I actually bought his book and just finished reading it. If you look at what he says to do and not why he says to do it, I don't think most would say it's that bad.
The part that bothers me is the pseudo-scientific and infomercialish way everything is presented. Rather than justifying each element of the approach with a different study, I'd like to see some evidence of some evidence of people who have improved. He feels the need to rebrand things and make it known that this is a new approach. The little boxes with "conventional wisdom" versus "brain training wisdom" often knock down straw men. If the approach is indeed "revolutionary," it would be nice to see a group of "Fitzgerald's boys" that he rounded up from the neighborhood and turned into world beaters.
It's too bad that these aspects of the book are so off-putting because people just react to that. I think the basics of the book aren't that radical (you can find them all elsewhere) and I'd be interested to here what people thought of them.
- his schedules include speed before strength like
this article - he promotes cross-training to increase volume without the injury risk
- core conditioning
- dynamic flexibility exercises over static stretching
- working on stride development - imagery and sensory (proprioceptive cues), technique drills (e.g. bounding), also advocate running some barefoot or in minimalist shoes
- emphasizes proper recovery, be flexible with schedules
- injury prevention -- stop if it hurts and live to fight another day, work on stride
- master the experience of racing -- sometime race to improve your ability to suffer
- do some long runs without carbs, don't overdrink, carbo-protein sports drink (accelerade)
