Contradiction between Renato CANOVA and John "HADD" WALSH ?

"But what´s the best coach ? Misses objectivity. Ther´s no such thing as a coach competition."

You're right, the qualification "best" was misplaced.

"i simply get an hypothetic example that illustrate my opinion."

I understood it like that, and so was my example (except KIRUI's workouts which was "real" ones)

"Also in this example you can´t pre-determine the pace, you ask the same kind of fast pace for every runner, and the different speed pace percent of that 10k is the conclusion not previous estimate."

This is a fine point ! Many (amateur) runners rigidly stick to a pre-determined day by day training schedule (taken from some book or magazine), their training being fully controlled by an external load completely set in advance, whatever the individual, how they respond to the workout, outside factors etc. How could this be optimal ? In many aspects of the training, it seems to me that it would be better to think from a reversed perspective.

BBen wrote:

Following the same reasoning: what do you think about :

1) Jack DANIEL's "R pace" type of training ? How use/adapt it to the two (ST and FT) style of runners ?

There are few inventions that moved up the humanity into the path of progress an enhance of skill and technique. That were new tools.

We got the hell, the electricity, the force of gravity, the writing, the heliocentric and later the cosmic universal system, discover of force of magnetism and the magnetic needle, the WC (toilets), the mirror, the penicillin, the telephone, the television, the photography and the cinema, the refrigerator, the airplane, the PCs, the lamp, the internet, the paper,, the Gutenberg press, etc .. Each one of this inventions, we don´t go back in the application of each old tool or instrument and each new invention it´s a start of a revolutionary application.

The interval l training run that´s one particular kind of intermittent effort run it´s a new revolutionary training tool related to the distance training that no one yet could deny or dismiss the interest, despite many detractor attempts .

The attempts to deny the effectiveness and the interest of the interval training format, in any step of the training periodisation, are based in 2 main kind of arguments.

One is based in wrong inadequate interval training practice, the other that ther´s a new kind of training model that replaces and exceeds the efficiency of the interval training. Both are wrong .

The misuse of the interval training. to fast, to much - excess, to much frequency – intervals all the time and not parsimony, interval training almost exclusively without the necessary aerobic steady state condition included. That´s a fact. But that misuse is not the reason to deny it.

The other argument against interval training is that he can be replaced and for more efficient formats as the tempo run, the continuous run, the LT runs etc. Wrong again. When the target goal is to train by high stimulus that exceeds the confined aerobic system, the positive benefit of the pause (the recovery between hard/fast efforts) shalln´t be replaced by a different training kind that the interval training one.

Do easy runs, do tempo run, do LT runs, do the long run, do competitions, do time-trial, do whatever kind of continuous run, but nothing at all does replace the effectiveness of the interval training.

The interval training is the more important discover as distance training workout format. The revolutionary one. At the same level that the electricity represents as new kind of energy or as the internet means as communication.

When i mean intervals i want to say everything of intermittent effort (fast aand slow or hard and easy in intermmitence). Be track workouts or be fartlek, be in-out runs, any kind of hard and moderate training effort ibenefits to be done in intermmitence.

Interesting post. However, I always thought that Canova had very much an "aerobic first" philosphy when it came to 800m training. Here is one of his posts about the training of Italian 800m runners in the 1990s:

"Without a good group of coaches working together, I think that it's very difficult to find the opportunity for learning how to manage the technical situation according to the needs of the athletes (that are professional and have to earn, don't forget). To coach is not something "dry", where only the theorical technical knowledge is important. At the end of everything, athletes have to reach results and to earn money, and if coaches are not flexible and able to arrange contionuously the technical road according to the situation out of control (for example, organizers that don't accept the athletes in the competitions previously planned by the coach), it's not possible to reach any result.

I want to write an experience that we had in Italy in 1990. At that time, we had a problem with 800m runners, having nobody able running under 1:46. There was a good group of very young athletes, born in '69-70 (Benvenuti, D'Urso, Giocondi, Bonamici, Chiavarini and some other less strong) that we wanted to follow for solving the problem.

In December 1989, we tested all the athletes (using a very simple Conconi-test) for detecting their AnT, after one month of long run, not very fast. Here are the data :

D'Urso 20,2 km/h (2'58" / km)

Benvenuti 19,1 km/h (3'08" / km)

Soffietto 18,8 km/h (3'11" / km)

Giocondi 18,8 km/h (3'11" / km)

Chiavarini 17,7 km/h (3'23" / km)

Bonamici 17,5 km/h (3'26" / km)

The athletes were assembled together in Turin (were we had an indoor track always open) from December for preparing their indoor season.

After some work non yet very fast (for example, 10x200m in 28", or 10x500 in 1'18" rec. 2'/3' depending on the athlete), they went for the first competition (10th of January) with split every 200m. The result was :

1) Benvenuti 1:51.2 (28.8 / 56.8 / 1:24.2 + 27.0)

2) Bonamici 1:51.6 (29.0 / 57.4 / 1:24.6 + 27.0)

3) Chiavarini 1:52.2 (28.5 / 56.2 / 1:23.7 + 28.5)

4) Soffietto 1:52.6 (28.7 / 56.6 / 1.24.0 + 28.6)

D'Urso and Giocondi didn't compete.

The athlete, during the next period, went for a training based on speed and lactic workouts, reducing long run very much (also for the bad conditions of weather, often snowing and under 0°).

Particularly Andrea Bonamici was able to improve very much in speed. One his workout, for instead, was 3 sets of 4x200m recovering 45" (5 min among the sets) in about 24"5/24", with the last 200m in 23"7.

They competed some time (2-3 times) in national races, improving only a little, but nobody was able running under 1:51.0.

After 40 days (20th of February) they went for Italian Championships, for qualifying European Championships.

The race was fast, as we had a rabbit pushing the pace in 25.8 / 52.4 / 1:18.8. All the athletes were destroyed, and Benvenuti won in 1:50.9 (last 200m in 31.2, because he was n. 3 after 600m !).

We were not able to understand soon what could have happened during the period of training. Few days later, we went with all the group in Tirrenia for beginning the preparation for the outdoor season. We tested another time the athletes using the same system (Conconi-test), and we found the following values :

D'Urso (non training with the group because he did't compete in any indoor race) 20.6 km/h (2'55" / km)

Giocondi (like D'Urso) 19.4 km/h (3'06" / km)

Benvenuti 18.1 km/h (3'19" / km)

Soffietto 17.7 km/h (3'23" / km)

Chiavarini 16.8 km/h (3'34" / km)

Bonamici 16.3 km/h (3'41" / km)

So, the results regarding AnT for the athletes, after 3 months of training, was the following :

Group A : Athletes NON USING very much LACTIC TRAINING :

D'Urso + 2 % (from 2:58 to 2:55)

Giocondi + 3 % (from 3:11 to 3:06)

Group B : Athletes using mainly ANAEROBIC WORKOUTS :

Benvenuti - 6 % (from 3:08 to 3:19)

Soffietto - 6 % (from 3:11 to 3:23)

Chiavarini - 5 % (from 3:23 to 3:34)

Bonamici - 7 % (from 3:26 to 3:41)

More the athletes used speed endurance at high level, with short recovery, WITHOUT HAVING ANY AEROBIC BASE, more they lost Aerobic Power, going into anaerobic system only for moderate speed.

More the athletes used workouts for increasing their Aerobic Power, more were able to be fast at the end of a very hard work.

Thru this experience we changed our systems, giving more importance to the aerobic basic work (not only long run, but long intervals on track and short intervals not very fast, reducing recovery times).

Thru this system, in 3 years we had Benvenuti 5th in OG '92 able running 1:43.92, and then to win European Ch. '94 ; D'Urso silver medal in WCh '93, able running 1:43.95 ; Giocondi 7th in WCh '95 and able running 1:44.85 ; and also Chiavarini ran 1:45.02, while Soffietto and Bonamici disappeared. The same school was used with Longo.

So, for us, the importance of having a high level of AnT (due to mythocondrial situation) is a fact now well known, and who was in our group at that time (like Gianni Ghidini, coach of Andrea Benvenuti) continues to use these systems also with kenyans like Bungei (1:42.34), Yiampoy (1:42.91), Kimwetich (1:43.03), Mutua (1:43.33) and many others, with different levels of speed."

@ Confused James Dean : yes, this post of him seems to contradict the one I've quoted in my second message of this thread (9/7/2013 2:50AM)...

So, it doesn't seems to me that there is yet a clear answer to the initial question: should each runners work his forces or his weaknesses ?...

When Renato talks about Job Kinyor's training, the guy was unbelievably weak from an aerobic standpoint at first. As Kinyor's 5000 improved by a lot (about 20%), his 800 got better also, by 2%. But, Kinyor is a speed-type 800 guy and is never going to be a great 5000 guy. So you have to address the weakness while maintaining and improving the strengths (or "forces" as you put it.)

Here is what Renato wrote:

I give an example speaking about different types of 800m runners.

We can have athletes very strong aerobically. This category had, especially in the past, many champions, as Sebastian Coe, Steve Ovett, Steve Cram, Peter Snell and a lot of other specialists.

All these athletes started their career FROM an aerobic point of view. Britons had in the school cross competitions very long, and ran in their first championships, while juniores, longer distances (In European Junior Championships, Cram 3000m in 1979 and Coe 1500m in 1975, the Swiss Andre Bucher, WCh 2001, from Cross Country, etc.)

For all these kind of athletes, the goal is clear : THEY ARE AEROBIC ANIMALS, with a very high Aerobic Power, and for developing their events (they are athletes that can run longer distances, too) THEY NEED TO MAINTAIN WHAT THEY ALREADY HAVE, TRYING TO REDUCE THE GAP THEY HAVE ON THE BIOMECHANICAL POINT OF VIEW.

When we speak about the full career of these athletes, the idea of "Aerobic First" can be correct, also if they did a lot of activity in other directions (for example, playing football or rugby) for building the base of their biomechanical engine without a real specific goal.

But there are a lot of other runners starting the event in spite of very low aerobic qualities, able to reach good results in short time because their biomechanical engine is really very strong. This is the case of David Rudisha today, but in the past we had Rudolf Harbig, Tom Courtney, Mel Whitfield, Bill Crothers, Alberto Juantorena and many Kenyans, as for instead Billy Konchellah and Paul Ereng.

In this case, they had a very strong biomechanical engine and a morphology like long sprinters : tall between 1.85 and 1.90, with strong muscle masses and very high natural speed.

In this case, we have to continue in the direction of speed, trying to improve in the aerobic direction step by step, BUT NEVER WE CAN FORGET TO TRAIN THE MAIN QUALITIES THEY HAVE.

I give you two examples, with Kenyans, of the current days.

JOB KINYOR came to me for starting his training because his father, Barnabas Kinyor, 48"7 in 400 hs and 1'44"7 in 800m many years ago, introduced him to me (Barnabas is the husband of Selina Kosgei, my athlete winning Boston Marathon in 2009). Job was n. 3 in the National Championships for secondary school in 2006 in Decathlon. When he arrived in the camp, I saw very good attitudes of explosivity and coordination, but completely empty black board for every aerobic activity. After 5 months of training, he was not able running 5 km under 20' (and in LR everybody thinks Kenyans have years of Aerobic activity and are very strong under this point of view....).

In 2007, he ran 1'47" having a best in 5 km of 18'22".

In 2011, he ran 1'45"07 having a best of 15'07".

This year, he ran 1'43"74 at the beginning of the season, when was more ready aerobically.

But, along all these years, we NEVER forgot the training of speed, that was the main dish of his preparation, in every period of the year.

Read more:

http://www.letsrun.com/forum/flat_read.php?thread=4763758&page=6#ixzz2ep0SZ6Zc

Ok, let me try to transpose this example for the 800m to the marathon.

If CANOVA's has a runner wanted to run the marathon who has a strong aerobic power but a poor aerobic endurance (so probably a FT type of runner from track field), he'll try to progressively address this weakness in terms of aerobic endurance, but still all the year round have him work his aerobic power as "main dish" because it is his "main quality". Am I right ?

If so, then it would be the OPPOSITE to what John "HADD" WALSH would do: he says a FT runner wanted to run a marathon should focus almost exclusively on his aerobic endurance during the specific period, because it is his main weakness (and for a ST runner, on the contrary he'll make him work his aerobic power all along the year because this his his main weakness).

So, what should we do ?...

I don't think you can transpose the example that way.

Canova said, "I saw very good attitudes of explosivity and coordination,..." about the FT endowed Job.

Meaning someone he could make world class at 800m and could never make world class at the 5000m let alone the marathon.

I think the rule of thumb for both Hadd and Canova might be more like if you are trying to run your ideal distance for your body type, then you should really work your strengths and just hold your weaknesses.

On the other hand, if you are trying to race a distance that is completely NOT compatible with your makeup then the best you can hope for is to only work on your weaknesses.

I guess that your doubt is more one problem of lexicon that anything else.

“FIRST” can be the meaning of “first priority” among 2 or many or “FIRST” can also be the meaning of “chronology” and in this case ther´s one early period of time to do that “fist” and a second and a third etc to do another type of training as first priority.

Therefore when it´s said fist (as priority, or interest) it doesn´t mean that other kind of training, the other kind of training might not or shall not be done at that period

Similar, the fact that someone says “aerobic first” for instance, that doesn´t imply that it´s the only kind of training to do.

In my training concept the aerobic is the important one type of training and the basis of every rich distance training approach. But this doesn´t mean that the anaerobic training or the specific training can´t be as far as the aerobic training enhances.

The problem of Confused James Dean is that he thinks as a preconceived mind. He thinks as the myth of aerobic first from Lydiard is the way we might read Canova training, Therefore when Canova says that the 800m Italian runner did that kind of short aerobic power intervals with short recovery, some people thinks that athletes don´t do anaerobic training during that period. But don´t. They do as first priority the enhance of aerobic power something they neglect earlier and then as first priority they do that kind of short intervals aerobic power training with short recovery. However they still do faster intervals during the same phase/period, that´s what the people from the linear training or Lydiard paradigm misses to understand. Those misses to understand that when we focus on one kind of training as main/fist priority this doesn´t mean that the first priority got the meaning of JUST the first priority.

The same logic is about the weakness and strong points. To train the weakness doesn´t men that to neglect the strong point and vice-versa. It means that one of the 2 is first priority during a certain period/phase of training.

@ù£%*¨*EZ : sounds convincing, maybe the advises are different because they address different people : HADD recommendations are for people wanting to prepare an event they are not meant for, why CANOVA simply disregard these cases...

@ Antonio : It seems to me that CANOVA was talking about general priority with the word "FIRST" not periodization, but your point is fine !

What would you recommend on your side: address the weaknesses in first priority in the early phase of the preparation, and then move the work on the strong points as first priority later on ?

BBen wrote:

@ Antonio : It seems to me that CANOVA was talking about general priority with the word "FIRST" not periodization, but your point is fine !

You that seems to know Canova training so well, didn´t you read that he disagrees with "aerobic first" as chronology ? Therefore first doesn´t mean ealier or before but as you say, main/general priority.

BBen wrote:

What would you recommend on your side: address the weaknesses in first priority in the early phase of the preparation, and then move the work on the strong points as first priority later on ?

Both ! When we run we run with both legs.That´s good coordination. i don´t want limper distance runners. what´s more important the heart or the lungs ?

One doesn´t work without the other. During the same short period/phase of training or during the same long season there are time disposal to some units of training (training sessions) devoted to each one different direction, be the weak points or the strong points. The session(s) that i devoted to the aerobic training my only concern is the best training to enhance the aerobic system, be the weak or the strong system, the session i will dedicate to train the anaerobic system my focus is to built the best workout that enhance the anaerobic system, be the weak or the strong system.

All the workouts do take in consideration the shape runner condition, his talent, etc. The only distinction is to built different workouts depending of the need of training individualisation, Ther´s not training discrimination by weakness or strong points.

BBen wrote:

What would you recommend on your side: address the weaknesses in first priority in the early phase of the preparation, and then move the work on the strong points as first priority later on ?

I want t complete my idea. what the coach needs to look for, needs to search, needs to investigate, needs to find out is what´s the rich training workouts for both, the weakness of the runner and the strong points of the runner.

The coach needs to find out what are the best training workouts that fulfil the runner weakness system and the strong system.

The explanation of Antonio is very clear, and covers the different training options a coach must have.

At the end, we need to consider the following points :

1. Which is the SPECIFIC talent of one athlete ?

2. With his talent, which his goals are ?

These are the two most important questions.

The answers are :

1. Everybody has SOME talent, normally more in one direction that in another. At first, forget the idea for middle and long distances is possible to arrive at the top with hard work only. In this case, the words of Obama (WE CAN) are not correct. Also the words of the Italian dictator between the two World Wars, Benito Mussolini (VINCERA' CHI VORRA' VINCERE, translation Who will want to win will win) are not correct. Instead, the correct phrase can be AMONG THE ATHLETES WITH SAME TYPE OF TALENT, WHO MORE WANTS TO WIN (not only during the race, but in the organization of his life and his training) GOES TO WIN.

So, we need to check the level of physiological and mechanical talent of every athlete, and this is difficult for every person not knowing WHAT TOP TALENT IS.

If you don't know the talent of the best runners, and you compare your talent with the situation of local people, for example, you think to be talented (because are very much better than people around you), but are far away from the talent of an international runner, who is far from the talent of a TOP CHAMPION.

In other words, the talent of Gebrselassie, Bekele, Shaheen, El Guerrouj, Rudisha, Dibaba, Defar IS AT THE BASE VERY MUCH DIFFERENT, already for genetic reasons, FROM THE TALENT OF ATHLETES RUNNING GOOD INTERNATIONAL TIMES (for example, 1:45 / 3:32 / 13:00 / 8:05 / 14:45), who have a different basic talent from runners at National level (1:48 / 3:45 / 14:00 / 8:30 / 15:15), and ore different talent from amateurs.

We can see immediately the MORPHOLOGICAL and BIOMECHANICAL talent : the Young Bolt clearly showed more talent than every other athlete before, looking for 200m, for example, such as Carl Lewis showed a NATURAL talent when still junior, including also a particularly ability in his coordination.

But when we look at athletes for long distances, there is a SPECIFIC talent we can't see, because it's inside body and mind of the athlete. So, sometimes, we find Young boysable immediately to run very long at good speed, showing their talent is in direction of endurance.

The fact everybody can improve under aerobic point of view using long run is correct, but doesn't mean he can reach great results in that direction.

Don't forget till the 80 years old persons suffering for heart Attacks were advised to reduce every type of effort in their activity, while now the first advice is to start running because easy aerobic activity can make the heart stronger, if training respects correct goals.

Under this point of view, AEROBIC FIRST is correct, also chronologically, together with STRENGTHENING training.

In this case, to speak of ANAEROBIC TRAINING is ridiculous, because the final goal is to improve the health.

But when we speak about goals of performances, the situation changes.

You need to decide what you want to do, depending on your talent. Of course, the final goals must be connected with the talent you have.

I think everybody has to consider how much training has to do in relation with the possible goal he can achieve.

So, if I'm the first stimulating a Young top talent to increase volume and intensity of his training, if I see in him the qualities for becoming athlete of international level, I'm also the first trying to give the right perspective of his life to some amateur, disposal to sacrify job and family for training like a professional runner (sometimes 3 times per day), without having any chances to reach top results. In this case, apart he satisfaction to improve his PB (in short time becoming frustration because he continues to see himself very far from top performances), there is no relation between TIME HE USES FOR HIS TRAINING AND EFFORTS HE DOES, and final benefit he can reach.

If in the case of talented athletes I try to educate him to harder an proper training BECAUSE WITH TOP RESULTS HE CAN BETTER HIS LIFE, in the case of passionated amateurs I don't want to help a person to ruin his life, and I try to give him the right vision about his possibilities.

When we speak about FAST, HARD, VOLUME, SPEED, we speak about SUBJECTIVE parameters, not objective.

For example, 100 miles per week represent very high mileage for an amateur, but little mileage for a top Marathon runner. Running 400m in 60.0 is PB for some amateur running 5 km in 18:00, and is almost jogging for Asbel Kiprop.

So, the first point is to decide which is the final goal.

Is it to run and finish your first Marathon, when you are 40 years old running for fun ? In this case, BECAUSE MARATHON IS 42 KM, he first goal is to prepare your body and your mind to run for so long distance, AND LONG RUN IS THE 95% OF YOUR TRAINING.

But, after running your first Marathon, for example, in 3:30:00, if you go fo another Marathon your goal is not only to finish the race again, but to run, may be, 10 minutes faster. In this case, YOU CAN MAINTAIN THE 95% OF TH PREVIOUS TRAINING, but you can put some session with FASTER long intervals, in order to increase your mechanical action when the speed is a little bit faster.

And don't speak about ANAEROBIC training. There are several choices of different speeds, inside the AEROBIC AREA, between the two Thresholds : Aerobic (also if physiologically doesn't exist), that is the speed of Marathon about, and Lactic.

You need to decide what you want to do, depending on your talent. Of course, the final goals must be connected with the talent you have.

I think everybody has to consider how much training has to do in relation with the possible goal he can achieve.

So, if I'm the first stimulating a Young top talent to increase volume and intensity of his training, if I see in him the qualities for becoming athlete of international level, I'm also the first trying to give the right perspective of his life to some amateur, disposal to sacrify job and family for training like a professional runner (sometimes 3 times per day), without having any chances to reach top results. In this case, apart he satisfaction to improve his PB (in short time becoming frustration because he continues to see himself very far from top performances), there is no relation between TIME HE USES FOR HIS TRAINING AND EFFORTS HE DOES, and final benefit he can reach.

If in the case of talented athletes I try to educate him to harder an proper training BECAUSE WITH TOP RESULTS HE CAN BETTER HIS LIFE, in the case of passionated amateurs I don't want to help a person to ruin his life, and I try to give him the right vision about his possibilities.

When we speak about FAST, HARD, VOLUME, SPEED, we speak about SUBJECTIVE parameters, not objective.

For example, 100 miles per week represent very high mileage for an amateur, but little mileage for a top Marathon runner. Running 400m in 60.0 is PB for some amateur running 5 km in 18:00, and is almost jogging for Asbel Kiprop.

So, the first point is to decide which is the final goal.

Is it to run and finish your first Marathon, when you are 40 years old running for fun ? In this case, BECAUSE MARATHON IS 42 KM, he first goal is to prepare your body and your mind to run for so long distance, AND LONG RUN IS THE 95% OF YOUR TRAINING.

But, after running your first Marathon, for example, in 3:30:00, if you go fo another Marathon your goal is not only to finish the race again, but to run, may be, 10 minutes faster. In this case, YOU CAN MAINTAIN THE 95% OF TH PREVIOUS TRAINING, but you can put some session with FASTER long intervals, in order to increase your mechanical action when the speed is a little bit faster.

And don't speak about ANAEROBIC training. There are several choices of different speeds, inside the AEROBIC AREA, between the two Thresholds : Aerobic (also if physiologically doesn't exist), that is the speed of Marathon about, and Lactic.

For example, if an amateur has a PB of 34:00 in 10k (3:24 per km), sessions of 10 km of volume, like 10x1000m in 3:25 with 2:00 recovery, or 25x400m in 1:20 with 50m jogging of recovery (type of training used by Emil Zatopek), ARE TOTALLY AEROBIC, and can be used from the first period of preparation.

I give you an example for showing that, in every preparatory period, we can (better, we MUST) use elements from different qualities, of course mixed in different percentages.

When I start the preparation with top Marathon runners, immediately after the Translation Period (lasting about 2weeks), at the beginning of the FUNDAMENTAL PERIOD, I use modified circuits including running and exercises. When possible, I prefer to do this training uphill, when not possible on track.

In the case of track, for example, I can go for 4-6 times a circuit including 5 very simple types of exercises, each one after running 400m : example for men of 2:08:00 can be as follows :

400m in 72.0 + 30.0 skipping + 400m in 72.0 + 30.0 heels-to-buttocks + 400m in 72.0 + 40m bounding + 400m in 72.0 + 30.0 jumping with blocked knees on the place + 400m in 72.0 + 10 squat-jumps + final 400m faster.

This circuit has 2400m of run, and about 2 minutes of exercises.

At the beginning of the Fundamental Period, I ask the athletes to pay particular attention to the quality of exercises, which they have to improve every time, technically and as intensity. SO, RUNNING HAS TO BE THE AEROBIC SUPPORT FOR A BIOMECHANICAL TRAINING.

After two months of preparation (when we are 10 weeks before the Marathon), I ask the athletes to qualify their running, and the speeds become 66.0 with the last, sometimes, under 60.0. SO, EXERCISES HAVE TO BE THE MECHANICAL SUPPORT FOR THE TRAINING OF AEROBIC POWER.

Both the elements are in the same session in different period of preparation, but in different percentages.

So, not something first, BUT ALL AT THE SAME TIME.

Antonio and Renato: thanks a lot to both of you for sharing your experience ! :-)