Mr. Renato Canova: Can you answer some questions about training?

A special report wrote:

The jerk who has been hijacking Renato Canova's name and posting hundreds of repetitive and immature posts over the Summer (Renato eats poopies) goes to Syracuse University. If the athletes that now attend Syracuse cannot identify and discipline their own, I propose that we blame all of them for ruining this message board.

http://www.suathletics.com/index.asp?path=trun

How do you know he goes to Syracuse?

I agree with the other guy in saying a mob must be formed to hunt this idiot down and do him harm.

Definetly, some guy like Renato trys to answer in an educated manner, and this tart has got to ruin it.

This is probably the only sport that you can go on a message board and talk to the best coaches in the world, all for free.

This is why track & field (athletics) is the greatest sport in the world and always will be.

Lydiard wrote:

Definetly, some guy like Renato trys to answer in an educated manner, and this tart has got to ruin it.

This is probably the only sport that you can go on a message board and talk to the best coaches in the world, all for free.

This is why track & field (athletics) is the greatest sport in the world and always will be.

I am not sure if you replying to my post, but I'm not trying to ruin anything. I want to know who did this so he can be berated.

Yeah, I agree with you fully.

To "not bemused".

no i didnt say "just go out & run". all i said was that running was a simple activity FACT. and to get hard training done which seems reasonable enough. secondly, comparisons to american football (a skilled activity), running = athletic, let your point down a little. anyone can run not everyone can play american football.

To tinman. i read these threads to get useful training info, a lot of which comes from yourself. i was not questioning your approach just the amount of unnecessary jargon. secondly, "go to dyetstat & play with the kiddies" , well there is no need for that.

to tinman. you said "complex training principles". Well they are only complex because you make them complex.

FREQUENCY

INTENSITY

DURATION

OVERLOAD

PROGRESSION

SPECIFICITY

there are some training principles which dont look complex to me ?

bemused:

I am not sure I understand your message. You claim you like my posts because you gain from them, yet you tell me I am using too much jargon. You say you are bemused by jargon and then you use exercise science terms and say they are easy.

I don't think I have a contract with letsrun.com that states I must simplify jargon for readers. If you dislike the jargon, please don't bother reading my posts. I am only trying to help runners appreciate the nuances of training. Over the last 3 plus years the one comment I have received most in emails from posters is the fact that I make an effort to convey ideas in fairly straightforward and easy to read ways. I do try to make training paradigms more easy to understand. I could use a lot more terms and be less descriptive about what they mean. I know the science of it, and trust me it has complexity that goes beyond "trying hard," run slowly sometimes or run faster other times.

I don't wish to make this an issue of protracted diagreement. I can't find any value in it. If you don't like what I post, please just skip over it. Perhaps you know a lot already and don't need information presented to you. That is ok.

To answer your question in full, I'd have to run about 30 pages. I don't want to do that, now. I ask that you ask less broad questions. I will try to respond in kind. Thank you very much. In reply to the following qoute:

Lydiard wrote:

I tried posting last night but it didn't work for some reason, what would be a example schedule for a 1500-3k runner for each phases, such as percentages and type of work to be performed with recoveries based off of this theory?

Lydiard

Ok, no problem, what kind of work is to be perfomed then during the specific phases? Hope that helps.

to tinman. firstly, all i am doing is discussing an issue one way or the other. still no need for cheap shots in your initial posting ?

and a cant see how the "act" of running is not as simple as putting one foot in front of another, how do you think otherwise ? i wasnt disregarding different training philosophies/ methodologies just to clarify.

Personally, i studied sport & ecxercise science, but i certainly dont have anywhere near as much training expertise as you demonstrate on these forums, thats why i find your posts informative.

Just a last point. Personally, i think that the main aim is that training should make runners faster over their chosen distance, and not to concentrate on improving physiological variables such as LT VO2max etc. In some journals you would get the impression that is the main goal of training. are these parameters not poor predictors of potential ? i have heard of various studies carried out showing marked improvement in these variables but with no improvement in actual performance !

If LT is looked up in any research journal, it can be found as a .93 or higher corellation between it and performances in 5k or longer races, and it even as a good correlation in events as short as 800m (see research by Dr. Gordon Slievet, et al of NZ). Training that improves LT almost always improves performances. This is fairly irrefutable. Even research done without regard to the concept of LT has shown that running close to or above LT by a little bit does indeed improve performance and LT, both. Example, research by Acevedo showed that training at 90-95% of max HR improved performance in 5ks and improved LT substantially, but it did not improve VO2 max.

If there is one phsyiologic component measured that has variable outcomes it is VO2 max. However,training to improve VO2 max can be tested in terms of oxygen quantity per unit time and even divided by mass of the runner (for relative VO2 max) and shown no improvement for previously well-trained runners but it doesn't mean that VO2 max training for that population was useless. Perhaps, if the researchers has looked at other components of fitness (like LT) or measured physiologic performance in another way they would have seen change. I already gave one example with Acevedo's research. Another would be on economy training (such as reps at faster than race pace with full recoveries). If only economy (a term used to describe VO2 cost at a given workload or velocity) were measured after training with economy reps, there might be a null gain in economy, but there might be a gain in LT velocity or 5k times, for example.

Substantively, the aim of what I present in these forums (and my take is that Mr. Canova is the same in this regard) is aimed at either explaining current methods used or aimed at explaining how physiologic or theoretical constructs can be used (in practical ways). We aren't trying to blow people away. That is far from our minds. I am, and I take it that Mr. Canova is too, a coach (at heart) before a scientist. We love the sport and we love coaching those who love the sport. We just use science to help us coach better, to understand and explain what is happening within and without.

An artist who uses just the color red sure isn't going to paint their best pictures. Why should we not use all the tools available to coach runners, and why would anyone interested in improving their own performance restrict their availability to information or knowledge? I see the majority of runners on letsrun.com just trying to learn more about the sport they do and love. Perhaps you do too?

Awesome. If you or Renato don't feel comfortable answering questions here, feel free to e-mail me and I'll keep it confidential.

I hate it when that guy comes on and scares Renato away, he is real intelligent and it sucks that some little punk can ruin it for the whole lot of us.

Here's a suggestion; get lost bemused.

Everyone would much rather listen to Tinman and Renato than you blathering aimlessly. Leave.

Lydiard:

Let us assume you want to improve your 1500m times but you are a 5k type runner. Does that make sense? Essentially I am saying you don't have blazing 400m speed, but you do improve your 1500s by training like a 5k runner. This is a common occurence, but the mistake made is training like a 1500m runner (more speed) when one's body isn't built ideally for 1500m. In this case, the aim is to improve aerobic power, primarily, and aerobic stamina, so that 1500m performances is improved concomittantly with 5000m performances. A runner who trains this way may go from 4:07 (1500m) and 15:10 for 5k to 4:00 and 14:40. A runner who trains with too much 1500m rep work but has a 5k body will end up running 4:05-4:09 (not much improvement or loss of form) and 16:00 for 5k.

Beyond the general preparatory phase (aka base training) which should be about 10 weeks, ideally, which includes distance running, long tempo runs once a week, aerobic fartlek or controlled slow intervals at slower than 10k race pace, and striders, the structure of the next phases should coincide with two things. First, the goal event and the date of it on the calendar. Second, a runner's natural attibutes and tendencies, physiologically.

In this case, a runner is presumed to be naturally oriented to the 5k, but they want to compete in the 1500m and 5k at the season's finale. The second phase (of 6 phases), is focused on transitioninig to quality. Thus, one might include short hill reps or short intervals at quick paces but with plenty of recovery, while still maintaining long tempo runs and aerobic fartleks. An example week:

1) Long run at a comfortable pace. Afterward, 4-6 x 20-30 seconds reps at 5k pace, jog 20-30 seconds between, then 2-3 minutes of jogging to cool down.

2) Aerobic fartlek (3-5 minute pickups at half-marathon race pace, basically), then 6-8 x 200m at 3k race pace, jog 200m, jog cool down. These can be done as uphill reps, too.

3)Long tempo runs at 85-88% of your current 5k race pace. How much? About 10-12% of your weekly mileage is fine, per run and just one of these per week for most runners is fine. I top it at 1 hour, by the way. Afterward, run 20-30 second hill charges at quick pace, jog down slowly. I typically just schedule 4 hill charges. Run quickly, this will improve power output (increase stride power). Then do a 10-15 minute jog cool down.

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

This would be a transition period example. How long? Typically 4-6 weeks.

Tinman

Cool, kind of weening off of the tempo and moving into some fast stuff, with a coversion to power with the uphills.

What would track sessions consist of? Just curious.

Tinman wrote:

Good endurance allows you to build stamina. Good stamina allows you to build aerobic strength, good aerobic strength allows you to build aerobic power, good aerobic power allows you to build anaerobic stamina. Good anaerobic stamina allows you to build good anaerobic power. Good anaeorbic power allows you to develop good speed, sustainable speed. All these qualities depend upon structural integrity. If your muscles lack tensibility, then you can't generate force and you can survive the beating your tendowns and ligaments take when you do high volume, high speed training as you prepare for the big track competitions.

In this paragraph you basically describe a continuum of different training stimuli necessary to compete well. As others on this tread I am having a little trouble weeding through the language. My request is that you flesh out the distinctions between endurance, stamina, strength and power (both aerobic and anaerobic).

Hopefully you can eventually put this all into an easily readable table form and you could put in your rumored book. Thanks for all of the great information. Too bad more high school coaches don't apply your techniques. We would be seeing a lot more kids run fast and a lot less fast kids burn out.

I will spread out my posts on training a bit. It takes time and energy to put it all together. Hope you understand.

I do have it all in charts with numbers to show what every level is. The charts are fairly extensive, but I haven't decided if I will keep them for just the individual runners I coach or put them in a book. I struggle with the choice. On one hand, some runners hire me and count on me to give them personal workouts. On the other hand, so many people seem to want information.

Thanks! Tinman please keep on here posting your ideas. Really good stuff.

Let me quote this paragraph from Renato on page 1 of this thread.

Renato wrote:

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

c) In the FUNDAMENTAL PERIOD, we put in our training some SPECIAL type of training. Special is a training that is not fully connected with the event, but is propaedeutic for the SPECIFIC event. For example, for a runner of 800m, 3 x 600m at 98% of speed (for an athlete having 1:50, we can suppose a passage in 1:22.0 = 13.7 every 100m. So, 98% of this time is (13.7 + 0.3)= 14.0, meaning 1:24.0 in 600m) with 6/8 min recovery, is SPECIFIC, 10 x 600m at 90% = 1:30.0 with 3 min recovery in SPECIAL, 15 x 600m at 75% = 1:42.0 with 1:30 min is FUNDAMENTAL, 12 km at 3:45 pK is GENERAL.

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

Now if we are talking about a runner with 1.50 time for 800m, then the following percentages result in the following times for 600m (rounded to nearest whole number):

100% = 1:22 for 600m

98% = 1:24 (specific)

90% = 1:32 (special)

85% = 1.37

80% = 1:43

75% = 1:50 (and NOT 1:42 as Renato wrote above)

So, either Renato meant that the 1:50/800m runner should train at an effort that elicited 1:42 for 600m in the runner's Fundamental period (15 x 600m). In which case this would be approx 80% effort and not 75%.

Or else he meant the runner should train at 75% effort in this period (and his math was wrong). In which case this would be 1:50 for 600m, and not 1:42 (as he wrote).

Perhaps he could clarify which he meant?

In the Fundamental period should a 1:50/800m runner do 15 x 600m at 75% effort (i.e.: 1:50 for 600m) or should he run them at 1:42 pace for 600m (and approx 80% effort)?