Renato Canova - Arthur Lydiard Coaches Roundtable

gypsy wrote:

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

The analogy doesn't help without saying when and how to increase the the funnel and the bag? That is the art of coaching.

Are you proposing "as long as possible" to develop the bag and "8 weeks" to develop the funnel?

Anyway, how can power = the funnel?

is ur analogy better for the anaerobic and/or aerobic systems? how do those systems them combine using your analogy.

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 there'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.

gypsy wrote:Who are you that understands the metaphysics so well?

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

I'm fine with metaphysics how about you? I figure if you can't see how it is being applied by 'so far so good' then you don't know about it yourself.

J.R.

I don't mind the bold -- mistakes happen. Sorry if I don't quote you every time, since it's a pain to do, and error-prone. I think it's clear enough though.

As an aside, when you say things like "For example distorted my use of the world principles", it makes it much harder for me to interpret what you mean. It looks like here one word is missing, and one word is wrong. You don't mention "who" distorted your use, and of what?!? Do you really mean "world" principles? As opposed to what, "universal"? I wouldn't mention it, since typos happen, but it's the fourth or fifth time I've noticed some missing words, or extra phrases, likely due to some re-editing, or fat fingers.

I don't think you are dense, but you can be stubborn and obstinate.

I'm sorry, but I think your bird analogy isn't going to fly.

You suggested a good tactic that may end all of this misery. I told you what I thought you meant to say, but maybe I'm being too presumptuous. Let's forget my dictionary definitions which twist your words out of context. What exactly did you mean when you answered "The principles are entirely different, and can apply to anyone." I don't need an explanation for "can apply to anyone". What is a good definition of principles, the way you meant it here? Can you give some concrete examples of some of the most important Lydiard principles? Can you give some concrete examples of some of the most important Canova principles? These answers will help me bridge the gap from what you really meant, to how I misinterpreted what you really said.

Regarding Lydiard and regeneration/recovery do you have a Lydiard (or Lydiard-approved) reference somewhere that uses these exact terms "best aerobic pace" "every day", so that I can see it in proper context? This way, I can see for myself how Lydiard described this particular forest of trees.

No, you did not say you "followed" Canova. You said you applied his principles, and from that I cast you as a "self-proclaimed Canova follower". Sorry if this completely misrepresents you. I guess you mean you follow some parts but not all. When you say "I apply his principles, and share them with my friends", what does that mean exactly? Which principles do you apply? Which principles don't you apply? Which ones do you share with your friends? Why did you chose which parts you wanted to apply, and which parts you don't?

I don't have any questions for Canova about his training.

It's curious in the recent history of this thread, we have the full spectrum represented with you claiming that Lydiard doesn't understand the concept of regeneration/recovery, while gypsy says that Canova has abandoned this principle and needs to become more Lydiard-like. In this point, I think you are both wrong, and somewhere between the two ends lies the truth.

It does help, because before you even start preparing a training program ie an application of your methodology which is underpinned by your principles, you have this idea of balance and this idea drives everything, it is in essence the fundamental principle that is present in all other principles. As ones principles are refined automatically ones methodology and application are refined. In reverse ones experiences in application feed back to refine the methodology which in turn feeds back and refines the principles.

I didn't want to explode the principles out into a methodology and then an application as that would have taken pages. Although it might be something interesting to do if you are interested.

Ok lets nail this thinking in the head right now why not. We are all animals on one level. So we are directly comparable to animals in some ways. The physical body is one way. As human beings we have retreated very far from what our true physical bodies should be like. The path back to that state we existed in for 10s of 1000s of years takes a very long time to bridge. Yoga is a craft that specifically looks into this issue. So when Lydiard says 'for as long as possible' he literally means there are years of work to be done. Adding the words 'as possible' allows for all of the distractions to come into play. The distraction of an upcoming season. The distraction of needing to compete, to test oneself regularly, comes into play. These things come under the banner of 'as long as possible'. The problem is hardly anyone can do it to the ideal. This is where Viren can into play. He understood this aspect of Lydiardism and took it right out to its extreme. He appears to literally have created a 4 year peak. That is some long term focus and strong will to not need to constantly 'come back up' and test oneself. It takes faith that what you are doing will work. And it takes courage to stick to the path.

SO for all us normal people 'for as long as possible' still gives the indication that this is the way to go. So we can all endeavour to increase this period of time devoted to addressing our long lost physical heritage. But the norm these says seems to be shorten it. Money drives a lot of peoples inspiration though ey!

What exactly are you asking here? Possibly you imagine the power output to be something separate from its source. Perhaps you are thinking the power is a completely different type of energy? The funnel simply acts to direct the energy being driven from the bag, it doesnt contain its own power source.

I can see what you are thinking because i've tried to fit the analogy to that as well, but it doesn't work. Simply because of what i said in the answer to the last question. The anaerobic is its own source so cannot be the funnel. But i like your thinking. What do you think about what i just said?

rekrunner wrote:It's curious in the recent history of this thread, we have the full spectrum represented with you claiming that Lydiard doesn't understand the concept of regeneration/recovery, while gypsy says that Canova has abandoned this principle and needs to become more Lydiard-like. In this point, I think you are both wrong, and somewhere between the two ends lies the truth.

Right now you have asked for it!

Seriously though did i use the word abandon? Hope i didn't because that doesn't reflect how i see it exactly.

Canova clearly has the principle of recovery in mind. I just don't think he applies it as it should be, but not because of something missing from his understanding of recovery, instead from his understanding or lack of, of rhythm. So no i don't think he abandoned it i just think he misapplies it, but only in subtle ways, so it takes time for the cumulative effect to build up to it's threshold; it's own critical mass.

I don't always look back and find the exact words, so "abandon" is surely my own word. But in the respect, we have two critics saying the fault of one coach is not doing recovery/regeneration like the other.

For my own limited non-world class purpose, I don't see a problem with either coach, when it comes to incorporating recovery.

gypsy wrote:

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.

There's something strangely, pathetically sad that Gypsy wishes to continue arguing when he's lost the argument ages ago.

rekrunner wrote:

I don't always look back and find the exact words, so "abandon" is surely my own word. But in the respect, we have two critics saying the fault of one coach is not doing recovery/regeneration like the other.

For my own limited non-world class purpose, I don't see a problem with either coach, when it comes to incorporating recovery.

REK,

Gypsy's "48 hour rule" of recovery is complete bunkum ... he has no basis whatsover for criticising one coach or another regards recovery as he has clearly no understanding of it.

thanks gypsy.

not a bad answer - not sure about the yoga connection though.

we have aerobic capacity, aerobic power, anaerobic capacity , anaerobic power

are examples something like - steady hour/ tempo, 5 x 1000 (90), 10 x 40 (60) , 4 x 400 (5 mins)

do you agree?

if so , where does lydiard develop these correctly in his program and where does canova go wrong.

perhaps the aerobic as the bag and anaerobic as the funnel is better

Thanks Jackanory,I'm not all that concerned with a 48 hour rule, so don't worry about me. I remember the discussion at the time, thinking it's not easy to pick a single number when everyone is different.I remember a Lydiard article where he recommended at least 48 hours recovery after an intense "anaerobic" interval training. Even then, I take that as a number that could be more or less for me (well probably more more than less).

Jackanory wrote:

REK,

Gypsy's "48 hour rule" of recovery is complete bunkum ... he has no basis whatsover for criticising one coach or another regards recovery as he has clearly no understanding of it.

I don't want to waste my time replying somebody as Gypsy that doesn't want to understand any other option but Soviet periodization (now no longer used by Russian coaches...) and Lydiard, mixing marathon with decathlon.

But one thing I want to clarify for the knowledge of everybody. IT'S NOT TRUE THAT 800m ARE AN EVENT BASED ON 60% AEROBIC AND 40% ANAEROBIC.

One of the biggest mistakes of the past, that of course all the coaches looking at the past only continue to do, is TO THINK THE PERCENTAGES OF AEROBIC/ANAEROBIC ARE CONNECTED WITH THE EVENT.

The percentages, instead, are connected with THE ATHLETE.

I want to gice you practical examples.

In Italy, we had 4 athletes running under 1:44 in their career : MARCELLO FIASCONARO (1'43"7, WR in 1973), ANDREA LONGO (1'43"74), ANDREA BENVENUTI (European Champion 1994, 1'43"92) and GIUSEPPE D'URSO (silver medal in WCH 1993, 1'43"95). So, practically the same performance (incidentally, all better than Peter Snell's PB...).

Fiasconaro came from 400m, he won silver medal in European Champs 1971 in Helsinki (45"49), with a background as Rugby player. When he came Italy from South Africa, the head coach for 400m was Salvatore Morale (WR holder of 400 hs with 49"2 in Belgrade 1962), and I was his assistant. Fiasconaro NEVER ran longer than 30' easy, and started running 50' at easy pace only during his first training camp, before ECh, in Abetone, together with me. I told him "you can be resistant, and if you increase your endurance you can become one of the top three 800m runners in the world". He answered "I never will run 800m", but at the beginning of 1972 he ran his first 800 winning in Italy with 1'47"7. After, he had a stress fracture in one foot (staying in Formia, with a tartan track, because he was used to train on grass tracks in RSA, or on cinder tracks in Torino), and had to stop training for 3 full months. He started again from December 1972 to train in RSA, running a little bit more on golf fields, and moved to 800m, running immediately 1'45"8, and after one month 1'44"8. After he came Italy, and I followed his training in Torino. We organised for him 3 sessions per week with long run in the morning on the golf fields in La Mandria, one of warm-up + 30' fast, one of 1 hr moderate, one of 45' with variations of speed. This was the support he had ALREADY IN FULL SEASON, and we used this TOGETHER his basic lactic training. Also during the last two weeks before bettering the WR in Milan, we went for this schedule of long run SUPPORTING his best specific workout, one week before the WR : 3 times 600m (recovery 12') in 1'18"7 / 1'19"1 / 1'18"6.

Fiasconaro had the Lactic Threshold (LT) at a speed of 17,220 km/h in 1971, and of 18,250 before his WR. The speed of his WR was 27,772 km/h.

GIUDSEPPE D'URSO was the Italian Youth Champion in 2000m steeple. He was aerobically strong. In 1993, two months before his silver medal, his LT was at 20,850 km/h.

The speed of his PB was 27,705 km/h.

ANDREA BENVENUTI has a PB in 400m of 46"7, was a really specialist from the beginning of his career. In 1994, his LT was at 19,330, and the speed of his PB was 27,720 km/h.

ANDREA LONGO was a very heavy athlete, with great muscle power (when was young, somebody in Italian Federation thought for him was better to try to become a javelin thrower...). He NEVER used long run, but specifically he grew with his coach (Scapin) using interval training and intermittent training. At his best, he had a LT of 18,450 while the speed of his PB was, as Fiasconaro, 27,766 km/h.

Now, we can have a very simple calculation, LOOKING AT THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE SPEED OF LT AND THE SPEED OF THEIR PERFORMANCES :

Fiasconaro 17,220 27,772 10,552

Benvenuti 19,330 27,720 8,490

D'Urso 20,850 27,705 6,855

Longo 18,450 27,766 9,316

It's clear that HIGHER IS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN LT AND SPEED OF THE COMPETITION, HIGHER IS THE PERCENTAGE OF INTERVENTION OF THE LACTIC SYSTEM IN THE PERFORMANCE.

This because THE ATHLETES ARFE DIFFERENT. Somebody can remember the thread of Antonio Cabral and John Hadd about the TWO DIFFERENT TYPOLOGIES OF ATHLETES FOR THE SAME EVENT (fast and resistant), and this happens FOR ALL THE DISTANCES. In any case, FAST athletes have a higher percentage of Fast Fibers, Resistant lower percentage.

This shows without any doubt that the idea to have a training for an event is something completely wrong. Of course, to increase the personal aerobic ability is something very important for every kind of athletes : however, to decide that the percentage of Aerobic in 800m is 60% IN DOGMATIC WAY shows clearly that who believes in this HOLY numbers doesn't have any connection with the reality.

Apart Snell, the 95% of the best 800m runners in the world NEVER used Marathon Training. We can discuss about the ability of Lydiard in training the athletes (without any doubt he was a great coach), but we cant think that this is the best training system when we speak about 800m.

And personally I think that if Snell could have another type of training he had the talent for running 1'42", and absolutely 3'26" in 1500m, where he never was really specifically prepared.

Renato Canova wrote:

Apart Snell, the 95% of the best 800m runners in the world NEVER used Marathon Training. We can discuss about the ability of Lydiard in training the athletes (without any doubt he was a great coach), but we cant think that this is the best training system when we speak about 800m.

And personally I think that if Snell could have another type of training he had the talent for running 1'42", and absolutely 3'26" in 1500m, where he never was really specifically prepared.

For what it's worth, Snell does not think that and he has spent some time looking into the matter.

Everyone seems to point out that the way Snell trained for the 800 was not the optimal way. But what exactly is that opinion based upon? I don't think it's based on observation. As far as I know, no other 800 runners have ever trained like Snell, so we don't know what would happen if they did. Davies did, I suppose, maybe Walker. But neither of them were primarily 800 runners. Do you know of any 800 people who trained like Snell other than Snell?

You are the idiot of this board.Some 10 years and you are on this Forum on every matter, thousand of posts on every subject out of the main subject of the. Some weeks ago you did this post.

HRE wrote:

http://www.letsrun.com/forum/flat_read.php?thread=4460812&page=6

Lydiard is in the title and the question was about Barry Magee. Close enough for me.

Snell?

Actually the question is about 800m and you reply on Snell.

What really matters what You, a mediocre runner and a mediocre coach thinks about Snell ?

You promote stupidity. Because Snell did huge success there is not interest in the debate and analysis on his training.

If we did as you say, the 800m world record will not progress from snell 1.44 to 1:41 by Rudisha.

You are an idiot. Once Canova said that you did intellectual dishonesty. Go away.

HRE,

What does Snell think?

time out rob wrote:

HRE,

What does Snell think?

He said that he's spent twenty years studying exercise physiology as it applies to running and he's convinced that Lydiard had it exactly right. He says that running at slow paces if done for a long enough time will make you faster, that the long runs were important to his successes at the 800 as well as at the 1500, and that he's seem many people over the years have expressed a belief that he was successful because he had enormous talent. He says that he believes he had "good" talent but had the best training.

Lydiard fundamentalists.

Thanks.

You've said before that he would add a weekly reps session if he had his time again - can you expand upon that.

Saying Lydiard had it exactly right - Snell is talking about a double peak for each year?

Hi Renato,

You have probably seen this - from Nixon Kiprotich?

Do you agree? What are its implications, should an 800 m runner avoid tempo runs?

-------------------------

Q: Is having a high lactate threshold important for the 800-metre runner?

A: Not necessarily. In an endurance runner, a high threshold is critical -so that the runner never strays too far above threshold when running 5Ks, 10Ks, and marathons. The 800-metre runner doesn't have to worry about roaming above threshold; he/she is always far above threshold during races. In fact it' s important for the 800-metre competitor to be able to generate a lot of lactate by producing ample amounts of energy.

Is anybody else just skimming this thread every few days to see if Renato has posted again, ignoring JR and gypsy and all the other wackos?