Renato Canova - Arthur Lydiard Coaches Roundtable

Wetcoast wrote:

the scientific terms were new back then for everyone

No they weren't. I was well versed in Gershler, Reindell and Holman long before L came along and tried to take credit for inventing the sun and the moon.

You and I have the luxury of having him and others do a tonne of work

When I was reading his books, I was WTF, he doesn't understand what he's saying.

"Before L came along".

He died at the age of 84 in 2004. Are you near 100?

Huckleberry Finn wrote:

You´ve just didn´t get your training right. I agree that programs from the book "Run to the top" shouldn´t be used literally

I tried a couple different L programs. Neither of them worked very well, for the exact reasons there are major differences between Canova and the backwards training of Lydiard.

Actually MY training was right, as I ran faster before going through Lydiard's program, then abandoned it and again ran faster than before, on my OWN training program.

17 Olympic Gold medals and he was backwards. Damn, he was good, if he can do that backwards. Imagine if he was forwards.

Wetcoast wrote:

3 Olympic Gold medals and he was backwards. Damn, he was good, if he can do that backwards. Imagine if he was forwards.

You're delusional.

So Lydiard was "backwards"

You are older than Lydiard (near 100)

You followed programs from a book and failed and blame a man's method who has 17 Olympic gold medals to his credit.

And I am delusional for stating the above.

Ok.

What Lydiard and Canova thinks about interval training, when "Lydiard was quite carefree about interval workouts—as long as they were reasonably challenging, he did not worry so much about how far or how fast each one was", this is also a golden attitude in my opinion in the pre competition period. Then your goal is to get your heart rate close to it´s maximum, and that could be done by just running hard, there´s million of ways to do this. Of course you can do this running at your race pace, when speaking about middle and long track distance running, so you get the race pace work also in the same session. But the ultimate goal is to get the aerobic/anaerobic power in shape AFTER the base work you´ve done in the base phase.

Conclusion, the race specific work is often overemphasised at the expence of basic endurance training.[/quote]

Why do you think that refining and getting a more specific plan for intervals than Lydiard had is somehow going to be at the expense of "basic endurance training"?

That doesn't make sense and shows you are stuck in 1980s training and unable to advance.

Modern Coach wrote:

Why do you think that refining and getting a more specific plan for intervals than Lydiard had is somehow going to be at the expense of "basic endurance training"?

That doesn't make sense and shows you are stuck in 1980s training and unable to advance.

No, I didn´t say that. I wrote about interval training IN THE PRE COMP phase, and was just to emphasise the meaning of the hard interval training in that time of the year - to RUN HARD at maximum or close to maximum HR. And I said that you can do this by million different ways, and that you can do this running at (or close) to race pace (800m-10k runners) also.

Of course you can have a detailed plan how to do this interval training. The hard interval/anaerobic or aerobic power work is often overemphahised, as I described in my example runners A and B. Especially in the base phase.

Your post didnt make sense, because you failed to understand my point. I didn´t say that you should train just like in the past, but the point was about the most important training of a distance runner. It´s all about finding the right mix of aerobic/anaerobic for your main event.

To add, the conclusion was about my WHOLE POST, not just from the part you "Modern voach" quoted. You used it completely wrong.

"Modern coach" I meant.

This may help you: http://athleticsillustrated.com/editorial/lydiard-basics/

I was very disappointed with this roundtable. It felt to me that they were bashing someone whose done a lot for this sport in Canova. For as much crap Nobby talks about Canova's system, Ive never seen him actualy coach an olympic gold medalist himself. Why doesnt he have pro athletes flocking to him if Nobby is the man with all the answers? I think Nobby needs to either go out to Kenya and actually coach some kenyans himself or he needs to shut the hell up. I respect the Livingstones, very excellent book that they wrote, but I have no respect for a man like Nobby. Hes a Lydiard wantabe. I dont claim to know everything Canova says, but theres a lack of understanding on Nobby's part on Canova's system.

craig mcmahon wrote:

Nobby mentioned that if someone did Canova's hill sprints without being elite, they would have "no control" over when they ran well. Canova has written extensively that the point of these sprints aren't to go to the well at all, that they're more like uphill strides to develop power/strength. You're supposed to take full recovery between each so you're completely alactic.

That's complete taurine ordure craig. Hill sprints aren't 'alactic' and neither are they 'strides' Glycogen is used at a great rate doing those efforts which are very powerful sprints.

I am also surprised at the Canova bashing. If you read his materials (and there is a pretty solid amount posted here over time) there is no question in my mind it is a thorough and comprehensive program more relevant to todays speeds than Lydiard's. Of course Lydiard made major and significant contributions that we all now use as a base, but Canova has refined and added to it.Canova is dealing with the practical issue that to win a major marathon now you must be prepared to run sub 2:04. Maybe if Lydiard was still around he would make similar adaptions, but we know that canova has.

It also seems to me that Salazar and Lagat's program are closer to Canova than Lydiard, while incorporating many standard Lydiard principles.

Finally, the most absurd criticism is to say that Canova is good only because he has the best athletes. He does have the best athletes, but they are also producing at an astonishing rate.

I have used a combination of Canova principles for the past few years and believe they have helped me and my athletes tremendously. If they don't work for someone, then don't use them!

pretentious police wrote:

Hill sprints aren't 'alactic' and neither are they 'strides' Glycogen is used at a great rate doing those efforts which are very powerful sprints.

Canova´s 50m sprints are mostly alactic - so short that you use mostly your creatine phosphates reserves. The recovery should be long enough to replenish the CP stores.

At full speed, the CP-system can operate only few seconds.

What is this weird obsession with Lydiard? His coaching methods pretty much suck. They are only interesting in that he introduced some good ideas (namely, high mileage and extensive hill work) which have now been co-opted by far superior coaches, such as Canova. I really don't understand what is so exciting about him- what are the fastest athletes Lydiard coached? Snell? Viren? I hope you realize that running 1:44 or 27:37 is not really that big of a deal nowadays. That's what Lydiard's most talented athletes were running. Do you really think that Galen Rupp and Chris Solinsky are so much more talented than Viren that they would run almost a minute faster over 10k off of the same training?

The real problem is, Lydiard's programs are not that good. Canova's are much better. You seem to think that the runners Canova has coached are so much more talented than Lydiard's as to explain the differences in their times. Nope. Their training is a factor as well. No 800m runner should be running 100 mpw. The concept of "peaking" is pretty much bullshit. 20 mile long runs are an unnecessary risk for most runners.

The reason for people's weird obsession with Lydiard seems to be a mix of nostalgia (for a time when European athletes dominated) and good old "back in my day blah blah nonsense" (sort of like, "we walked uphill to school both ways in the snow"- "we used real, hardcore training methods like Lydiard that you youngster's ignore"- in favor of BETTER training programs that enable you to run FASTER). And if Canova knocks Lydiard because of people's blind, religious faith in his outdated programs, then good for him for trying to illuminate the truth.

Huckleberry Finn wrote:

pretentious police wrote:

Hill sprints aren't 'alactic' and neither are they 'strides' Glycogen is used at a great rate doing those efforts which are very powerful sprints.

Canova´s 50m sprints are mostly alactic - so short that you use mostly your creatine phosphates reserves. The recovery should be long enough to replenish the CP stores.

At full speed, the CP-system can operate only few seconds.

Canova's hill sprints are about 15 seconds, which is well past the CP system shut off.

pretentious police wrote:

Canova's hill sprints are about 15 seconds, which is well past the CP system shut off.

Well there´s been discussion also about much shorter sprints, but 12-15 seconds (80-100m) sprints too.

See, it depends, how long sprints you use.

Your post is just another blasting from someone who liekly doesn't know the method, haven't grasped it and bash it and bash the people who enjoy it.

I can ask the same question right back at you. What is it with this fascination to bash Lydiard? Is it that you cannot grasp the method?

In 20 years from now I am sure we will look back on today and think that Canova was a mediocre coach because athletes have dropped new impressive times. That is, if we think like you.

It would benefit you to learn the Lydiard programme. Feel free to ask questions if confused.