Contradiction between Renato CANOVA and John "HADD" WALSH ?

Hadd was close with Antonio Cabral, and maybe it's just me, but it seems like his views on this evolved closer to Antonio's in his later years.

I think that his and Renato's views are very similar on "easy" paces. Hadd was firmly in the _very_ easy camp (say,

My post got cut off for some reason:

Hadd was close with Antonio Cabral, and maybe it's just me, but it seems like his views on this evolved closer to Antonio's in his later years.

I think that his and Renato's views are very similar on "easy" paces. Hadd was firmly in the _very_ easy camp (say,

I don't think either of you have read enough of the Hadd threads.

Have you read this one:

http://www.letsrun.com/forum/flat_read.php?thread=134124&page=1

How about this one:

http://www.letsrun.com/forum/flat_read.php?thread=5167966&page=5

6 x 800m at 104% of 5k pace with everything from equal time recovery (down to) 1:15-1:30 recovery.

Is in no way easy for anyone accept those that have followed both Hadd Phase I and Phase II.

I have read all of the Hadd threads. I will try to post my message again.

Hadd was close with Antonio Cabral, and maybe it's just me, but it seems like his views on this evolved closer to Antonio's in his later years.

I think that his and Renato's views are very similar on "easy" paces. Hadd was firmly in the very easy camp (say,

FFS, this message board blows.

... whereas Renato says that either you're recovering or running within 80% of race pace. But less than 150bpm can be viewed as recovery pace, and his workouts (outlined in the "One Way of Training Distance Runners") eventually evolve into being in the fundamental zone. The difference is that Renato is talking about world-class athletes, whereas Hadd is usually training people who can still have their LT lifted by slightly less intense, steady efforts.

That said, it seems that he bought into the idea using LT intervals for fast twitch runners, which is why I say that his opinions evolved toward Antonio's.

My message was getting cut off. Obviously phases 2A/2B are filled with intervals, but the One Method for Training Distance Runners document specifically outlined a phase 1 or base phase. The only intervals that it mentioned we the occasional 200 hard / 200 easy, which is more for turnover than LT.

Anyway, I apologize for derailing this. I have no idea why my message wasn't posting properly. On a related note, I'd been recently attempting to run my easy days at 5km pace + 90s per mile, and my body absolutely hated it. I started getting run down quickly, and my average heart rate on an "easy" day was between 165-170 (my max is 192). I think I'm going to return to Hadd's idea of easy days being for recovery, and working on aerobic fitness through fundamental pace and faster.

It's the stupid less than sign...

markeroon wrote:

FFS, this message board blows.

So it is -- I will watch out for that in the future. Thanks.

rekrunner wrote:

It's the stupid less than sign...

Ok, so let me try to make my point clearer by taking specific post extracts.

For instance, CANOVA has written the following, talking about the training of top athletes for a 800m race :

"

Once again, the answer depends on the typology of the athlete, not on the event.

Nixon was a type of athlete, such as Paul Ereng, Alberto Juantorena, Marcello Fiasconaro, Luciano Susanj, Tom Courtney, Bill Crothers (the best competitor of Peter Snell), Billy Konchellah and many other, having the attitude of a 400m runner, with a high percentage of fast fibers. Of course, for this type of athletes, THE MOST IMPORTANT THING IS TO ENHANCE THEIR LACTIC ABILITY, and only in a second time, maintaining the ability in producing lactate, they can try to enhance their LT.

So, OPPOSITE TO WHAT LYDIARD SAID, ANAEROBIC FIRST (Because is their main quality), and AEROBIC SECOND.

But, if we speak about other runners RESISTANT TYPE (like all the athletes running fast 1500m : Seb Coe, Cram, Ovett, Asbel Kiprop, Andre Bucher and many others), ENHANCING THEIR LT IS THE FIRST GOAL THEY HAVE TO HAVE.

"

Link:

http://www.letsrun.com/forum/flat_read.php?thread=4460812&page=15#ixzz2eBqutFcR

=> so he advocate that runners should work on their forces

On the contrary, HADD, in the famous and excellent "2 kind of runners" thread with Antonio CABRAL, has written the following :

"

Case 1: [FT runner]

If the points for the 5km are significantly better than for the HM, [...]

This would suggest to me that my long distance endurance is not as highly trained as my 5km performance, so in the weeks leading up to the marathon, I’d be very careful to improve endurance and fat-burning training every week.

[...]

To gain marathon endurance, this (more-FT kind of runner) must expect to lose / give up some speed at 5km. In other words, his 5km performance should worsen as his marathon date approaches. Probably his 10-km will also worsen... What you lose on the swings, you gain on the roundabout.

Case 2: [ST runner]

If the points for the HM are better than for the 5km (and this is possible if you are more-ST – see Cabral & Hadd thread for definition), then I would ensure that I kept up the ability to run a near-PR 5km right up until nigh Marathon day.

Once again, I’d work all the paces from M-12 to M+24, but I would also add in some faster 5k-paced work on a semi-regular basis; you give up that 5km ability at your peril if you are an ST-type of runner.

"

Link:

http://www.letsrun.com/forum/flat_read.php?thread=2375989&page=2#ixzz2eBtcwvG9

Buy your shoes from LetsRun and save 20% everday

http://www.letsrun.com/save

=> He advocates to work our weaknesses

(more speed work for ST runner and maintain our qualities in that domain all year round, more endurance work for FT runner and maintain this quality all year round)

Remark: this philosophy of HADD also applies, according to him, to top level athletes, as in the same post to illustrate he takes LOPEZ vs. MAMEDE and WEBB vs. HALL examples.

800m training is different than marathon training?

@ rekrunner : it seems to be a general (different) philosophy for HADD and CANOVA, in another example CANOVA mentioned Michel JAZY who, according to him has lost his time by doing LYDIARD-type of training more suited for an endurant type of 5000m (JAZY tried to work on his weaknesses that way) instead of more speed-oriented type of training (focusing on his forces). Sorry, I don't find any more the exact post where he gave this example...

Yes, I agree with your point on this to an extent. He did talk about FT runners having to jog their recoveries, but I think his reasoning was off. He was aware of Antonio's ideas about short intervals / short active rest for enhancing aerobic condition (mentioned in 2 types of runners), I wonder if Pete or someone could say for sure if he actually started using it in practice with his athletes in his later years.

HADD's reasoning was about FT runners performing rather short intervals training (200m@5K, 400m@10K), with jog recoveries long enough to eliminate most of lactate created during intervals (in order to avoid a constant buildup of lactate interval after interval), but short enough so as the aerobic systems just happens to be rested but the anaerobic system is not rested yet (so, not too short recoveries but not total recoveries either), and thus the next interval will be more aerobic (a greater proportion of the aerobic system will be used) than the previous one.

This reasoning seems to make sense to me, for a FT runner, what is the problem with it ?

The type of intervals you mention about CABRAL seems to me to be a bit like BILLAT's 30/30 (see for instance :

http://running.competitor.com/2013/04/training/workout-of-the-week-billats-30-30_33782

), where short fast intervals (in 30/30 it is 30" at vVO2Max, which could be mile pace, depending on the runner) are alternated with very short incomplete recoveries (30", so maybe half the distance covered during the fast 30" intervals, if recovery is done at 50% of vVO2Max). These type of intervals principally designed to spend a high time at or close to 100% of VO2Max, will lead to lactic buildup into the muscles interval into interval because of the fast pace combined with the very short interval (recovery time is not enough to clear all lactate into the muscles), and thus, following HADD's ST/FT distinction, this is something that might be beneficial to long distance ST runner but would be very detrimental (destroying the aerobic base) for a long distance FT runner. However, for a miler, it is also a good pré-specific workout because you work both VO2Max and lactic resistance to some extend.

Finally one interesting methodology training question on this board.

First of all, one introductory comment.

The meaning of the word CONTRADICTION is not right as meaning of this question. Since contradiction consists of a logical incompatibility between two or more propositions, ther´s no incompatibility in this 2 ways to face the same question, what training to do to promote performance enhance.

Second, we all got training principles, and both coaches, Renato Canova and John Hadd got their own training methods. Similar methods at some points and different in other points. Similar training in most of the principles, similar in the methodology foundation and physiology source, but different in the application of the training field and person-to-person advice because they got different level of training talent to deal with and different target goal performances, and that determines quite lot different training schedules. Renato Canova wouldn´t coach one wrestling amateur athlete that pretends to run one HM as Jonh Hadd did the same way as he trains his world top class African professional runners that pretend to run the same marathon. John Hadd would not run one top class runner as Renato Canova does, or someone with just more talent that the mediocre performer, her wife that he coached by the way, as he did train one local male runner with 45min 10k.

This is the difference in the application, that gets out from different coach goals. In effect, John Hadd coach philosophy and coach challenge is “to maximize the potential of the runner individual independently of his physical ability or talent to run, or lack of ability” but Renato Canova coach goal is to help the talented runners to take them to champion status. Renato Canova says that as far he specializes to coach top class runners, it´s hard or impossible to coach average runners because he lost contact with to what that kind of runners do need as training application. In the other side John Hadd commenting on Renato Canova said “most people thinks that Renato is a coach genius. However, while not demerit his coach category, he deals with Kenyans and other Africans, and applies certain schedule dosage with success, due to the fact that most of his runners got big aerobic talent and all of them (99% he said) are just ST fibers and to that ones is easier to train”.

Might be that coach different training levels of categories, got some light over this thread question, that Renato and John do train while care from the weakness and the strong aspects with different approach.

In my opinion, both coaches, Renato Canova knows and John Hadd knew how to coach, Both goals are different, but in both they are correct. In my opinion again, the task of John Hadd is harder and tuff, to be able to enhance and maximize the performance someone without special talent. But more important that just coach straight. Both coaches Renato Canova and John Hadd are humanists. They got ethics and coach philosophy where´s the human being counts more than the money and materialism. They are both humanists in their behavior.

I guess that Renato didn´t knew John Hadd, but John knew about Renato Canova work of course because got world reputation and Renato talks, debates and teaches about training ideas and spells his training method.What I can say is that I know both, and John told me often that got great esteem for Renato, and I guess that if Renato would knew John he would esteem him as well.

This said on one next post I will continue with say something more about this training question, to care push the weakness or the train in the direction of the strong point.

Here Renato and Hadd they advice the same kind of training process precisely. No contradiction.

Despite that Renato uses as reference the 800m event and Hadd uses the marathon both use the same training approach.

They both do care about both the aerobic and anaerobic enhance during the same period, and mix together, both, the aerobic and the anaerobic training during the same training cycle/phase/period. Simply, they just consider one or another of main importance depending of the training phase.

Most people thinks that Hadd does one introductory period done by aerobic training exclusively what is not true. He just says that the aerobic condition able the runner to carry on anaerobic training easily, not that aerobic training exclusively shall be done.

People´s misunderstand about John Hadd training and the main reason why they think that way, is due to Joe training thread. Joe training thread is the specific case about someone that was been one distance runner in the past and that is out of shape absolutely and out of activity for one long period of time, and want a comeback. In fact that Joe is fictional because it was John Hadd himself. There, in this case, John did advice aerobic training first, as he might advice to someone else he coached that was out of shape and want to come back. But normally John did use intervals an some kind of anaerobic training in every phase of the training process, independently to what distance the runner is training for.

The difference is not between Renato or John whatsoever, the difference is between the kind of training that uses aerobic first exclusively.

The more when Renato uses “first” and “second” or Hadd uses “right up until nigh Marathon day” or “in the weeks leading up to the marathon” it doesn´t mean that they don´t keep on training both the aerobic and anaerobic systems during the same period, they simply consider differently one or the other system of prime training importance during each phase/period, depending of the kind of athlete different ability.

Antonio, Hadd suggested that _all_ intervals be jogged by FT types. You have indicated that this really makes the most sense for short reps w/ short interval (for improvement of LT), and that a standing recovery makes sense for long intervals when used in conjunction with the aforementioned LT work.

Am I characterizing this incorrectly?

markeroon wrote:

Antonio, Hadd suggested that _all_ intervals be jogged by FT types. You have indicated that this really makes the most sense for short reps w/ short interval (for improvement of LT), and that a standing recovery makes sense for long intervals when used in conjunction with the aforementioned LT work.

Am I characterizing this incorrectly?

John and I, we start to share conversation because we both got the same conclusion about the need of different training for 2 mainly types of runners, that him, being a expert in physiology as well as in training did define by 2 fiber types. Our discover that we both share that same opinion did happen when i told him about the way i did use short interval sets with short and active recovery. h replies that he used to do the same precisely. Then our share of training concepts and training experience did continue and Hadd idea about intervals is that the ST runners, despite they can do that short-type-short-active recovery (more aerobic) as one way to enhance the aerobic power, the ST runner got extra benefit to fast intervals (more anaerobic) with longer and passive recovery.

Hadd did typical examples of both type of intervals

short interval type with short/active recovery - 300s 10k pace with going ahead on track for 100m in less than the same time you cover the 300m.

long interval type with long/passive recovery - 1000s for 5k pace with stand recovery near the same length you run the 1000m.

That were just typical examples as paradigm to figure out his training idea because he used to built many training training formats, but mostly with that same training logic.

One day i told him that Carlos Lopes from the early seasons, his coach used 2 workouts weekly covering the same interval distance, but changing the interval length he did the same workout in 2 different training directions. For example on Thursday he did 7X1000m/10k pace with 200m recovery in about 60secs, and on the next Friday he did 7X000m but/5k pace with the same 200m recovery but walk and stand in about 3:00min recovery. Probably, on the next 2 interval workouts he will run 15X400m/10k pace with 100m ahead on track in about 30-40secs recovery and also teh same 15X400m but 5k pace this time, but with 2:00min recovery stand.

Lopes late training did progress to more complex training directions that covers other training zones, but John Hadd did comment on this early interval kind. Very interesting Antonio, what a good idea, tio run the same workout but with different kind of recovery that able to train different training systems, and not just that with different energy cost and different biomechanics. He was very enthusiastic with what i told him about this 2 kind of intervals based in the same distance set and number of sets.

John Hadd taught interesting another idea from the coach of the Belgium runner Emil Puttemans, silver medal in the 72 olympics, 5000m 13:13 world record in 1972 and winner of 1982 Rome marathon 2h09m.

The idea, not so crazy as we might imagine is to run twice the same workout in 2 followed days. For example day 1 you run 10miles easy, next day (day 2) repeat 10 miles easy, next day (day 3) 5mile tempo run for instance, next day (day 4) repeat the 10miles distance, next day (day 5) 2 hour long run, next day (day 7) repeat the long run. This is done on and on, every new kind of workout is done twice in a row. The whole idea is to create higher stimulus by repeat the same workout twice. Of course that easy days, or rest day, or recovery run is also repeated. i guess that this kind of microcycle is the same Renato´s training of the block, that is do to hard workouts the very same day. Simply the coach of Emil Puttemans did it twice in 2 days instead of twice in one day.

Antonio, I could read your writings all day.

Anywho, thank you for this. Something that I don't think I have seen from you is your opinion on active recovery in long intervals for FT types. My guess is that it is the same as Moniz Pereira, that standing rest is superior?