Mr. Renato Canova: Could You Please Answer a Question About Effective Ways to Improve the Lactate Threshold?

Let this thread rest for a while......

I just posted a message on this earlier which was deleted.

All it said was that Renato might have returned from New Delhi and can show his full year's program.

I get the feeling there is some middle aged loser delighting in deleting informative threads on a running message board because his life is terribly boring.

Very sad and pathetic indeed.

They deleted that one from John Rupp but i will try to answer: (so racer1 excuse me if i reply to you)

John Rupp

Thanks for your ask.

I don´t know if you are an american. I used not to loce to tal too much about the other, My job that´s mind and care my own business. But since we are here in this Forum that´s an american forum that´s natural that the main dominant idea would be the american training concepts.

I want to respect the americans, but in te meantime i need to be sincerely and if you ask me i need to express my personal opinion. Your doubts i think they got to do about the typical american concepts.

First i sumarise some american running concepts that i consider wrong concepts (running myths):

1/to think that only high mileage volumes that gets your shape condition to the top - the famous 100 miles.

2/to think that lactate training management do have a very confined pace - the famouts AnT pace

3/to think that plyos and weights and streng are the \"must\" of distant running events.

4/to think that we need to train hard all the time - no pain, no gain.

5/to think that we may do aerobic training almost exclusively for large periods and a taper for soem weeks and that the performance that happens by miracle.

6/the 2hours classic long run every week with no criteria - from 800m to the marathon

7/TO THINK THAT WE MAY USE SHORT REPS IN LONG DISTANCE REPS.

Thus in the item 7/ here we are in your question.

During the winter, Rui are doing \"interval training in the german school/friburg school\", that did source in the Waldemar Greshler/Reindell studies in the last 40s, and 50´s. I think that most people actullay they mention \"Intervals\" but they did loose the source. It will take an entire book to tell you what´s interval training. But to confine or to resume that in a simple sentence i will say that \"in the interval training what´s crucial or first priority that´s not the pace, but THE INTERVAL pause, their duration in a INCOMPLETE PAUSE. That means that each time that you do the next one set, if the interval that´s well calculate according the uncomplete interval strategy, that creates \"an artificial\" effort condition a kind of effort crescendum (accumulate effort). That mans that after a short total distance, let´s say as example 12X400m by that uncomplete interval pause (sometimes active interval, as Rui do)after a few reps (ex: let´s say after the 4th set- thus 1 mile or 1.6Kilos)you are running in such an inconfort and lactic acid accumulation (debit)that with a quite complete pause you will be able to that occurs in your body just after 15sets (thus after 6 kilos). In that interval trauining a experient coach with the interval training/Friburg school he is able to determine for a set averege pace what interval will need the runner. And that´s the reason why the portuguese runners we do individualized and diffrent intervals for each runner, even the twins brother´s Castros with Pb´s very similar one to each other they did diffrent intervals for the same workout. Mamede did 400s with 45sec pause; Lopes 1 minute or more; Domingos Castro 50sec; Rui Silva starts his carrer with 1min and actullay he did progress to 45sec intervals 100m ahed on track. That´s training individualisation - that´s not just the average pace that´s determinant - also the intervals.

That is applied for short sets (15sec to 2min) or 100m to 500m-600m-700m sets). That´s curious that people says thats anaerobic but despite that´s faster than race pace - that´s 70-80-90-95% pace according the set distance (for a runner that do 400m in 55, he do sets in 64 average pace, thus the interval that can be uncpmplete/no full recover needed.

Now, in the case of long reps the logic that´s diferent. If you are running for long periods (2:30 to 8min) that´s sets from 1000m to mile, 2000m to 3000m, ther are 3 reasons why the interval that´s longer

1/because the running duration is bigger/loger than short sets

2/because the pace according the set total distance that´s faster in averege range according the set distance

3/last but not least - becuse here that´s not INTERVAL TRAINING CONCEPT but more a \"tempo\" pace concept. So, the interval that´s irrelevant than in short reps, and here we need that the runner do a complete recover - in the long reps the target goal or the first priority that´s race pace, and not to work under incomplete interval - to train in interval training

4/We studied that in those long sets in Race pace - an interval shorter than 2:30 and longer than 4min that´s enough in the majority of cases to recover.

The case of the 10-12min intervals in Rui Silva sets that sets reps are not relate with typical long reps/race pace. That are more seen as a CONTROL TEST - that means ALL OUT, close to competitions, and that ones are quite lactic, because very fast/maximum pace. Thus the need to do longer intervals. In the Rui case 10-12min. But to say the truth that CONTROL TESTS are done with great care, following a large recover period.

I hope that you understand now why the workouts in the america style - ex:3-4Xmile all out for 5000m runners with 1 min rest close to the peak competitions - that´s an absurde to me, a real non-sense. If you the target that´s lactic acid management - i would undrestand, but in AnT paces not race pace. Close to the competitions we may do workouts with longer interval pauses and not shorter. What´s behind that american concept i don´t understand. It willn´t be a surprise that most of the american runners weren´t able to peak as they might peak if they insist to use that ultra short intervals in long reps in race pace.

Resumimg, in Winter (earlier sason) in sthe hort intervals –the interval (uncomplete) that´s first priority and the pace (ususal faster than race pace) that´s only second priority, in longer reps the pace that´s first prority and the interval (quite complete) that´s second priority., and in Control Tests the pace that´s firest priority and the interval that´s irrelevant, but needs to be larger enough (full receover) , because the pace that´s so fast (close to maximum pace capacity).

Close to competitions (late periods) ther´s are also short sets – but that ones don´t fall in the same classification than in the winter (earlier periods) – now the short reps are a different target – they are pure speed pace , thus the reason that you can see a workout as such a 4X(500m+400+300+200) with long recover. That´s not interval training. That´s speed – maximum pace with full recover.

I hope that with my poor english i made me undrestand. Any doubts ? Ask me.

Correct. I used to think about Bill Bowerman as a inspiration most of you. Also the case of the fartlek i think that similar to what we do. When a runner isn´t not yet able to run let´s say a 45min Lt or becusse he come from an injury or he didn´t recover yet from the last hard workout in a continuos Lt workout in even pace we use/change that to - LT workout with intervals jogging - that´s a LT fartlek.

Now about Coe, Seb - i´m not quite sure. All i used to hear that´s "too much hard for averege runners", only an elit copuld resist. I know several examples that people that couldn´t resist to that training regime.

Antonio, first I say that these are not solely "American" concepts. It is true that until these Olympics (where Meb and Deena medaled), America did not have many good results to back up its philosophy.

But there is no national training philosophy. There are hundreds of coaches in America and each has his or her own approach.

But as for mileage, it is simply beyond a doubt that the great majority of runners (and for your purpose, the one who beat Rui, El Guerrouj, who does up to 120 miles per week in the non-racing periods) who have achieved international success have put in periods of high mileage.

There is no magic number like 100 or 56 or 189, but the mileage is high enough to continually build the aerobic endurance before returning to race-intensive work.

As you said yourself about AT training, and what could also apply to Rui using hard race pace work 5-6 months away from competition, is that if you use too much of one part of a program you exhaust the ability to improve and cannot progress.

So I would ask if you can find a large number of great runners (not exceptions, but large groups) of elites who do NOT have a lifetime base of higher mileage. It simply is not possible.

Not at all. If you read John KEllogg's articles, and even his specific comments to the article you wrote about Silva, he speaks about AT training covering a wide range of speeds. The real requirement is to avoid a large spike in lactic acid (the steady state) until the very end of the session. Again, no magic numbers or paces, but a range.

Weights no, but plyometrics yes IF you want to be among the very best in the world. You must use every legal advantage possible and plyometrics are included in this. Again, El Guerrouj uses this work. Silva is fantastic, but how do you know that he could not run even faster using plyometrics?

This is not an American fault but one of elite athletes in general who sometimes push too hard. Someone from America is no more likely to think "no pain, no gain" than a Russian or an Ethiopian or a Kenyan until they find a good coach. Even then, to use another El Guerrouj example, before the Sydney Olympics El Guerrouj refused to finish his sessions, always doing extra work when his coach told him to stop. He is obviously not an American and yet it happened to him also.

5/to think that we may do aerobic training almost exclusively for large periods and a taper for soem weeks and that the performance that happens by miracle.

I do not understand where you are getting these "magic" numbers from. Where does anyone say it must be 2 hours, or that everyone must do a long run?

Even some 800m runners actually DO run long runs, such as Nixon Kiprotich, again to build a base to preserve their peak into the track season.

This last I am not sure what you mean.

Racer 1

I never been in America, i just talk directly with one american cityzen more than 20 years ago. Now, imagine...what i know from America..not too much.

But you are right...not just in America that existes that mistakes.

You may be right that ther´s no a unique/single american system, but that´s the main problem, that American training philosophy that´s a "melting pot" of other ideas - a few of them with no great criteria or with lack of a deep analysis.

If i mention 7/ alineas that´s what i read in this message board, more a few american runners that i train by e-mail.

About 1/alinea - that´s just to read in this Forum. How many people that advise Lydiard method and think that Lydiard that´s the world´s best coach ? Many. When i start to share a few ideas with american runners and eventually i strt training them, the first 2 things that they told me about his running profile is that they are 100miles addicted and 2 hours long runs addicted. From 800m runners to marathon runners. Now, i did take the conclusion that most of you think like that. But i don´t wnat to be an expert of american running scene just by a douzen of runners.

I´m not against Lydiard, or what´s people interpretation of the Lydiard training concepts (that can be different) but i don´t know why Lydiard that´s inflate in the american running and coaches minds. You yourself you said that Lydiard he create a his own system and that the others they copy that system. That can be true to a certain extend, but if you read Ernest van Aaken books or even in his site he says the opposite that´s Lydiard that lear from van Aaken and take from van Aaken his own ideas. If you read the book from Tony Net he also says the same that Lydiard learned from others his method. So, that your misunderstanding it means something to me. And Lydiard that´s not just sucess. Ask what did Pekka Vasala - 1500m gold in the 73 munick olympics - when in 1974 he did go to New Zeland to train directly with Lydiard? Did he made success. No he didn´t.

If you do a study what are the more asked questions in this letsRunCom Message board and what are the issues more discussed about training you will conclude that "anaerobic threshold, effective ways to improve, what pace that occurs" - all that kind of questions that are precisely this thread question that´s an american running main concern.

If that is not true why you ask that question systematically, and you have doubts about that ? or weren´t you the first to ask about Anaerobic treshold in this thread, the first to post here a question and that you still mantain active the same original question ? But that´s not just you, there are so many in America. The threshold pace and the thershold questions - that are justa minor interst in the global training activity - that´s quite an obsession for the americans.

Antonio say:

>How many people that advise Lydiard method and think that Lydiard that´s the world´s best coach ? Many. When i start to share a few ideas with american runners and eventually i strt training them, the first 2 things that they told me about his running profile is that they are 100miles addicted and 2 hours long runs addicted.<

Antonio,

In the 70's & 80's when American middle/distance runners were having their greatest success, the great majority followed a "Lydiard model" with their own "fine tuning"

Now many try to "re-invent the wheel" when a "fool proof" method already exist.

An athlete with the desire, the heart , the determination and physical capabilities will thrive with almost any consistent method which is working all of the right system.

There is no "perfect" method and this preparing to run your body hard is not "rocket science"

I enjoy reading the discussion of training ideas but it always come down to the same conclusion. For most, athletes I see that they are just too impatient for results to do everything that is required in preparation.

Hodgie-San

Don´t take me for wrong. Lydiard that´s something i respect a lot. But we need see the things in their context and historically.

When in the late 50s and 60s and early 70s, Lydiard did what he did - that´s a breaktrought. We are coming from an era that interval-training that was dominant in the running scene all over the world - that means a minor mileage volume; all based in short reps/fast pace, Then it comes Lydiard that undrestood that first priority that´s to vhange all that wrong idea - thus a system based aerobic training.

That influence did very good results, not just in Kiwis runners - Halberg, Snell, or Dick Taylor - directly trained by Lydiard and later on in the earlly 70s Rod Dixon, J. Walker or Dick Quax - that claim to train from Lydiard principles. But that just not only in New Zeland. The Finn runners they also claim that Lydiard presence in Finland did a major role on the boom of Finn Runners in the 70s -Vattainen, Tapio Kantanen, Pekka Paavarinta and of course Lasse Viren.

But you are right the Lydiard influence did a major role (undirectly) in the 70s and 80s boom of the american runners. I attibute that not only from the fact that Lydiard did a large success as coach but also due that Lydiard use the english language - so that´s easy to communicate his teaching to Americans. But the 50s-60s-70s and 80s running evolution all over the world that´s not confine to the Lydiard system. We need to speak to German School, Polish School, french School, and manay other that bring us also very benefical teachings.

I agree with you that a very good training system as is te Lydiard that´s not perfect. The fact is that actually in America, most of you you did stop in the Lydiard method, and as time degrades/degenerates all things - eventually you take the poor side of Lydiard - that´s to say - the worst portion.

Certainly everyone builds upon those before him. My point was that many tenets of the Lydiard method are still wideky used largely or in minor forms in a great number of training programs.

The Munich Olympics were in 1972 and I remember reading that the Finnish coach felt Lydiard's training ideas helped the Finnish squad as a whole, including Viren, one of the greatest Olympic runners ever.

I maintain the thread to learn the answers from people like yourself or Renato. When you spend as much time running as serious runners, the runner naturally wants to know everything possible to improve fully.

Racer1 wrote:

I maintain the thread to learn the answers from people like yourself or Renato. When you spend as much time running as serious runners, the runner naturally wants to know everything possible to improve fully.

But that´s not true. Neither of the Lydiard system that´s original: the long runs and the 1000 miles there are lots of methods that did it before Lydiard, the 6 weeks peak - Lydiard himself said that he based that in German school, the aerobic training either - that it exists fom van Aaken, the six weeks anaerobic training that´s picked from the interval trainibg Friburg school, and also the hills that was done before Lydiard - Polish school, Sweede Waldeniel. or Australien Perci Cerruty

If there´s any orginality in Lydiard that the way he mix all that - but each single aspect no one of them that´s original. You need to read a bit more running training history. Eventually you, because you have done more contact with Lydiard you think that´s the main influence - eventually in America or Oceania, but in Europe that´s a minor influence. I don´t say that Lydiard is a unknown in Europe, but that´s a minor influence...Portugal, Spain, France, Italy, German, all ouit of english language most of them don+t use nothing taked from the Lydiard system. Eventually in Finland or England and nothing more.

Antonio Cabral wrote:

But that´s not true. Neither of the Lydiard system that´s original: the long runs and the 1000 miles there are lots of methods that did it before Lydiard, the 6 weeks peak - Lydiard himself said that he based that in German school, the aerobic training either - that it exists fom van Aaken, the six weeks anaerobic training that´s picked from the interval trainibg Friburg school, and also the hills that was done before Lydiard - Polish school, Sweede Waldeniel. or Australien Perci Cerruty

Antonio:

Lydiard was coaching in the 1950's and 1960's. The 4 minute mile was still relatively new and rare.

Before this time, many training programs were largely oriented on superstition. If you read programs of the 1920s or 1930s, it is often composed of crazy things such as 6 hour walks and strange foods that have no effect on performance.

I have not intended to suggest Lydiard is the first proponent of everything. But his programs are not the same as Cerutty's or Van Aaken's. There are differences. He has built upon others' theories but parts of his program are innovative. He has made as much of a contribution as any of the other coaches you mentioned.

In modern discussions of training, whose name do you hear more: Cerutty, Van Aaken, "some Swedish and German coaches" or Lydiard? I think it is an obvious answer.

His methods have been improved and bettered but his fundamentals are integral to most high level distance running programs.

Racer 1

Actually i don´t know what´s more crazy - if that´s to walk for 6 hours or to do 2 hours long sessions once a week for 800m runners. It seems to me so wrong one as another.

Historically What you say that´s completly incorrect. The more i see the more i´m able to understand why people like you think that modern running training that start with Lydiard, that ther´s a moment before Lydiard and after Lydiard, I my opinion that idea that´s completly untruth.

Realate to modern sophisticated training methods - previously - i may say that Lydiard thaty´s a king of joke.

I repeat once again that you may understand:

In the past - media and comunication among countries, coaches, training methods that´s very short - not as today that we have TV, internet and so. Thus - as american that´s a dominant civilization - after the second world war - and since english language that´s dominant as standard comunication as spread all over tne world, and since Lydiard that´s a coach that really did some sucess and that´s a coach in ENGLISH LANGUAGE and for one reaosn or another he was able disseminate his own training method all over the world - partially because people like you that over emphasis the Lydiard interest among the other training methods - by ignorance of al the rest - then actually young people or people like you with not enough knowledge and lack of information thinks that with Lydiard it borns the modern training. I advise you to go to a public library and read Tony Net´s book "What is moidern training" from 1966.

There you will see that what you call modern training that it exists long before Lydiard and that even during the 50s and 60s several training methods that exists side by side with Lydiard. But for advertising reason, or publishing, and also english language and Lydiard sucess among the anglo-saxon people - Lydiard method are dominant.

I can quote to you from sevaral training methods and thier derivatives not just very correct training schedules but also very good runners that did world records and/or olympoic medals: Polish training method, French training method - Wadoux, Michelle Jazzy (that in the 60´s did 1500m/mile/2000m/5000m WR or , German training method Harald Norporth, Lutz Philip, the belgian Roger Moens that did 800m WR in the late 40s-50s, Russian training method (Popov, Vladimir Kutz (5000 and 1000m WR and double olympic winner in the 50´s and earlier 60s); Emill Zatopec of course (that training by his own it took the attention of many runners and coaches), english scholl (Gordon Pirie 5000m WR in the eraly 60s). Gaston Reiff from the belgian scholl. I may quote many and many but ther´s no interest really, but with all respect i think that your idea of the earlier training kind of "walking 6 hours" i´m not saying that ther´s no one to do that - as actually japanese marathoneers they walk the day after a hard workout, but if you get more information you will undrestand that a Finn as Hanns Kohlemainen or Paavo Nurmi (from the 20s and 30s) they do several training principles that we can consider modern training as well.

Once again lots of americans or people that are in the english language you over emophasis Lydiard in world´s tranning methods overall.

Antonio:

I never said Lydiard is the only valid method (there are many other effective programs), nor that his is the only one that works, nor that his method is entirely correct (it is not).

I am merely pointing out that his methods, whether he has compiled them from a German coach or a Polish one or anyone else, are still in use today. This cannot be said for so many coaches (like Cerutty, Van Aaken, etc.)

You seem eager to prove me wrong and so do not read properly what I wrote.

Really I do not think much more will result of this debate, because I cannot see anyone agreeing with the other. So I wait for someone else to add something or Renato to return.

Guys, this is getting stupid. You kids are both failing to see the main point behind coaching - the coach must make a schedule to fit the athletes needs. What works for some won't work at all for others. Some 800 runners will do well with a 2 hour run, others may not...there is not one correct way!

Racer 1

There are people that´s hard to made them belive in facts. With al, respect you are one of them. you still insist in a Lydiard over emphasis that actually it exists only in America and in a few located parts mainly because english language influence.

Come to mey country. We are 50000 that do running. Among them how many train by Lidiard method ZERO ! Go to Spain. They did lots of top class runners in distance events since 1992. How many they did train or actually train based in Lydiard method: ZERO ! Go to France, ther´s a large tradition in distance running despite last decades they decay in international context: How many they train by Lydiard principles ZERO ! Go to Germany. How many: ZERO. Go to England (ah...that´s a english language country) How many a very slight minority that we can´t consider. Go to Italy, Finland, Norway, All east european countries, go to Morocco - ZERO, go to Kenya (a second english language) a so shor minority that you can´t consider, and go to Ethiopia, in Africa eventually just in South Africa that is done but not too much - recently i received an e-mail from a south African runner that told me that top south africa coaches don´t know who is Lydiard. If ther´s someone in Lyidiard method - that´s a short/thin minority among other training methods, go to Central America and South America. Brazil by example 170 millions, a running scene that i know well) a country that recently did produce Ronaldo Costa (WR in marathon in 1998 and Vanderlei Lima that we talk about). How many did train by Lydiard method? Zero. Now go to Asia, those who train by Lydiard principles they are such a minority among Chineese, Japanese, all the rest of Asia people. Eventually in New Zeland and Australia there are a few as also in South Africa - all english language countries and also very close to Lydiard country.

Now tell me about America ? How many like you think that Lydiard is dominant. What´s the Lidyard influence among america runners. Large one than in almost any other country. Thus i come to my original comment - american mistakes they come from the use of Lydiard training. Long runs for short distant events, 100 miles for everyone, 6 week peak season. The use of hills JUST in the "transfer" phase. I don´t see that use no more...among a larger world runners community. Just in America and a few more folks.

That you don´t want to see the facts and the reality (by the numbers or range of influence) or that you to follow a an opinion that´s a reality distortion that´s up to you, in that point we will never agree, but we still are friends and people that respect each other. That´s hard to get you out from your preconceived ideas. It seems to me that you are in a postion that you have an American hipnotisation that don+t made you think clear by the facts.

The main issue that´s not you - that American coaches and runners that still insist in your point of view and they don´t improve. And the results thet are there. For such a large population and so many interest for all athletics you did poor results in distance running evenst that what we may expect. In my opinion this have to do with the use of wrong training concepts.

Antonio Cabral wrote:

I advise you to go to a public library and read Tony Net´s book "What is moidern training" from 1966.

The book, "Run Run Run" by Fred Wilt, T&FN 1964 is an excellent compilation of training which includes contributions by Toni Nett, Vladimir Kuts, Peter Bolotikov, Buddy Edelen, Lauri Pihala (from the 1920's) as applied by Paavo Nurmi, Waldemar Gershler, J. Nocker, Holman, and Reindell.

Gershler coached Rudolph Harbig, applying Pihala's training for Nurmi but including more speed sessions. One example is 10x 400 meters. Harbig smashed the 400 and 800 records in 1939 with times of 46.0 and 1:46.6.

Gershler started coaching Josey Barthel in 1952, who later that year won the Olympic 1500 meter gold medal. Roger Bannister was 4th and applied Gershler's methods to his own program, as did Gordon Pirie who also did testing with Gershler in Germany.

Percy Cerutty began his Portsea camp in 1950, which resulted in more world records and record holders than later coached by Lydiard. For example, Cerutty coached Herb Elliott, Alby Thomas, and John Landy.

I went through Lydiard's schedules a few times in the 1970's. Much of what is in them came from Cerutty, and also from others as Antonio has pointed out.

However, none of Lydiard's runners ever ran as fast as Herb Elliott.

The mistake with following Lydiard is that the program is very close minded. It was developed one certain way and neither the program nor Lydiard would ever admit to any change or improvement.

I agree that the preoccupation with Lydiard has set training back in the U.S. However, discussions like this along with the input of Antonio and Renato will help to change things for the better.

John Rupp say:

>I agree that the preoccupation with Lydiard has set training back in the U.S.<

I believe that just the opposite is true. Which US runners do you think are preoccupied with Lydiard? When I first began visiting running websites 4 years ago, most posters did not even know who Lydiard was!

As malmo says, "A runner not knowing Lydiard.is like a physicist not knowing Newton."

Most successful coaches in the US credit Lydiard as does Antonio.

so very few programs anywhere in the US are doing anything near Lydiard.

and I owuld not characterize Lydiard as "close minded." There are just a few basic rules and however you apply them, good luck.