Renato Canova - Arthur Lydiard Coaches Roundtable

rekrunner wrote:

gypsy wrote:

2. 100 miles is what Lydiard discovered as the minimum for correct aerobic development - note the keyword minimum

I think my 1962 copy of Run to the Top says something like "I have found that the key to the success of my training is to run 100 mpw, and not more."

yes he also found that 100 miles was the maximum

100 miles was the number he found (for himself but he generalised)

sure another would find 95 or 105 their best (answering someone else here)

Lydiard went to 250 including a 50 mile long run and found he had lost the zip in his step or whatever you want to call it - his nueromuscular facilitation was compromised - he had lost the ability to switch on sharpness, or to find speed - however its terms its the same thing. I think of it as naturalness. Lose this and all training is uphill.

When Lydiard came back down from 250 he discovered this 'thing' returned when he reached 100miles. Hence the 100 miles - the balance between endurance and speed is retained. Others attempt to retain this speed through their weekly speed work and Renato through his % of max pace intervals in prep period. Lydiard just got the balance right and it worked out. Look at Snell's form in the pics from run to the top. He was clearly never overtrained and just as clearly not undertrained - that fine balance was superbly maintained.

rekrunner wrote:

gypsy wrote:

One fundamental mistake your guru makes is he breaks the rule of recovery. Over time what do you think this leads to, even in the most natural of runners?

So what happens when we follow our guru, without breaking the rule of recovery, in a sort of "do as I say, not as I do" kind of way?

What do I care if another coach breaks certain rules, if I take care to follow them?

Then you remove one of the reasons why Canova burns his athletes at three years.

Jackanory wrote:

REK,

There is no 48 hours "rule of recovery" ... it's a "gypsy myth" .... the recovery period required depends on the intensity/duration of the work done on a given day .... this is where Canova's genius comes in .... he waits for the athlete to 'fully' recover (however long that takes) from a key session before subjecting him/her to another. That is why his published schedules from one athlete to another differ ... he follows the principle of "individualizing" training .... It's also why Canova's athletes can remain @ a given performance level for many years (again, counter to Gypsy's lies/distortions)

You can always prove your final point. Nobody has been able to yet, not even Canova himself, but maybe you can.

It's clear you have no practical experience in training. If you did you would know about the 48 hour thing.

the similarity is general and is the same as every training pyramid you've ever seen - endurance is at the bottom and is the biggest component. The differences in how both approach this is monumental.

it is not wise to generalise yet i can say generally in these two countries most of the people who run do not play rugby AFL etc - so the muscular strength thing is a myth. Lydiard himself is an exception of course and Snell was a mesomorphic animal, yet Cerutty and Elliot were not muscular people and had to develop that side of it all.

for starters it not just opening all of the blood vessels its creating new ones.

so he thinks but the fact is best aerobic pace is all about long fast running.

yet another Canova analogy, like an aerobic house which actually should just be seen as then foundations, or the chef who throws all his vegetables into the pot at the same time and expects a good meal - i would use the analogy fo a master chef making a prize winning cake over some kitchen hack throwing everything in together in that analogy. Anyway its good to hear Canova trains his athletes individually.

and he calls his system non-linear periodisation - these phases look pretty linear to me.

yet three years goes by an no more faster running ... perhaps there is a problem here with your philosphy? For example if we take your philosohpy to its natural extreme we get 100% specific training and 0% non-specific. The Soviets realised there had to be a balance

between specific and general and you clearly do not realise this.

And reduce volume of training and so miss out on aerobic capacity which falls further and further behind the athletes aerobic power. IN the end this imbalance creates - no more improvement.

This analogy worked on a 17 year old runner from HS in Florida so i bet you smart people can get it too.

Your aerobic system can be seen as a set of bellows. You know with the bag and the funnel and you pump it to blow air on a fire to increase the flames.

aerobic capacity = this bag

aerobic power = the funnel

increase aerobic capacity you increase the size of the bag

increase aerobic power and you increase the length of the funnel

-increase the bag without increasing the funnel and you find you cant push out the air any faster

-increase the funnel and not the bag and you strain yourself trying to push the air out of the bag fast enough

this last one is what Canova is doing and it leads to a strained system

the solution it to keep them in balance

ps a great Aussie coach, largely unheralded put that image in my mind some years ago - cheers to him Peter kehoe - maybe one of the sharpest MD minds i have come across

After reading through another thread that could have been very informative and useful, but has instead been ruined by small minds with big mouths (isn't the saying that empty vessels make the most noise?), I have just one question to ask...

Who is the biggest c0ck - gypsy or J.R.?

gypsy by far. I can at least understand wellnow/J.R.'s posts for the most part, and he will sometimes (sometimes) admit when he's wrong. gypsy does not. still babbling the same nonsense about "canova burns out runners in 3 years" even though canova debunked that himself.

gypsy wrote:

this last one is what Canova is doing and it leads to a strained system

the solution it to keep them in balance

ps a great Aussie coach, largely unheralded put that image in my mind some years ago - cheers to him Peter kehoe - maybe one of the sharpest MD minds i have come across

Care to expand on this? Canova's athletes run a ton of basic aerobic mileage.

No, I don't believe that drivel.

I trust in time you will invent your own meanings when it suits you.

"The Common Man" brought up principles, when he asked "Are Lydiards principles at the base of Canovas training …". Then you: "The principles are entirely different, …". I came along much later.

As well as you understand each other, in a deeply intellectual yin-yang way, you described your conflict like this: "a long time friend of mine, and long a Lydiard advocate, has a hard time getting it out of his head that he has to run his "best aerobic pace" every day. He absolutely does not understand regeneration and recovery."

I merely said that this thing in his head is not a Lydiard thing. Since you insist my Lydiard view is the same as yours, you must agree.

Here's what Canova said "After no longer than 2-3 years, easy long run doesn't produce any effect. If somebody thinks the process of capillarization can last for ever, he's wrong. After opening ALL THE VESSELS that is possible to open in his body (and this happens during the first 3 years, if his training is enough), the only way for increasing the Aerobic Power is the intensity. In this point I'm very far from Lydiard."

Canova wants to increase the intensity, because Lydiard's long runs are too easy, and no longer have any effect. My response was "it seems a common mistake to think that all of Lydiard's "aerobic" mileage remains slow and easy". That's when you thought it was relevant to remind me of your friend, who can't get this "best aerobic pace" "everyday" thing out of his head.

If I'm totally wrong, it's only because I actually believed you when you said "I apply the principles to myself, and share them with my friends."

You like to make up more than your mind.

You still haven't linked cause and effect.Why do you rule out that it's a coach/athlete decision to move up to the longer distance because it's better for their career?

gypsy wrote:

Then you remove one of the reasons why Canova burns his athletes at three years.

gypsy wrote:

For example if we take your philosohpy to its natural extreme we get 100% specific training and 0% non-specific. The Soviets realised there had to be a balance

between specific and general and you clearly do not realise this.

Quantity =/= %.

rekrunner wrote:

You still haven't linked cause and effect.

Why do you rule out that it's a coach/athlete decision to move up to the longer distance because it's better for their career?

gypsy wrote:

Then you remove one of the reasons why Canova burns his athletes at three years.

Oh i don't. Definitely in certain cases an athlete should move out to find their best distance. I just feel this is not the most common reason.

If the cause is a lack of improvement in the earlier/shorter distances then the effect is to move that athlete out distance. Looking over Canova's bio a pattern started to emerge. This pattern, which initially only revealed the 3 year ceiling, broadened to see this solution, this effect, being put into place. Early on his athletes went out distance late in their career, after a number of years on a plateau or in a slow decline. Later in his bio this occurred earlier and earlier in the athletes career and the 3 year ceiling became obscured somewhat by the athletes often ceasing to even compete at the shorter distances.

I think you are purposely being dense. It is no one's conflict except yours. You're the one who keeps bringing up obscure terms, "principles all the same", conflict, lack of visibility, none of which are true or have any relevance.

The things my friend same that you say, the same as in Lydiard's books, the same as when I talked with him several times, the same that you say he said and you even reposted his ignorant schedule several times - then you say it's not the says, and my friend and/or me misunderstand, the same things you keep saying and posting over and over.

The simple point is that you are not understanding what you are posting, because you still don't see that what you're posting is the same that I'm saying about Lydiard. Most importantly, it is not the same as Canova!

That's it exactly! Which is not the same that you keep repeating from Lydiard.

Right. The intensity of certain long runs, not everyday training. Pressure on pressure off, recovery, regeneration; not pressure on all the time (more or less) like Lydiard.

That is exactly the point -- that you're saying, that I'm saying, that my friend says, that Lydiard says -- all the same.

What I said is true. What you said is not true.

I think what you're having problems with is making distinctions. You are good at using (meaningless) obscure terms to try and link unrelated items together, but you are not so good at seeing the obvious (to me and others) distinctions between them.

You like to make up more than your mind.[/quote]

For I am so clean -without blemish or blot- It is your own reflection that you see in me.

Hey rekrunner .. Really enjoying your posts, Balanced and questioning at the same time.

I would really like JR to answer my question : "How many Waiatarua's have your run ? " as that can lead to what is being argued here "Recovery and regeneration".

J.R.,

Funny, I had the same thought about you, but I'm trying to remain rational and diplomatic.

You keep saying I use obscure meaningless terms. But words like principles, and methods have clear and well defined meanings:

principle - a fundamental, primary, or general law or truth from which others are derived; specific basis of conduct or management; guiding sense of the requirements and obligations of right conduct

method - a procedure, technique, or way of doing something; a manner or mode of procedure; order or system in doing anything; orderly or systematic arrangement, sequence, or the like

Principles are general, universal, fundamental. That doesn't render them obscure, vague, ambiguous and meaningless. Training principles transcend implementation details of Lydiard and Canova. Training principles transcend sports. The same training principles can be found in running, cycling, rowing, and weight lifting. Training principles form the basis upon which methodologies are built. For that reason, they are often called "Basic training principles".

If we had to list the principles found in Lydiard's and Canova's training, we would come up with the same things for both coaches: Overload, Supercompensation, Variation, Balance, Recovery, Individualization, Specificity, ...

It may seem pedantic, but this is why I say the training principles are the same, and it's the methodology that's different. It seems so plainly obvious, to anyone with English as a first language, I cannot comprehend why you are being so stubborn, or why this not so subtle distinction is completely lost on you, unless you are being so dense on purpose. (Thank you for opening my mind, and my eyes, to this new possibility).

When you say "the principles are totally different", it is not me who renders the statement vague and meaningless, by replacing the meaning of the word "principle" with new, overbroad, vague definitions. The word had a precise definition before you typed it. The statement was incorrect when you typed it, because you used the wrong word.

Regarding our views on Lydiard, where we diverge with "best aerobic pace" is when you say "everyday", and now when you say "pressure on all the time (more or less) like Lydiard". It's in the terms "everyday" and "all the time" where I disagree. I say "not everyday", and "not all the time". It cannot be even be saved by adding the wishy-washy term "more or less", to help make your position slightly more applicable. I thought my example was clear enough, that some days were "less than best aerobic pace". But somehow, in-line with the stubbornness you consistently demonstrate, you suggest the fault lies with my own lack of understanding of the very example I give. You insist that "1/4 effort" is still "best pace", and the real problem is that I cannot understand that plain and obvious to everyone else fact because my mind is closed, and my eyes are closed.

Canova says that paces slower than 80% of race pace have no interesting effect on training, and can only serve as regeneration. If I am training for a 10K, what percentage of 10K race pace is 15 miles at 1/4 effort? If I am training for a marathon, what percentage of race pace is 20 miles at 1/4 effort?

Regarding the phrases "You apply Canova principles in your training", and "You follow Canova", I will leave it to the readers to determine the distinction.

Until tomorrow,

So far so good.

Principles are the same, but what we think about each principle is different as well. Distance running background is based in science being the physiology one of the main one branch of science. Consequently ther´s no unanimity about the principles, because ther's no unanimity or total consensus about physiology.

Principle is on the top and the application is on the bottom. Methodology is what links the principles to the application in both directions. Methodology uses as sources of material the principles and the analysis of the application.

Waiatarua Rajah wrote:

Hey rekrunner .. Really enjoying your posts, Balanced and questioning at the same time.

I would really like JR to answer my question : "How many Waiatarua's have your run ? " as that can lead to what is being argued here "Recovery and regeneration".

I haven't run a waitarua but i have done some decathlons which somehow, especially when not properly prepared, tend to cause a lot of depletion of energy and one can be completely drained at the end. In fact i have walked around all night after a decathlon in a very spaced state. I can imagine something like this gained from waitarua but could be wrong. The funny thing is every thought the body is drained it feels great, like walking on air. Somehow the complete physical exhaustion has a regenerative component.

@rekrunner - your posts are making me laugh with the dry humour - but i fear you wont get the intellectual challenge you are seeking with that opponent

so far so good wrote:

So far so good.

Principles are the same, but what we think about each principle is different as well. Distance running background is based in science being the physiology one of the main one branch of science. Consequently ther´s no unanimity about the principles, because ther's no unanimity or total consensus about physiology.

Principle is on the top and the application is on the bottom. Methodology is what links the principles to the application in both directions. Methodology uses as sources of material the principles and the analysis of the application.

Who are you that understands the metaphysics so well?

Sorry for overlooking the bold in last posting (won't use it anymore).

Actually no, they do not. For example distorted my use of the world principles to something entirely different than I said. I feel you ignore or can't see the points, so you grab one word, one single word, and try to twist it to mean something entirely different than was said, and all of a sudden you have apple = rock = tree = bird, all the same!

When I'm talking about existance of a bird (which flies), I'm not talking about existance of an apple, a rock or a tree, despite you think the priciple is the same, all EXISTING! You might say, "well J.R., you said EXISTING, therefore you obviously are meaning that birds, apples, rocks and trees are the same, otherwise why did you use that word EXISTING? Let me show you in the dictionary the meaning, therefore they are the same!"

So you're taking a general word, and trying to say the distinctions are the same. You're using general terms, applying to almost anything, combining things that are different, rather than seeing the DISTINCTIONS between them, which is what I am talking about.

See, this is exactly what you are doing.

See, this is exactly what you are doing.

Your general reasoning is, everything on earth is on earth, and therefore everything is the same! Of course I can see the general, applying to everything, but which are meaningless in finding distinctions between ANYTHING, which is why you cannot comprehend.

You say that I'm dense. However I comprehend everything that you've posted. To me, the person who "cannot comprehend" is the one who is dense.

You might say "J.R. you said a bird exists, but a rock exists too, therefore by your own definition, they are the same!" But you ignore my paragraphs that I like the bird's existence much more, in the context of FLYING. A rock doesn't fly on it's own. Then you might say, "Well the rocks are different in Africa, because they fly and lay eggs, and that's why Canova's a good coach!"

Again you can't see the trees for the forest.

Well you did that actually, with posting the 3/4, 1/2, 1/4 Lydiard PRINCIPLES.

Because you're still trying to prove that a rock is a bird.

Right.

Right. I agree with this.

You tell me?

Of course, you would not ask me what I meant, nor try to understand what is meant by Canova's own explanations.

I'm not sure that I said I "follow Canova." If so, that was not correct, especially not with your interpretations. perhaps following Canova like a duck, pecking the grains that he tosses in the grass.

As pointed out before, applying Canova principles in my training has nothing to do with your general translations. You could have anytime asked me for more specifics, but did not. Anyway, Renato Canova is the one to ask of his training methods, by spending time to study his messages.

gypsy wrote:

so far so good wrote:

So far so good.

Principles are the same, but what we think about each principle is different as well. Distance running background is based in science being the physiology one of the main one branch of science. Consequently ther´s no unanimity about the principles, because ther's no unanimity or total consensus about physiology.

Principle is on the top and the application is on the bottom. Methodology is what links the principles to the application in both directions. Methodology uses as sources of material the principles and the analysis of the application.

Who are you that understands the metaphysics so well?

Perhaps you should look up the word "metaphysics" before you use it.