Isn't "Event Specificity" More Important Than "VO2max" And "LT" Zones And All That?

With respect to 800m, I think some running at 1000m is critical.There is enough difference between 800 and 1000 that you don't need to go further. That being said, a quality 1200 is also beneficial.

My experience(with good juniors) is that 600m can be misleading. A good kid can run 1:24 comfortably in a workout, but in a race he fades badly and ends up 1:56. The same kid, if he can run 2:30 can probably run 1:54.

For the 400m runner, I agree that 600 is too far, unless you run it as some form of changing pace, like 400 relaxed plus 200 full speed etc. I think 500 is ideal

The fact that somebody won a lot of competitions, expecially when African runners were not in the race (don't forget the boycott of 1976, 1980 (Kenya) and 1984 (Ethiopia) doesn't mean that they were ALL very strong athletes. In the period 70-85, the most part of European and (may be, but I don't know) American runners used the system of self transfusion, and we cannot say that it was doping, because at that period it was considered ADVANCED SCIENCE. So, nobody can know if the same athletes could not run at the same level, or also faster, without using this system. In my personal e-mail, I explained that, for example, Maurizio Damilano had a skip of quality when finished with this practice (he only used in 1982, that was his worst season). And I spoke about Antibo, able to improve a lot AFTER finishing this practice.

What I try to explain is that, when we have athletes having a particular morphology (or physiology), practically the CONTAINER OF BLOOD (Circulatory Apparatus) is very elastic and can contain one liter of blood more, without increasing the pressure too much, THESE TYPE OF ATHLETES (that are without any doubt the most talented under this point of view) HAVE DISADVANTAGES ONLY USING SELF TRANSFUSION. Supposing (and it's correct) that having 1 liter of blood more than the normal in your body can enhance the ability in transporting oxygen, DO YOU THINK BETTER TO INCREASE THIS QUANTITY DURING 3-4 MONTHS OF TRAINING, step by step with graduality, OR TO PUT THIS BLOOD ALL TOGETHER IN YOUR BODY IN 6 HOURS ?

So, when I say that this doping doesn't work for the most talented athletes, I confirm exactly what I believe. I never had, before training African champions, the opportunity to see HOW FAST TOP TALENTED ATHLETES CAN GROW, with a correct intensive aerobic training. This is not an attitude of European (also if, for example, after 4 months of stop for tendonitis, Antibo in 1992 ran in 13'57" a 5000 about 10th of May, he told me that went to lose all the season because not able running fast after stopping till the end of March, and after 4 weeks was able to run, in Golden Gala, 13'10" : but Antibo was an African...), and also of North African Runners (Maroccan and Algerian).

So, this type of doping can work with this type of athletes, giving some advantage, BUT NOT WITH THE OTHERS. I give the list of my best athletes of 10000 : Nicholas Kemboi 26'30" / 26'51", Ahmed Hassan 26'38" / 26'58", Moses Mosop 26'49", John Korir 26'52", Mark Bett 26'52" and a lot of others under 27'20". If it's true what many scientist say (the advantage of EPO or of self tranfusion for 10k is between 40.0 and 1'10"), do you think that I can really believe that, in case of doping, ALL MY ATHLETES COULD RUN BETWEEN 25'40" an 26' ? Try to be serious, that's the reason because I DON'T BELIEVE IN THIS TYPE OF DOPING FOR THE TOP ATHLETES, BUT IN A CORRECT TRAINING.

And, on the other side, who can know what can do the athletes using doping, with another mentality, only looking for more training in correct way ? Because, who is in doping, of course believes in this practice, AND SIMPLY REFUSES TO TRY SOMETHING DIFFERENT WITHOUT DOPING. So, this is MENTALLY a weak athlete.

Believeme, THE MOST IMPORTANT TESTIMONIAL FOR DOPING ARE THE RESPONSIBLE OF ANTIDOPING. We cannot hyde the fact that a lot of sportsman use some doping, so the war against doping is absolutely correct. But the way that is used HAS THE FINAL GOAL NOT ONLY TO DISCOVER GUILTY PEOPLE, BUT ALSO TO HAVE MORE MONEY FOR THIS PRACTICE (the antidoping). The antidoping, today, is one of the main businesses in sport. You can see a conflict between different laboratories and different organizations, everyone looking for having more money from their government, of IAAF, or Federation, or WADA. There is NO EDUCATION IN THIS FIELD. When we say that with EPO we can enhance a lot our performances, WE INVITE AND PUSH NOT CLEAN ATHLETES UNDER THEIR MENTAL PRINCIPLES TO DOPE THEMSELVES, because for them is the only way for improving, hoping that can be lucky.

What do you think about the Road competitions, where there is no antidoping because too expensive ? Why we have to OVERVALUETING the effects of doping on performances, instead to say the truth : THAT THE 95% OF ALL DOPING IS USELESS FOR ENHANCING THE PERFORMANCES, BUT VERY USEFUL FOR FILLING THE POCKETS OF DOCTORS AND WIZARDS, THAT FIND A WORD OF IDIOTS TO MANAGE, RISKING HEALTH AND CAREER FOR NOTHING ?

The reality is that, when we speak about specialisms of Strength (Throws, Jumps, Sprint) we have some doping that can produce results that we cannot reach in natural way. But, when we speak about the blood doping, in the most part of case this is not useful for the performance, SO WHO DOES IT IS A STUPID MORON WITHOUT BRAIN.

This is my real thougth, and is my phylosophy. Period.

Renato

One fact is that´s they did it, other aspect is the question if that´s benefic or doesn´t.

Personnaly i dont disagree with your argument. But facts are facts. Viren did win 4 olympic gold medals, did a few WRs, Vaatainen, Vasala, Pekka Paivarinta, Alberto Cova they win over the best of that 70´s and 80s period.

I know it wasnt illegal, but more than ellegal t´her´s the moral and sports ethic and that use it isn´t fair play at all, since get´s illegal further up.

We can´t go back in history, we can´t go back to the past and put Afriacn runners which their countries did olympic boycoot or put present runners like your ones Kemboi, Korir, or others as Bekele, and get back to the 70s or 80s and see who are the best. Perfromances did improve as everything else in the world, except some europeans that they doesnt seem to be able to break european performances and results from that 70s and 80s. Therefore, to get back to the past or relate early performances or past results to present ones or future ones this is nothing but fictional. History is done and doesn´t go back. For example if in some years later when a Chineese will break steeple WR, i may argue that Shaanen did break the steeple WR earlier but he isnt a strong runner but a weak with the argument that this chineese wans´t in the runnning scene at that time. How you will react, that Shaanen is no good ?

I may doubt that Viren and all the rest they would win the same without blood use, as you may doubt that they were the best, this are both subjectif opinions. But facts are facts, they did win and you don´t deny that did blood transfusions.

If you follow several threads on LRC, not just this one, something that you confess you haven´t time to read it all, you will read, lots of posts claim that those Finn runners they were the best simply because they train best. They claim that the main reason that justify their wins that´s just training or Lydiard training or Lydiard influence and they never did blood transfusions, what isn´t true at all.

As most of the readers, they ignore or they don´t believe in that blood doping use by that runners i simply try to let them know that they did it either. Who else more than you they can trust to confirm that they did it ? That was all my intention to show them that they did it. Anyhow thanks to confirm they did it. Thanks to say the true. I always expect that you say the true. The true is always welcome, it doesnt matter if that´s not convinient.

i appreciate your intended sensitivity IQ100, but the fact is you are accusing a multiple Olympic Gold medallist of blood doping by self transfusion when he has denied it. Furthermore, you seem excited about the fact Renato agrees with you.

I think you are totally on the wrong path. You are focussing on this fact when there are far more important facts to pay attention to. It's like Kratochvilova broke the women's 800m world record by accident and it still stands. Why? Those that don't look below the surface in things will do what you are doing iq100, dimsiss the amazing coaching that also went on.

Miss all of the important information for other 800m runners to learn from. Der!

sorry Renato, not agreeing on Viren's admittance to it.

Hello Renato,

I have a question about base training. In an interview with mensracing.com, you state that an athlete needs 10 years of base work before transitioning to specific endurance training. You've also stated on Letsrun.com, however, that after running around 100 miles a week for three years, there is no more capillarization. (And you may have said mitochondrial benefit too -- I can't find the thread anymore unfortunately.)

This leaves me to wonder: What benefits beyond this do you perceive an athlete getting after the first 3 years if s/he were to base train for 10?

For context, here's the interview I mentioned.

http://www.mensracing.com/athletes/interviews/2005/renatocanova.html

If you have time Renato (and Boom, IQ100 and others) I would like you to consider my question please:

Renato, Boom et al:

I am very interested in Renato's observation of the two types of training /running animal. Coe, Ovett, Snell and Cram being examples of the resistant type. The example you give Renato of training for the fast type developing his endurance is of the extensive direction and of also developing the training by increasing the density of the session (reducing the recovery/interval). The example of Cram is an interesting one. If the training of Cram reported on the British Milers Club site

http://www.britishmilersclub.com/

is correct then one sees a long base period with many AnT threshold sessions and track sessions introduced quite late in the periodised year that seem to develop in an intensive direction. Recovery/interval appears to remain constant (at approx 15 sec/100 of effort). The specificity of mid-distance is extensive but with Cram (and many British runners of that era) the direction that track work seems to go in the intensive direction.

My question is this - is the specificity of mid-distance training dependent upon the type (fast or resistant) of runner, So that Cram,Ovett and Coe need their sessions to move along the intensive route whereas fast runners must progress extensively, also reducing the interval?

For my experience, the ability to use very short recovery between short and fast tests is one of the keys for running very fast in 800 and 1500m. The greatest specialist of 1500m, for example, come from 2 schools having the same "specialistic" characteristics : BRITISH (Coe, Cram, Ovett) and NORTH AFRICAN (Algerian and Maroccan, Aouita, Morceli, El Guerrouj). These two schools have, in common, the IDEA to run very fast using short intervals. This is the classic "Stamina" that English coaches continue to emphatize.

The fact that NEVER Kenyans had top champions in this events (the case of Ngeny is an exception, and in any case he was not able to last too long time) in the modern era, in my opinion is due to the lack of specific training in that direction. This happens because, living in altitude, IN ANY CASE THEY CANNOT USE VERY SHORT RECOVERY for the lack of oxygen, SO THEY MAINTAIN THIS BEHAVIOR AT SEA LEVEL TOO.

The real problem is another : supposing that the use of fast short tests with very short recovery can be the winning key for this distance, HOW IS IT POSSIBLE TO PREPARE THE BASE FOR THIS TYPE OF TRAINING ? In other words, the basic training for preparing the SPECIFIC TRAINING of short tests with short recovery, depends on THE LACTIC SYSTEM or on the AEROBIC POWER ?

The examples of the above athletes explain clearly that THE AEROBIC POWER IS THE KEY. All these athletes (with the exception of Coe, that never ran longer distances at top level) were able to run very fast 5000m (Aouita and El Guerrouj winning OG in this event), everybody very fast 3000m, also if, of course, their times in 800m were very good. Everybody of them started, when junior, from longer distances. Coe won EChjr in 1500m, Cram in 3000, Ovett ran road races, Aouita and El Guerrouj were in the National Team for Cross Country, and Morceli was able to run 3000m very fast when young.

Another example can be the Swiss Andre Bucher, starting from 10000m and steeple when junior, and later becoming World Champ in 800m.

When you are able to run very fast in competitions like 200 and 400m when young, YOU HAVE THE PHYSIOLOGY OF A SPRINTER. Konchellah (45.1 at 18), Fiasconaro (45.49 at 22), Juantorena (44.26 at 25), Courtney, Crothers, or in the past Whitfield and Harbig, WERE ATHLETES WITH A HIGHER PERCENTAGE OF FAST FIBRES. So, their mytochondrial attitude was not very high. In these cases, the phylosophy is the same (to extend your speed, moving to higher specific volume and reduction of recovery), but the speed is still very much higher than the speed of the race, the number of repetitions is not very high and recovery times are, in any case, open. If, for example, you are able to run 3 x 300 in 34.0 with 8 min recovery, you move to 6 x 300 in 36.0 with 6 min as final goal. If you become able to run in 1'42" (speed of 12"75 every 100m), the speed of 300m (12.0) is 5,88% faster than the speed of the race (0"75 : 12"75). Instead, in case of AEROBIC ATHLETES, with a very strong enzymatic system, we use the same speed, or also something slower. The 10 x 300 in 39.0 of Cram with 30.0 of interval are a clear example of this, and already 39.0 is the speed for 1'44".

Personally, I was curious to try a different type of training with some African runner, if I had time. For example, alternating 3 weeks at sea level with very tough training in lactic direction, followed by 3 weeks in altitude with training for Aerobic Power and Lactic Power (high speed with very open recovery), for competing at sea level again IMMEDIATELY AFTER THAT PERIOD, COMING BACK AT SEA LEVEL. I used this type of methodology, when I was the national Italian responsible, few times, having good results (for example, a PB with a very young Giuseppe D'Urso in 1989, from 1'47"17 to 1'46"30 going directly from Sestriere to Cesenatico, on the sea), but never like real project, with top athletes.

If the most important quality for 800m runners could be the speed, why the 90% of the athletes in top 50 all-time have also good times in 1500m, and only 10% in 400 ? And, if we look for Juantorena, Fiasconaro, Everett, Ereng, Konchellah and others, running 400/800, why they are not in top position in 800, but we find specialists of 800/1500 like Coe, Cruz, Cram or pure specialists of 800 (Kipketer, in any case more talented for 1500 than for 400, Sammy Kosgei, Bungei, Mulaudzi, Borzakovskiy, etc... ?).

The perfect specialist is an athlete having the MORPHOLOGY of a top 400m runner (like Juantorena) and his biomechanical attitudes, and the ORGANIC ABILITY of a top specialist of 1500m (El Guerrouj). When we find an athlete like this, to look for 1'39" becomes possible.

Thank you, Renato.

Pete, is this helpful wrt your favourite topic? :)

Skuj, Congratulations. You finally came up with one of the best ever training threads.

juks laer must be soooooooooooooooooo jealous.

Renato,

What would the basic preparation for a 1500m runner (like a Morceli or EL Guerrouj)?

What type of workouts would you use to build aerobic power and how does this training progress throughout the basic preparation?

How early do you begin SPECIFIC training for 1500m (how far out from goal race?)

yes wrote:

Skuj, Congratulations. You finally came up with one of the best ever training threads.

juks laer must be soooooooooooooooooo jealous.

I didn't do anything. I just asked a few questions, and the real experts took over! :)

I think "that other guy" is just as fed up as I am with silly battles. I do believe he has been here, contributing very positively.

It's all good. Oh, and bump.

Thanks Renato! Any time you have more information about Konchellah training, I am here to listen.

Renato, how do you know about this Cram workout of 300s in 39 with 30 seconds rest? The British Milers Club article gives a workout by Cram of 10 x 300 in 41.5 with 45 seconds rest.

Still looking for that EAA article you wrote. Do you have a link?

Thanks again.

Thank you Renato, very interesting. Coe was also the English Schools Champion as a sixteen year old in 3000 (at a time when he was barely on the radar over 800)and later in his career won a four mile road race against very good distance runners such as Mike McLeod (silver Olympic games 10000).

Would a combination of aerobic power long tests, long rests combined with short tests, short rests be optimum?

Peter, that session appears to be Cram's 1500 pace (RPTD +/- 5%) session.

I meant 1500 pace session - 41.5 is slightly faster than his goal pace (sub 3.30)

Renato! How i would love to be around you for a few weeks observing and asking questions and having you see in me what i need to learn. However, i am really intersted in the following bits to your last post.

Renato Canova wrote:

If the most important quality for 800m runners could be the speed, why the 90% of the athletes in top 50 all-time have also good times in 1500m, and only 10% in 400 ?

The perfect specialist is an athlete having the MORPHOLOGY of a top 400m runner (like Juantorena) and his biomechanical attitudes, and the ORGANIC ABILITY of a top specialist of 1500m (El Guerrouj). When we find an athlete like this, to look for 1'39" becomes possible.

The first part of the above quote shows the importance of speed in the 800m whereas the remainder of your post is talking about the necessity of the aerobic side. Then you sum up in the above quote with the need for both to be present and you describe the type that can go sub100. Excellent, thankyou!

So i ask this question: Where are the 800m coaches that are combining these two factors correctly for the 800m? This current world stagnation needs to be broken apart.

Sub100. I get it. 100 seconds. 800m talk, eh? :)

What would Coe have done for 400m had he been directed there? 45low? Is it possible that several of the all time great 800m people could have come to it from the other side had they concentrated on that area instead? I suspect the 90%/10% distribution is partially a result of CHOICE of entry to 800m....ie the 800m is seen more as a short middle distance event, rather than a long sprint. ??? I've always believed that the 800m has more in common with 400m than 1500m. Both 400m and 800m involve going hard, and trying to hang on / fade the least. The 1500m is the first distance where we see real kicking / negative splitting. I think the first, um, sub100 will be a 400m guy moving up!

Fascinating stuff.

i totally agree with you Skuj. So all we need is the quickish 400 guy with a bit aerobic potential. By quickish i guess i mean low 45 point.