changing names all the time just makes it confusing.
i've copied the facts for you to educate yourself with. if you have to continue to lie and misconstrue those facts to try and fit your lie, then i'll just continue pointing out said lies.
like I said in the beginning, why come on here and lie? lying is no good.
don't be a liar.
turkey leg wrote:
At this point, if you are unwilling to accept the mountains of empirical data, you should try your own suggested plan for a few years and learn for yourself then let us all know. Good luck.
All I have written was not offence intended; I would feel sorry about if so. I wish, some posters here would think about, if there´s any necessity to call each other names or make so. ridicule.
The point is, there was a congress of research physiologists end of the last year and some statements I heard are quite thrilling. I tried to get more infos if it may be possible to focus on harder workouts and optimum recovery. For average runners it works, also for elites?
I would like to know if there exists a shiny example of someone who never did more than -let´s say- 4 days/week for years (!) with very good results. Those 4 days may include also the possibility of training twice a day. Just a question (or an interesting plan to give it a try).
Need_speed wrote:
I would like to know if there exists a shiny example of someone who never did more than -let´s say- 4 days/week for years (!) with very good results. Those 4 days may include also the possibility of training twice a day. Just a question (or an interesting plan to give it a try).
i'm sure you'll find an example.
i'm also sure you will NOT find an example of an elite athlete.
if there´s an example of one elite - of course it´s no clear proof, but worth to look at.
comic answer wrote:
if there´s an example of one elite - of course it´s no clear proof, but worth to look at.
sure, it would be worth it.
but my point is there ISN'T one.
statatician wrote:
changing names all the time just makes it confusing.
i've copied the facts for you to educate yourself with. if you have to continue to lie and misconstrue those facts to try and fit your lie, then i'll just continue pointing out said lies.
like I said in the beginning, why come on here and lie? lying is no good.
don't be a liar.
My goodness. You have gone back to where you started. Clearly you didn't even bother to look at those IAAF facts presented to you. Since you can't be bothered with that i can't be bothered arguing with you. Canova is as Canova is. His type of spiel will always suck people like you in. People who can't research information themselves. Fortunately the sharper ones see through such shams.
Clearly easy runs do something. Compare 6 months of being a complete couch potato, with 6 months of doing 100mpw of easy running. You will be much, much faster at the end of the 6 months in the latter case.
Of course you might have been faster still had you done different training, but that's not what the question was.
shipsy wrote:
My goodness. You have gone back to where you started. Clearly you didn't even bother to look at those IAAF facts presented to you. Since you can't be bothered with that i can't be bothered arguing with you. Canova is as Canova is. His type of spiel will always suck people like you in. People who can't research information themselves. Fortunately the sharper ones see through such shams.
if you dress up the lie with a lot of long paragraphs and flowery language, is it still not a lie?
you jumped into this thread with a lie, you were called out on it and educated about it yet you still persist with the lie, now employing fallacious tidbits as a smokescreen for said lie.
"Shams" is a fairly accurate description of your postings so far. I still prefer "lies", though.
statitician wrote:
if you dress up the lie with a lot of long paragraphs and flowery language, is it still not a lie?
you jumped into this thread with a lie, you were called out on it and educated about it yet you still persist with the lie, now employing fallacious tidbits as a smokescreen for said lie.
"Shams" is a fairly accurate description of your postings so far. I still prefer "lies", though.
:)
Need_speed wrote:
The point is, there was a congress of research physiologists end of the last year and some statements I heard are quite thrilling. I tried to get more infos if it may be possible to focus on harder workouts and optimum recovery. For average runners it works, also for elites?
This is nothing new. Physiologists have been saying that for decades. Enough coaches listened to them in the 80-90s that performances went south.
Many of the physiologists' theoretical conclusions do not match the real world empirical conclusions. When that happens in any other industry, the scientists go back to the drawing board and their theoretical models are redesigned or recalibrated.
The physiology community is just too far behind in understanding how the human body responds to training. That's understandable, and saying so is not an insult to them, because the human body is an exceptionally complex thing. It is a MUCH longer path to understand training via the physiology route than the route that experienced coaches take.
Personally (and professionally) I'm acutely aware of a very respected and famous physiologist that has been trying to change the way that a very successful endurance athlete trains. Her main coach has shielded her from these ideas for more than 4 years. And you know what? She's improved every single year to become one of the best in the world. Again, this is no disrespect to the physiologist. It is the physiology path that is inherantly flawed.
shipsy wrote:
HERE WAS THE REPLY TO RENATO's FALSE POST.
Onto the list - lets grab IAAF stats for a clearer picture. Now this list is missing one piece of essential information, except in one case. We don't know when you began coaching these people so cannot prove things one way or the other definitively. Perhaps you can add that information you forgot to include, except in that one case. Anyways i will still go ahead as things are pretty conclusive anyway.
FLORENCE KIPLAGAT (1987)
http://www.iaaf.org/athletes/biographies/letter=k/country=ken/athcode=226599/index.html---this is the example mo'pak has already pointed out as an example supporting my theory; the stats show this to be true, 3 years. But then you moved her out distances.
STEPHEN CHERONO (Saaeed SHAHEEN) (1982)
http://www.iaaf.org/athletes/biographies/letter=0/athcode=171720/index.html---the stats you provided go back to 1999. Did you start coaching him when he was 17? The stats above show he peaks in the steeple, his main event, in 2004 aged 23. His 5k peaked in 2003. We do need to know when he started with you to be more decisive but this looks exactly like a case of early burnout. 23 is young to be stopping improvement is it not?
MOSES MOSOP (1985)
http://www.iaaf.org/athletes/biographies/letter=0/athcode=188308/index.html--again we don't know when you started with him but lets say in 2003 at 18. I do remember he stood out one year at the training camps and somehow an Italian agent got him to you. Do you get this service often? I guess this explains how the complaint i hear around is that you cheery pick your athletes. The stats below show he peaked in 3k and 5k in 2006 aged 21. This is very early! It is also 3 years. 2007 went backwards and you began to move him out distance. Again the short 3 year period of improvement at the original events before stagnation ... so you move them out distance. This is a trend that is becoming increasingly clearer.
PAUL KOSGEI (1978)
http://www.iaaf.org/athletes/biographies/letter=0/athcode=56127/index.html--- Interesting example. 2000, aged 22 saw him peak in 3k and 5k and seemingly peak in 10k, but 2003 saw a new 10k peak, as he was moving out distance now yes? His 10k road still from 2002 though. Later he ran a 209 marathon in 2008 aged 30. This probably led you to see he would have been better off going longer at a younger age. You have applied this lesson well to the athletes that have come since him. This moving out distances at younger and younger ages ... Still this example only shows a long career, not development at the original event/s past 3 years. Why did he stop improving at his original distances? I guess this question can be asked about most of your athletes.
MARK BETT (1976)
http://www.iaaf.org/athletes/biographies/letter=0/athcode=21169/index.html---good story about working around his physical problem, but he stopped improving at 3k and 5k so early again. The stats below show 5k pb in 2000 aged 24 and 3k in 2001 aged 25. 10k continued to improve to 2005 as he moved out distances and ended up running some half marathons, but no marathons. Maybe this example supports the experience of kosgei above. Still it is hard to say anything in this case because each year might have seen his problem worsen in the second half of his 20s. But then again perhaps not being able to train consistently saw his career lengthen more than the norm. When did you start with him?
RAKYA MARAOUI-QUETIER (1967)
http://www.iaaf.org/athletes/biographies/country=fra/athcode=115208/index.html---first question is when did you begin with her and what exactly was your involvement over those 22 years o your involvement with her. First i like this sort of career, even moreso from someone not at the top level, however, we again see the loss of her original events, those shorter faster ones that your athletes seem to stop doing fairly quickly and seem to stop improving in after 3 years.
DORCUS INZIKURU (1982)
http://www.iaaf.org/athletes/biographies/letter=0/athcode=170929/index.html---another moving up distance example, 3k pb in 2003 aged 21 an 5k in 2004 aged 22, both never improved on. Moving out
to steeple saw a pb in 2005 in her third year of racing the event. Almost the purest example in this list of someone who peaked early and performed at a lower level ever after.
SYLVIA KIBET (1984)
http://www.iaaf.org/athletes/biographies/letter=0/athcode=171450/index.html---here we could have a winner. 4 seasons of improvement is this true? 2010 peaking in most events but 2011 backwards and then career over? Anyway this sole example proves me wrong and her is someone improving in their 4th season.
I'm glad i put the effort into this. The above list not only further proves my point it expands it a little. It more clearly highlights the moving out of distances aspect to Canova's approach. Still, when it comes to the shorter faster distances, the ones requiring a higher degree of athleticism for success, the Canova approach doesn't seem to get anywhere. When it comes to marathons the jury i guess is still out. Bring on Mosop's next few marathons.
[/quote]
I see years of brilliant running performances from those athletes, what do you see?
what's your point? wrote:I see years of brilliant running performances from those athletes, what do you see?
Oh that is there but the point is that Canova doesn't have athletes who continued to improve in their main event beyond their third season. Long term development just does not happen.
Anyway if you take the time to read the comments on each athlete and the statistics behind them you will also see more specific comments as well.
The real subject here should be about recovery, not easy running. Here is my 2 cents:
In order to run a faster race time, a runner must ADAPT to that specific pace they are training for, which are what interval workouts are for with limited rest bouts. If a runner does a demanding workout, then eventually the runner MUST recover from that workout in order to get the benefits from it. If the runner does not recover, the muscles delay the rebuilding process, and therefore the runner is not adapted to the work they just did until they give the body rest...which eventually will happen on its own as the runner's pacing slows naturally...whether they like it or not...or worse they'll get injured. You can run a hard workout day after day, but eventually it will catch up to you and is not the proper way to train. On the contrary, NOT RUNNING AT ALL the day following a workout is RELATIVE to the athlete's OVERALL MILEAGE AND EVENT THEY ARE TRAINING FOR. Mileage and easy running are 2 different things...people keep confusing the 2 here. Rest is allowing the body to recover. So, for one person, running easy 45 min the day after a hardworkout could be a "rest day" for them, and actually help them recover better than if they did absolutely nothing. Why? Because blood flow helps to repair damaged muscles. The easy run has a purpose-to RECOVER while doing the activity one is training to be the best at. The best thing a trunner can do to IMPROVE their running is to run. There is no other activity better. SUPPLEMENTAL TRAINING is good like pool running which MIMICS running without the pounding and can be an aerobic benefit(however if done too much cross training can take away from the athlete's overall performance in workouts). I view "easy running" as several different paces actually. A day after a workout might just be a casual run with not much break in a sweat-the goal here is to allow the body to clear out the gunk from the day before and recover as quickly as possible, whereas another day of just "mileage" might be a more moderate paced run but certainly not a workout. Higher mileage runners tend to be more familiar with this. It's all about what you're trying to accomplish. And it's also balancing INTENSITY AND MILEAGE. Higher mileage runners typically will need to do less intensity(intensity meaning speed), while lower mileage runners may be able to do a multiple speed sessions which would benefit them for what they're training for(ex. a mid-distance runner). So, a longer distance runner on higher mileage might do a trackworkout of 1200s during the week, and then a tempo on the weekend or just a hard long run or combination of both in one run, whereas a middistance runner with lower mileage might do 1 short repetition workout(200s and 400s) and another 1200 repeats workout. The point I now want to make is that the middistance runner may not run as "slow" on their easy runs as the longer distance runner, because they're mileage is a bit lower. But it is still a relatively "easy effort." EVERYONE, REGARDLESS OF WHAT THEY'RE TRAINING FOR, NEEDS TO DO EASY RUNNING. The paces just may vary a bit depending on mileage. When I run my highest mileage, my pace will vary more, some runs will be quite slow, but others very fast. Compensation is the art of easy running.
turkey leg wrote:
[quote]Need_speed wrote:
This is nothing new. Physiologists have been saying that for decades. Enough coaches listened to them in the 80-90s that performances went south.
Many of the physiologists' theoretical conclusions do not match the real world empirical conclusions. When that happens in any other industry, the scientists go back to the drawing board and their theoretical models are redesigned or recalibrated.
The physiology community is just too far behind in understanding how the human body responds to training. That's understandable, and saying so is not an insult to them, because the human body is an exceptionally complex thing. It is a MUCH longer path to understand training via the physiology route than the route that experienced coaches take.
Personally (and professionally) I'm acutely aware of a very respected and famous physiologist that has been trying to change the way that a very successful endurance athlete trains. Her main coach has shielded her from these ideas for more than 4 years. And you know what? She's improved every single year to become one of the best in the world. Again, this is no disrespect to the physiologist. It is the physiology path that is inherantly flawed.
I must admit that I can´t refute what you have written. Let alone that I got contradictory answers to questions about easy runs/recovery runs from physiologists.
But I am still fascinated about this issue.
As a result of our discussion I would propound that it might be of interest to clarify if elites can reduce the poundings of high mileage running without any performance loss (even the empirical data says no way). Peace?
Kind regards.
Need_speed wrote:
...it might be of interest to clarify if elites can reduce the poundings of high mileage running without any performance loss (even the empirical data says no way). Peace?
Kind regards.
It seems to me that reducing pounding (repetitive stress) requires either
(0) running less
(1) running slower
(2) running softer
(3) more variation (less "repetitive")
I cannot think of anything specific to running other than these three. (2) is also pretty vague. I guess "soft" running is minimizing a sum of stresses on different physiological systems, since decreasing stress in one area often creates it somewhere else.
dyude wrote:
It seems to me that reducing pounding (repetitive stress) requires either
(0) running less
(1) running slower
(2) running softer
(3) more variation (less "repetitive")
I cannot think of anything specific to running other than these three. (2) is also pretty vague. I guess "soft" running is minimizing a sum of stresses on different physiological systems, since decreasing stress in one area often creates it somewhere else.
I think (2) includes running on Alter-G or Hydroworx dreadmill, or even just running on a softer surface (wood chip, dirt trail, grass,etc.) as opposed to pavement.
I have a question regarding (1). How slow can we really get without losing the physiological benefits? If I run at 9 min/mile pace, my heart rate goes barely above 50% of maximum. Am I getting meaningful physiological benefits? Is it still better than reaching 60-75% of max heart rate on bike or elliptical, because I am getting running specific benefits? (This is not a rhetorical question. I am just asking.)
Need_speed wrote:
As a result of our discussion I would propound that it might be of interest to clarify if elites can reduce the poundings of high mileage running without any performance loss (even the empirical data says no way). Peace?
Kind regards.
Hasn't that been your question all along? And haven't you read all of the responses? You've got your answer. You can choose to accept it or go ask another place. But I still think your best answer will come from trying your idea yourself, like many of us have, so you will prove it to yourself one way or another. There's no substitue for experience.
an injured runner wrote:
I have a question regarding (1). How slow can we really get without losing the physiological benefits? If I run at 9 min/mile pace, my heart rate goes barely above 50% of maximum. Am I getting meaningful physiological benefits? Is it still better than reaching 60-75% of max heart rate on bike or elliptical, because I am getting running specific benefits? (This is not a rhetorical question. I am just asking.)
Perhaps you should be asking how fast can you run and still get the physiological benefits of rest! Also, there is more to life than resting and running really hard. Or maybe not. haha.
Some people say that running slower than 55% of vVO2 max has no physiological benefits. The sub-2:07 Japanese marathon dude who ran tons of 5 minutes per kilometer runs might be going even a little slower than 55%.
Why in the world would you think Canova has some secret knowledge when he has gone over there and cherry-picked from a huge litter of crops?!?Brother Colm O'Connell was there long before Canova, actually developing the litter of talent from a young age.
statatician wrote:
calypsokid wrote:just look at Canova's athletes, he gets the best pre-trained specimens on the planet, and within three seasons has completely stopped their improvement
why?
because he cuts into their historical mileage and after three years has compromised their base.
that's a blatant lie that's been refuted by HIM numerous times.
why would you just get on here and lie? what's the point?
stop lying. it's no good.