quote:<HR>Originally posted by Richard99:
To move faster, more force has to be applied to the ground at a faster rate. Running faster is not a matter of just increasing the amount of propulsion force, force has to be applied faster. Ground contact time decreases with increases in pace. If force goes up and time goes down, with no change in distance, hasn't power gone up? Even if force doesn't change, if time goes down, power has increased hasn't it?
Applied to the bigger picture (which is the most practical and useful way for runners to think about power, IMO, rather than instantaneous power output), running a fixed distance (say 5k) in a shorter amount of time means power output has increased. It takes more force to run faster, and it takes less time to run that 5k, and since there is no change in distance, power output has increased. Running 5k faster than you did before = increased power output. Do you see anything wrong with that logic in relation to total power output over a fixed running distance?
<HR>
So here it is, once again, my ever-lasting question to you, Richard; what adjustment would you make to the actual practical training program based on what you claim you know (and nobody else does)? I don?t know about others but I?m only interested in what improves running performance; what we can do to incorporate to ?help? others who seek my help so they would improve their running. You see, hypothetical as it may be; there are a lot of ?Pauls? in real life. It could be 16:10 or 21:10 or 24:10 for 5k; or Pauline who has 3:45 marathon PR who wants to break 3:40. These are ?me? and runners I would deal with. And based on what we know about them and training, we would make ?suggestions? such as do more long runs or do some tempo runs or do some hills, etc. There?s this guy, Skuj, from Victoria, my archrival at letsrun.com message board. He would give me earful (or eyeful) and this is why, secretly, I actually have respect for the guy. He has his principles and his practical idea of what he thinks would improve running. On the other hand, you have dodged my simple question and the best you have given me was ?I wouldn?t change anything?. You trash Lydiard (I?m sure you would deny it because you have those tiny rat holes all over the place for you to hide away that you ?haven?t said it (in those particular words)? but the message is so very clear) and criticized me for being too blind to Lydiardism that I wouldn?t listen to anybody?s suggestion or your suggestions. Well, I would very much like to hear YOUR practical suggestion because you cannot and should not come back and say that you wouldn?t change anything because I do things Lydiard Way. After trashing Lydiard, you?ve got to have some other approach to training.
Along with doing Lydiard, I will tell you what I think will improve Paul to break 16 minutes or Pauline to go under 3:40. It?s by sending text message on the way to Japan when the plane made an emergency stop in Edmonton to make sure they are taking care of some soreness in their knee: or checking to make sure they don?t over-do the long run when we get dumped with 12-inch of snow so they won?t get a sore Achilles tendon; or shoveling the snow a couple of lines on the hill at the park so we can do hill bounding during the winter (OK, Rengle, I haven?t done it yet but I?m heading there next Tuesday?); or getting up at 4:15 to get together at 5:00 in the 7 below with windchill condition, running around the shopping mall and community parking lot to avoid strong wind to make sure they get the run in; or, like my favorite line from Kim Stevenson??now I need to head out to run with the kids??. THAT is how you improve the performance of live people?by caring! Not with some funky equation, be it right or wrong, or absolutely meaningless terminology. Arthur Lydiard was right. It is absolutely annoying when some scientist, or scientist wanna-be, comes out and plays a nonsense word game or equation game, as if it?s so easy to improve performance?once again, I know you would come out and tell us that you ?never said it?s easy to improve 5k performance? although you have mentioned several times that it?s easy to apply your so-called ?Power Running? concept and ?this is how you run 5k faster?. Let me tell you. Those lines alone make me think you do NOT belong to coaching scene. Anybody who had struggled to cut even 5 seconds off your 5k time will not talk the matter so lightly. Believe it or not, I take MaryT?s words so much more seriously than yours.
I have not yet seen a single ?suggestion? practical enough for us real coaches and runners to benefit from all your so-called ?new? theories or research findings. I?m not talking about those unrealistically stupid ?suggestions? like ?spend several years thinking about single topic? (as if you have?) or ?changing the term of what this man who was a great coach, great mentor and great friend to me, had come up with based on his 50 years of practical experience to your suggestion based on one research paper?. Skuj might ?suggest? me to forget those ?junk? long runs that are too slow for actual racing speed and incorporate more race specific training year round or multi paced training. THAT is a suggestion?be it right or wrong, whether I?d agree or not, that?s a suggestion; based on his own principles. We have a saying in Japanese that, ?If it?s neither medicine nor poison, then it?s absolutely useless.? You have been acting like Master Yoda, throwing people (some decent knowledgeable people) smart questions, being so darn condescending about it; yet I have not seen ANY suggestion coming from you that could remotely benefit any of us coaches or any runner who actually runs. Until you can actually do that, seriously, I don?t give a tiny rat?s a$$ to any ?suggestion? you would make.
