rekrunner wrote:
Elephant in the room? Canova's training is suitable for everyone. There is no reason to think you are at increased risk of getting injured/burned out, so long as you respect certain principles.
When we speak of principles, these are broad concepts like "overload", "recovery", "super-compensation", "specificity", "progression", "reversibility", "balance", "individualization", maybe more, maybe less. Lydiard principles and Canova principles are largely, if not exactly, the same, although there are some differences in emphasis and approach, for example with "progression", and "specificity".
When we speak of injury and burn-out, this is avoided by applying principles like "balance", "recovery", "variation", and "individualization". These are principles emphasized by both Canova and Lydiard, not to mention every long term successful coach.
But there are important differences between Canova's and Lydiard's application of the principles, and in their training focus and methods. For example, although both use periodization, the individual phases are completely different. Lydiard recommended a "simple non-linear" approach structured to peak at a certain point in the training, while Canova uses a "complex linear" approach, that develops qualities in a progressive fashion. Both approaches are field proven to work well for a wide range of athletes.
Let's look more deeply how Canova says he is "very far from Lydiard". Without commenting on how far is "very far", he used it in two cases, to talk about "easy long runs", and using "aerobic" intervals.
In the first case, Lydiard says in one of his books, regarding 100 mpw, something like "when you can run 100mpw, don't run more, but run them faster". Lydiard also increased the intensity of the easy runs, as the athlete progresses. Maybe Canova's paces end up faster, but it seems a common mistake to think that all of Lydiard's "aerobic" mileage remains slow and easy as the athlete progresses over the years.
In the second case, if we imagine that intervals can be either "aerobic" or "anaerobic", then Canova uses both kinds of interval training in the different phases. Lydiard only used "anaerobic" interval training, and only during the "anaerobic phase". In the aerobic base-building phase, Lydiard might have you doing fartlek training, or running on undulating courses, and over time you might get a variety of aerobic intensities, but Lydiard didn't have a bunch of different names for these different aerobic intensities. He just emphasized variety which likely covered a lot of bases. Lydiard often described anaerobic training, not in terms of speed, but simply as training that brings down the arterial blood pH. Using this definition, Canova's "aerobic" interval session could be included in a Lydiard base-building phase, without violating the aerobic/anaerobic concept, but I think it's safe to say that Lydiard simply didn't use these kind of structured "aerobic" interval sessions, especially the precise way Canova does.
But nothing in these two points, "very far from Lydiard", suggests an increased risk of injury or burning-out, so long as you properly combine and apply the previously mentioned principles.
In the first case, Lydiard says in one of his books, regarding 100 mpw, something like "when you can run 100mpw, don't run more, but run them faster". Lydiard also increased the intensity of the easy runs, as the athlete progresses. Maybe Canova's paces end up faster, but it seems a common mistake to think that all of Lydiard's "aerobic" mileage remains slow and easy as the athlete progresses over the years.