Renato:
I can't find the article you speak of on the EAA website. Help! Thank you.
Renato:
I can't find the article you speak of on the EAA website. Help! Thank you.
cheers Mr Canovo, all so informative in a very developed way. I also like the way you've identified the two opposite types.
What is your opinion of Lydiard?
Caroline yes i'm an Aussie. As i understand it Lydiard was a rugby player who one season realised how unfit he was and embarked on a training plan. He got very into it and became almost obsessed. Eventually while preparing for a marathon another marathoner started training with him. After much success younger runners began with him and he produced a few gold medals. Three of them were from the same street. He coached very few people before travelling the world and influencing a few different countries. Peter Snell is still alive and surely can dispell any Lydiard myths. I reckon Lydiard would have been stoked if New Zealand managed to beat us in a Rugby Match.
cheers for the great info.
I'm just wondering if anyone has integrated successfully the periodisation approach with training directly for metabolic indicators like the LT, AT, VO2max?
I agree both ways here because i think Lydiard's approach can be refined, however, i think is on a different path to interval training thus they are difficult to compare. Having said that i think the information put out by Bompa on perdiodisation and his predecessor who developed the approach (name escapes me) is the most advanced approach to periodisation. The German interval training was simply an aspect of Soviet periodisation. Their approach was more holistic for me.
Returning to how to improve upon Lydiard's approach without disrupting the fundamentals whic Mr Canaday likes as do I. Since i'm not visionary i don't have a way to do this. What i do have is a deep grounding in periodisation (my coach was a Ukraine coach who left for Australia. He was a student of track and field and philosophy when periodisation was initially being developed. HIs system of training here in Austrlia in his words was the product of many influences. I discovered only today (i'm 36 and began with him at 18) that Lydiard had a major influence in how he developed his program without the assistance of drugs which were the norm when he was a coach back home.
So for me as a young coach living next door to Lydiard's home with a coach initially influenced by Soviet periodisation and later by Lydiard himself (he met Arthur in the Ukraine before he left), i guess i should continue to follow along this same line. It's where i've ended up anyway through my process of investigation and acceptance/rejection.
Can someone on here far more experienced than me give some sound advice as to this direction? Mr Canovo? anyone?
I ask because i have the athlete that can do potentially anything. I want to be clear for him more than anything.
cheers mates ... haha
Caroline No wrote:
"Here we go again". Who is infecting threads. I have'nt seen any of the regular "Lydiardites" jumping on here.
funniest thing i did read all day. but i was still concerned about what form and finish speed defines the lydiardite. 'o look, there's a lydiardite running. you can tell.' how is that?
well i guess its kind of tricky. However, it stems from the technical approach he had with his athletes and this is well defined in his manual. It also stems from the advantage an athlete gains from having such a deep and well spread aerobic base. The base simply allows for less accumulation of lactic acid. Therefore the Lydiard trained athlete will usually kick away at the end of a race with excellent form.
Lydiard had a basic reasoning. The potential aerobic development was potentially unlimited. Capilliarisation just keeps deepening, mitochondria continues to multiply, the heart contines to gradually enlargen. Lydiard saw a ceiling on the anaerobic development so he only had a short phase up maximum 6 weeks where the base for this is developed. Then comes a 6 week phase called sharpening where full speed qualities are allowed to emerge. Then the racing period.
I'm not sure what a good argument against this approach is.
IQ100 wrote:
Renato Canova wrote:So, my conclusion is that FOR WEAKER ATHLETES BLOOD DOPING CAN HAVE EFFECT ON THEIR PERFORMANCE, but for TOP TALENTED ATHLETES NO EFFECT.
BUT, NORMALLY, ARE NOT THE BEST.
Renato
To say that they aren´t the best is this a kind of a joke?
Let me permit to post part of one personal e-mail you sent me some years ago. I do this for 2 reasons.
First. Once for all i want to use your own testimony to deny those who still insist that Viren didn’t took self blood transfusion. If we trust on you VIREN TOOK BLOOD really as well as most of the Finns from that period and we know the Finn Federation had a plan. I also may allow all that as you said, this wasnt doping before 1984.
Second reason to post this your e-mail is that IF YOU DON´T CONSIDER THE BEST OF THEIR TIMES Juha Vaatainen (double european champ), Viren (2 times winner of olymopic double 5000m-10000m and several world records, Pekka Vasala (1500m olympic winner), or Alberto Cova (84 10000m olympic winner), and as you may know that long list also includes the 76 and 80 double Olympic marathon winner Waldemar Cierpinsky THEN I ASK YOU:
IF ALL THAT RUNNERS AREN`T THE BEST, WHO ARE THE BEST ?
You all may read this Renato Canova e-mail you sent me a few years ago.
I want to specify some things, as you can better understand.
In Italy, at the beginning of 80 years, there was a program having a focus of increasing the Aerobic Power, using self-blood-transfusion. This type of intervent was used for the first time by Finnish scientists, at the end of 60-beginning of 70 years. Using this practice, Juha Vaatainen won one of the best 10000 ever run in European Championships '71, and Lasse Viren gold medals in 5000/10000m in both OG 72-76. Other Finnish runners using this practice were Maaninka (not top runner, after Viren) and Vainio. I don't know about other athlete in Europe, in different Countries.
In Italy, a scientist called Francesco Conconi had, from our Olympic Committee, the task to study this practice, and to develop for best athletes.
You must remember that, at that time, the self-blood-transfusion was allowed, so is incorrect to speak about "doping".
That practice consisted in taking your blood (about half liter) in two different times, 4-5 months far one another, preserving it under liquid nitrogen, at a temperature of -69°.
About two weeks before the race, this litre of your blood had to be reinfused. In this way, your capacity in transporting O2 was higher of 20% about.
After some experimentation (for example, for ECh '82 also with Maurizio Damilano and marathon runner Massimo Magnani), it was clear that, for very long run, this practice was damageous. In 82 both Damilano and Magnani had their worst race, and quickly refused to use this method.
Instead, for shorter distances (from 1500 to 10000), it seemed that results could be good.
But you understand that, having suddenly one liter of blood more in your blood circulation, for many athletes there were big problems. In fact, the elasticity of veins and arteries is individual, and the reaction to this practice was individual too. Who had low elasticity, got worse his performances; who had good elasticity, improved.
This practice was used also by ski-cross-runners, cyclists (like Francesco Moser, when broke the record of one hour in Mexico City) and swimmers, till OG 1984.
Regarding athletics, Italian runners using this practice were Cova (winner from 82 of the best important events), Antibo (4th in OG), Dorio (winning 1500 W), Fontanella (3:35.93 in 1500), the Selvaggio brothers (13:24/13:25 in 5000) and some other less important.
A group of athletes instead refused to do it. Among them, Stefano Mei (winning ECh '86 in 10000m), Francesco Panetta and all marathon runners and walkers (after the test in '82).
When this practice was considered "doping" in '85, Italians stopped to do it.
well maybe thats the last you hear from renato. what element of 'personal email' is missing in the understanding?
sprinter800 wrote:
well i guess its kind of tricky. However, it stems from the technical approach he had with his athletes and this is well defined in his manual. It also stems from the advantage an athlete gains from having such a deep and well spread aerobic base. The base simply allows for less accumulation of lactic acid. Therefore the Lydiard trained athlete will usually kick away at the end of a race with excellent form.
I'm not sure what a good argument against this approach is.
and non-lydiardites have no such 'well spread aerobic base' or ' kick away with excellent form'. ? looks like i will be busy at this thread also.
i like the bravado herewe.
I'm in no way saying that those two qualities are only attributable to the athletes Lydiard influenced/coached. For sure many other athletes can do this. The british runners of the 80s sure could. It's difficult to see Coe's information due to a lot of misinformation howvere Ovett's and cram's are out there. Guess what Cram spent 6 months of the year doing.
What i am saying is that the athletes Lydiard coached did all have this quality.
Now if you can see this then it is possible to see an alternative to blood doping as the reason for the Finnish success in the 70s. Mr Canovo - please!
Great thread. Glad to see it veer off the marathon training.sprinter800,your shot at the U.S. 800 record is unfair and wrong. In fact, recent years results seem to confirm that 1:41-1:42 are unusually great and not merely where everyone should be.Coe was ahead of his time.
Whenever the merits of Lydiard / Snell are discussed, there is this over-simplification that Snell won because he was in better shape and thus "kicked away" Snell's main rival was Bil Crothers of Canada who trained about 40 mi per week and ran intervals almost everyday.(As an aside, their runs at 1:45 0n dirt tracks with less efficient shoes must equate to 1:43 at least!)
Snell and Crothers fit Renato's description perfectly. Crothers as a speed runner built up his specific endurance while Snell had to build up his speed.If they had reversed their training they both would probably have run 1:47.
Renato has offered the perfect guideline for coaching 800. Identify whether your athlete is speed based or endurance based and then train acordingly. Another example-many on this site opine from time to time that Warriner would make the perfect 800 runner. Maybe he would, but if he chose the Lydiard approach he would either break down or get stuck at 1:45. IF he were to actually make the transformation, he would likely accomplish it by running 4x400 in 50/51 and slowly but steadily reducing the rest to 2 min. JW if you read this, I am available to coach for a very modest fee.
IQ100 wrote:
Renato Canova wrote:So, my conclusion is that FOR WEAKER ATHLETES BLOOD DOPING CAN HAVE EFFECT ON THEIR PERFORMANCE, but for TOP TALENTED ATHLETES NO EFFECT.
BUT, NORMALLY, ARE NOT THE BEST.
Renato
To say that they aren´t the best is this a kind of a joke?
Let me permit to post part of one personal e-mail you sent me some years ago. I do this for 2 reasons.
First. Once for all i want to use your own testimony to deny those who still insist that Viren didn’t took self blood transfusion. If we trust on you VIREN TOOK BLOOD really as well as most of the Finns from that period and we know the Finn Federation had a plan. I also may allow all that as you said, this wasnt doping before 1984.
Second reason to post this your e-mail is that IF YOU DON´T CONSIDER THE BEST OF THEIR TIMES Juha Vaatainen (double european champ), Viren (2 times winner of olymopic double 5000m-10000m and several world records, Pekka Vasala (1500m olympic winner), or Alberto Cova (84 10000m olympic winner), and as you may know that long list also includes the 76 and 80 double Olympic marathon winner Waldemar Cierpinsky THEN I ASK YOU:
IF ALL THAT RUNNERS AREN`T THE BEST, WHO ARE THE BEST ?
You all may read this Renato Canova e-mail you sent me a few years ago.
I want to specify some things, as you can better understand.
In Italy, at the beginning of 80 years, there was a program having a focus of increasing the Aerobic Power, using self-blood-transfusion. This type of intervent was used for the first time by Finnish scientists, at the end of 60-beginning of 70 years. Using this practice, Juha Vaatainen won one of the best 10000 ever run in European Championships '71, and Lasse Viren gold medals in 5000/10000m in both OG 72-76. Other Finnish runners using this practice were Maaninka (not top runner, after Viren) and Vainio. I don't know about other athlete in Europe, in different Countries.
In Italy, a scientist called Francesco Conconi had, from our Olympic Committee, the task to study this practice, and to develop for best athletes.
You must remember that, at that time, the self-blood-transfusion was allowed, so is incorrect to speak about "doping".
That practice consisted in taking your blood (about half liter) in two different times, 4-5 months far one another, preserving it under liquid nitrogen, at a temperature of -69°.
About two weeks before the race, this litre of your blood had to be reinfused. In this way, your capacity in transporting O2 was higher of 20% about.
After some experimentation (for example, for ECh '82 also with Maurizio Damilano and marathon runner Massimo Magnani), it was clear that, for very long run, this practice was damageous. In 82 both Damilano and Magnani had their worst race, and quickly refused to use this method.
Instead, for shorter distances (from 1500 to 10000), it seemed that results could be good.
But you understand that, having suddenly one liter of blood more in your blood circulation, for many athletes there were big problems. In fact, the elasticity of veins and arteries is individual, and the reaction to this practice was individual too. Who had low elasticity, got worse his performances; who had good elasticity, improved.
This practice was used also by ski-cross-runners, cyclists (like Francesco Moser, when broke the record of one hour in Mexico City) and swimmers, till OG 1984.
Regarding athletics, Italian runners using this practice were Cova (winner from 82 of the best important events), Antibo (4th in OG), Dorio (winning 1500 W), Fontanella (3:35.93 in 1500), the Selvaggio brothers (13:24/13:25 in 5000) and some other less important.
A group of athletes instead refused to do it. Among them, Stefano Mei (winning ECh '86 in 10000m), Francesco Panetta and all marathon runners and walkers (after the test in '82).
When this practice was considered "doping" in '85, Italians stopped to do it.
You are wrong IQ100. If Renato email he sent you is a true one email, and what he says about blood transfusion is true really indeed then Viren and Vasala or Cierpinsky were just weak runners not the world´s best. The are weak winners because they took blood transfusion. The best of that times were Putemans, Gammoudi, Ian Stewart, Mariano Haro, Brendan Foster, Carlos Lopes, Prefontaine, Kip Keino, Rod Dixon, Frank Shorter and all those that were defeated by Viren they were the best runners. Simply they couldn´t win and were defeated because the use of blood tranfusion.
Renato, Boom et al:
I am very interested in Renato's observation of the two types of training /running animal. Coe, Ovett, Snell and Cram being examples of the resistant type. The example you give Renato of training for the fast type developing his endurance is of the extensive direction and of also developing the training by increasing the density of the session (reducing the recovery/interval). The example of Cram is an interesting one. If the training of Cram reported on the British Milers Club site
http://www.britishmilersclub.com/
is correct then one sees a long base period with many AnT threshold sessions and track sessions introduced quite late in the periodised year that seem to develop in an intensive direction. Recovery/interval appears to remain constant (at approx 15 sec/100 of effort). The specificity of mid-distance is extensive but with Cram (and many British runners of that era) the direction that track work seems to go in the intensive direction.
My question is this - is the specificity of mid-distance training dependent upon the type (fast or resistant) of runner, So that Cram,Ovett and Coe need their sessions to move along the intensive route whereas fast runners must progress extensively, also reducing the interval?
Renato Canova wrote:
I finally am able to use in Eldoret Internet, and today (that is a day not too busy for me) I can read some interesting discussion. I had no time to read everything (last time I was at page 11...), but anyway I want to try to better explain my phylosophy, hoping that my English can be clear, also if not too much correct.
1) There is no training for one event, but for one athlete. Every event is a compromise between two typologies of athletes : FAST and RESISTANCE. If we look at 800m, for example, COE, OVETT, SNELL were RESISTANT, JUANTORENA, SUSANJ, FIASCONARO, KONCHELLAH were FAST. This means that their training must be completely different. For example, if Konchellah was able, at the beginning of his career as 400m runner, to run in 45.1 using in training 3 times 300m in 34.0 with 10:00 of rest, his development to ENDURANCE was to run 6 x 300 in 36.0 with 5:00 rest. On the contrary, CRAM was able to run 10 x 300m in 39.0 / 40.0 with 30.0 (30 seconds) of interval. The first is a training for an animal full of Fast fibers, the second for an animal very strong under the aerobic point of view. But 39.0 is already the pace for 1:44, so, with only 800m to run an without intervals, CRAM could run faster than Konchellah (1:42.88 against 1:43.07).
2) A good coach is like a good taylor : he must be able to make the clothe ON THE MEASURE AND ON THE SHAPE OF THE CLIENT. So, before making the cloth, ha has to check all the particulars of the client. Instead, when we speak about SCHEDULE FOR EVENTS, we want that everybody goes to adapt himself to some GENERAL TRAINING. In this case, his training remains GENERAL, never becoming SPECIFIC.
3) Regarding VO2 Max, my opinion is that is not possible to enhance it too much with proper training, because is more connected with genetic qualities. On the contrary, it's possible to enhance very much the LT, that becomes DIRECT SUPPORT for the distances between 3000 and HM. So, personally I'm not interested in VO2 max, because I don't think is important. I'm interested in HOW TO INCREASE THE LT, and expecially HOW TO INCREASE THE MAX LASS (maximum lactate steady state), that is the ability to last for long time at high level of lactate without too much increment. For the best specialists of 10000m, for example, is possible to remain for about 20:00 at a level from 12 and 14 mmol, that is like a Steady State at top level. I don't know exactly WHY it is possible to do this (I suppose that is possible to improve the permeability of the membrane, and to modify the level of acidity in the blood, and to increase the ability in tolerance of lactate in the fibres), but I know HOW to do this. This is the theme of a my seminar to European Coaches last year, and now is published in the EAA section for articles and researches.
4) There is a interconnection between INTENSITY and EXTENSION. I give a simple example. My athlete is able running 10 x 400m in 60.0, with 60.0 recovery, reaching after running the no. 10 a level of 16 mmol. I go for one month in training AROUND this type of speed (for me, between 95 and 105%), using some longer distance (for example, till 600 in 1:32) and some shorter distance (for example, 300 in 42), and, at the same time, I work for the LT with training of Aerobic Power (20-30 min very fast, or long intervals), with the support of LONG RUN AT 70% of the speed of the race, in case of distances like 5000m (if you run 13:20, that is 2:40 per km, the speed is 16.0 every 100m, so 16x3=48.0, and 2:40 + 48.0 = 3:28 pace).
After one month, my athlete is able running 15 times in 60.0 with 1 min recovery, reaching the same level of lactate (16 mmol). If we go to check the lactate AFTER 10, he reduced his level to 13 mmol. So, IF I ASK HIM TO RUN 10 x 400m WITH THE FINAL LEVEL OF LACTATE AT 16 (as one month before), HE CAN RUN IN 58 INSTEAD 60. So, working AROUND the specific speed, we improve ENDURANCE, but also SPEED ENDURANCE, because the athlete is able to run faster with the SAME INTERNAL LOAD.
Under this point of view, SPEED is the support for ENDURANCE, and ENDURANCE is a support for SPEED ENDURANCE, that is the SPECIFIC TRAINING.
We must always look for our 2 engines :
Mechanical (exercises for incresing strength and running economy)
Methabolic (that is the real source of every endurance)
Regarding the discussion about BLOOD SELF TRANSFUSION, I really don't believe in it. We had in Italy athletes running WITH (before 85) and WITHOUT (after), and they were able to improve. ANTIBO went in the program of blood self transfusion in 1982 till 1984, running 27:40. After, he didn't use anymore this system, and in 1989 ran 27:16 and, in 1990, was practically unbeatable, WITHOUT.
I had in my group athletes running in 2 month 26:30 from 28:19, or beating the WR in 7:53 (steeple), or winning medals in WCh (Moses Mosop, Shami, Dorcus Inzikuru) in several distances from 3000 to Marathon, not using anything (also integrators, only KENYAN FOOD) : why must I think that with some blood doping they can run faster ? So, my conclusion is that FOR WEAKER ATHLETES BLOOD DOPING CAN HAVE EFFECT ON THEIR PERFORMANCE, but for TOP TALENTED ATHLETES NO EFFECT.
I want to give an example : 99% of normal people can increase their strength using electrostimulation. But can somebody think that Hoffa or Cantwell or Alekna can increase their strength with this system ? Also for the AEROBIC POWER we have talented athletes, able to increase of 20-25% the global volume of blood in their body, during a very good training, AEROBIC, lasting 3-4 months. For these athletes, blood doping doesn't work. And we have LESS TALENTED ATHLETES, not able to change their physiology so much, that have advantages using blood doping. BUT, NORMALLY, ARE NOT THE BEST.
Thank you Mr Canova. Looking at point 2, I have this sense that "general training" should keep an eye on "specific training". The general training for any athlete should be preparation for the specific training, and this determines some parameters for the general training. This is both event and individual specific. General training surrounds the specific training, in a sense. When some of your Marathoners do very short and intense hill sprints, this is actually general training, something that aids the specific training. Do you agree?
Skuj wrote:
Thank you Mr Canova...
Why do people feel the need to quote an entire post? I mean, this was a recent post by Canova and very lengthy. We all read it the first time. Why do you feel the necessity to have us scroll through it again? Just wondering.
Some of us find it easier to re-read Renato's post as quoted by Skuj without going back to the original. How can you get so bothered by this that you have to critize?
but how can you get annoyed by the way he asked that question and how can i get annoyed at you for your annoyance at him. The spiral of negativity continues.:)
i have a general wondering. I see dualities everywhere in this sport. Strength vs flexibility, General training vs specific training, the fast 800m runner vs the resistant 800 guy, long running vs interval training, work vs recovery, intenisty vs volume etc etc
What I'm seeing is a whole range of dichotomies. Wholes that have been split into two non-overlapping parts. It seems then that people tend to subscribe to either one or another like they are two opposing teams and we barrack for one.
What if the actual relationship wasn't one of mutual exclusivity, but in fact one of inter-dependence. Initially i thought ok they are inversely proportional. As you increase intensity, volume must fall and vice versa. Now i tend to think it is more than just counterbalancing but in fact one needs the other. In the simplest form there is your race pace, add extra intensity and you train that side of the coin and add extra volume and you train the other side of the coin. Its just going each side of race pace as far as you are comfortable. I imagine it as expanding outwardly in both directions like a balloon. In order to keep it expanding the relationship between intensity and volume must remain in balance. This means that to reach a higher intensity a higher volume needs to be developed to support it and vice versa ... a certain volume can only be reached with a similar development of intensity. Now if we are just wanting to isolate training from any purpose then yes, you can increase volume massively without any intensity training before injury sets in. But i feel if you are aiming for a specific purpose and the 800m is the current example, then to reach a certain intensity in an 800m, a certain volume at the particular base level for the 800m needs to be developed. This might be between 14 and 15 seconds per 100m for a 151-2 runner. Alternatively it might be 15-17 seconds per 100m for a 345-355 runner. What u think?
maybe wrote:
Some of us find it easier to re-read Renato's post as quoted by Skuj without going back to the original. How can you get so bothered by this that you have to critize?
Are you serious?!
check this
S. Canaday wrote:
Gallagher,
Are you refering to Pfitzinger's "Advanced Marathoning" or "Road Racing for Serious Distance runners"?
I'd say that those who have habituated to many years of building an aerobic base through high mileage and lots of easy running have developed a resistence to injury...and that allows them to do more intense workouts year-round.
In one of those books it mentions Bob Kennedy saying something like: you can touch on V02max, LT, and Speed workouts year round- its just the emphasis of one system or another can be emphsized.
I personally think Lydiard's strict system is outdated. I think most of his concepts though are very applicable to modern training programs and build the back bone of most succcesful training.
In the book "Run with the Best" and in Daniel's "Distance Running Formula" there is some structured periodization- but many of the weeks out of the training year include some element of V02max, LT, and basic speed stimuli.
Like Canova mentions, the human body is an organism that needs a wide variety of stimuli to respond to and continually adapt to in order for progress to be made. For example, having marathon runners do all-out hill sprints lasting only 10sec....or marathon runners doing plyos, drills, etc.
In terms of injury risk there seem to be too many variables involved (the individual, their running history, etc). However, history suggests that those who have adapted to high mileage through years of aerobic base building are able to withstand the demands of more intense (and increasingly higher mileage) workbouts during their mature years (ie mid to late 20s and early 30s).
In Advanced Marathoning Pfitz. actually provided examples of day to day schedules during a single week and assigned point values regarding intensity to illustrate high v. low monotony
I don't have the book with me anymore, but I do remember a sample week when Pfitzinger stresses the importance of variety in terms of "high-low" in terms of incorporating easy days with harder days (in terms of both volume and intensity)....perhaps that is what you are referencing? In other words, make your highs high and your lows low instead of just piling on medium, medium, medium (in terms of both intensity and volume as collective stresses).
His marathoning programs did include specific LT and V02max workouts as well as L1 and L2 (long run and medium long run days)...and perhaps a day of 10 by 100m for basic speed as well?
I think it is a pretty good training program, especially for the 60-80mpw/ 2:30-3:00 crowd.
Another interesting consideration for the middle-distance runners is what is thoght to be more useful -- racing over distance or under distance. It seems that both are useful. When I asked my 26 subjects (half of whom were Olympians) a good number of years ago, more thought under-distance races were better, but it was certainly not the opinion of all; something like 55 or 60% vs 40-45% if I remember correctly. Maybe it's just a matter of overdistance races make your primary event seem shorter and underdistance races make your primary event feel less intense in comparison. It may be a matter of individual strengths and weaknesses.