He says quite clearly that they would need to use a different “system”...understandably because we don’t have the foundation to withstand that caliber of work.
I'm not expert in much, but I am expert in languages and in how people use (especially) second languages to communicate. I'll suggest that parsing words of a non-native speaker is the linguistic equivalent of herding buttered cats.
too hot wrote:
Kroc wrote:
But what is "his training?" What about it do you feel like does not translate to the "average Joe?" Serious question and lookinf for honest dialogue.
I think his system is beyond what a lot of us even realize, but the principles of training at multiple paces using a funneled approach is sound and can be applied to the "average Joe."
I’m all for honest dialogue. I think the key is what he means by modulation. As I understand it, modulation is very high quality intense bouts of training interspersed with regenerative work. Perhaps the key to his “system” or as he puts it...what has changed in the philosophy of marathon training over the last 15 years....is precisely the breadth and amount of quality that athletes now attempt in training specifically towards the marathon. Can the average Joe do the same thing? He
says quite clearly that they would need to use a different “system”...understandably because we don’t have the foundation to withstand that caliber of work. It’s not that we can’t handle the workload so much as we cannot absorb or reap its benefit.
Could the average Joe still be trained using Canova principles? Sure. But it would be “Canova-esque” training and I think that it is an important distinction to make because the real potency behind the Canova method, the ingenuity that lies behind it, is the modulation aspect. You cannot attempt this without building a huge aerobic house first.
So you are saying you do not disagree with the Canova-esque training principles of training at a variety of paces in a funnel-like fashion, but you do disagree in the volume of that type of work for the "average Joe"?
The hard part, actually, is buttering the cats.
going faster miles an hour wrote:
The hard part, actually, is buttering the cats.
That's why funneling is so important. Not something for the amateur cat herder to attempt.
We got enough cats around here. We need more dogs.
That coach is some kinda red neck
runrincerepeat wrote:
That coach is some kinda red neck
Hello Pot.
I was just thinking in his neck of the woods cats would not be buttered. Cats would be over rice.
My cat wants butter; my cat wants it all.
AJ, have you done any alterations yet? How are you planning on doing them if you do?
Actually just had some pants taken up the other day but Ms. AJ can’t sew for sh!t so I took them to a seamstress.
Sorry I couldn’t resist.
Here’s the alternation slo had me do so far:
4 miles continuous alternating tempo. (1200m ~hmp/400m at 5k pace). (Actually maybe a little slower, (like 10s/mile)than hmp pace on the 1200s. Then 6 x 200m ~ mile pace, full recovery
And this coming week I’ve got:
Continuous alternations, aka deek’s quarters, 8 x (200m float (very slightly slower than mp), 400m brisk (slightly faster than goal 5k pace, i guess between 3k-5k).
Pappy, between now and my goal 15K race, I am considering these two workouts (or some variation of them) from the Magness article:
7 miles alternating 800m at HM-5 seconds/mile with 800m at HM +35 seconds/mile
8 miles alternating 1,000m at HM-10 seconds/mile with 600m at HM +30 seconds/mile
Any suggestions on how I might modify them with an approximate 1-hour 15K as the goal (6:26/mile)?
I was going to say something clever back but, yeah...nothing
Those sound really good. I think you will like them.
Pappy wrote:
I don't think the average Joe can do Canova's system completely. It is pretty simple he is taking elite guys and extending their range. The "Average Joe" is still working to make their running economy more efficient. I'm not sure it is possible to gain efficiency and extend efficiency in the same cycle.
This is an important point.
Physiologically, can you "extend" your current economy if your current economy is not already at its limit?
In practice, I answer "yes" every time I move out of a base phase and into a training cycle for a specific race.
So let's measure economy on a scale of 1-10, with 10 being the realization of your full potential. In practice, I come out of my base phase somewhere below 10, say 7. Next I'm going to try to extend the duration (endurance, durability) at my 7 using whatever program I fancy at that particular moment, say Pfitz 18/55. That's my training in a nutshell. (And probably most of us?)
So, is there something about Canova's program that makes it less actionable for a 7 than other programs?
On the "amateur" question, memes aside.
Amateur simply means you don't get paid and I don't think Canova's training is linked to a particular runner's revenue flow. In the Canova 101 RW article back some time ago, he differentiated between competitive runners and fitness runners. Does amateur=fitness runner? No answer from me; just fostering discussion.
Kroc wrote:
too hot wrote:
I’m all for honest dialogue. I think the key is what he means by modulation. As I understand it, modulation is very high quality intense bouts of training interspersed with regenerative work. Perhaps the key to his “system” or as he puts it...what has changed in the philosophy of marathon training over the last 15 years....is precisely the breadth and amount of quality that athletes now attempt in training specifically towards the marathon. Can the average Joe do the same thing? He
says quite clearly that they would need to use a different “system”...understandably because we don’t have the foundation to withstand that caliber of work. It’s not that we can’t handle the workload so much as we cannot absorb or reap its benefit.
Could the average Joe still be trained using Canova principles? Sure. But it would be “Canova-esque” training and I think that it is an important distinction to make because the real potency behind the Canova method, the ingenuity that lies behind it, is the modulation aspect. You cannot attempt this without building a huge aerobic house first.
So you are saying you do not disagree with the Canova-esque training principles of training at a variety of paces in a funnel-like fashion, but you do disagree in the volume of that type of work for the "average Joe"?
Not quite. I’m saying that certain amateur runners may with good intent apply Canova-esque principles to their training but in error refer to it as Canova training. I know this is merely an academic distinction but as you guys know I get the same way with Lydiard. Out of respect for these great coaches, I think we need to get it right.
Pappy mentions efficiency or running economy. In my opinion, I think the key is aerobic development. Aerobic house is a term that Canova uses by the way.
too hot wrote:
...I’m saying that certain amateur runners may with good intent apply Canova-esque principles to their training but in error refer to it as Canova training. I know this is merely an academic distinction but as you guys know I get the same way with Lydiard. Out of respect for these great coaches, I think we need to get it right.
Pappy mentions efficiency or running economy. In my opinion, I think the key is aerobic development. Aerobic house is a term that Canova uses by the way.
So amateur=unfinished aerobic house occupant? If the aerobic house is still under construction, one should not engage in Canova training, but one could engage in Canova-esque training?
I'm assuming that by "Canova training" you mean "being coached by Canova," since no two of his athletes follow the same workout schedule and because he has not published a set of scheds a la Daniels/Pfitz/etc...
By the same token, modifying a Daniels workout would no longer be Daniels training but instead Daniels-esque training?
Maybe to facilitate constructive discussion, since none of us here to my knowledge are currently employing any of the "great coaches" we mention, we could just assume an "-esque" whenever a coach is mentioned.
So, now that we've done all that, other than respecting some coaches, how does this further our understanding and application of training principles?
Allen1959 wrote:
Pappy, between now and my goal 15K race, I am considering these two workouts (or some variation of them) from the Magness article:
7 miles alternating 800m at HM-5 seconds/mile with 800m at HM +35 seconds/mile
8 miles alternating 1,000m at HM-10 seconds/mile with 600m at HM +30 seconds/mile
Any suggestions on how I might modify them with an approximate 1-hour 15K as the goal (6:26/mile)?
Allen, I think it looks really good. I'll try to post tomorrow on why and how I did on/offs. One thing I am curious about is are you doing these on a track? If not it maybe just as good to do them by time. Something like on (3 minutes @ 15k pace -5) off(3 minutes at 15k pace + 1 minute) then progress to on(3 minutes at 15k pace -5) off(2 minutes /@15k pace + 1 minute) then on(3 min @ 15k-5) off(1 min @ 15k +1 min)
Coach Jeff ROC wrote:
So amateur=unfinished aerobic house occupant? If the aerobic house is still under construction, one should not engage in Canova training, but one could engage in Canova-esque training?
If your aerobic house is still under construction, finish building it. That should be everyone’s number one priority, regardless of what “esque” you use.
Canova’s athletes don’t all the follow the same schedule because they run different events and every runner is different but the philosophy is the same. Extension, modulation, top quality, funnel....upon a completed aerobic house.
Modifying individual workouts is not what makes a system “Canova-esque” or Daniels-esque. It has to be a serious departure from one of the system’s core beliefs. Canova himself is very insistent on the point we have been making here about the aerobic house.
We are all students of the sport here. This discussion matters because we we may understand Canova principles but it is equally important to understand when or how to apply them.
angryjohnny wrote:
runrincerepeat wrote:
That coach is some kinda red neck
Hello Pot.
Hey .. well... I got nothing.
Megan Keith (14:43) DESTROYS Parker Valby's 5000 PB in Shanghai
Colin Sahlman runs 1:45 and Nico Young runs 1:47 in the 800m tonight at the Desert Heat Classic
Molly Seidel Fails To Debut As An Ultra Runner After Running A Road Marathon The Week Before
Hallowed sub-16 barrier finally falls - 3 teams led by Villanova's 15:51.91 do it at Penn Relays!!!
2024 Boston marathon - The first non-carbon assisted finisher ran..... 2:34