Contradiction between Renato CANOVA and John "HADD" WALSH ?

Thank you very much Antonio and Peter for this great information ! Yes Pete I've read your detailed analysis of HADD's training on another (Canadian) forum, it is extremely valuable as in particular it develops Phases IIa and IIb of HADD's training (what comes after base-building), which I couldn't found in many places (HADD's himself wrote much more on his "Phase I").

Antonio: I only know CANOVA and HADD through their writings, but from what I know of them I completely share the qualification of humanist. I would add to what you say that they are/was extremely generous of their time sharing wide open all their knowledge with any type of interested people, as you are actually. You all fully have this "gift culture" of sharing freely information, which is a core component of humanist behavior, because you know that by diffusing this "gift culture" everybody will benefit at the end.

Coming back to the technical aspects, HADD's reasoning about short jogged vs. long walk/standing recoveries makes a lot of sense to me. I interpret that the following way :

- short jogged recoveries allow to clean all lactate producted during the fraction (so no lactate accumulation interval after interval), and to rest "just fully" the aerobic system while the anaerobic one will not be fully rested => next fractions will be more and more aerobic => this is the preferred option for FT runners who need to take great care of their aerobic base ;

- long standing/walking recoveries : you rest both fully aerobic and anaerobic systems, and if you don't jog the lactate produced may not have been completely removed => the effort is more anaerobic than with short jogged recoveries => preferred option for ST runners

I understand also that in practices you mix both options to some extend, depending of your profile (almost nobody is truly only 100%ST or 100%FT), and the race prepared (for a good 5K race, you need also a little bit of more anaerobic training even if you are FT, thus sometimes use of the second option).

Following the same reasoning: what do you think about :

1) Jack DANIEL's "R pace" type of training ? How use/adapt it to the two (ST and FT) style of runners ?

2) Hill training ?

Concerning point 1), following the same "HADD-type" of reasoning, I would tend to say that ST runners could benefit of "R pace training" as advocated by DANIEL's, ie to make it simple : 200-400m repetitions at ~mile pace with long standing/walking recoveries, whereas for more FT runners I see two possible options :

- shorter reps (up to 15-20'') in order that the effort be not too anaerobic (then complete standing/walking recoveries could be used) => this correspond to the usual "strides" more or less ;

- reps of 100-200@mile pace with jog recoveries as advocated by HADD.

About point 2) (hill training), to separate the different kind of training is englobes :

- short steep hills (

My message was cut, I try to paste the end of it :

About point 2, ie hill training, to separate the different kind of training is englobes :

2a: Short steep hills,

I try a last time (don't see where the pb comes from...)

2a Short steep hills, less than 15'' at max effort and 10 to 15% slope, is good for the two type of runners.

2b medium hills, 30'' to 2' hard efforts and 6 to 8% slope, is better for ST runners, to be avoided for FT runners or to use not too hard efforts with jog recoveries, ie same thing as for short intervals @5K pace.

2c: long hills "tempo runs", 3 to 6% slope is very good for FT runners as it trains the FT fibers to work aerobically, because the slope allows to recruit more of them than on a flat ground.

What do you think ?

Antonio, very well put!

I knew John fairly well, and I admit I never knew the fictional "Joe" was John himself. Figures... :-)

On the question of rest intervals for more-FT types, I can say that John used long standing rests sparingly, and much more commonly used short active (jog) rests. And for more-ST types, long standing rests were more common. But neither was absent for either type of athlete, they were just used in a (very) different balance.

In my case as a more-FT runner, I can remember many sets of 6 x "all out" 150s with 250 walk around rest. But these repeats don't have the same energy cost as, say, 8 x 400 "hard" (mile pace or faster) on 2-3 minutes standing rest. That kind of session I might see once in a long buildup for a key 1500, and other sets of 400s would be more like 8 x 400 w/200j.

Another illustrative example would be 5 x 1000. I might have run that session 4-5 times @ 5k pace (or a bit quicker) with 200m jog rest in a 2-3 month buildup for a goal 5k-HM race. During the same period I might also see, once, 5 x 1000 @ 3k pace on 3-4 minutes standing rest.

The balance of workouts for a more-ST peer aiming for the same races with similar ability might be more like the opposite.

I think that's about all I can offer. I wrote out a lengthy overview of my understanding and experience of John's training a while back, and you can probably google it. Best, Pete

Read more:

http://www.letsrun.com/forum/flat_read.php?thread=5385149&page=1#ixzz2eZMB6zRV

Hello Pete

I read your emails about John Hadd training. But what you say it´s so well, I don´t need to post.

However it´s normal that each one of us that did contact with John – being coached by him or simply did share some training ideas with him, each one of us got some more details about John´s training.

In my opinion John got the important one quality one coach got to be as technical coach skill out of training methodology knowledge or sports science. It´s training pragmatism, training flexibility.

John Hadd got it. He was a pragmatic coach and that´s why he doesn´t prescribe the same training schedule for everybody. That´s why you Pete, you say that Hadd main training proposal is “look for the right training balance” and from that he prescribes training individualization.

You don´t read all my posts as I read your ones. It´s not the first time I reveal that Joe is John Hadd in fact Yes. Joe from the Joe thread is based on his own attempt to comeback after a long period of training inactivity and lost his shape. However Joe is him, but as a good writer John used something fictional to able to better teach his own training on someone else, another Joe. For example, the places, Joe´s earlier marathon pb, the tests, the chrono results to test LT enhance etc, are not the ones of John Hadd. Also I want to reveal something more. John didn´t finish the Joe big thread because he gave up to continue that Joe training proposal and didn´t happen that he did a comeback in the marathon.

Another interesting aspect about Joe thread is that John was upset because he did realize that most people did imagine that John training method was just Joe´s thread, aerobic enhance straight. You know that is not true. Joe is just one singular case of someone that is out of shape and out of training activity or so long and wants to come back and run the marathon, that John training approach for Joe is the kind of aerobic training. Some people identified his training with Lydiard. John being a polite gentleman, just use the assertive “let it be” when asked about if his training is Lydiard.

About this point, that people did imagine that his training is just aerobic stuff with no intervals at all or a long period without intervals, if you read Cabral&john Hadd thread “2 kind of runners” one of my first question to John on that thread is if he does or doesn´t intervals and fast training. That was a strategic question, to remove the wrong people´s idea that John is aerobic training straight when

it´s not either.

You are right and you did a good interpretation of the2 interval kind. The 2 main interval kind are typical to promote the 2 different systems (aerobic and anaerobic) as well as 2 different lactate management qualities (lactate production, the intervals of more anaerobic stimulus) and the lactate threshold, the intervals of more aerobic stimulus.

What might be done ? Both ! But different percents in different training phases of periodisation.

The emphasis in one type or another type of intervals, depends of several aspects, namely the distance event, the actual shape condition the past training profile, the fiber type and other aspects of training invidividualization. What John Hadd defines as "training balance".

Jack Daniels ? I don´t like to comment on the training of other living coaches apart one or another detail.

I just read Jack posts, and i did watch some videos etc.

From that I got the idea of one individual that is coach expert indeed, he knows everything about physiology, and got a modern mind, one pragmatic individual indeed. I do respect him and i wish him the best.

The portuguese academics, students and teachers, quote him often. They use his scientific papers as biography and source, so his scientific work is well known in my country more than his training method.

John Walsh continues to surprise me even after his passing.

Recently died one musician i do admire. Music and attitude. His name is J.J.Cale.

I think about him what i think about John Hadd. People like that don´t die, only physical dead. Somehow they live among us, at least i feel them presence. nothing of transcendence or ESP. They just "live" as long as we hear J.J. Cale music as as long as we think about John Hadd training. They are creative individuals.

Billats 30-30 workout is different than Dellingers.

Antonio: thanks for the answer :-)

Earlier in this thread you mentioned that amateurs cannot be trained like CANOVA's elite runners. But something I've been wondering: could we nevertheless use the same training methodoly and principles with amateurs, adapting training intensities and load ?

To take some precise examples, I think in this video Renato CANOVA summarizes very well the main methodology changes he has brought in his elite marathon training these last decade or so:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WObrtaR9D3s

:

This is between 1:02 and 4:48.

Basically, he mentions three modifications :

1: Introducting training aiming at improving the lactate buffering capacities, ie capacity to aerobically metabolize more lactate as an energy source ;

2: The use of more extended and more specific marathon workouts ;

3: As a consequence of principle 2: the use of very high modulation, ie longer recovery period between tough workouts.

As for principle 1, he mentions for somebody like Abel KIRUI, for instance, a workout like 22-24K in speed variations with 1km at 2’50 (so at about KIRUI's Lactate Turning Point - LTP) alternated with 1km at 3’15 (about 87-88% of his LTP speed).

It seems to me that this workout could be used by amateurs, by reducing the volume. Somebody who is usually able to do, lets say, 10*1km at his LTP speed with slow jogged (

Continuation :

As for principle 1 he mentions for somebody like Abel KIRUI a workout like 22 to 24K in speed variations with 1km at 2’50 (so at about KIRUI's Lactate Turning Point or LTP) alternated with 1km at 3’15 (about 87 to 88% of his LTP speed).

It seems to me that this workout could be used by amateurs, by reducing the volume. Somebody who is usually able to do, lets say, 10*1km at his LTP speed with slow jogged (

I try again :

As for principle 1 he mentions for somebody like Abel KIRUI a workout like 22 to 24K in speed variations with 1km at 2’50 (so at about KIRUI's Lactate Turning Point or LTP) alternated with 1km at 3’15 (about 87 to 88% of his LTP speed).

It seems to me that this workout could be used by amateurs, by reducing the volume. Somebody who is usually able to do, lets say, 10*1km at his LTP speed with slow jogged (less than 70% of LTP speed) recoveries, could try to do for instance 7 or 8*1km at his LTP speed with faster «recoveries» (1km at about 85% of his LTP speed). Don't you think using the same workout format should also be beneficial for the amateur, and if not, why ?

As for principle 2, for instance Abel KIRUI did the following workout last March 19 (when preparing for the last London marathon): 40K with first 30K at about 3’15 per km (about 90% of his target marathon race pace or MRP), then last 10K at 3’ per km (very close to his target MRP). This is extremely tought, and CANOVA mentioned that it could take him up to 5 to 6 recovery days to completely recover from it.

For an amateur, the same format might be used: for amateur who is, let’s say, usually able to perform a long slow run of up to 22 miles at the end of his preparation, might try to do instead something like : 4 miles jogged, + 8 miles at about 90% of his target MRP, +4 miles at 100% of his MRP, and last 2 miles even a bit faster if he can.

Similarly, the CANOVA’s «special blocks» type of training might also be used, but adapted in volume/intensity, or programed in two consecutive days instead of on the same day.

Concerning principle 3. If you take the usual marathon schedules for amateur, they rely on the accumulated fatigue principle: you usually have 3 workouts a week plus recovery runs (let’s take HANSON’s schedules for instance), sometimes even more workouts some weeks (toughests P&D schedules), where each workout taken individually is completely manageable, but the successive accumulation of them leads to the desired adaptation.

CANOVA’s principle 3 would suggests, instead, to program one tougher workout (the example I give at the previous paragraph for instance), adjusted so that the runner could recover from it after 4 to 6 recovery days, and then the next tough workout would be programmed in the overcompensation period.

But maybe that this very high modulation principle is only beneficial to elite runners, because they are so adapted to running that to gain further adaptation this is the only good way to go (and that they are so resistant that they can support and benefit from it), whereas for the amateur, even by reducing the volume following this principle is not a good idea, even for a subelite runner (around 2h25), for whom it is better stick with the classical «accumulated fatigue» type of schedules...

What do you think ?

Antonio,

How do you determine if an athlete is a FT or ST athlete? I apologize if I missed it somewhere and am annoying you.

Now, this is what letsrun should be about! Please keep the discussion going.

Antonio, may I ask you if I am correct: I assume I am an FT kind of person, because when running for example a 5k, no matter how tired I am in the few last laps I can always "go in anaerobic mode" for the last lap and run it 10-15 seconds faster than the other laps in the race.

When I have 3 or 2 laps left, I think in my mind that it will be impossible to run fast in the last lap, because I'm so tired. But it is never a problem.

If I was an ST runner, could I do the same thing or would I just be able to continue the pace without increasing it?

I was always very good at pushing myself in workouts and I really needed to increase my marathon pace endurance so I tried a high modulation schedule as an older amateur.

So 2 days a week I did longer runs with bigger and bigger parts around marathon pace with 5 other runs of about 40 easy minutes the rest of the week. Eventually, my enthusiasm for pushing myself that hard for 40% of my miles gave out.

Before my enthusiasm gave out, two things happened. My 10k time improved about 20 sec which didn't impress me. What did impress me was how much easier racing felt even though I couldn't go any faster.

Eventually, I mentioned something about it on here and Hadd suggested that as a FT, I needed a reasonable number of the 200/200 workouts before I would get the benefits of my work in a 10k.

Antonio once promised to write about FTs vs STs. He said it wasn't as simple as being more suited for shorter vs longer distances. I would love to see such an explanation (because, frankly, I'm somewhat skeptical to the importance of dividing runners into "two kinds of runners" for other than elite runners).

BBen wrote:

Earlier in this thread you mentioned that amateurs cannot be trained like CANOVA's elite runners. But something I've been wondering: could we nevertheless use the same training methodoly and principles with amateurs, adapting training intensities and load ?

To take some precise examples, I think in this video Renato CANOVA summarizes very well the main methodology changes he has brought in his elite marathon training these last decade or so:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WObrtaR9D3s

:

No. Amateur athletes versus professional ones, or better said, faster performers versus slower performers. They just can´t train the same way.

They can train under the same training principles and the same methodology, however they got to have different training application and different stimulus.

The reason is simple. The faster/efficient runners (the best ones related to the others not so best, not so fast) can carry on higher percent of his maximum ability, that the slower ones can´t.

For example. One runner can do one workout that consists of interval training at his 95% best pace, while a weaker . less efficient runner (the slower ones) can´t run the same interval not faster than his 90% best pace.

Question of efficiency I the utilization. As Renato Canova says in the video, we realize that lactate can be used/utilized as energy, but the higher percent an higher efficiency of that utilization is done by the best runners.

Another example. Imagine that one 2:00 min 800m runner average runner the peak of his lactate production is 14mmol lactate concentration , but the peak of one 1:44 800m runner is 19mmol. Therefore if the 1:44 runner uses the same percent of lactate utilization from his stock of concentration, the fast runner can resist to hard workouts, fast intervals related to his 1:44/800m pb and train faster closer to his 1:44 pace that the 2:00 runner to his 2:00/800m pb.

The same thing with the marathon runner. If one 2:10 runner related to one (let´s say) 2:15 runner and a 3rd one of 2:20. Imagine that all got 28:50 10k pb. Now imagine that the reason among the discrimination of that 3 different marathon pbs lies in fact that the faster one got the best lactate clearance efficiency.

If you build one qualified long run workout, lets say 25k/easy + 10k/fast. It´s evident that the fast runner (the one of 2:10) probably he can run that 10k at his fast PACE PERCENT (95% of his 10k pb) and the slower one can run the last 10k just at 92% his own 10k pb, and the 2:20 can run just at his 89% 10k pb.

Now, in the same example imagine someone with 3:00 marathon pb ! he barely can run the same 25easy+10k/fast marathon specific long run workout faster than his 80% 10k pb.

For example. Someone ask me about Jack Daniels R-pace table or tempo. It´s evident that for the fast runners it´s easier to follow that R-pace workouts that for the slower runner. I would bet that for the average runner, the calculation of that Jack Daniels tempo pace is extremely hard to follow or simply impossible. Therefore the JD R- pace are quite wrong calculation for average runners, and instead might be an easy down/slower pace calculation, but a world top class runner can run at that J.Daniels R.tempo pace.

That take us once again about the need of TRAINING INDIVIDUALITY, and also that the kind of training which the package that is 100miles, 30k long runs, marathon training for different types of runners , so and so, without consider that the faster runners, because they are efficient they can resist to train at higher quality/pace percent and more quantity/mileage volume percent that the slower runner (the amateur can´t). Here we go again to refer as stupid training, that one.

You ask me to watch that Renato Canova video. I want to do one comment about it. This is the profile of the modern coach versus the old one. Renato Canova sees the training methodology as a dynamic think, and as fasr as we got more experience more skill, more physiologic data background, the training physiology goes on in time, to be modulated as far as that new and better training acquisition. Training methodology is a dynamic process of knowledge, even if Renato Canova is the world best top coach. Coach Leaning is one individual and collective process in continuum. But the old school of coaches are those that they think they know all, they see the training methodology as static process. That old fashion coaches and that old school of methodology after some point of his career they think they know everything, ther´s nothing more to learn, nothing more to investigate, the coach is just to repeat ion and on the same paradigm. Same coaches, they coach for so long understand the same method, and they got so many success that they are no humble to change when they face the evidence that in some points they aren´t quite right. The proposal of the old school fo coaches is the methodology of past decades.

The modern coach is the kind of pragmatic one, the coach of the present and the coach of the future, not the inflexible one. Te inflexible one is the coach of the old school, the coach of the past, ten outdate coach, the outdate method, the one deaf and blind to the facts and new coach evidences.

In the video, Let´forget if Renato Canova is wrong or right about what he says what´s the lactate does. But he gave us a lesson of humbleness. To confess that the book he wrote one decade ago, if he will write that once again, would be a different methodology in some points.

This take me once again to John Hadd. He was intelligent enough and got a scientific mind that the continues investigation, the eager for new training knowledge doesn´t stop.

"They can train under the same training principles and the same methodology, however they got to have different training application and different stimulus."

Yes, this is what I meant. It seems to me that we agree, and we simply used two different ways of adapting the stimulus in our respective examples.

In your illustration with the 25k/easy + 10k/fast workout, you use the same format (same global volume) for the faster and the slower runner, but you adapt the stimulus by playing with intensity: last 10K run at 95% of his 10K speed for the faster runner, and at a lesser relative intensity (90 or 85% of his 10K speed) for the slower runner.

In the illustrations I gave (my last previous post above, dated from 3:09AM), I propose to adapt the stimulus by playing instead with the global volume, keeping the same relative intensity (same relative intensity, but larger volume for the faster runner).

Actually, either of the two options, adapting the intensity or the volume, or a combination of both, could be used to adapt the stimulus, depending on what we want to achieve. The choice will depend on the purpose of the workout. For instance, for a long run which purpose is to simulate the condition of the future race, it seems to me that it is better to keep the intensity to be specific (close to Marathon Race Pace), and to adapt the stimulus for different runners by playing with the duration of the workout (up to 40K for Abel KIRUI, less for a slower runner). The other option for adapting the stimulus, keeping the same volume and diminishing the intensity, would lead in that case to the classic "long slow run" which is less specific. First option (shorter workout but still close to MRP) would be preferred here, by virtue of the principle 2 of specificity (my 3:04AM post).

Don't we agree ?

As for your remark on Renato CANOVA's flexible mind, seeing training theory as an ever ongoing dynamic process: looking for the first time to the video I was thinking exactly as you, that it is remarkable that the best marathon coach to date, despite tremendous successes and huge accumulated experience, is still in a continuous process of systematically questioning what he is doing, experimenting something new. But I guess this is one of the reason why he is the best marathon coach: if one day it happens that he looses this mentality, I bet he will soon loose his status of best coach ;)

Actually this is a quality he himself strongly put forward to young coaches as being primordial, and he call it "to have the mentality of an explorer" (he could have said: of a researcher), ie this short video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EJ4S6lm2gnk

Great lesson indeed !

Train different might mean many things, different intensity (pace) different quantity (volume mileage); different frequency (number of workouts by the period of time) different recovery etc etc etc. It might mean anything different but the whole idea is that normally the less doted/talented can´t carry on the same high stimulus that the more doted/talented.

"... if one day it happens that he looses this mentality, I bet he will soon loose his status of best coach ;)..." Very funny BBen!

Renato the best marathon coach whatsoever ? ! ? !

Sorry, but i respect Renato but ther´s not such thing as the best coach, or the best marathon coach. First of all in athletics is one sport with absolute objectivity, each event ther´s a winner and place classifications, and ther´s also chrono results in distance events. Complete objectivity absolutely.In each event we can sy who´s the best runner, second place, third place and so, and what´s the chrono performance. But what´s the best coach ? Misses objectivity. Ther´s no such thing as a coach competition.

Each one might say only that if in his own opinion what we think about that or that coach training method, and nothing else.