Mr. Renato Canova: Could You Please Answer a Question About Effective Ways to Improve the Lactate Threshold?

Antonio,

Did you have anyone run the Meia Maratona today?

Mplatt -

I am not saying that I disagreed with you on the math. At the same time, it is easy to see what Canova was doing, no?

Mr. Cabral:

I am not intending to insult, irritate, or harass Mr. Canova.

I always post under my real name and I stand behind my posts.

I am very respectful of others in this sport from coaches to athletes, including you and Mr. Canova.

Much of the reason I come to Letsrun.com to learn from runners and coaches.

I scrutinize all training information that I read before I accept it as reasonable and correct and something that I may use or suggest.

Mr. Canova has presented some pretty precise training information. I am assuming that these techniques were learned from findings of other researchers, coaches, and scientists.

I am somewhat alarmed when I see recommendations that are very specific to pace, speed, etc. and yet there is clearly a misapplication or misunderstanding of basic math.

Mr. Canova is a well respected and successful coach. I accept that. It may be that he has great intuition, motivation skills, workout timing, and race preparation. But, it seems to me that he is not applying math correctly to these precise formulas of training. I think it is very important that we understand that. If the science says that we should be training at a precise percentage of race pace and we do not know how to calculate race pace percentage then we have clearly not trained according to the precision of the science.

Not only is Mr. Canova’s calculation of race pace percentage incorrect, it is incorrect by a lot.

Since he has success with his athletes, which is the final goal anyhow, maybe precision is not all that important. Maybe we should discuss ranges instead of clear cut categories and exact percentages.

Just this simple man’s take.

Respectfully,

MP

Respectful Runner wrote:

For example, Carlos Lopes mostly ran at race pace at the fastest, i.e. 10k in 27:27 and 400m in 65.5 (10k pace)

This was a typo as his time was 27:17 for the 10k.

Mr. Cabral,

However you wish to answer is fine with me. Your english is clear and understandable to me and the same for Mr. Canova.

Thank you.

mplatt

I ignore completly who you are as a person and as a coach that you say you are. But as i treat all people with the same attitude that no one "is more or less than me" we are all equal, thus I am not intending to insult, irritate, or harass you either. I reply to you with all my respect. And let me tell you that I apreciate a lot that you post with your name an e-mail adress. That´s the reason why I reply to you directly and not “matematicien”. The person that´s with identification he deserves direct dialogue. He isn´t running away like some in this site.

My intention that´s not also to come in defense of Renato - he doesn´t need that - and i have no attorney or imtention to speak for him.

But what made my curious is that you don´t understood that since Renato writes english - a different language than his own, and since that he tries to write quickly his own ideas, sometimes he isn´t very precise.

That´s the case of his last thread post. He writes:

a) I think that the level of aerobic training must be connected with the specific training. …..

But I ask where is b) alinea ? No, there is no b) alinea. Connected with this a) alinea.

Following the same post he writes:

a) What I want slower than 3:40 (till 2:30) : GENERAL RESISTANCE (not specific, also for Marathon)

I ask 3:40 (till 2:30). Is that correct? Of course that´s not ! I think that´s a type mistake, don´t you ?

Simply you are right, I agree with you - a few times Renato´s posts they aren´t very precise and in that Race Pace Ranges he is wrong. Mathematics that are a universal language, OR he need to say that differently like “ADD 20% by Kilo to Race Pace” and not 80% Speed that´s not that figure result.

But the case that´s the matter of your post discussion that´s not a question of accuracy, that´s a question of interpretation, what he does that´s a valid operation. He adds 20% to Kilo Race Pace or final race pace that´s a valid operation, but not an usual operation !

What´s to me that´s strange is that you – that you say that you did learn a lot from Renato´s posts – you don´t undrestood that´s not a matematical fault or lack of accuracy.

When he writes “…. 18.5 is 100% of the speed every 100m, so 80% of the speed is 3:05 + 37.0 = 3:42…” undrestood I immediately that his logic/calcul that´s to ADD that 20% percent to the pace.

And let me repeat once again. People that loves accuracy or precision as you seems to me that goes your debate direction - they will start to calculate that 2:10 isn´t a 3:05 pace, but a 3:04 and infinite decimals (not an entire number). That will be 100% accuracy against all Renato´s pretense inaccuracy.

And do you know what´s that more stange to me ? Is that´s people agree that a Lt pace may be a very accurate estimation percent from The Race Pace (ex: 45min in 0.9235 from 5000m) , and they try to reproduce that in a track or in an outdoor terrain that´s even more unrealistic ! But as that´s a perfect calcul they agree…that can be done !

The best prove of what Renato want to say is that look for more elaborated articles as “marathon training”. And we will know if that´s a peermanent bad calcul or if he calculates percents that different than usual or if that´s just a momentaneous mistake.

Respectfull Runner

#1: ...However, why not just divide that training into 7 equal portions and do this training daily, in the 1/7 amounts each day?

The total training would be the same. Would this not be enough of a training effect at one time?.....

I don´t think so. If you are running in aerobics - basic pace - you may train twice a day. But if you go to the specific paces - that´s not the same to do 2X35min LT pace by week or 7X5min LT pace by week. You only get to anaerobic thershold zone after some time duration and for the period that you are/stay/hold in a certain disconfort (read higher lactate concentration than AnT that you can obtain with a short training duration.

But the reasons that you are tired that be out of LT training weekly frequence or intensity. Do you 1 or 2 workouts weekly? If you do 2 why not try a single one weekly or 2 each ten days ? What you do apart of that Lt training sessions? Aren´t that sessions that makes you tired? Why not use Lt workouts in a diffrent model/deisgn than you use. Ex: reps by minutes with jog pauses, or 400m reps with very active pauses?

#2....My understanding of the Portuguese 1-2-3 program is that this means 1) race pace, 2) slower than race pace and 3) faster than race pace.

However, where is the "faster than race pace" for Carlos Lopes and Rui Silva?

This is what I am wondering.

For example, Carlos Lopes mostly ran at race pace at the fastest, i.e. 10k in 27:27 and 400m in 65.5 (10k pace), and Rui Silva 6x 500m at 1:10 which is his 1500m pace of 3:30.

Is the "faster than race pace" not necessary?...

As Renato told us in his last post “The different speed are connected between, but for every speed you can find the direct support only from the speed immediately slower (for endurance), and from the speed immediately faster (for speed)”. That´s similar to portuguese training idea whwn we speak of 1-2-3 paces. That´s why the slower paces than Race Pace (lactate management) – Renato calls that “lactate capacity” the are more specifics as closer to Race Pace. That´s what Carlos Lopes did. He did try harder in continuous runs to stay closer to race Pace as long as possible. He is te kind of runner that loves to do lots of LT runs weekly. Rui that´s a different training profiler. And that´s not that they train for diferent target goal distance events or different talents – Rui is faster tha Lopes of course: the main reason is that they are also different temperaments – thus Rui he is able to train in lactic paces (race Pace and faster) more frequently than Lopes, but as a inner balance he needs more recover sessions and in a slow pace than Lopes. To that you are able to see how difrent are our physical nature I told you that Rui do lots of aerobic training sesions in 3:40 to 4:00 – 4:20 by kilo as recover sessions. He is a 3:30/7:34/13:19, but Lopes or Alberto Chaiça they rarely train slower than 3:20 by kilo. Alberto do 70min AM and 80m PM in 3:20 by kilo or faster as training regeneration ! He says he isn´t able to train slower than that pace, even in 3000m altitude he rerely trains slowwer than 3:25. Do you se how different people are? How to approach with the same principles with so different training answers.

When Carlos start to do 15X400m in 64-65sec that´s faster than race pace really. He was a 14:02/29:10 runner and later on a 13:36; then 13:32 and finnaly 13:16. The 10000m that improved from 28:40 to 28:20 to 27:42, and to 27:22 and to 27:17 PB. As you see 64-65sec that´s fastre than Race Pace: what´s fantastic is that it seems that he reachs the perfection when he does 27:17. Why. Because he was able to run race Pace in the same pace he was able to to short reps faster than race pace. That´s quite perfect. To be able to run “non-stop” 25 laps in the same hard pace that he ws able to do in 15 sets with 1 minute interval. The race pace that come close to faster than race pace – the specific speed. He reaches the perfection. But the “endurance” to do so that´s tremedous worlouts slower but close to race pace.

The same with Rui Silva. He do “faster than race pace” that´s no more faster than race pace. But Rui also do intervals in faster pace than 3:30 – Ex: 300 for 36 to 38sec.

Mr. Cabral,

I have saved and will keep reviewing your messages.

Thank you very much for your helpfulness.

Is the portuguese 1-2-3 system a simplification of the 5 pace system advocated by Coe & Horwill?

fishboy wrote:

Is the portuguese 1-2-3 system a simplification of the 5 pace system advocated by Coe & Horwill?

It seems to me the opposite ! That´s 5 pace system avocate by Coe and Horwill that to turn COMPLEX 1-2-3 portuguese simple system. Besides when we portuguese we build 1-2-3 Sebastina Coe was a child either !

But to say you the truth - as i know by testimonilas - we diverge in the sense that 5 pace system turn on to "misery" some good talents. pushing to much to hard and too soon. Only superman can resist to turdays, thurdays and saturdays hardest workouts and with no really recover in between.

And besides to run short set intervals with longer pauses and long intervals with short intervals - that´s one of the worst workouts designs i ever seen.

Antonio Cabral wrote:

Only superman can resist to turdays, thurdays and saturdays hardest workouts and with no really recover in between.

Antonio,

Regarding 3 hard efforts per week, if you dropped the weekly mileage fairly significantly for the 4-8 weeks at the end of the season, wouldn't it make sense to compensate by changing the weekly pattern to 3 harder workout days per week versus the normal 2?

I agree that when the athlete is running a weekly pattern of higher mileage weeks coupled with solid workouts, 2 per week seems to be the ideal number of workouts for the athlete who recovers fairly normally. Is there ever a time when athletes in Portugal adjust to 3 hard workouts within a 7 day cycle, or is it always 2 hard workouts within 7 days and 3 within 10 days even during the final weeks of the season?

Thanks!

Joe

Joe. I guess i use to be a very frontal and direct and sincere and an open mind person. Besides I never felt offended by no one.

But that´s not me that I may classified myself.

That just to justify my comments about Horwill training method.

So, I did that because I did direct access to past Horwill runners that he did coach directly and did advise and they all bring me the same main idea “That´s too much, too fast, in exhaustion, I can´t hold that workouts”. OK, if that´s to get champions and talent runners to the top, as Tim Hutchings or Sebastian Coe as they did, that´s fine, but if that´s to get a training that fits for the runners in a large range scale …I doubt.

Ther´s a defined “frontier” in between “method” and reality, and that´s true also for running methods and concrete running schedules. I used to say that Portuguese training that I try to let you know that´s a “sophistication”, based in some principles and a fix structure that fits perfect in some cases, that don´t fit perfect in some other cases, and that don´t fit at all in some other cases. It would be absurd and a non-sense to try at any coasts to fit 1-2-3 portuguese system in a runner that by his individual physical profile that 1-2-3 doesn´t fit. As it would be wrong to confine 2 workouts by week to a runner that goes splendid with 4 workouts a week.

But the basic principle that remains intact. Most of my experience, tells me that most of the runners they just need 2 workouts a week mainly. Regarding Lopes or a Fernando Mamede, or Rui Silva or Antonio Pinto all most of top portuguese runners with different workouts and with different coaches ther´s a large consensus that 2 a week that´s better than 3 a week, Well in our 1-2-3 training formula…Lopes he start his career by training 3 workouts weekly. He did 13:42 and 28:16 with that workout frequency. At that time (1972-1974) Fernando Mamede he was a 800m-1500m runner that did loose to qualify on 1972 Munich Olympics heats outquick by a Italien runner named Francesco Arese that Renato Canova did coach ! He did 3 workouts a week. Then both they changed for 2 workouts a week. How they did that? Instead of doing short reps in a faster pace and the next day they did very slow aerobic runs, and look for that every next workout that will be faster and faster, they turn on short intervals to a slower pace – closer and closer to Race Pace – faster than race pace, but closer as a “pace support” (as Renato says) to Race Pace. Of course that that means to shorter the intervals also. One another occasion I will come to that subject that of “short reps” Portuguese style, because I see ther´s a misunderstand how this is done. Now, I simply say that we use “modern interval training”, that took their roots and origin in German Friburg research school, that´s in based not in reps or pace reps, but the fundament that´s based in incomplete recover, that we transfer/adjust that incomplete recover base in “active” short intervals, a kind of intermittent reps that Renato mentions. Need to say that spain runners they use that also with a large success, I guess. But I will come later to that my experience.

In the other extreme, aerobic runs slower than Pace Race, instead of jogging I between workouts, Lopes did speed their continuous runs closer and closer to Race Pace, once again that´s also Renato´s idea, that the pace(s) immediately below Race Pace are support paces for Race Pace.

Thus changing from 3 workouts weekly to 2 Mamede did improve from 3:42 to 3:37 and he become a 5000m-10000m specialist up to 27:13 world record a performance that most of non-africans would love to do actually. And Lopes did Big wins, 27:17, 2:07:12 WR.

A lot of times people forgets that overtraining that is dangerous than lack of training. If a runner reports that after a workout he is no able to train faster than 6min mile and besides that slow pace he still feel tired – the reason isn´t in an inadequate workout?

Now, if the runner is able to resist to 3-4-5-6 workouts a week, no big deal.

Eventually in very specific phases or for some individual justified reason you can inflate the number of 2 weekly workouts. In 800m-1500m runners, I would say that´s pertinent to think that the runner needs more workouts than twice a week. I agree with you.

But if that´s the case you need to put more specific training in a somewhere runner – why not use mix-up paces in a single workout?

Using several set distances, in several pace zones, in a negative split concept. Ex: 4X(600+500+400+300+200+100) first 2 set groups for race pace and 2 last ones faster than race pace to maximum pace? Or 4X(5X400) first two sets in Lt pace and 2 last ones in race pace? Or 3Xmile first set group in Lt pace; second mile group in Race pace and third mile group faster than Race pace.

There are many format designs as coaches in the world, but I just want to explain my idea.

Mr. Joe. Don´t take me wrong. If I made a comment about 5 pace system, that´s because the use of paces comes from a different logic principles that Portuguese system. As far as I know (by reading Peter Coe and Martin book) they take advise from Horwill BUT they buiold a system based in scientific studies based in physiologic conclusions, thus max.VO2; aerobic/anaerobic; lactate; etc. We Portuguese we take out empiric conclusion based in our experience mainly.

But don´t take the conclusion that I comment negatively your 5 paces workouts, I don´t know your training details yet – just what I read in Let´sRunCom but what I read i think that´s fantastic. Very good your training stuff indeed.

But for me just the number 5 that´s similar in your 5 pace workouts and Coe system. May be you get some influence from them, I don´t know, but it seems to me that you build a original and very adequate training methodology, that´s now distant than what Coe did.

Besides, ther´s a moment that you feel the need to discriminate the 2 from the 3 portuguese paces – the faster than RP (fluently called speed) and the intense but slow than RP (mainly called Lt) in 2 discrimination pace zones, thus the 5 paces. All that fits mainly with Renato´s ideas –remember 80-85%RP to 90-95% to 105-110% to 115% all that stuff.

But I still keeps on talking about basic Portuguese 3 paces that people understand a simple basic idea but also a very effective and efficient concept I guess. And i´m no more than to take the attention for my own ideas. I guess that all over the world people thinks that we all use that system as un inflexible and infallible system. No we don´t. 1-2-3 that´s just a perspective.

Seems like Antonio and Tinman are speaking the same language for the moment but at different forums:

Tinman wrote an article about 2 workout's a week yesterday:

http://www.run-insight.com/traininganalysis-pushpacetwotimes.html

Forum thread:

http://www.websitetoolbox.com/tool/post/thee/vpost?id=1868

Keisl

That´s not new.

Next posts he will tell you that story "Regarding Lopes or a Fernando Mamede, or Rui Silva or Antonio Pinto all most of top portuguese runners with different workouts and with different coaches ther´s a large consensus that 2 a week that´s better than 3 a week" or a somewhere other idea that he LEARN from another post discussion what later on he will says that´s his own opinion.

But the true is that he send me personally lots of his own training schedules designs and IN ALL OF THEM i can see that Tinman uses everytime 3 workouts a week.

Now, what to think ?

What to believe ?

El Guerrouj does 5-6 threshold runs weekly + the speed stuff. That is maybe 8-9 hard sessions weekly.

They dont belive in long slow runs.

Antonio Cabral wrote:

I don´t know your training details yet – just what I read in Let´sRunCom...Besides, ther´s a moment that you feel the need to discriminate the 2 from the 3 portuguese paces – the faster than RP (fluently called speed) and the intense but slow than RP (mainly called Lt) in 2 discrimination pace zones, thus the 5 paces. All that fits mainly with Renato´s ideas –remember 80-85%RP to 90-95% to 105-110% to 115% all that stuff.

Antonio,

I appreciate your thoughtful response. I did not take offense to your earlier post at all reagrding the Horwill multi pace system, I was sincerely curious about the 2 workouts per week versus 3 workouts per week structure that your country bases most of your training upon. I find it interesting how other countries train. Hopefully I'm smart enough to take the good stuff I learn from you and others so my athletes can benefit. Particularly the information you provided regarding recovery time bettwen primary workouts.

Whenever I get antsy and have people run higher mileage plus 3 primary workouts per week, I end up with a broken kid or one who has fallen into the valley of fatigue. Everytime. If I stay patient and keep it to 2 primary workouts per week for most of the year and then go to 3 workouts per week only for a short time and at the end of the year when the weekly mileage is much lower and we are trying to peak, I get much, much better results. Thank you for confirmation of this concept.

Like I said above, we generally use 2 primary workouts per week in all phases of training, what you term phases 1 and 2, but in phase 3, the final phase where our 1500 runners drop their mileage and we instead go to 3 workouts per week in the following general format.

Mon: 800 pace (105%)

Wed: 1500 pace (100%) or change of pace workouts ie 100% + 105-110%.

Sat: Best effort reps (110%+) or race if available

So we really stay at 2 paces primarily, race pace and faster than race pace. Rarely at this stage do we do much in the way of slower than race pace. If we do, it's something at 3k pace, so 6 x 800 starting at 3k and cutting them down slightly (ie 2:08, 06, 04, 02, 00 for a 3:42 athlete) w/ 400 jog for the 1500 runners, something very close to the target race distance pace. Mostly though, everything is at race pace or faster.

We use the 4-5 paces from the Horwill system in what you term phases 1 and 2, in these stages we are running consistently at race pace, faster than race pace and slower than race pace. We usually will run these 4-5 paces over the course of 2 weeks, then repeat. So for a 1500 runner it looks like this:

Week #1 & 3

Workout #1: 800 pace

Workout #2: 3k pace

Week #2 & 4

Workout #1: 1500 pace

Workout #2: 5k pace or 10k-1/2 marathon tempo effort.

I have found that during the last 4-8 week of the season before the championship season, focusing the workouts on the specific pace and demands of the goal race distance pays the biggest dividend, so regardless of the race distance the primary workouts at the end of the season are at race pace and another one at faster than race pace. We tend to not worry about slower than race pace at this point.

I do find it interesting that both you and Renato focus comparatively little attention on an area of fitness I personally feel coaches in this country overstress and that's the area of all-out leg speed, particularly sessions such as hyper-fast 200's or 300's. I have found it more effective to workout primarily at race pace and slightly faster concentrating on developing the ability to maintian race pace for a longer distance, then gain the ability to kick off of this versus a focus on shorter reps and running them as fast as you possibly can go. So for a 1500 runner I develop a faster kick and better overall race time if an athlete can gain the fitness to do this type of a workout:

600 at 1500 pace, 100 jog, 300 at 800 pace or faster x 3-5 w/ 5 min rest.

If an atlete can do this, I'm fairly certain they can run the respective pace for the first 3 laps, then kick at roughly their 800m race pace, which is what the goal I have for our runners in terms of finishing speed. If we instead focus the final workouts on things like 300's at all out pace we get an athlete who can run a heck of a 300, but this doesn't always translate into faster races nor do they kick effectively in many instances. In most cases, my athlete actually slow a second or more in the open 400, but their overall race times and final kicks are substantially better than when they were "faster" at the shorter distance.

Thank you very much for the information. It reafirms many of the concepts we base our program on which makes me more confident we're on a solid path to continued success.

Joe

the 5-phase system is garbage in my opinion, why should a 1500m runner train at race-pace or quicker except when gettin ready for summer-track season?

2 sessions faster than race-pace, 2 slower than race-pace?

There is no need to train the anaerobic system for longer than 4-8 weeks per year, aerobic training starts at 3k-pace, training above 100% Vo2max is pretty useless for conditioning.Even when you have also some not so unimportant races in the winter/spring, training at 3-5k pace gives you enough anaerobic stimulus that you'll perform close to 100%.

I see value in targeting those energy systems above and below goal race distance -- ie., improve 800m ability, and you improve 1500m potential.

I also see value in doing race specific work just aobut every week of the year. If you're goal is USATFs for the 1500m in June 2005, you can start specific work for the 1500m in late July 2004 -- there's no reason to let that energy systme stagnate, it just depends on how you do it. If you started with 16-20x200m @ 1500m goal pace (goal for the following June) and gave yourself a jogging 90 or 120s 200m for recovery, how taxing is that workout? It's just endurance at that point, and just touching on that 1500m energy system. As the year progresses (mind you that you touch on 800m specific work and 5k specific work in addition to all the rest of the stuff) you wean yourself off the rest until you're doing the whole 20x200m at goal 1500m pace with 45-60s jogging 200m.

There's nothing wrong with having a goal time for 11 months in advance and working on it throughout the course of the year.

Wello,

Why do it? Cause it's been shown to get results.

I'm not a physiologist, I just go of of what has worked well for my athletes. This system has gotten the following results for these athletes I have coached since 1999.

Athlete #1, from 1:52, 3:46 and 14:46 down to 1:47, 3:39 and 13:49 in 2 season.

Athlete #2, from no track experience whatsoever to 3:40 and 13:58 in 2 seasons.

Athletes #3. Female from 4:34 to a 4:15 1500 in 2 seasons.

These are regular athletes who followed the training as I outlined above. I don't know why it worked for them, I don't particularly care. All I know is it worked pretty well, better than the systems they followed previously. Show me specific examples of your program in action, how it got runner X from not making past conference finals to the starting line at USATF's or something similar. A guy you personally know, a guy you train with, a guy you coach. To just come out and say this is "garbage" in your opinion without examples is nothing more than a theory which is fine for chatting on a message board, but not if you're training hard to reach your goals and want a system that you know works instead of one you think may work.

Joe

Joe,

Those are excellent results. It's good to know that there are good coaches in this country that will actually develop runners instead of trying to make themselves look good.