Renato Canova - Arthur Lydiard Coaches Roundtable

Right. Agree to the difference.

But don´t you see that what you say is the difference in between Lydiard training that goes from anaerobic to anaerobic or simplistic said goes from easy to faster training, but Renato training the training goes from generic to specific or internal load to external load. Generic training does mean slower, but distant - both faster and slower, shorter or longer from the race pace events.

Well the numbers were really only to illustrate how the pace with internal load will change as the athlete gets fitter, but the pace with external load will not.But it's not a question of getting 1km reps down from 2:55 to 2:45.It might be that 2:55 was the final pace for a 20 minute "tempo" run in the last week, typical of the early general aerobic phase, where Internal load guides the pace.When changing over from general to special and specific work, the race pace work is done in some kind of progression. I don't know exactly, but the first week might be something like 10x400m, and the final weeks something like 3x3000m or 2x5000m, all at paces special/specific to the 2:45 target pace.

HRE wrote:

So the question your last example leads to, when talking about the guy who's looking to move his 1km reps from 2:55 to 2:45 is whether that's really his answer.

Well some people even derive pleasure from pain. Isn't there some level of masochism in all committed runners? Someone asked me why I run in the rain and the snow. I told him that makes me appreciate the sunny days more.I don't say it comes down to complacency and dishonesty, but that this is a potential trap when only running for feeling.If the coach, or worse, the self-coached athlete doesn't understand the "desired" feeling he should target, there is a potential bias to err on the side of comfort.But somehow, rigorous external measurements, at some point in time, are an important part of the solution. Even Lydiard, with his time trials in the final coordination phase, starts paying attention to the previously neglected specificity, and controlling the external load with the stopwatch. Some say it's late, but better late than never.And for me, these days, it's only about the journey, as long as my passport is still valid.

gypsy wrote:

But seriously if it all comes down to complacency and this is negated by external load measurements, then the athlete really trying to change himself is not being honest with himself. Self honesty is the key to this complacency problem you talk about, not more rigorous external measurements.

Is it not the journey that is more important than the destination?

Yeah I see that. I would add one step to your "easy to faster" description of Lydiard. Eventually, in the final coordination phase, even Lydiard starts paying attention to the actual race conditions, not with progression of interval training, but with time trials. So, ignoring the hill phase for simplicity, I would say "aerobic->anaerobic->specific", or "easy->faster->specific".

Antonio Cabral wrote:

But don´t you see that what you say is the difference in between Lydiard training that goes from anaerobic to anaerobic or simplistic said goes from easy to faster training, but Renato training the training goes from generic to specific or internal load to external load. Generic training does mean slower, but distant - both faster and slower, shorter or longer from the race pace events.

Antonio Cabral wrote:

i bet with you that if under normal conditions both runners run the TRUE specific intervals, the long ones, the faster runner will be the faster performer in long distance

For instance. 2 runners one runs 3X1000m to perform 1500m, the faster performer would be the faster in 1500m

2X2000m+1X1000m or 3000m+2000m+1000m. Real specific workout for the 5k runs. the faster performer would be the faster of both in 5k.

3X3000m + 1000m or 5X2000m. The faster performer is the faster in 10000m.

Antonio thanks very much for your continued postings. I saved and sent this (full) post of yours to a friend. I remember your messages in Marius Bakken's forum and am glad you are continuing to share with us.

A few pages back I was thinking that Joe Maggio was quite a smart fellow, and had no idea it was you. I enjoyed the great points you were making.

rekruner

I know that Lydiard training uses a few time trails. Question is that might be not enough. Time-trails, or you might name it control-tests in the european terminology that might be also very focus intervals, the long ones related to the event distance, with just a couple of repetitions, all that kind of workouts that supposedly aren´t distant from race pace, are specifics really indeed.

The question is that in the season design with this

aerobic->anaerobic->specific season proposal and application, the opportunity to do specifics is less than optimal, because the length spent on aerobic and anaerobic is so big that specific phase is diminished, and also the frequency of specific workout is less than optimal.

However in the the season periodisation that goes from generic -> specifics, and that the generic phase, includes aerobic and anaerobic both in combo/combined, even this generic phase might contain some kind of specifics, not yet very race pace determined, but more low key of race pace.

Also because the specific workouts are introduced early in the season, and do continues with more emphasis during the specific phase, it results in more percent, more frequency and more number of specific workouts. Also, during the specific phase it doesn´t need long runs weekly, because the daily run of aerobic condition, that comes back from the early season, continues to be done during the specific season/phase, and not as it is in the "aerobic->anaerobic->specific", or "easy->faster->specific" periodisation, where the late phase of anaerobic and specifics is so short that the anaerobic and time-trails shall be so concentrated that ther´s not room to train specifics and in the meantime recovery/regeneration runs, and in the mean time aerobic condition and aerobic power runs.

Good evening Antonio Cabral,

I have a question about a post you made on March 24, 2012. A very long time ago I know but I have been playing around with the Lydiard system. I have done a 9 week build plus 4 weeks at 100 miles. I have completed three weeks of the hill bounding phase with one more to go. I have stumbled upon your comment on how Lydiard intervals are ineffective and Bill Ballie struggled with getting faster. Would you be able to explain more in depth?

Thanks,

Michael Stetson

I`m not mr Cabral....but.....In some sense Cabral talks about aerob/anaerob stages in the buildup when using phases.....and the importence of having a part of quality workouts in all phases. Lydiard`s LSD (long steady distance) system has been missunderstod of many who still thinks he advocated a period of 3-4 months with long slow distance running. At a lecture in Tokyo in the -60s Lydiard explained that he was missunderstod by many......he told that the phase with aerob running also had days with anaerobic faster workouts. In the book " The How of middle distance and distance running training" ,1969 Lydiard told: "Elite runners don`t jog when they marathon trains, instead they hold a pace between 3.10-3.45 min/km during their distance runs."

The "Portuguese Wonder" with many great runners and the great coach Monitz Pereira was not so far from Lydiards ideas as many people would think. The portuguese system also built with aerobic workouts as a base and parallell develop at anaerobic workouts that increased in pace when the competition season came closer: I think I still remember how the portuguse system looked like,almost :

day 1 : am: 45min-1 hour distance p.m 1 hour distance

day 2 : am: 45min-1 hour distance p:m 10 x 400m at 61-62 sec or 12-15 -20 x 400m at 64-65 sec

day3: am: 45min- 1 hour distance p.m 1 hour distance

day4: am: 45 min-1 hour distance p.m 1-1.30 hour distance

day 5 : am: 45 min-1 hour distance p.m 1 hour distance

day 6 : am: 45 min-1 hour distance p.m interval repeats 1000m-1500m -2000m-3000m with increasing pace during the phases

day 7 2 hours distance running

COACH J.S

I myself have taken in advance all those fantastic coaches like Lydiard, Canova,Daniels, Gershler,Igloi, Pereira,Stanpfl,Bowerman,Dellinger and many,many more into a mixed concept that develops the 3 most important factors for middle-longdistance results. And in contrary to f.ex Lydiard and Canova I prefer a "straight" system without phases where the runner is prepared to race on high level year around and now and then within the system quite fast build for a peak.

I prefer a lowmileage approach where the runner just trains what is necessary to stand the distance that is the goal.

A runner that is injuryfree for long time has a better chance to reach his/her max capacity.

Too many coaches and runners try to find the upper limit of what`s possible to train when it comes to mileage. A better and safer way is to try find the lower limit to reach the same results or even better.