Important moments and concepts in the history and development of Intermittent training

Lindsay Dunn: Can you please share training information on Nick McCormick?

Antonio,

thanks for answering my question. Since I am an European, I tend to like to hear about the training of Lopes, more than ranting about Ritzenheim and other U.S. runners on this board.

Basicaly, you are saying that Lopes considered his track sessions as "easy" days and put more emphasis on his steady state runs, which he did always at a very fast pace.

Did he ever run a true recovery pace, or he took a day off when he felt tired?

Lindsay

Very interesting what you say. I resume your comments with a my own “there aren´t fix training rules, only tendencies”. After to acquire the consider correct training principles, we need to discover runner tendency and then to build a training schedule and the workouts according that direction. That´s what Lopes did learn by himself. Why shall I do hard workouts and easy runs if i improve my shape condition by insist in intense continuous runs ? If he simply followed hip concepts or that time physiologist concepts he willn´t not have been the Man.

Relate this statement with the intermittent interval training paces, or number of reps, or the distance of each single rep distance, or the recover time duration, or the micro-cycle weekly frequency of the specific sessions, or season macro-cycle– workouts or intervals whatever – we may start according the principles, but as we perceive what´s the runner tendency – we need to work mainly in that direction. Ex. May be we introduce a workout session with a conceived pace 400m for 10kilos race pace, but later on we may train that runner that goes for the marathon with just 10 reps for 5kilos, but that other one runner that goes train for a 5000m champs may be he need 20X400m in 10kilos pace. When Lopes did 400m or 3000m workouts in the end of his career – the pace isn´t no more relate to the distance he goes to compete – but to his own tendency.

If you are a coach (or self coach) after that you understood the basic principles you may go to the next training level, one step beyond – training individualisation. The fact is that most of the academic training, most of the physiology conclusions, I take the risk to say that most of the concepts in a large spectrum of modern knowledge – they teach the mainstream.

You ask that “…My point is – and I was not aware of it at the time that his lactate management must have been super efficient after all the years of interval training but had just not had the aerobic support. Do you agree ? …”. Of course that i 100% agree, how may I disagree if you discover the training key. Despite that i doubt of 2 details concerning your conclusion. One is that the ultimate reason why Barry Smith did react negatively to previous training and that later on he did react positively – physiology only can justify to a certain extend, not a complete conclusive answer. I use to say that the man (the rationale animal) that runs is more than aerobic or anaerobic or more than lactates. Second your statement that I don´t agree – as to say – is that isn´t because you go deeply in physiology knowledge – that you said that you haven´t at that time – that you understand the problem in his essence, only by the trial and error process, more than anything else. I don´t end to analyse Lopes experience – I never get a conclusive answer – after all what´s different in Lopes constitution that with a understandable weakness of anaerobic capacity that intuitively puts him to train in the lactate management direction? A few other with the same weakness (poor aerobic training) and the same strongness (good lactate management) are able to improve following the same training direction, why so?

I used to use a strong image to justify that the use of a certain standard that works for someone – may be that doesn´t fit in all the rest. Take a pencil/crayon and draw a design – a your original. Beautifull, or horrible. It doesn´t matter. Now, use a very accurate photocopy machine to reproduce that design - light and colour control. The first copy isn´t so accurate as the original. Can´t be. Then do 1000 copies- Despite that´s a very good photocopy machine the 1000th copy is poor than the original and under normal conditions that last copy is the worst one. Now think about a workout for your Morag runner. The second one that thinks that have the same physical characteristics than Morag, goes to use that workout. Did he/she reproduces the whole workout design as Morag did that? Did he or she reproduce that but with some changes – in both case the workout reproduction is worst and ineffective than Morag original workout. That´s why that´s so interesting and important to do original workouts. But most runners and coaches they look for the ultimate workout that Kenenisa Bekele did, or they ask how Lopes did to do the same, or they want to copy Brendan Foster workouts, or do the same mileage than Sebastian Coe, and so and so…

Lindsay. This is a my own individual opinion. With all respect for the English coaches, but you haven´t to worry about that comments and criticism about your training methods if they think that are different than the English mainstream. I think that the english criticism for those who don´t follow their training concepts - that have a cultural justification. All over the world there are some glimpses of middle-age mentality when we life confined to relationship and look to the other and actually this changes to exacerbate national pride. In the 21th century, a new Millenium, ther´s no more reason to that exists. This weekend Paula Radcliffe and English team competes some 100miles distant the place i´m write this post. Despite that´s a competition against several European countries – European Cup that Portugal also takes part – if Paula Radcliffe wins the runs or any runner from a foreign country wins any event rather than the Portuguese I will be glad the same, as i´m glad that you are a english and they say that your training look like Portuguese or that my train looks like the english train.

Very insightful comments Antonio on the importance of starting with one's knowledge of correct general training principles, and then balancing that general knowledge with SPECIFIC UNDERSTANDING of what makes a PARTICULAR individual become a better runner. Ultimately, one needs to GO BEYOND THE GENERAL KNOWLEDGE/PRINCIPLES toward the understanding of the specific individual and what makes THAT PERSON ALONE better.

Here is a quote from a book by Carl Jung discussing THE EXACT concept you speak of. If we think of an athlete as "sick" person, whose goal is to "get better" (or, in the athletes world, a better RUNNER), then the analogy works. Enjoy:

" Since self-knowledge is a matter of getting to know the individual facts, theories help very little in this respect. For the more a theory lays claim to universal validity, the less capable it is of doing justice to the individual facts. Any theory based on experience is necessarily statistical; that it is to say it formulates an ideal average which abolishes all exceptions at either end of the scale and replaces them by an abstract mean. This mean is quite valid, though it need not necessarily occur in reality. Despite this it figures in the theory as an unassailable fundamental fact. The exceptions at either extreme, though equally factual, do not appear in the final result at all, since they cancel each other out. If, for instance, I determine the weight of each stone in a bed of pebbles and get an average weight of 145 grams, this tells me very little about the real nature of the pebbles. Anyone who thought, on the basis of these findings that he could pick up a pebble of 145 grams at the first try would be in for a serious disappointment. Indeed, it might well happen that however long he searched he would not find a single pebble weighing exactly 145 grams.

The statistical method shows the facts in the light of the ideal average but does not give us a picture of their empirical reality. While reflecting on an indisputable aspect of the reality, it can falsify the actual truth in a most misleading way. This is particularly true of theories which are based on statistics. The distinctive thing about real facts, however, is their INDIVIDUALITY. Not to put too fine a point on it, one could say that the real picture consists of nothing but exceptions to the rule, and that, in consequence, absolute reality has predominantly the character of irregularity.

These considerations must be borne in mind whenever there is talk of a theory serving as a guide to self-knowledge. There is and can be no self-knowledge based on theoretical assumptions, for the object of self-knowledge is an individual-a relative exception and an irregular phenomenon. Hence it is not the universal and the regular that characterize the individual, but rather the unique. He is not to be understood as a recurrent unit but as something unique and singular which in the last analysis can neither be known nor compared with anything else. At the same time man, as a member of a species, can and must be described as a statistical unit; otherwise nothing general could be said about him. For this purpose he has to be regarded as a comparative unit. This results in a universally valid anthropology or psychology, as the case may be, with an abstract picture of man as an average unit from which all individual features have been removed. But it is precisely these features which are of paramount importance for understanding man. If I want to understand an individual human being, I must lay aside all scientific knowledge on the average man and discard all theories in order to adopt a completely new and unprejudiced attitude. I can only approach the task of understanding with a free and open mind, whereas knowledge of man, or insight into human character, presupposes all sorts of knowledge about mankind in general.

Now whether it is a question of understanding a fellow human being or of self-knowledge, I must in both cases leave all theoretical assumptions behind me. …..and turn a blind eye to scientific knowledge….A Dr who wants not only to classify his patient scientifically but also to understand him as a human being…is threatened with a conflict of duties between the two diametrically opposed and mutually exclusive attitudes of knowledge…and understanding. This conflict can not be solved by an either-or but only by a kind of two-way thinking; doing one thing while not losing sight of the other.

In view of the fact that in principle, the positive advantages of knowledge work specifically to the disadvantages of understanding, the judgement resulting therefrom is likely to be something of a paradox. Judged scientifically, the individual is nothing but a unit which repeats itself ad infinitum and could just as well be designated with a letter of the alphabet. For understanding, on the other hand, it is just the unique individual who, when stripped of all those conformities and regularities so dear to the heart of the scientist, is the supreme and only real object of investigation. The doctor, above all, should be aware of this contradiction. On the one hand, he is equipped with the statistical truths of his scientific training, and on the other, he is faced with the task of treating a sick person, who….. requires INDIVIDUAL UNDERSTANDING."

Carl Jung, The Undiscovered Self, Chapter 1

Lance

Your quote is very good indeed. Some of you did ask, what phychology have to do with running training? Yes, it does.

You did what is one of my ambitions - to relate the training concepts with other knowledge disciplines. I would love to have the knowledge of a Carl Jung. I did read Carl psychologist long ago. I took the concept of synchronicity - each moment of time, takes all the universe to contribute for that path/destiny. This is synchronicity.

May be that now you may agree with a my own old post that did creates some controversy

Remember this - a coach have 1 main mission. To look for the runner´s improvement, not to be famous or rich or popular. For that coach goal target you need 2 parallel works: to coach the runner and to feel like an apprentice – a student - along all your future coaching career.

LEARN THIS:

1/ Forget most of what they teach you about physiology. Analyze training from a physiology perspective only when - in the limit - you haven´t no way to understand what´s going on about a effort or a intensity.

2/Start to learn running training method history and training technique, and how the different training coaching methods are connect with a located culture etc.

3/Analyze all that is preconceived or that comes to you to an undeniable truth about training – most of the training concepts are wrong, or they tell you their versions of the story.

4/Be influenced by what you consider the best coaches – despite that they mightn’t be the most famous or the ones that have more popularity. But don´t copy – if your schedules that “smells” to anyone else they are no good.

5/Learn from the best runners – past and present – how they did to get to the top. You learn more with an analysis from a top class training method than from all world´s lab data.

USES THIS:

6/Preserve each runner individuality. That´s your training that may fit in the each runner individual and not the opposite that the runner needs to fit into your training concepts.

Besides a runner that´s a human being with the chance to fail, not perfect, only the schedules that you design is that what you think that are perfects.

7/Uses a your own training inner structure to classified most of the training variables.

(read above)

8/train in simplicity. I never saw a good training schedule that´s too much complex in it´s premises.

9/Every coach/runner relationship may starts in respect for each one individuality, in a master/pupil relationship and with time and confidence that may end in friendship.

10/Remember that sport or running – besides that´s also an industry and a way of living, doesn´t mean that the life have only a meaning with sports. Life and life meaning goes beyond all sports, that´s a bit more than sports really. Thus live your life as a coach but also pay attention to all the rest human expressions: arts, sciences, politics, etc.

My training inner structure, or the way I try to understand all training goes like this:

TRAINING – TIME AND SPACE MATTER

Space (distance) – the exterior objective materialistic reality. The distance.

Time (duration) – the inner abstract/subjective reality.

The conjunction of time and space, the combination of both; the time it takes to cover a certain space, or vice-versa, the space you do in a certain time, that´s the PACE (intensity).

I myself use a training method that´s based in simplicity. I use SPACE (as seen as distance in perception reality) and TIME (seen as duration in the activity) and the result of product from time and space are PACE. All my training is based in this simple formula, and from there and according each individual talent there are different zones of intensity which the basic ones are race pace; the zones faster than race pace, and the zones in intensity but slower than race pace. With an analysis of that multitude of variants, I define volume, intensity, specific training formats (workouts) with some precision and I i´m able to characterize any training that exists, independently from the physiology.

Concretely training that´s a overcompensation target that deals adequate management of time and space (PACE).

Related to a target goal race, we have a PACE, the time you take to cover that distance.

The running pace we know all that´s slower for a longer distance and/or more time duration and faster for a short distance/duration.

Every training principle doesn´t go out of that equation, and in the limit, that´s a ordinary logic rule. The ultimate scientific discovers relate to running activity found in physiologic or biologic or any other subsidiary science department, in their simplicity that´s no more than the use of TIME AND DURATION, so a pace issue.

Everybody knows that in an effort the relation in between time duration and the distance that´s in the direct proportion. Intense paces that one shall be able to cover – in the limit of speed, of it´s own maximum intensity that´s only possible if you cover a short distance/time duration. The opposite that´s also true – no one can run in a continuum a longer distance than his event run if not in a slower/less intense pace than Race Pace.

Antonio - With this in mind ( intermittent training) could you share with us specific training examples of your countrymen, the former great Jose Regalo?

In terms of:

the three days a week he did interval / repetitions

( distance, pace and recovery)

The other 4 days ( I know these were only up to one hour?)

Maybe he had a day off - rest as well?

Incredible stuff running under 13:20.

ALso if you could share his approach to steady or LT trainings.

Thanks!

Swoosh wrote:

Antonio - With this in mind ( intermittent training) could you share with us specific training examples of your countrymen, the former great Jose Regalo?

In terms of:

the three days a week he did interval / repetitions

( distance, pace and recovery)

The other 4 days ( I know these were only up to one hour?)

Maybe he had a day off - rest as well?

Incredible stuff running under 13:20.

ALso if you could share his approach to steady or LT trainings.

Thanks!

That´s one of the easier answers i this threads, and you will see why.

From the 3 days interval, one are short reps 200m or 400m. the other one are long reps 1000m, or 2000m, and finaly the third one are 6X5min Lt runs with 5min easy jog recover.

The sum of each interval rep are 4000m. Then he does or 20X200m, or 10X400m, or 4X1000m or 2X2000m. The intervals are 1min fr the short reps and 3 min for the long reps. The paces are 27-28sec for 200m, 60sec for 400m, 2:30-2:35 for 1000m, 5:20-5:30 for the 2000m. This in the best season.

Minimalistic wrote:

Antonio: Was it progressive fast runs like the kenyans or fast from the beginning, and duration of that run?

Lopes did that continuous intense runs this way: The session opens with an easy run (20min to 40min) like a warmup for what follows another 20min to 40-45min intense run. The most common that´s 30min easy + 30min hard/intense=1 hour total session. In the case of the marathon may be he delay the intense period for 45min to 60min. The pace of the easy part that 4:00-4:20 by kilo. The pace for intense part that´s 3:10 up to 2:50 by kilo up to 10000m race pace, in the periods he is in top shape condition. The sessions was done like a non-stop run or continuous run. Ther´s not an deliberate interest to run in negative split, but in a event steady pace all the time, for both the easy part and the intense part.

Lopes did run that in outdoors, mainly alone, and not once a day on every day, but just when he felt he was ready, but continued to do that intense runs all year round, spring, summer, fall or winter, cross, road, or track season.

He have no concern to run in a accurate or determined pace as long as he runs a fast intense pace, then what i say about 2:50/3:10 by kilo that´s an estimate based in what i saw and that i did take part in some of that intense continuous runs.

Thanks Antonio. Very interesting. What about the other 4 days in the week when Regalo was not on the track? Did he also prescribe to the Lopes or Portugese sub lT trainings runs of 40-45 min?..or did he recover with easy runs like Mamede, who ran very slowly on his easy days?

Also, was this schedule for Jose for track only or did he do repetitions, long intervals for Cross differently?

I also heard he only trained one hour a day..true?

Yes Regalo also did just one hour a day. About that one hour day - he did that not so intense like Lopes, but also not so easy like Mamede. You see people that tends to train in intense paces in cointinuous runs also tends to do less or a little track interval workout frequency, contrary to those that uses track more frequently - that last ones tend to run easy days i between workouts.

One more aspect, since i receive some ask for help to train like Regalo, or under the lignes of Rui Silva. Once again I need to make you know that i´m not able to build training schedules in a different training style than my own - that is difrrent that what i teel you that those runners did train. Despite i may agree with a few, with some or most of the trainig concepts of the other runners or coaches i have my own individual training concepts - and i only train people not by his own desire, or by his own wish, but according my own individual ideas, resumimg my training that´s the Antonio training respecting with each one particular case (individuality) that´s not Rui Silva training or Jose Regalo training or Carlos Lopes training writed or interpreted by Antonio for someone that whats to train like that famous runners. Don´t be surprise if i don´t answer to e-mails from people that ask me to build a plan to his/her on wish - in the Lopes style or Regalo style. I´m too old and i have more people to concern that wants to train my way to use my time with people that want to train i other training styles than my own.

Dan Moriarity wrote:

Antonio I have a question regarding short rep interval training. When I was in high school, we often did workouts of, for example, 5 sets of 3x200m with 30 seconds rest between 200s and 3-5 minutes rest between sets. I've heard Coe did simialr workouts. In your description of Rui Silva's training it seems that if he was doing a similar workout it would be, as an example, 15x200m with all the same recoveries, not breaking the workout up into sets. What are the advantages or disadvantages of breaking a workout into sets vs. doing them all with an equal recovery?

Since I did read that once again - if you permit me - I want to answer that once again.

But first I want to comment the fact that I see that actually so may coaches and runners they use that workouts as this your 5X(3X200m rec=30sec) rec=3-5minutes instead of 15X200m.

I don´t understand really what´s the main target of that Coe workout. Eventually we need to ask Coe´s father. May be he answer why and we still don´t understand !

For me that workout isn´t very logic - in that so short intervals in between the reps and so long among the set groups. In my opinion or your you go for the aerobic direction or for the anaerobic direction. Or that´s the intensity that the main target.

I want to give an example that what I do for a 1:49.7 800m runner.

If I want the aerobic direction I use 12X300m/45sec rec=60seg, but if I choose the anaerobic direction I divide the repetitions (the effort) in sets and expand the intervals:

(3X(300m/41sec rec=1:15)rec=3minutes.

Both are real examples- In nthe first case the pace is close to the 1500mrace pace of that runner, in the second case is near the 800m race pace

Thanks for all you share

I read an explanation of this type of workout once, though I think it was from Harry Wilson ( Ovett's coach ) not Coe's father. I guess the idea of the workout is to get used to running with a high level of lactate, as at the end of an 800m race. My coach at that time was a volunteer for our track club who didn't have a distance running background who told me he copied the workout from what he read of Coe's training. ( This was around 1980-1986 ) I was 11 when I started training this way so obviously that wasn't the best preparation.

Hi,

I have read all this thread from the beginning, and from a training point of view it is really very interesting. However I simply don’t understand Antonio Cabral’s disdain for physiology.

1) As many coaches, you perceive that physiologists want to tell you have to do. It is no tithe reality. The job of some of them is to understand what happen with various form of training. At first there is training, with coach and athlete, and independently scientists studying what occur. They look at the consequences/effects/benefits of what is done. As it is a science, it has to be done in strict conditions, with reproducible testing procedures, sometimes a specific language to avoid approximations: A vVO2max is a vVO2max wherever you are, taking into account climatic conditions, altitude, but a PB, what about the average tempo of the race, the other runners or the weather. All that (the terminology of physiology) appears far from the training reality, it is maybe, and looking at one point at the time (vVO2max, cortisol, Lactate, various enzymes...), which is very reducing when you consider a runner as a whole. You should understand that it is the way that all sciences go, infinitesimal step by infinitesimal step. This is the reason why, when you look at one scientific article at the time, you think it is rubbish because at the end you have more questions than answers, and no more support to build your training programmes. Then, it is easy for you to generalize to all the area of sport physiology. Personally I think it is better to know that these studies exist, to better understand what happens positively or negatively in our runners’ organism. At least you can read it just by curiosity, and occasionally build some relation between what is on the paper and what happens in runners. But maybe I am wrong, curiosity, comprehension of a biological phenomenon, such as training effects, is not interesting. Maybe curiosity about a coach conception of training is also a loss of time.

2) My conception is that physiology in performance area should be a tool, not a master, for coach, as a track, a watch, hurdles, all materials are. You don’t like it. No matter, it is your opinion. But don’t say that it is useless. You are just missing something, that could help you and handicapping yourself. Many successes have been possible in sport, maybe not a lot in running, with the support of physiology and physiologist. As Mr Canova said, Italian swimmers have been very successful in 2000 OG, with a strong support from physiologists and in 2004 OG French swimming team has had more success than ever before, partly because of some scientific investigation. Have you never had an over trained athlete? If not you are really a great coach. If yes, it is possible you could have avoid it with some tools used by physiologists. If you don’t like some scientists, on my side I really laugh when I see some coaches going to ask some physiologists – which they hate! - for some solution for an underperforming athlete (I have been in the situation). It is so easy for them to say that physiology is useless if you only use it in desperate situation!

3) Funnily enough the thread that has the most pages in all this board is about a physiological definition: lactate threshold. It is quite interesting to see how most of posters use terms, while they evidently don’t know definitions: there is so much confusion! How many are really able to give a physiological definition of aerobic threshold, anaerobic threshold, MLSS, OBLA, lactate threshold. Then, most of them use it in their everyday training with a wrong conception. It is useless? It is stupidities from/for physiologists? So why did people did write 108 pages about it? A little contradiction...

4) Concerning the drugs aspects, it is probably more interesting to have a good knowledge, for coach and runners, of the deleterious effects of drugs (thus a physiological point of view) than to use drugs, ignoring it. But maybe you think it is better to keep people in ignorance... I must admit that too often pharmacology and physiology are used in a bad way. In this situation, the question is not to know if physiology is “good” or “bad”, but to know if the way it is use is morally or ethically correct. To date physiologists is not a job where people are neither more nor less respecting moral and ethics than the average people. To date the work of the majority of physiologists is controlled by independent ethics committee, and unfortunately we are far from it with coaching.

To conclude, because I have really been too long: physiology and training are 2 independent things. Each can exist without the other, but I think that a positive interaction between training and physiology is much better, with benefits for both. Maybe you will consider that I am wrong. But at least I am, and other are, more open minded than you are.

Despite these critics, you are for sure a talented coach, probably ignoring an interesting aspect of running.

Best wishes.

HIIT

Many thanks for your post.

Curiously I agree with most of what you say. I think that´s not by hypocrisy that I say that, but because that´s the true. But I consider that what separate us that´s more a question of….(how to say in english) sensibility, or emotional way to approach some problems than concrete disagreement or hard and pure and inconciliate disagreement.

By what I read in your post, and as far i´m able to understand what you express in this your post I take 3 types of conclusions. Some your ideas I agree with you 100% - and the prove that I agree is that i´ve said that previously may be that for any reason or you don´t understand or may be i´m not able to clarify my opinion in my posts. But there are your ideas that eventually you think that I don´t agree but I do. There are some of your ideas that I totally disagree. Then read my comments in the next paragraphs you will see what in what I agree, and in what I disagree. In the end it´s up to you and the readers to judge and have their own opinion. Once again I think that´s positive that we aren´t in total agreement, and I profit your post to try clarify once again my position in this discussion coach versus physiology.

This will take a long post.

First of all I think that I have no disdain for physiology. Disdain that´s an adjective of your responsibility, not mine. As far as I remember I never used that adjective or that I disrespect physiology or that I consider that with no interest at all. Simply, if you wish, in a hierarchic relationship – I as a coach - (in what that consists and concerns – training methodology, training technique, training strategy, physiology, psychology, human relations, observation, etc) the training technique and the training methodology are in the top of that hierarchy of interest and training knowledge and training interpretation, and not physiology. But I don´t deny the existence or the interest of the physiology. I think that you did understood that my opinion. I did use one expression from art to justify that. For me as a coach (or simply a curious of the running sport) I give the interest of physiology the same Leonardo Da Vinci gave to landspace in Mona Lisa painting. Of course that the paint is a whole one, the figure of Mona Lisa is the front-line of interest when you look at, but the landscape that in the perspective of the paint is distant, the landscape that´s just a second line of interest in the whole picture, acts as a background of the whole Mona Lisa paint. My understand as a coach in this example is that the Mona Lisa Figure is equivalent to the training technique and training method; but for me the physiology or all sport science is the background or the landscape of the famous Da Vinci portrait.

Now, if you ask me, but that portrait will subsist as a prime oeuvre-of –genius art without the Mona Lisa figure ?, I will say that don´t. But also without the background landscape, it doesn´t. In both cases willn´t be the same artistic genius paint, but if I want to be sincere, if I have to exclude one I will exclude the landscape and not Mona Lisa. Now, relate that to coach versus physiology. By say this, you can´t consider that I exclude the physiology or that I deny his importance or that I disdain. I think that´s useful. But I repeat - for me, from the coach point of view training may be based in many considerations and I think that training method training technique or training strategy or training experience that´s more important than training mainly based in physiology, or in which physiology is in the top line of interest.

Eventually if you are a physiologist you have the opposite – you may have – point of view that I have as a coach. That would be correct. What wouldn´t be correct that´s a coach thinks that physiology that´s the important one training consideration at least in running distance, or a physiologist that wants to interfere by his point of view with the coach decisions, or what´s that´s the same in the coach method by the physiologist conclusions. At least this is valid for running distance. I don´t discuss other sports. May be that what you say that´s right, that´s the Olympic Italian swimmers they did very good by using a strong influence of physiology knowledge, I can´t comment what I don´t know, but I accept that you are right. But the cases I know that physiology is predominant in the training of running sport that´s when there are drugs in the game.

But, my dear HIIT, when a few years ago I did start to search in the net and read some sites, some articles and some posts – I was astonish. How, most of the countries that have a deep running crisis – as I think that´s the case of America, as well as in some European countries, how can that people think that the running solution for the improvement that´s to apply more and more physiologic concepts to daily training or to include more and more of training concepts as dominant to training schedules. Incredible. Among other training mistakes this is also part of the non-Africa running decline. People gets out fo the universities thinking that all that physiologic material is not just the ABC but very useful – and some they think that´s the training solution to the improvement. Is to this almost dominant wrong concept that I fight for, but a may admit that sometimes I overate the value of the physiology – but I want to play for the devil since I see so many people goes to the wrong training direction.

(to be continued – that´s too long in a single post)

HIIT wrote:

3) Funnily enough the thread that has the most pages in all this board is about a physiological definition: lactate threshold. It is quite interesting to see how most of posters use terms, while they evidently don’t know definitions: there is so much confusion! How many are really able to give a physiological definition of aerobic threshold, anaerobic threshold, MLSS, OBLA, lactate threshold. Then, most of them use it in their everyday training with a wrong conception. It is useless? It is stupidities from/for physiologists? So why did people did write 108 pages about it? A little contradiction...

Perhaps you could please supply your definitions of those terms?

(continued)

If you permit me ther are in your interesting post some ideas in the 4 points that you did write that I want to comment, but first ther´s one issue that I want to comment.

You said “…As Mr Canova said, Italian swimmers have been very successful in 2000 OG, with a strong support from physiologists and in 2004 OG French swimming team has had more success than ever before, partly because of some scientific investigation. Have you never had an over trained athlete? If not you are really a great coach.”

First I want to demystify some mystification that some people in Let´s Run Com may wrongly thinks about me. I consider myself simply a man of curiosity and an autodidacte of the running sport that wants to share that passion with some other people by free posts, free uncompromised comments and discussion about what I love. In that context people says “the legendary Antonio” or things like that – i´m not a great coach i´m simply a human being that while loves running try to helps the other human being. I don´t want a coach statues or to be relate with Renato or any other top coach. But curiously it happens that my runners rarely did overtraining.

You did quote that Renato about his comments of the use of physiology. But that you understood my opinion, I guess that nothing more than to read this Renato idea that he posts recently

“…My motivations are basically two : to investigate what is possible to do with the human body, where for human body I want to mean physiology and psychology, finding the personal key for the best way of improvement (that is different one from another), and to help the athletes in improving their personality and their life.

I believe very much in the role of athletics (and of every type of sport, generally) like education for the life.

My principles are the principles of a teacher, before than a coach. I think that I'm at first an educator, secondly a coach.

This is the reason because I cannot accept in my mind not only any type of doping, but also any type of help from external sides. I think that the greater strength is in the mind, and I work for increasing the self confidence in my athletes.

When you use something that can help you (may be also permitted, but under the psychological point of view the effect is the same), you become "slave" of it, and you think that a part of your strength depends on it.

I don't want this situation. I want that the athletes can be sure about themselves, and when something is going bad, they have to have the ability in analyzing the reasons without finding excuses that are damageous for them.

I try to educate my athletes, expecially African, in a different type of life. I want that my athletes have respect for the other, but also for themselves, not wasting their life. I try to be a guide, because they need, but I'm not sure to be able EVER to do it.

A lot of time I read about athletes prepared in laboratory, considered like machines, where winning is all what they want.

I don't know if I'm perticularly lucky, but I don't recognize anyone of the top runners in this stereotype.

Many of my athletes are among the top in the world (Shaheen in steeple, Paul Kosgei in 25km, Nicholas Kemboi, Ahmed Hassan, James Kwalia, Jamal Salem, Mark Bett, John Korir, Dorcus Inzikuru, many Marathon runners men and women), and I'm friend of other (like Baldini) that are the greatest in their event. Believe me : all these athletes are COMPLETELY NORMAL GUYS, having a normal life, normal feelings, normal behavior. They live in a normal house, have normal friends and normal families.

If it's true what many people think (that the top level sport is something destroying any moral value, as the only important thing is to win), probably the reason because my athletes are able to win and to last is THEIR NORMALITY.

About training, I never went to some laboratory for controlling my athletes (except blood tests every 1-2 months, because it's very important to know what CAN HAPPEN IN THE CLOSE FUTURE, and from the blood tests you can have a lot of information). Of course, I went to test them some time, but this was for having datas for scientists and for myself that I needed for explaining what happens inside the body, but NEVER I USED THESE INFOS FOR MY TRAINING. So, I check the results of my training, but don't use them for my program : I modify the program according to what I see every day DURING the training, not according to the datas of the tests.

Here every one speaks about percentage : 85 / 90 % of VO2, etc. But I never used a CARDIO for controlling the heart frequency, for example, BECAUSE THESE DATA CAN CHANGE EVERY TIME AND ARE NOT SIGNIFICANT. I use lactate-tests that can give me NUMBERS confirming what I already know, because it's possible to see every thing during training.

At the end of every thing, I like to coach athletes because I can have with everyone a personal relation.

I like to speak too much (as you had the opportunity to see...), and I feel gratified thru this type of relation.

I cannot be a coach without being also a friend, may be a father or a elder brother (looking at my age).

To coach athletes is not something "dry" and theorical, but is something "alive" and pragmatic.

You must have passion for human people, almost like a missionary. You must have heart. And you must work for the others, not for yourself….”

I agree 100% with the Canova post. Now commenting your points.

“…. At first there is training, with coach and athlete, and independently scientists studying what occur.”. I think that´s not true in most of the cases. In most of the cases sciences don´t investigate based in what occurs in training , in most of the cases they build their own training protocols based in isolate presumptions and then they want to see what their concepts results in the training use. This is a first mistake. In the end they want that the training. be submitted to the physiologist considerations.

(last part)

In point 1/ you said “…This is the reason why, when you look at one scientific article at the time, you think it is rubbish because at the end you have more questions than answers, and no more support to build your training programmes. Then, it is easy for you to generalize to all the area of sport physiology. Personally I think it is better to know that these studies exist, to better understand what happens positively or negatively in our runners’ organism. At least you can read it just by curiosity, and occasionally build some relation between what is on the paper and what happens in runners. But maybe I am wrong, curiosity, comprehension of a biological phenomenon, such as training effects, is not interesting. Maybe curiosity about a coach conception of training is also a loss of time.”

I agree, I also read more scientific articles than you imagine, but my main running question is that I have the runner X that will race tomorrow and ther´s no one physiology knowledge that can help me or decide what I may advise to that runner as, since science goes “…all sciences go, infinitesimal step by infinitesimal step…” but I have only one life and some more years to coach, I can´t wait the day (after some Centuries) that with that centuries physiology knowledge eventually I may change dramatically the runner improvement based in that knowledge.

You said !... If you don’t like some scientists, on my side I really laugh when I see some coaches going to ask some physiologists – which they hate! - for some solution for an underperforming athlete (I have been in the situation). It is so easy for them to say that physiology is useless if you only use it in desperate situation!...”

This is a your conclusion I´m in complete disagreement, This would be to think like we live in the Middle Age concepts. Let me give you an example. Ther´s a individual that belives that wealthy food that´s the best solution to preserve human life and not in pills or that medicine. He uses a diet as the best think to protect him from diseases, he doesn´t believe in conventional medicine to some extend. But if he have a car accident and broke a leg, of course that he wants to look treatment in conventional medicine by the use of pills, that he try to avoid, or he needs to do an operation – and of course that he may look for that. Another example. Someone believes in God as a Supreme Being. Ok, but he have a car accident in front of a church his own religion. His life is in danger, Of course that he may need an ambulance to go to the hospital, instead of going to the church to have treatment or salvation or that puts in God hand the treatement to the broke leg. Do you understand? That´s the same with physiology. I see nothing special that the coach that have a runner overtrain looks for a physiologist or a sport medicine. He is correct despite he doesn´t belive to physiology to have training interference. But the main function of physiology that that one. I have a coach friend that his junior runner did the 800m qualifying for the European Junior Champs. He perceived in him some weakness in one of his legs. Of course that´s for this kind of cases that sport medicine exists – to comprehend and treat and try to solve that physical problem of that runner, not just to investigate about coaching.

In point 3/ you said “…3) Funnily enough the thread that has the most pages in all this board is about a physiological definition: lactate threshold. It is quite interesting to see how most of posters use terms, while they evidently don’t know definitions: there is so much confusion! How many are really able to give a physiological definition of aerobic threshold, anaerobic threshold, MLSS, OBLA, lactate threshold. Then, most of them use it in their everyday training with a wrong conception. It is useless? It is stupidities from/for physiologists? So why did people did write 108 pages about it? A little contradiction...”

My dear HIIT, I just can guarantee you one thing, if that´s for my responsibility that willn´t be the larger thread in this Forum. For me lactate threshold haven´t the interest to be too much discussed, only if that´s to refuse his enormous lack of interest of its use in most of the cases.

Despite i did one of the large contributions for that thread - I didn´t sum how many are my posts in tha site , but I did lots of posts in Renato´s thread, I did discuss and comment and participate with ideas that are out of the original thread issue.

Resuming I also agree that “….a positive interaction between training and physiology is much better, with benefits for both…” but the question here isn´t with the subservience or obedience of training to physiology. In most of the cases what I see aren´t people like you, but people that comes close to me and wants that I change my mind just because they have a “last minute” physiology student graduation or somewhere more than doubtful scientific experiment.

Hi Mr Cabral,

Thank you for your answer. I was just annoyed with some of your post, but now when I read mine, I understand that it is not so easy to express what we think. Now I have a better conprehension of your opinion, about the role that physiology should have.

I will continue to read with a great interest informations send by you and others.

Best wishes.