviously not that fast). The terrible thing, is that this type of work can be effective for high school age kids...in the short term, so they keep doing it to kids year-after-year. Many coaches like to "copy" the training of the current champion as gospel.
It's either one of two things as a coach of younger kids when delivering this type of training: you're in it for yourself- or you don't know any better.
Who knows how many possible champions have either been destroyed physically or mentally by this type of training at a young age.
I see/hear of this hard, high intense interval-type work a lot for young kids and I know that it won't lead to a long career. I wish high school/middle school coaches would see that if you play it safe and train basic aerobic strengths, basic speed work and basic physical strength, that you still get pretty good performances, but more importantly, you set kids up for success after they leave you.
I think I have enjoyed seeing my formers runners reach even greater heights in college than I did seeing them perform well under me.
epo is cheaper
Mr Canova, is it possible to go from an 8:32 3000m to a 14:14 5000m in 14 weeks?
Any help much appreciated.
Coach Canova:
Thank you for this valuable information.
During a workout, how does the athlete or coach know that they are in the danger zone (like Shoenlebe with 3 x 500)?
Is this training dangerous at seal level also?
Is it more dangerous for the fast 400/800 athlete or for the resistant 400/800 athlete?
Thank you.
bump
Meant to say "sea level" sorry.
bump
I see you got talent in writing articles. Waiting for more informations
zaklady bukmacherskie
last bump
Renato, I appreciate your input to threads like these. Both your philosophy behind training and thoughts on the physiology agree with mine.
ALSO, will you be in Iten in the next two weeks? I am arriving in Iten at the beginning of December (in just a couple days), and would like to meet if you are around.