Alberto's Marathon Training... FLAWED

feet to the fire wrote:

Thank You Renato Canova.

Finally someone that points out the obvious. Americans underachieve in the marathon because they are trained wrong.

When Americans start doing the type of training that Canova advocates and don´t produce results, then the LR crowd immediately start saying that they should improve their track speed, run more short races and less long tempos etc.

feet to the fire wrote:

Thank You Renato Canova.

Finally someone that points out the obvious. Americans underachieve in the marathon because they are trained wrong.

27:20 should be 2:05

27:40 should be 2:07

28:00 should be 2:09

28:20 should be 2:11

28:40 should be 2:13

29:00 should be 2:15

Take a look at the US lists and you will see a bunch of coaches that don't get the marathon.

You are joking, right?

Let's see, then

27:00 should be 2:03

26:40 should be 2:01

26:20 should be 1:59

What a slacker, that Geb!

Looks like we should look at the world lists and see every single coach that does not get the marathon.

He didn't say it would remain a linear relationship

Are you joking? wrote:

feet to the fire wrote:

Thank You Renato Canova.

Finally someone that points out the obvious. Americans underachieve in the marathon because they are trained wrong.

27:20 should be 2:05

27:40 should be 2:07

28:00 should be 2:09

28:20 should be 2:11

28:40 should be 2:13

29:00 should be 2:15

Take a look at the US lists and you will see a bunch of coaches that don't get the marathon.

You are joking, right?

Let's see, then

27:00 should be 2:03

26:40 should be 2:01

26:20 should be 1:59

What a slacker, that Geb!

Looks like we should look at the world lists and see every single coach that does not get the marathon.

Meanwhile when guys like Nelson and Torres run 2:13 or 2:14 in their debuts we celebrate these performances.

Both of those guys have run 27:40's and are clueless when it comes to the marathon.

It is rough to watch.

Aghast wrote:

He didn't say it would remain a linear relationship

That's right, he only put up six points over spanning 1:40 (at 10000) which all lie precisely on a line.

Also note how many 27:20 10000 m runners have run 2:05:00. And how many have not.

Moron!

I agree with the poster. If a guy runs sub 28 minutes and can't run under 2:10, he is 100% training wrong.

I also believe that a half marathon doubled plus 4-5 minutes is the correct ratio for a well trained marathoner.

Americans that run sub 62:00 and can't run sub 2:10 are training wrong. 100% of the time.

Thank you for the clarification. My main point (rather convoluted) was just that the person who referred to the runners of "the early 80's" was wrong about them all running the same cookie cutter program. There are (as you pointed out) lots examples of differences and lots of reasons for it.

He was also wrong about this era "accepting slow 10k times" or however it was expressed. He used the fact that they had slower 5k/10k times than Ritzenhein. To put a finer point on it: they did NOT have slow 10k times (in general). The poster was using the comparison that Dathan has 12:56/27:22 ability APPARENTLY at the same time as 2:10:00 ability. And (according to this guy) many at the time had 2:10 ability, but nowhere near his track times. Therefore they must have accepted "crappy track times" (I think it was put that way). Everyone who knows the situation would be more inclined to say that "Dathan is willing accept crappy marathon times"!!!

Also, I just wrote down all the names that I could think of at the moment. Several people were left off because I didn't know about their training and therefore it was not fair to use them as an example of how they did not adhere to this supposed cookie-cutter marathon training plan. I don't what you mean about "popping one every 3 or 4 yrs" since all the 10 names I listed were all in your list ... within the first 17?

A better way was yours: to look at the US all-time in 85 and then compare whether the majority really did train alike. Also, compare the 10k PRs to see if this kid's idea had merit. In short, I don't think they trained the same, and I think that MOST of that list had very strong 10k ability.

Side note1: I am genuinely interested in your opinion on this as someone who is part of that sample and someone with vast knowledge of both that era's runners and their training and their background and their ability outside the marathon. Do you feel that most runners must devot elong periods (like 6-12 mos) and train just for the marathon? Or do you think 10k training is so much different that you can't pull a Lopes or a Treacy? (or a Steve Jones, Salazar, Virgin or even Greg Meyer).

Side note1.1: Do you think that most of these successful marathoners were just as good at 10k at some point in their career? (It looks to me like about half of them had PRs under 28:10 or high finishes at the OT or Nationals).

Side note2:

-I did know about Durden (even his double sweatsuit training!).

-I have a TT article or one from the Harrier about Spedding and he prepped for the 84 OG with consistent 100-110. -Guess I was fooled by Dixon's recording hours instead of miles! shouldn't post what I am not sure of.

-Of course Ron Tabb was a great, consistent 2:10-2:11 performer over and over. Didn't know anything about his training, but I do remember his 2:11:00 at the NOrleans mara. And I remember him getting even better (like you said) when he moved to Eugene and away from Houston.

-Knew about Ken Martin, but not his training. Of course I should have remembered that he was a Dellinger disciple and one of his success stories in the time right after Salazar had troubles. Are there any other Americans besides you and he, that have run sub-8:25 and sub-2:12? I guess I should look at the List!!

- Hold on? Why aren't you on the list? Had you not broken 2:12 by 85? or did that come later?

-I didn't know that you coached (or mentored or influenced) Don Norman? that is cool.

-Whose coaching influence would you say that Malmo was most affected by? I know you had two of America's greatest at different times.

[quote]Class of 85 wrote:

[quote]malmo wrote:

-Of course Ron Tabb was a great, consistent 2:10-2:11 performer over and over. Didn't know anything about his training, but I do remember his 2:11:00 at the NOrleans mara. And I remember him getting even better (like you said) when he moved to Eugene and away from Houston.

Consistency is a problem for our runners in all the distance races.

1. since we are talking about Ritz everyone knows of his 12:56, but his 2nd best 5k time is only 13:16.

2. alan webb ran a 1:43.8 for 800, but his second fastest time is only 1:45.8, on the johnny gray thread he almost never ran 2 seconds slower than his best.

we do have some consistent, distance runners, but it just seems like we dont have the johny grays, steve scotts, bill rodgers who were not only good race to race but year to year.

in my opinion if ritz had gone to london and ran a 2:05-2:06 which he is capable of doing, he would be just like he is in the 5k 1 great time, and a bunch of good to mediocre times.

No, what YOU aren't able to see is that several runners from 78-90 from the nations you listed WERE able to run UNDER-2:08:00.

Lopes 2:07:12 WR - 85

DeCastella 2:07:51 - 87

Steve Jones 2:07:13 - 85

Regarding this: "Now a lot of best athletes run 6 minutes faster than Shorter." What you don't grasp is this: Shorter ran 27:45 and a bunch of other 10,000s close to that. He was always 13-15s from the WR while active. His spread from the current WR is 1:28 (26:17 - 27:45). Spread that 10k differential over 42.195km (1:28 x 4.2195) and it makes 371.31s.

That is 6:11. Meaning his marathon was JUST AS STRONG as his 10,000 was and his training methods worked equally well for each event. So while he was clearly slower than today's CERA-fueled, flat-course-running, rabbited wonderboys. If he ran now (and had every modern advantage that the EPO generation has) and was 13s off the WR in the 10k (like he was in his era) then we could expect his training to yield a 2:04:19 ... not too shabby.

Are you the crazy Italian coach that claimed that drugs will not help Super-Champions? Or are you the other Italian coach?

My apologies for implying the guys from the early 80's had crappy 10K PR's. My point was that they raced a lot more during that era (track, road race, XC) so they accepted "training through" some/most of their races and not expecting to pop a big "PR level" time every week or two.

Another way I look at it also is that you seldom had someone pull out of a marathon because they ran a bad road race time a few weeks before (barring injury of course). And sometimes despite the bad race a few weeks before they'll come through for their marathon.

Whereas the American runners today seldom race and the few races they do run, expectation is very high for a near PR performance no matter what the distance. And then if they don't get the near PR, they abandon running their marathon (Ryan Hall) or get psyched out and under-perform(Ritz).

Hmmm... maybe I should have said the old school guys could psychologically handle running a non "PR level" under distance time prior to their marathon as oppose to "willing to run a crappy time"...

I "semi standby" what is interpreted as a "cookie cutter approach": one quality long run, 2 "faster paced" sessions, and then as much recovery miles as one can tolerate. Obviously there is great flexibility. Recovery miles for Steve Jones was a 40 minute run, while for DeCastella it was 8 in the AM and 12 in the PM (and for the Japanese it was running 3 times a day). The "faster paced" sessions was 20x400 for Shorter, for others it was repeat miles or 2 miles or repeat tempo runs.

I do agree with Coach Renato that the "faster paced" sessions need to be more "sports specific" to the marathon with "intervals/repeats" in the 3 to 7K distance, if one was to focus on the marathon. I think Zatopek and the rest of the "classic" mega interval guys of the 50's and 60's demonstrated the limits of massive repeat 400 sessions for marathon training.

Overall interesting discussion guys. It seems like we're all frustrated why our USA guys are still running the marathon "slow" despite seeming to improve at the shorter distances.

I'm the same crazy Italian coach saying that PED cant help the best african athletes. I'm also the same Italian coach that never used any support with his Italian athletes (so, forget Africans), reaching as National Responsible, together with Luciano Gigliotti, the following results (10k / HM / Marathon) :

1) 2 Olympic Champions in 16 years (Bordin 1988 / Baldini 2004)

2) 5 European Champions in 16 years (Bordin 1986 / Bordin 1990 / Baldini 1998 / Baldini 2006 / Maria Guida 2002)

3) 1 World HM Champion (Baldini 1996)

4) 1 Silver Medal in World Championships (Modica 1999)

5) 4 Bronze medal in World Championships (Bordin 1987 / Ornella Ferrara 1995 / Baldini 2001 - 2003)

Baldini : 27'43" / 60:50 (never seriously) / 2:07:19

Bordin : 29'08" (but probably a value of 28'30" at his top as Marathon) / 2:08:19

Caimmi : 27'50" / 2:08:50

Andriani : 28'58" / 2:09:07

Rinaldi : 28'58" (preparing Marathon) / 61:46 / 2:11:19

Ciavarella : 30'02" / 63:58 / 2:11:23

Ruggiero : 29'28" / 62:20 / 2:09:54

Pertile : 29:08 / 62:15 / 2:09:43

Bourifa : 29:25 / 61:58 / 2:09:20

LADIES :

Viceconte : 31'05" (after marathon) / 68:49 / 2:23:47

Guida : 31'27" / 68:30 / 2:26

Ferrara : 33'22" / 70:45 / 2:27

We worked together in Italy with all our coaches for a lot of time, and created a School for marathon that was almost the same foir everybody, with small difference in training according the different attitudes of every athlete.

The fact that Shorter is far 1:28 from the WR of Bekele doesn't mean anything, because Bekele is not the WR holder of Marathon. The reality is that all the top marathon runners, African, of today, can have an average between 27:10 and 27:40 in their PB for 10000m (officially many of them have a worse PB, but because they went running on track only few times, most part in altitude).

About Carlos Lopes, I can say he had a PB of 27'17", that means, for an athlete of today, basic ability for running under 2:05:00.

So, the first solution of the problem is TO FINISH TO LOOK AT THE PAST (Lydiard, Marathon training of 40 years ago, and other historical methodology), because, like every human activity, also in training there was an evolution.

We recognize that the base of out current knowledge, and of our methodological studies, is in the training experiences of top coaches as Gerschler and Reindell for Intervall training, as Igloi, as Van Aaken, as Cerutti, as Lydiard. But, also if we recognize that Enrico Fermi was the first discovering the possibilities of the atom, the current science is very much more advanced.

Yes, I'm the same coach saying that doping doesn't work for very talented athletes, and I continue to think and to say the same thing, producing every year some champion (the last the two World Champions of HM 2010).

And you are the same person thinking that only thru doping can improve, and for this stupid mentality, your ignorance in a modern methodology and your global wrong idea about the modern athletic, create a lot of limits that, with a free mentality, is very easy to overtake.

When in my group, or among athletes influenced by my phylosophy (that, I repeat, is not mine, but is part of a school assembling a lot of different experiences, from several coaches) there are about 40 athletes able running between 2:04 and 2:07:30 (2:20 / 2:23 for ladies), I think we can know better than you what we need for running a fast marathon, and which type of basic speed you need.

So, instead discussing too much about your past, I suggest you to discuss for changing your future.

So Renato, does that mean you are getting marathon training better, or 10K training worse? (Just kidding -- anyway since there are fewer 10Ks anymore, would it even matter?).

But I have another question. A couple pages back, there was an exchange regarding elite marathon runners running too fast at elite marathon pace to burn fat. I recall you mentioned before that one key to changing to the marathon distance was changing the engine to burn more fat (or some similar analogy). Any comments/opinions regarding elite marathon runners burning fat versus sugar compared to say a 3 hour marathon athlete?

Renato Canova wrote:

The point that many don't see is that all the top marathon runners of the period 1978/1990 from US, Australia and Europe, never were able to run under 2:08:00, that today means to be number 100 in the World. Many of them were faster, on track, than top runners of today. An athlete like Salazar (27:22 in 10000m, if I well remember) with a specific marathon training we use today, had to run under 2:06:00 his Marathon.

When you speak about Frank Shorter, he was the best of his time, but never ran under 2:10:00, when, for example, Bordin ran 2:08:19, Baldini 2:07 and Rothlin also, never running 10000m faster than him.

So, all these discussions about high or low mileage, short or long intervals, are useless :

Renato, I believe this is the one mistake you make when comparing different eras. But the differences in time aren't necessarily from training emphasis, it is mainly because of the lack of opportunity.

The marathon today is quite different than that of the 70s and 80s. There are now many more opportunities (especially fast courses that didn't exist in the day) and they are big money events, with appearance/prize/bonus structures that can keep hundreds of runners in the game. But take a look at the depth of today's marathons, after the first ten there's no depth to speak of at all. Even without the prizes purses that exist today the depth of the events was much better. In the day, only a few runners made the big bucks and the rest were left to fend for themselves. Chicago and London used to be 2nd tier events. Even with my rather modest marathon credentials, Carey Pinkowski told me recently if I were running today I'd be making big money. The most I ever made in a marathon was $5000, even adjusted for inflation, that's nothing.

Now I'm not saying that there could have been a bunch of 2:05's years ago, but with the money and the numbers of opportunities available today, you can be sure there would have been a lot more sub 2:08s.

Trying to compare Shorter to current marathoner is ridiculous. Shorter's opportunities paled even in comparison the the 1980s. The guy was definitely capable of 2-3 maybe even 4 minutes faster than what he did.

The measurement of courses is different today. If you think that this is just one of those wacko birther type theories, check out the tape.

If you go to youtube and look at the race of DEUL IN THE SUN and compare the length of the last straightaway in Boston with any race in the last decade, you will notice that the course of today is roughly a minute further.

The clock is running on the bottom of most years to make it easy to compare.

The start is within feet of where it was back in the 80's. I have a picture from 1980 and 2009.

Training for marathon and 10000m is completely different.

For 10000m athletes don't have any problem about the quantity of fuel. The limiting factor is the power of the engine. For running fast 10 km, we need to train our body to produce high quantity of lactate, to tolerate this quantity in the fibres, and to remove it fast.

For marathon, instead, the main problem is about the quantity of specific fuel you can use.

We have, basically, two different tanks : one, very big, containing fat (the diesel of a car), another, smaller, containing glycogen (the super). Of course, faster we run, more super we have to use.

When an athlete comes from a career spent in short distances, he has an engine used to work with glycogen only. Everything specific is done with "super", the aerobic base is done with "diesel".

But, when we go to the marathon, the athlete must be able to create a specific mixture, putting together glycogen and fats, in order to last for the duration of the race. Top runners, able to run at the speed of their Threshold, use in one hour at that speed (about their PB in HM) all the glycogen they have, so their tank becomes empty.

The problem is that not all the carbohydrates can give the same quantity of energy, and that this energy is not the same : we have some of them able to burn very quickly, giving a lot of energy (it's the fuel we use in short distances), but also some able to burn slowy, producing a medium level of energy, but able to last longer time.

At the same time, not all the fats can burn slowly, only. We have some particular fat able tpo produce more energy than some kind of carbohydrates.

So, what the athletes has to learn, is how to create this mixture.

When there is not yet adaptation for long and fast run, at the supposed Marathon Pace the athletes use too much glycogen, so they finish their "super" far from the finish (may be about 30-32 km). In this case, the solution is running at even pace a little bit slower from the start, so the used fuel has a lower percentage of glycogen, and it's possible to last till the end.

But, if you want to be strong, you need, in a time of 5-8 months, to "teach" your fibres to run at the ideal Marathon Pace using, step by step, less glycogen and more fats, for the same speed.

We can control the change in the bioenergetic ability of the runner with tests of lactate, made on track at even pace for every test : for example, running 6 times 2000m with very short recovery, at speed every time faster, and controlling the level of lactate.

An example :

6 x 2000m in 6'20" / 6'15" / 6'10" / 6'05" / 6'00" / 5'55" includes a pace from 3'10" (2:13:38) and 2'55" (2:03:06), so for a top runner there is the control of what he can do during the race.

We need to search a Steady State for similar speeds, and when we find this is the correct pace for the athlete.

Example (lactate for the above times) :

1.7 mml - 2.0 - 2.1 - 3.2 - 4.8 - 7.6.

In this case, we have almost the same lactate level running in 6'15" and in 6'10". This athlete can run his full marathon in a pace between 3'07"5 (under 2:12) and 3'05" (2:10:05), supposing an even pace.

Other thing : we have athletes coming from short distances, and athletes starting with long distances.

The first typology is for "Fat runners", the second for "Resistant runners".

Also if the final goal is the same, the methodology must be very different :

In the first case, we need to EXTEND the duration, starting from the intensity they already have. That's means, for example, going for long slow run for adapting the structure and the mind to the marathon, BUT NOT FOR A METABOLIC REASON. In this case, the "specific training" of the marathon runner is to run fast (almost at marathon pace, may be 98% of it), once every 3 weeks, extending the distance (for example, 28 km - 30 - 32 - 34), while at the same time we use (always every 3 weeks) a long run of DURATION (may be longer than 2:30) at 80% of the Marathon pace.

The real training starts when the depletion of glycogen in the tank of the athlete is almost complete : if he's able to run 30 km at 3'12" pace (1 hr 36'), and in the last 4 km (for a training of 34) he slows down to 3'25" / 3'35" / 3'45" / 4', THE REAL TRAINING (UNDER PHYSIOLOGICAL POINT OF VIEW) IS IN THE LAST 4 KM, WHEN THE ATHLETE HAS TO FIND IN HIS BODY SOURCES OF ENERGY NOT KNOWED BEFORE.

In the case of a resistant runner, we need, instead, to qualify the duration, using progressive run, and also intervals on track more short, for mechanical reasons.

So, it's clear that, for an athlete coming from 12'56" in 5000m, we need to use this type of ability inside long fast intervals (for example, 4 x 5000m in 14'20" with 1000m recovery in 3'20"), but not with short intervals, because in this case we work in the opposite way of our physiological goal (that is to teach to use more fat at Marathon pace).

For an athlete coming from 45 km of long slow run twice per week, we need, instead, start on track putting a high volume of repetitions from 400m and 1000m, before going to longer intervals (that in any case are an important part of the specific period for everybody, if they want to reach their top).

About athletes running in 3 hours, of course this is not the way for training. These athletes, if sollecitated in their fastest speed, many times are not able to reac a level of lactate of 4 mml. This means they are able to use fats only.

That's the reason because to train 100 km is the most simple thing, if you are able to prepare the structure and the mind : there is no any mixture in the source of energy, since the athletes use fatty acids only.

Last important thing :

There is not a GENERAL SHAPE, but a SPECIFIC SHAPE. So, when you are in top shape for 10000m, you cant be in top shape for your marathon, and viceversa.

The preparation for one distance can be used as "special" preparation for the other, but after we need to move in the specific direction.

This is, for example, what I did last year with Wilson Kiprop : he ran Prague Marathon (9th May) in 2:09:09, only for controlling his aerobic base, looking at 10000m. At the end of June he won Kenyan Champs with the new WR in altitude (27'26"), one month later African Champs beating Kipsiro in the last lap (14'03" + 13'29"), and in this period he maintained long run of 30 km in 1:36:00 about, once per week.

After this, assembling long endurance and specific speed for 10000m, we moved to HM, and he won the title in Nanning, using all the different types of training carried on before.

I'm not sure I understand your question. I don't believe runners need to devote long period of specific training for any event, they just need to have some event specific training blocks, especially as you get closer to your event.

yes that should be obvious

Doesn't seem like 'low mileage' to me. Seems appropriate.

I wouldn't know what you're referring to. Dixon was known to put in 130 mile weeks.

Yes, when Martin started putting in 130 mile weeks, he made a point of letting me know. I think he was seeking approval becasue he knew that I was part of that fraternity. I remember him saying he was really fatigued in the beginning but that soon went away. He was working with Jack Daniels (130mpw and Daniels seemed like mixing oil and water to me) and years later he told me about his training sessions in Albubu with Reifsnyder and Ortz. Apparently they were doing ungodly tempos (in outs actaully) on the track but after a month or two of them he was 'mysteriously' shot and didn't understand why. I told Ken that it was no mystery, and if he would have asked me back then I would have told him he out of his mind and was running those sessions too hard. Then again, what do I know, Ken was being advised by the 'greatest coach in the world'.

My best marathon was 2:12:23 in Sacto. There's no reason for me to be on that list. I left my best marathon on the streets in Spanish Harlem six weeks before that 2:12 on a warm, sunny day in 1985. Someone once asked me if I ever had any regrets in running (actually it was Pinkowski), I said, "yeah, not running Chicago in '85."

The coach that most influenced my was my high school coach, Robert Budd, who knew absolutely nothing about running, but knew everything there was to know about coaching and motivating athletes to go above and beyond the limits that others put on themselves. These were lessons that I carried with me. Once you get believing in yourself, climbing the ladder gets a lot easier, even when you start to run out of rungs.

Hi Renato:

In the last post you wrote:

The first typology is for "Fat runners", the second for "Resistant runners".

Did you mean to write "Fast runners"?

The point you made in Charlotte about how more guys can run 5000 at world-record 10000 pace than can run a half marathon at world-record marathon pace makes a lot of sense.

Sorry, Malmo, but I disagree.

There were athletes, as Derek Clayton, looking at Marathon only, able running 2:08:37 already in 1969.

If you see about consistancy, Toshihiko Seko and Bill Rodgers (that were FULL marathon runners, also like training) were very much better than the athletes running fast 10000m and competing too much.

So, the real difference was the strategy : strategy in type and quantity of competitions, and strategy (connected with the other) of training.

I don't discuss about the value of Shorter. I'm sure that, if there was the marathon of today, he could run under 2:07:00. But, in this case, using a completely different approach : not indoor, not 10000m on track 5 days before an Olympic final, not a lot of speed on the track.

My point is that this type of training is damageous if you want to reach, IN MARATHON, your real potentiality.

Personally, I think Elliot and Ryun were the two most talented runner all time in 1500m. However, their times are not so significative today, and we cant give responsibility for this fact to a different organisation of the athletics, only.

We must accept that training methodologies are better than in the past, and who continues to look at the past (that had a lot of good things, and can give strong motivations) under the point of view of training, never can become competitive in the athletics of today.

The athletes of 30 years ago had, in my opinion, more motivation than today, and more aggressaivity in their training, and this is something the athletes of today have to recover, after discovering again.

But, under the training system, methodology went many steps ahead (also if we speak too much about science, that depends on the methodology, not the opposite), and is wrong to thing that everything is only natural, or everything is too much scientific.

Renato Canova wrote:

But, when we go to the marathon, the athlete must be able to create a specific mixture, putting together glycogen and fats, in order to last for the duration of the race. Top runners, able to run at the speed of their Threshold, use in one hour at that speed (about their PB in HM) all the glycogen they have, so their tank becomes empty.

Renato

I am jumping in the deep end with this question and if it is very simple I do apologise. I am just starting to learn about training.

For slower non elite types who are running half marathons in the 75min range do you think they should be training in a more similar fashion to what you prescribe for the marathon. I ask this because If I was to run at Theshold for 1 hour I am only going to be covering about 17km so would I in effect be emptying my glycogen stores to quick and thus would need to train the body to mix fuel like you describe for your marathon guys in order to go the whole 21.1km.

Thanks