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

Renato wrote:

"long run at low intensity is useless"

Is recovery useless in the modern training?

Once again you are mix-up 2 different training concepts that covers 2 different training directions in hill workouts.

In effect one training direction is to train for what I call to train for “physical/physiologic requirement” and a second training direction is to train for the “specific needs of each distance event”.

If you want to train speed – your own absolute speed – that´s the talent to run an intense pace as you are able for a very short period duration, you are training for the “physiology”, you shall train according that speed concept, faster as you are able, max. speed or full pace according each set distance (if you that in sets model), almost full/complete recover, because each time that you do a next one set you only are able to run that you full/max. pace if you did the time to recover. This is independently from what training format or what training surface gradient – rather you do that in flat or hill –you must essay max speed. Of course, despite that “pure speed” that doesn´t exist really, “pure speed” would mean your peak/extreme speed - because even ultra short distances (let´s thing one second) that needs also some effort extend of effort – some resistance or some endurance (ex: 10seconds hill up ) , and also when you are repeating short sets of short effort duration in your maximum pace intensity – speed - and in a quite complete recover – 3 minutes for the same 10seconds hill example, and even that that you aren´t doing too much sets – that needs some effort endurance and resistance while you repeat another set – and that´s find that you repeat again and again that speed/strength training with complete recover, because longer distance events that works with extensive efforts also.

I think that Baldini (following the same Baldini example) isn´t doing Pure Speed oe training for the Physilogy requirements when he trains that specifics as 2:50 to 3:00 minutes pace. But this is during the marathon specific plan – when he trains speed for the distance event, because in the intervals of the marathons he trains more closely to sped for the physiology. Take a look in Baldini site

http://www.maratoneti.com/baldini/home.asp

and read his weekly training schedule when he is “out of the marathon plan”

The program is naturally edited by Luciano Gigliotti.

Mattino MONDAY: heating 30' + 3 x 15' circuit training (es. technical + 200m in 36 "for 12' + 1 km 2' 45")

Afternoon: 50' easy

Mattino TUESDAY: 1h with 10 it lengthens

Afternoon: 50' + stretching

Mattino WEDNESDAY: 20' + 14 km Deep Varied Mean (1500m 4' 45"/4' 50"+ 500m 1' 24"/1' 26")

Afternoon: 40' easy

Mattino THURSDAY: 1h15 ' with 10 Parazza massage lengthens +

Afternoon: 50' + potenziamento

Mattino FRIDAY: 40' + 15 x 100m and 2 x 300m sprint in climb recovery 1' 15"

Afternoon: 40' /50 '

Mattino SATURDAY: Heating + 10 x 1000m recovery 200m in 60"(training in track with chiodate)

Afternoon: 40'

Mattino SUNDAY: 1h30 ' to collinare

This is more directy to “train for the physiology” in speed and strength than training for the “marathon plan” in the marathon speed intensities.

And most of the paces are “pure speed more than marathon speed”.

The same different training directions that is also true for Resistance training or Lactate management training or whatever. The fact is that Americans (and not just Americans) they simply miss that 2 concepts – and work only in a single training direction – the american case is that as there are too much scientific “pollution” that sometimes have an aspect as a “science faith” in their training concepts they just train for the “physiology” and they don´t look what are the needs of a the run event. Of course that if you are doing a 28:00 you don´t need to train in 2:30 by kilo pace because in no one occasion of that your run that 10000m you run in a 2:30 pace.

In the case of the hills training that´s “quite famous” actually despite that´s an old training format – , if you are training for the speed/strength physiology requirement – naturally you may train high gradient, short sets, full pace/max.intensity and quite complete/long recover. Besides that promotes your natural speed by neuro muscular strength/potency and also efficiency, that also promotes some cardio-vascular effect as well as an some anaerobic state by the reps accumulation. All this is done with a lesser intense pace that if you would do in a flat surface – a track. Besides due to the muscular effort that´s climb if you train in that same purpose in a flat surface you would need a tremendous fast pace but that will get with lesser efficiency than in the hills – in the case of the flat you would need to shorter the intervals to take the same cardio-vascular effort zone that you would take in a hilly surface, and that´s no good because that goes against the rule that´s speed requirement training rule – long, complete recover, or you aren´t able to run that faster.

Antonio great post. I think if i can comment on the problems some coaches have and Renato shared as well is too much emphasis on training that is purely physiological especially in the last phase. Instead of training in the specificity and the at the next aerobic support levels they train at super high lactate levels and nothing aerobically that acts as any support. If people can take anything away from what Renato is teaching us is that every speed is a different means of training. The difference is you cover so many different speeds that are closer to the exact system you will use in the race without overtraining and using too much specific work or just hard trainng to far from the direction you need. Instead of high lactate in same direction many times hopefully think specificity and support for the specificity. Sharpening at ranges to wide is too inefficient. Also i think the most important thing for Americans to see is everthing is connected you need it all and in every phase. Antonio and Renato thanks for all you share.

BONO

Let made myself more clear in my concepts. If I say train for the “physiologic requirement” that´s according my Space and Time training method, eventually some Americans when they hear me say “train for the physiology” they understand train in in max.VO2 zone or m.MaxVO2 zone (the pace when they say that max.VO2” occurs) or that I advise to train in AnT physiology (the pace that they say that you ru in anaerobic threshold). No I don´t use that nothing and I think that paces are is quite irrelevant – not to say that don´t mean nothing to the training schedule - as training pace definitions.

When I say “training for the physiology” I want to say basically for the training paces that large pace zone discrimination requires – speed, resistance, lactate management and steady state or aerobic or endurance as some calls that . That´s better to say “train for Absolut Speed” – each individual absolute speed, speed here that´s defined as each individual full pace in high intensity for a short limited run period/distance. As you may call Absolut Resistance – your best pace that you can delay that pace for a extend distance, and Absolut Lactate management – that´s the best pace you can run in a sub-maximal pace, and Absolut steady state. Of course that we are commenstimg and discuss here what are consider the workouts – a training format that´s focus in that one large pace zones. Absolut doesn´t exist in a space concept, since time and distance are infinite, but we aren´t discussing philosophy !

For me VO2 that´s or any other estimate zone by some test analysis, that´s simply a data and nothing more, quite irrelevant in the training process, because what´s the real focus of training analysis for a training direction that´s whe you run a certain distance (or several sets) and that pace result that´s gives me the training direction and not that now have a better VO2. Consequently VO2 means nothing or too little to the training direction.

As I think I said to you once BONO, In my opinion the substance/the issue of the training issue that´s in quite permanent change and no coach can have the pretension (or naivety) of wanting to train or the paradigm of “the fashion according to that”. The process of training, the concepts and their turn on to a training method, that needs stability and steady ideas in the coach mind, test by the experience and that are something that needs time and stability, cannot go behind fashions or of the last tests made with rats, or with humans with machines in runner´s or whatever. That Includes top class runners.

It is truth that Italian, Finland, Spain and Britain or American athletes they had been successfully supported by the Physiology a lot. But it is also truth that the Portuguese (years 70 and 80) had a quite similar success and that had not been supported by "thresholds” or that kind of modern ideas and concepts – that we respect – but that are inconclusive - for the good or bad of the physiologists. Most of that Portuguese performances rarely were surpass by a non African.

Actually Africans they take the lead in almost all running distance events. The reason of their larger success that´s not in physiology field for sure, or that his training have more scientific accuracy than the rest of the world. We need to take in consideration that the reason for African supremacy that´s not in the fact that they have a powerful physiology support than us – the non- Africans. That´s not in the fact we have more facilities to train that them, or any other scientific or whatever reason, including that they have best coaches – most of their coaches that train them they are Europeans ! Simply that´s not hard to understand that for the moment the distance is on the fact they run faster than us – run faster means basically to cover a certain distance in les time duration. Once again we get back to the basics – time over matters.

But coming back to my original idea about both need the training for the physiology and the training for the specifics – I would say that this defines the 2 basic phases. The introductory phase and the late phase the specific phase.

If you are training speed strength (that´s what we are discussing in that hill format) and you are in a “physiologic training phase” you train ex: 8-10X40m uphill/full pace-max.intensity rec=full recover (ex:2:30 walk back). This is valid for everyone, from an 800m runner to a marathon runner, that is suppose to promote absolute/speed for all. Thata workout model works for all, simply some do that faster and some do that slower, and some need more rest and some need less rest, and some feel plenty, and some are able to do 12 sets without get back the workout target. Some need to cutt-off the set distance, some work find with 50m or some 20seconds, some are able to extend that distance/duration. Now think that you are running for ex: 30min in a intense but submaximal pace – that´s lacatate management pace. That Absolut LTM for everybody, what changes that´s once again individual capacity, but the workout design that´s smilar to everybody in that physiologic training requirement. This is the reason why durimg the winter, in a building-non competitive season the training schedule that´s quite similar for runners that are training for different training distance events, and you see some training units that are quite similar for a 1500m as for a 5000m or 10000m runner a marathon runner. Why? Because each one and all they are training for the the same physiology requirements or absolute workouts, what changes are just the capacity they have. Eventually a marathon runner end that 8X50m hills in 24sec average pace and a 800m runner ends that same workouts with a 20sec average range pace. This is the fact why we see El Guerrouj training during the winter season similar to the rest of the runners of that group.

Now, the summer comes, and a different concept arrives. Now, each runner needs to train more and more individualised workouts. Now, the workouts are not according absolute paces, but according specific paces for the each run event needs. In the same example, the 800m runner now he does 10-12X80m hills up/98% pace with 3min rest but the cross runner do 15-18X200m hills/90% pace with 2min jog back (incomplete and active recover). Now, in the specific phase/period we need to train more and more according the Space (distance event) and Time (estimate Race Pace) and then

Sometimes people ask me “But now that you are training him and that he is close to the peak competition the paces are slower than in an earlier phase?” Yes, because, now they are training for the specificity of the distance event, and previous he did training for the physiology mainly.

In my opinion both absolute paces and specific paces both are needed.

We need to train in our maximum potentials – ex: absolute pace in speed – that will help further up our Race Pace speed, and also Absolut LT pace will help specific Lactate Management for the specific event – that some calls MassLass.

We know that each “subsidiary” pace – subsidiary means the ones that are closer (a bit faster or bit slower) than each one you consider – they help each other, so that´sthe reason you need to consider and to train both – absolute pace and distance event pace.

Thus, if you are in an introductory period, or out of the “specific training for an event distance” for each runner you have only one physiologic pace intensity for speed, one physiologic pace intensity for resistance, and one LTM pace intensity for each single runner independently of what is the runner event speciality. Now, for that same runner, if he decide to train for a cross run, or a 5000m track run, you have at least one pace intensity for each distance event and for each training direction, thus a speed pace for 800m a different speed pace for 1500m etc, and also a different Race Pace for each different event – in the specific phase – while training for the specific distance event - to train for the Race Pace event that´s to train for Resistance (what some call strength endurance if that´s in sets).

I appreciate the answer Antonio(good points!! I enjoyed reading your last two posts). But I think that everyone who has answered me has misunderstood me a bit, and that is likely my fault because I DID reply directly to Renato's posts about fast hill repeats to develop pure speed. But I was only focusing on his final statements on that post, and taking them a bit out of context, so I suppose that was my fault.

I was focusing on his comments about the fact that short a-lactic sprints can be done very often " without any problem and without any interference with other type of training." So one would think that short a-lactic sprints are a positive, AND EASILY(without too much stress to the athlete) REPEATABLE, stimulus to the neuromuscular system, i.e., create efficient pathways for neuromuscular efficiency at race pace. While I FULLY understand that one can not work on pure speed without MAX efforts, and FULL recoveries over short distances, one CAN improve neuromuscular efficiencies at paces that are less-than-all-out, but that are still "fast" (race pace or faster). And one can repeat these types of "sprints" maybe 100 (more or less) times in a workout, while keeping HR in the aerobic zone(both during repeat and rest interval), thus achieving a solid, moderate aerobic effort, but also race-pace neuromuscular efficiencies. THAT was the only point I was trying to make. And I was only making the point to build off of Renato’s first comment about the need for "the biggest percentage of training (being) in aerobic way, because the intensity is lower and you don't need long recovery." And the workout I discuss IS aerobic, thus could be a "big % of training" for an athlete. And then Renato’s other comment I focused on was about "short sprints…. not provoking high lactate…(one) can go often for this type of workout, without any problem and without any interference with other type of training." Again….the workout I discuss ALSO involves alactic "short sprints", so again, could be easily repeatable. And, before anyone comments….AGAIN….I am FULLY aware that such sprints do not work on PURE speed. I never suggested that. But they DO work on specific race-pace speed, specific neuromuscular efficiency at race-pace or faster.

So really I was just using Renato’s comments to support, IN MY MIND (and that has not changed from follow up comments), the outstanding applicability of the type of workout I discuss, which once again I will repeat was a STANDARD workout used by Mihaly Igloi’s athletes in Hungary and the US, producing several world records and several outstanding Olympic performances. In fact, Bob Schul did the type of workout I mention (with variability, sometimes obviously harder efforts than others) sometimes THIRTEEN times a week. During such weeks (which were not uncommon for him), he did ZERO hill workouts, ZERO tempo runs, ZERO long runs, ZERO long intervals, ZERO drill work, ZERO easy jog workouts. Just short, fast 100-200 meter sprint repeats, done over and over and over and over again. Clearly it was a workout that produced results, and I attribute the results to the reasons I already mentioned: it was a workout that was aerobic, allowed good amounts of volume (distance, miles covered in the workout), AND worked on race-pace or faster speed, i.e., neuromuscular efficiency at fast paces……but without the anaerobic strain of typical race-pace workouts. Most people think:

1) moderate effort aerobic runs MUST BE STEADY EFFORTS, with no "breaks." And..

2) "speed" workouts must be either

A) PURE SPEED work (MAX pace sprints with FULL recovery), or

B) HARD AEROBIC efforts (longer repeats where HR climbs quite high….maybe to Lactate Threshhold or higher)

C) HARD ANAEROBIC EFFORTS (all-out anerobic efforts, where Lactate climbs quite high during workout, and Max HR is sometimes achieved)

But I was only pointing out that an aerobic efforts could involve "fast running" AND remain fully aerobic, and contain LOTS of volume, as long as one did the workout in the Igloi/Schul manner: very short sprints(fast, fairly hard, but not all out), with very short EASY recoveries.

That’s it !!! I was just singing the praises of this type of underused workout. So I think there were some miscommunications. But no need for further clarifications, unless you feel like it.

Lance

For several reasons you shall not do that hill workout daily. Even the best food – you you eat that exclusively that turn on to be a wrong food for you, so you need to change. The next reason is that you need to train for you lack points, and not your strong points. If you feel fantastic after dong that daily that´s not the reason to do more – this is another mistake – people need to train enough, not exceed the training frequency or the training volume. Once again a good workout can turn on a negative result. For the other side what you say that´s impossible. If you do some hills short sets in your maximum pace, despite that you have a complete recover, after some sets amount – the quality of your sets that will fall in less quality. I don´t imagine that you are able to repeat let´s 10Xshort hill sets in max/full pace intensity in the same chrono pace range average that you are able to do 20sets. That´s illogical according to the time and space rule – the more sets you do the lesser your pace.

A final reason not to abuse is that after doing a bunch of sets of that speed/strength hills sets in the cardio-vascular systems you feel find and you don´t feel the tiredness and after ending you think “I will double that easily”, but muscular system is “lazy” to show tiredness and the consequences of a certain effort. Let me say to you this, You run a cross run, net day you feel fantastic, 2 days later you start feeling tough, and sometimes that´s only 3 days after that you fell the hurt and the pain, the reason is that muscles need more time to show the consequence of that effort run that cardio-vascular system this last ones sometimes in some hours after the run you are recover.

One more reason I don´t advise you to do that daily is that to train implies change efforts. Don´t you see that joggers/average runners that they train quite the same everyday, This is wrong for any improvement. For a good improvement you need to run in different intensities/paces, different duration, different training formats to recruit different physic requirements. Then if you adopt a steady daily exercise that you traij the same standard pattern everyday, that would be wrong.

As Memory Fading is not right let me made you know some facts and data about that Lopes-Mamede issue.

During their long careers Lopes and Mamede did run one against each other at their top level more THAN 2 hundred times. That´s no mistake, more than 2 hundred times, consider track, road and cross, in national runs and international runs. Thus memory fading made me smile when he says that they meet 9 times.

That´s not rare that they run one against each other every week in week out, if not every week in, because they compete often and with full competitive schedules, for their team, both are from the same team, for his country and in national and international meetings.

In that complete Lopes versus Mamede runs, I just remember that Lopes did loose in 3 occasions – one the WR, second the European record, and third in a National cross that Lopes did end in 4th, while doing bluff to made us believe that he is out of shape, when 2 weeks later he did win the world cross while Mamede did 10th place.

But wait…While Carlos Lopes did win a vast majority of that runs, including medals in Big Games, Mamede was a better chrono that Lopes really. With the exception of the marathon, Mamede did better PB´s than Lopes in all distances from 800m to the road 10 miles, and Mamede did 19 portuguese records. He also did 13 times less than 28:00in the 10000m, which is more than the double than Lopes. The first one that broke that 13 sub 28:00 that´s Haile Gebre.

One more point. I don´t remember what are the last lap from that 10000m WR precisely, but that´s less than 60seconds, no doubt. But that Mamede did often the last lap from their 5000m and 1000m in 52sec to 54sec, he did that.

One occasion I remember that´s in Lisbon when he did first of the 3 occasions records that he broke the 10000m European record. He did 27:22 with the first half in 13:55 – so second and last 5000m in 13:27 with the last lap in 53 seconds. He did that alone and with no rabbits to help him a solo run – he overlap by 2 laps the runner that did the second place.

Now some comments about last posts in this thread. I think that some considerations in that discussion that makes no sense.

In my opinion that´s quite irrelevant what´s the aerobic or anaerobic range average of a certain distance event. I would prefer to train for a better performance or a PB – I just need to know in what direction I shall train that one runner according his own string and weak characteristics for such a distance event - independently of what amount of aerobic or anaerobic that means. Besides this is a question similar to the one I read often in lots of posts – that´s the maxVO2 training or AnT training concepts – no one can guarantee you that by follow what the scientists and what they consider that training intensity zones – VO2 or AnT – no one can guarantee we get the best training results.

Of course that´s not a surprise that training in that paces a runner improves. Most of the times that´s better to train and recruit than if you don´t train – the reason that´s simply because training that´s a inner load and a over compensation. But the question is that what you would improve if instead of training that conventional VO2 or AnT workouts you will train differently, hills for example ?

No one can guarantee that if a runner spend more time/distance training in what they consider maxVO2 or VVo2 pace that´s the most efficient specific pace for a good improvement, as no one can guarantee that´s by training in that theory or real AnT zone/pace that you get the best fruits of your training. If so ther´s no need to train speed or recover runs. What´s to train for the marathon and spend 2% of anaerobic training. 2% of what? Percent of distance? Percent of intensity? Percent Total volume? That makes no sense. The same for every different distance.

Another range of considerations that latterly I read in this thread is the one of the workout results -people that claims that is very good in doing workouts. Somesay" he is not a bterr runner but he does a better workout averege than the other". What that means ? There are any book of records for the best workouts? No, what counts are the real runs and those who win and those who run fast. The workout sessions that are simply training – nothing but training. So, what´s the meaning to discuss that Bob Kennedy he isn´t able to do so and so workout, and that Sebastian Coe he is and on and on ?. A Bob Kennedy that did a so many times sub 13:00 as no one non- African did yet, and if you say that in his 400m speed he is limited, so we need to conclude that his training shall be quite correct according 5000m events. I don+t subscribe their workouts - but that they are correct for his won case they are, just for him…and that´s the reason he did what he did with less 400m talent than the others.

Thanks Antonio. But a couple final points by me( I think there were some more misunderstandings)-

1) I was NOT describing a hill workout. The Igloi/Schul workout I described was on the flat.

2) The short sprint repeats I described are NOT done at MAX effort. I never said that. They are done at RACE PACE (or a little faster) pace. Hard, but controlled. Clearly not MAX EFFORT SPRINTS, and thus can be repeated a LOT in a single workout, even after only a short rest interval period (and because of rests, remain aerobic)

3) While Schul DID use that workout sometimes TWICE DAILY....I was not saying that that was necessarily a good idea (though it DID produce a gold medal and world record for Schul......so don't forget that). Even Schul now says that such a workout should only be used a few times a week. So I was not recommending daily use of that workout, but saying: it can be used in place of the typical STEADY STATE, moderate effort aerobic run that most people use.

Lance

I agree you with. Simply in my post reply to you i will try to do some emphasis in the fact that you it seems to miss - that´s a big issue - training Frequency and training Extend consequences. And now i´m glad that you and 1064 Toquio 5000m gold medal Bob Schul you both agree with me, that my advise, all needs to be progressively in a training approach - all that rules are valid for a workout in all out pace (as my hill example) as for submaximal paces (as you example)

I say also this because in my opinion one of the main mistakes i see in some schedules that´s the inflate of hard demanding workouts. The simplistic taugh that more is better, more workouts weekly, more sets etc that will mean quickly improve when most of the times that means a disaster.

Antonio--

Bob Kennedy said himself with better 400m speed he could have been an Olympic gold medalist.

Right, if he'd run 42.9 he'd have been Olympic gold medalist.

Renato,I want to be sure I understand the second to the last thing you wrote. "long run at low intensity is useless, and max lactic speed also." In your system, what do you mean by max lactic speed? Also, what do you think of the training of Dieter Baumann and some Japanese runners with lots of long run at low intensity?

Racer 1

In Kennedy case what´s relevant is that a runner with confined speed is simply the best cherono 5000m performer of all time considering the non-african born. so many times sub 13:00 and also a lot of good results, much better than Bauman that did olympic gold - that´s true - but never did so many times sub 13 as Bob did.

Now tell me how many runers with faster 400m than Kennedy that they simply haven´t been the talent to be in the olympics not win a medal. Thousands and thousands, so kennedy he may be consider a very good 5000m performer indeed.

So, if Bob said what you say i understand his frustration, but also i undrestand his great victory to overcome that speed confinement, that´s really a genius. There are somthing in his training that fits perfect into their needs, or he would never did that sub 13:00 - the more training in sea level.

My only regret is that Bob seems not to pay attention to outdoors - road and cross. That´s typical from an american atitude. Only the track matters. Well he did a world cross some years ago, and now he tries the marathon. I think that if he did try some winter outdoors he would be able him to do a chrono very close very close to 27:00 in the 10000m if not the first non- african to do a sub 27:00 that i´m waiting for, but this is simply a my own opinion. Eventually he did train in faster paces (i think that he said so) and also did workouts with more frequency that he should have done, but this is also a personal opinion, but i keep thinking that´s great talent that didn´t reach their limits yet. Also tye fact that the frequent injuries did enables him a lot.

Bob Kennedy ran sub-13:00 TWICE:

Stockholm 1996, 12:58.75 behind Komen's 12:51, 2nd place

Zurich 1996, 12:58.21 behind 4 others (Komen, Gebrselassie, Tergat, Boulami)

Baumann did it once FASTER: Zurich 1997, 12:54.70, European Record

I do not know ANY runner who would rather have 2 sub-13:00 times than would rather have an OLYMPIC GOLD MEDAL (1992 for Baumann), an OLYMPIC SILVER MEDAL (1988), and a 12:54 European Record (1997).

The medals are FAR MORe IMPORTANT.

Not just "American" attitude. El Guerrouj, Gebrselassie, and many others focus SOLELY on track and they are the greatest in the world.

Even Rui Silva; I only ever hear about him running indoor and outdoor TRACK. Maybe he runs road races in Portugal, but I never see him doing World Cross-Country or jumping into a marathon. To race fast on the track takes very specific preparation.

To do well on the track is more prestigious, I think, than the roads.

He was not injured very much.

In 1996 he had a stress fracture. He cross-trained using a bike, got off the bike and began racing at the Prefontaine Classic with a 3:56 mile PR.

Later in the summer, 2 12:58 5,000's.

In 2000 he harmed his back when a driver slammed into the back of his car going 50 mph.

He ran many times 13:02-13:10, very consistent. I think he achieved his potential.

Racer1,

I think that runners like El Guerrouj, Geb, Silva, etc. run indoors instead of XC because they are much more likely to win indoors than on XC, and because they'll make more money for it.

Only now, in the last two seasons of his career, is El

Guerrouj giving XC an honest go (since his junior days).

trackhead wrote:

Racer1,

I think that runners like El Guerrouj, Geb, Silva, etc. run indoors instead of XC because they are much more likely to win indoors than on XC, and because they'll make more money for it.

Only now, in the last two seasons of his career, is El

Guerrouj giving XC an honest go (since his junior days).

Possibly, but I am fairly confident Bekele gets a nice sum for winning 6 X-C titles.

As for likelihood of winning, the very best in the world should be selecting the most competitive races, not the ones only where they will win. If they are indeed the best, they should be looking for the challenge to expand their own limits, not taking a paycheck and a tactical indoor win (the WRs indoors are comparatively slow in most cases, even for some of the "fast" races; 1500 "only" 3:31, whereas El Guerrouj has compared running some 3:29's in the Golden League to "jogging").

Outdoor track really seems to generate far more interest among worldwide track fans.

Outdoors there are more events, faster times, measurable progress (World and Continental Records, etc.), more championships and possible medals, better crowds (especially in Europe, as in Zurich where the crowd applauds the whole 5,000m) and a different atmosphere.

For me, it is not surprising why Kennedy picks outdoor as his one and only focus.

Who is Renato Canova anyway? When I saw this thread, I thought "renato canova" was some weird harry potter curse.

I want some serious answers

Racer1 wrote:

As for likelihood of winning, the very best in the world should be selecting the most competitive races, not the ones only where they will win.

That's probably why Kennedy never ran high level 10000 meter races then.

Because he was not competitive at them.

observer of taking up space wrote:

Racer1 wrote:

As for likelihood of winning, the very best in the world should be selecting the most competitive races, not the ones only where they will win.

That's probably why Kennedy never ran high level 10000 meter races then.

Because he was not competitive at them.

That doesn't make sense. High level 10K races ARE the most competitive.

A good athlete like Kennedy, trying to overtake his limits, SHOULD be seeking out these types of races. He did run a good 10K in 1999 (Palo Alto, I believe) as well as one this past summer.

He was much better at the 5K and focused on this. His career took a turn towards the 10K in the summer because of declining shorter speed, not the competitiveness of the races.