SPIRITO TRAIL

Posto un (parziale) approfondimento del Prof. Canova sull’evoluzione della preparazione nelle medie e lunghe distanze…non è un riferimento diretto al trail ma penso che possa dare alcuni spunti a chi si interessa di programmazione “evoluta” ( l’inglese è di facile comprensione…)
In particolare l’argomento trattato è la “qualificazione” delle sedute estensive, ovvero come fare evolvere il volume a bassa intensità verso ritmi più vicini a quelli di gara…chiaramente lui fa riferimento ad atleti di alto livello, ma alcuni principi sono applicabili al "corridore medio"!

Does it matter how fast you do your long runs?

….Excuse me, but reading what many runners think about long run is, for me, very funny.
One question : if you want to run a Marathon at 3:19 pace (about 2:20 final time), do you think that running 30k at 4:00 pace can have some connection ?
If you want running 10000m in 30:00, do you think that the main workouts are 400m on track, and long run must be only easy regeneration ?
The first man changing this old mentality was one Australian, Ron Clarke, that in 1964-68 was the first athlete running (not every day, of course, but once every week) for 15-20km very close 3:00 per km. He was able to destroy the World Record of 10000m moving, completely alone, from 28:15 to 27:39 without any rabbit.
If you want to beat your PB, you must run LONG and FAST. Running fast intervals and slow long run is not enough. Running always fast long run and never fast intervals is not enough. Training is a combination of different speeds, and, more slow is the speed, longer is the duration. If we want to see what really happens in our body, we can see that, for very little difference of speed (for example, from 3:00 per km to 3:10 per km) the level of lactate is very different. The type of work has different targets, the time that you use for building the same enzymatic situation is different, the quantity of fibres interested in our run is different. Running at 3:00 or at 3:20 or at 3:40 are different type of training. So, we must put, in our training, ALL these speeds

The development of training is not to replace some type of workouts with some other, but to ADD something that you didn't use before. Training is the ability in stimulating your body in different directions. So, one stimula can be with more intensity, another with more duration at the same speed. We have to mix everything together, respecting a correct proportion between the different workouts.

At the end of every discussion, the question is :
What I ask to my training ? I want to try to reach my best potential results, or I want to be fresh every day, running only for my health and my fun ? In the first case you must use long and fast run, with a correct modulation. In the second case, run slowly and enjoy your life, but don't speak about good results in athletics.

Many runners, when read what I write, make a mistake : they think that the FINAL PART of the evolution in training must be related to the values of the beginning of their training.
What I try to explain is that, if you spend one year for extending your ability in duration at the same pace, YOU HAVE ADVANTAGE IN ALL THE TYPES OF TRAINING SHORTER AND FASTER. You can run faster with the same type of INTERNAL LOAD, or you can run LONGER at the same pace, always with the SAME INTERNAL LOAD.
What you have to understand is that, if you want to increase your performances, you must push and move your limits, not to stay INSIDE the limits that you already know. Improvement is the ability to overtake the current limits in every type of training, for increasing your qualities. Instead, if you continue to stay inside what you are able to do, step by step you don't give any stimula to your body, so you SUPPOSE to train, but really you GO RUNNING. There is a big difference between TRAINING and RUNNING : the first has the goal to stimulate your body, AND THE ANSWER OF YOUR BODY IS THE TRAINING. The second is something good for your health, but forget that you can improve with this mentality.


.. I'm sure that the ability in increasing the ability (forgive my repetition) in using fatty acids is very important, but one thing is to work for increasing this ability for very long run, another thing to increase this ability at fast marathon pace. I adviced one of the Italian winning twice World Championships in 100 km, Mario Fattore, and can say that training for ultramarathons is very simple, because you use ONLY FATTY ACIDS, forget carbohydrates. So, your problems regards other situations : to preserve good fitness for so long time (7-10 hours), to build tendons, ligaments and muscles for that type of duration, to build your mind. But no problems about the source of energy. Also if can seem strange, we need very less training for running 100km that for running a Marathon. For 100km, you have to develop your MAX AEROBIC LIPIDIC POWER, using types of fatty acids able to give more energy in the time unit, and the system of training starts from very slow speeds, at first developing the DURATION (one session every 2 weeks of 60-70 km, and some full marathon like.... speed), after the pace inside the same duration. So, always you use fatty acids, but increasing speed you become able to select the bests in order to develop your Aerobic Power.
Instead, when you want to increase your marathon at high level, YOU START FROM SPEED AT MARATHON PACE OR SIMILAR, and the first step is to use ALL YOUR CARBOHYDRATES in order to run still some minute in total depletion of sugar, for obliging muscular fibres in using THE MOST POWERFUL SOURCES OF FATTY ACIDS in order to maintain a similar speed. For example, if an athlete able running HM in 65.0 wants to prepare a marathon for 2:15 (really not difficult), he can run without big problems 28km at 3:15 pace (1:31), but after this goes to finish his reserves of glycogen, and his pace goes down dramatically. If he is able to run yet 3 km at 3:25 / 3:35 / 3:45, THESE LAST 3 KM ARE THE REAL TRAINING, because his fibres have to go to search some other hidden tank, under necessity. The next time, the same athlete becomes able running at 3:15 not 1:31, but 1:41 (for 31 km), so his long fast run must be extended to 34 km with the last 3 without glycogen.
So, in the first case we start with an empty glass that we go to fill with fatty acids, in the second case we start from a glass full of glycogen that we go to empty step by step, in order to fill the remaining part with qualified fatty acids.

When I speak about FAST LONG RUN, don't think that ALWAYS long run must be fast.

If I go to prepare a Marathon, I use one specific long run every week, alternating two different ways :

a) DURATION - I don't have particular care about the pace. I start from 1:30, and in short time I move to 1:45 - 2:00 - 2:15 - 2:30. This training is at 70% of your HM pace (for ex., if you have a PB in HM of 70.20 that is a pace of 3:20 per km, and is the first time that you want to prepare a marathon, your pace for DURATION can start from 4:20. At the beginning of your training (may be 5 months before your Marathon), once a week you go for DURATION, in order to reach the ability in lasting the full marathon time, in short time, because your long run is very easy.

b) When you are able running, for example, 2:30, you can start to qualify the DURATION using a progression for the last 15:00, after 30:00, and so and so.

c) But, when you are able running 2:30 of DURATION, you start also your training of DISTANCE. Distance is a precise distance (forgive me again), that you go to run at even pace, about 90/95% of your HM pace (and this has to become your Marathon pace). So, in the previous case, 95% of 3:20 is 3:30. You can start with 24km at 3:30, and the progression is TO EXTEND THE SAME PACE, running 26 and then 28 and so and so.

d) When you have both DURATION and DISTANCE in your program, the system is TO QUALIFY THE SPEED OF THE DURATION, and TO EXTEND THE DURATION OF THE PACE OF THE DISTANCE. You can alternate these 2 long runs, one in one week, the second in the next week. At the end, you become able to build a funnel, where your DURATION is 2:30 at 3:40, and your DISTANCE are 36 or 38 km at 3:30. When you are able to do this, be sure that you can run your full marathon at 3:30 finishing faster the last 10k, and, if you go for a HM one month before your Marathon (of course we can use, in every week, another specific workout of extension : so, no more than 2 workouts per week), your PB can move from 65 to 64 without big problems.
All the other days are for GENERAL VOLUME (many km slow or following your sensation, in any case easy) or for RECRUITMENT OF THE HIGHER PERCENTAGE OF FIBRES (using very short sprints uphill).

e) Regarding the fact of very long run, I want to remind you that, for every type of event and for every specialism, we have 2 different kinds of typologies : the FAST and the RESISTANT. This fact depends from their morphology and their physiology, and in part on their psychology too.
For example, how many strong athletes of 200m can be better on 300m, but are not able to run 400m very well ? And, if there was the official distance of 600m, are you sure that could be Borzakovskiy of Bungei the winner, or not, for example, the best Mutua ? Don't forget that the distances of official T & F are conventional, and every athlete has to adapt his training to them, but probably could have a better distance for his attitude that doesn't exist (remember when, in the past, you have in US, during indoor activity, distance like 500y - 600y - 1000y, and go to see who were the record holders).
For example, if you are an athlete able running 200m in 22.0 and 300m in 34.0, you are RESISTANT ; if you run 21.5 and 35.0, you are FAST. In the second case, forget that you can become a good 400m runner. In the first case. move to that distance soon, and in 3-4 years you become able to run full 400m at the same pace of your 300m before (in this case, 46.5) or very close.
This for explaining that there are runners that NEVER IN THEIR LIFE CAN BECOME BETTER USING LONG RUN. Why ? Because their internal anathomy (muscles and organs) is the anatomy of a sprinter, with more fast fibres and different nervous ability, and a different hormonal system, and different psychology, etc. Also among animals there is the same situation : the lyon is a sprinter, and, if is not able to reach the gazelle after 400m, goes to rest awaiting the next victim...
So, don't generalize what I write. My phylosophy in training is to find the best solution for obtaining the best individual results, following the best personal attitudes. But, in the amateur field, everybody wants to do the event that he prefers, not the best for himself. And I suppose that this is right.
So, my advice for TOP ATHLETES regards the way for reaching their best results, not what they prefer of like. But for all the other, I suppose that you must do what you like.

Gira e rigira il concetto fondamentale e' molto semplice : il nostro corpo si adatta agli stimoli che gli diamo.
Se corriamo sempre piano ed a lungo diventeremo corridori resistenti ma lenti.
Se corriamo forte ma per brevi distanze diventeremo corridori veloci ma poco resistenti.
Quindi per diventare veloci e resistenti bisogna solo ... correre forte ed a lungo ... facile

Interessante il concetto di "costruire" durata e distanza separatamente ... tuttosommato permette di preparare dei piani di allenamento relativamente semplici

Esatto...il concetto è anche quello di far sempre evolvere la nostra preparazione e non di "ristagnare" sempre negli stessi lavori/stimoli che prima o poi saranno inefficaci a livello qualitativo!
In ambito trail io applicherei il concetto di "qualità estensiva" ai futuri atleti che, iniziando da specialità più brevi si cimenteranno poi in gare più lunghe (e penso che alcuni esempi già ci siano di gente che dai cross/corsa in montagna poi sviluppa una buona carriera nel trail).....avere una base di qualità e saperla estendere è la chiave per lo sviluppo delle prestazioni.
Però anche per chi ha iniziato dalle "lunghe" può essere una buona cosa cambiare stimolo ogni tanto e lavorare su ritmi più allegri, per poi provare ad allungare la capacità di durata a questi ritmi.

ah beh, se è così c'è stato un certo Zatopek che si allenava proprio così, come un pazzo e con carichi di lavoro disumani sulle lunghe
OT
Dopo Correre (Adelphi per la traduzione italiana, lettura molto piacevole) di Jean Echenoz, è uscita un'altra opera dedicata a Emil Zatopek che correva spesso in solitaria, spingendo e spingendo a ritmo forsennato.
titolo: Zátopek. La locomotiva umana
Autore Franzelli Marco

approfitto per chiedere agli amministratori: perchè non aprire anche una sezzione TRAIL E LETTERATURA/CINEMA?

Zapotek era un mito, faceva 60x400 in pista

Proseguo con la "storia" dell'evoluzione della metodologia nell'allenamento della corsa di resistenza, inserendo i contributi del Prof Canova su una discussione sul forum di LETSRUN (di questi giorni)

Nothing new about distance training has been discovered since January 1, 1980
http://www.letsrun.com/forum/flat_read. ... ad=5521171

Nothing. Everything since then has been re-hashing of the same concepts already understood by runners in the late 70's / early 80's. All improvements since then have only come through better technology, faster courses, and a larger global talent pool of participation.

Risposte di Renato Canova:

In my opinion, few things changed in training about short distances (800 - 1500m).

Some period was characterized by some champion of superior level. This fact provoked big interested, also in normal people, for track and field, and organisers of the big meetings prepared many competitions for trying to better the WR, with several pacers at very fast and even speed.

Due to this fact, we find "groups" of performances, during the best years, run in the same race : typical example are the 800m of the period 2011-2013, when 5 of the 6 performers improved their PB following Rudisha in Olympics Games.


Completely different is the picture we can have looking at Marathon.

In top 30, we find only 2 athletes with their best in 2003, and 28 during the last 5 years (2008-2013).

To think that this trend is due to the improvement of external factors (shoes : in many cases were better 40 years ago ; roads : I don't see differences in the quality of tarmac in Fukuoka between 1980 and today ; supplements : about Marathon runners, I think the specialists of 40-30 years ago used more supplements than today), and also, looking at track, the quality of spikes and tracks (tartan existed from 1968, and for long distances continues to remain the best surface), is to refuse the idea that training changed in direction of more volume of quality.

Of course, running is Always "only" running. But little differences in speed must be considered "different means of training", since can provoke great changes in the physiology of the athletes.

In 1980, there was not the idea to use long intervals on track. A lot of volume with long slow run, many competitions (that saved the shape of the athletes, producing the intensity they didn't use in training), and on track only short distances with short recovery, many times burning the athletes.

The big difference : inside this mileage, the VOLUME OF INTENSITY is very much bigger than in the past.

So, the real change of today is not in the volume, is not in the intensity, BUT IS IN THE VOLUME OF INTENSITY.
And this fact can also explain why, shortest is the distance, more difficult is to do something new : THE INTENSITY IS ALREADY AT THE LIMIT, and the only room of improvement is to work on the neural situation.

The first athlete running "fast" his long run in training was Ron Clarke in the period '64 - 68'. He ran sometimes 15 km in 45', and at that time it seemed something incredible. Now, this is common training, with still superior intensity, and is used by ALL the best African runners.


"Different" is not necessarily the same as "new." Renato's descriptions here haven't shown anything really new.

I think there is a part of truth in what HRE says, but he doesn't understand the real point.

If you want to prepare a minestrone, everybody can know exactly the what has to put inside : potatoes, beans, peas, cabbages, rice, broccoli, for example.

The question is : Why some minestrone has a better taste than another ? The ingredients are the same, BUT SOME DIFFERENCE, of course, there is.

May be the time used for cooking ? May be not the same ingredients are put in the water at the same time ? May be the quantity of every ingredient is different from one cook to another cook ?

So, practically NOTHING NEW IN THE INGREDIENTS.

Also if really something new there is (treadmills, alter G, machines for strength and recovery), we can't give the responsibility of the improvement in long distances to these Technologies, because the best (who are African) don't use anything like this.

What changed is the SYSTEM OF TRAINING.



We can divide the history of methodology in several periods :

1. The beginning of the Century. There was no knowledge about physiology, and training was only running. Who had more motivation and more strength, was able to train more. In the history of Dorando Pietri, winner (disqualified) of Marathon during OG 1908 in London, we can see he became professional going to compete in US, and in some case he ran, against the American winning Olympics, and against a champion representing the native people (redskins), every week, also a full Marathon indoor (Empire State Garden) where it was possible to bet, for the spectators, about the situation athletes can have every mile. There was no idea about recovery. The athletes continued to compete until their body was destroyed, after went home without training for several months.

2. The period in between the two Wars. Finnish athletes started to have some idea about training, the most part in the nature. It was the period when FARTLEK appeared, and was the first time runners used variations of speed.
In Germany, was also the period when the combination physiologist / coach (Gerschler / Reindell) gave scientific reasons for the INTERVAL-TRAINING, mainly used at that time by specialists of short distances.

3. The first 10 years after the second War ('45-'55). In this period, two figures did something new : EMIL ZATOPEK, running an incredible number of intervals with very short recovery (for example, 50 times 400m at 90% of his PB in 10000m with 30" recovery) and his long run with boots, and MIHAIL IGLOI, the first coach combined speed and volume, having the same success of Lydiard, success that couldn't bring to Olympic Gold only because of the Hungarian Revolution in 1956. Sandor Iharos was able to beat WR in 1500, 5000 and 10000m, and with him Sandor Rozsavolgyi and Laszlo Tabori had the same impact that, some year later, Snell, Walker, Dixon and Quax had on the World.

4. The period of Percy Cerutty, who found in Herb Elliot probably the most talented athlete ever (together Jim Ryun) for 1500m. Cerutty, not professional coach, practically ended to coach top runners after the retirement of Elliot, which happened in very unusual way : only 22, after winning Olympic Gold in Rome with the WR (in this, something as David Rudisha did in London in 800m).
Directly connected with Cerutty, but a little bit later, the history of Arthur Lydiard started.
He spoke about "Marathon training", advocating a large "Aerobic base" before going to the specific quality. But really, this training can be good for every event, apart Marathon : nothing of specific for that event.
Lydiard had a great influence on all the coaches of the period, due to the successes of his athletes, and to the fact he was of English Language.
In Europe, during the same period, we had development of different schools, all connected with high mileage : in France with Frassinelli (Jazy ran sometimes 3 hours, starting every new season with very slow run), in Poland (with more intensity, producing top athletes as Jerzy Chromik and Krzystof Krzyszkowiak), in UK.
UK had a period with very high mileage, using winter, and the cross country season, as main motivation for developing qualities of endurance later used on track.
All the best athletes (also who later became a specialist of shorter distances) started in the school with long cross : Steve Ovett, Steve Cram (winning European Junior in Bydgoszcz '79 in 3000m), Seb Coe.
At the same time, they developed a system of CIRCUIT TRAINING looking at increasing of STRENGTH ENDURANCE, and this system was, later, used by North African athletes too, because is the best for 800-1500m (and also today, very little changed, and many changes made specific training worse in this direction...).
It was also the period of the great Portuguese runners : Fernando Mamede (WR holder of 10000m) and Carlos Lopes (winning of WCh in Cross Country, and Olympic Gold in the Marathon) followed, with different plans, the phylosophy of the great coach Moniz Pereira, who in my mind was the first looking at the INTENSITY OF LONG INTERVALS.

5. A new period looking at higher intensity, WITH THE MISTAKE TO REDUCE DRAMATICALLY THE VOLUME. This was for making training more "comfortable" looking at the requests of new generations, which didn't have anymore the same will to use a lot of time for long run. But this fact, combined with the lack of general endurance due to a more sedentary type of life, REDUCED THE LEVEL OF RESULTS, and all the Western Countries (Europe, US and Oceania) went in the darkness, losing completing the clue of training.

6. The beginning of African athletes. Before, only some African had the opportunity to compete with some preparation, and their training was mainly in US, where they went to University. With the creation of WCh, and of a more professional athletics, they started to look at the opportunity to change their lives earning some money running. European managers (the first was Bicourt, immediately followed by Kim McDonald) started to support training camps, producing top athletes, that in short time were able to become the "black wave" dominating the World. The same happened in Ethiopia, also if in different way, directly under the control of the Federation (but the real input was the appearance of Gebrselassie, who organised together with Jos Hermens a system producing professional results).
African athletes had high aerobic level, because their normal life (in this, not different from the top US runners of the period '60-'80), and were able to increase the quality of their training.
However, if Ethiopians had in their culture the long run, Kenyans didn't have : they preferred runs of medium duration (30' - 1 hr max) at very high intensity, as a competition.
Looking at Marathon, the real explosion came after 1992, when the Italian Gabriele Rosa understood the potentiality of Kenyan runners for the longest event. He created several training camps, having the ability to find a big budget from Fila, and the big adventure of Kenyan Marathon started.

7. The decline of long distances on track. After 2005, due to the beginning of the economic crisis in Europe, the budgets for big track meetings started to diminish. At the same time, the number of African looking at athletics for improving their level of life continued to raise. So, the market became every year more difficult, and more poor, for track runners of high level. This fact pushed Kenyan and Ethiopian runners of high quality, still young, to move directly to long distances (may be one year in HM, second year immediately to Marathon).
Who had the opportunity to live in one of these Countries in the same period, could find athletes different from before : strong, young and fresh.
That's the reason because we could increase the VOLUME OF INTENSITY, and this school is now followed by all Kenya. The most important Group are in Iten, Kaptagat and Kapsabet, and, with some individual differences, everybody has similar programs, VERY DIFFERENT FROM THE PAST.

That's the history.