quote:<HR>Originally posted by AndyHass:
The whole story about calves and elite running is what we would call in the statistics world a "post hoc analysis". In other words, they were looking back AFTER the fact for things that were common amon elite runners. The problem with this is that you are just as likely, or even moreso, to identify things that are a RESULT of elite running, and not the CAUSE.

My body type is a far cry from what it was when I started running. It's also a far cry from what it was when I was in peak 10K shape a couple years ago.

Saying top runners have skinny calves does not say necessarily that top runners are top runners because they have skinny calves or even that skinny calves are necessary to be a top runner. All it says it that top runners have skinny calves. They could just be the result of all the work they did to become top runners.

That's why you have such different people as Alan Webb and Dathan Ritzenhein runnning nearly the same for 10K.<HR>

Good one, Andy. Arthur Lydiard used to say that; training based on exercise physiologists' suggestions is like trying to drive a car by looking at rear-view mirror.

I was thinking about what Andy said during my run this morning?of course it was only 40 minutes or so, I didn?t spend several years, thinking about single topic; so it may not count but? I really can?t think of any scientific discovery that benefited actual training for middle distance and distance running since perhaps 1968 (or thereabout) high altitude Olympics. Until the Olympic Games were awarded to Mexico City, nobody knew much about the affect of high altitude and high altitude training and I believe science helped athletes and coaches great deal. But beside that, I can?t think of many things that actually ?guided? athletes and coaches.

I may not head to the local library, checking out some books or ?thinking about single topic? for years, or actively seek most up-to-date scientific journals and, frankly, I don?t have time to do those things because I really don?t think that would significantly improve my knowledge on how to train/coach (I do, however, try to stay up-to-date by picking and choosing what?s valuable). Richard likes to talk about his ?Power Running? theory and even go as far to ?suggest? that we change Arthur Lydiard?s term, ?Aerobic Base Building? to ?Power Base? by pointing out that ?running significantly improve muscle power?? Running is series of ?jump? on one foot/leg, bringing the entire body weight against Gravity to throw it completely up in the air. And we say that we do it 1000 times a mile (well, for us slower people, a bit more than 1000). If muscle power didn?t get improved by doing this, there?s something wrong! As many ?scientists? or ?researchers? like to do, and in a way, that?s their job, he likes to pin-point one single aspect of things probe it. It was muscle power before and now running economy. Or whatever it may be?be it mitochondria or VO2Max or white muscle fiber or whatever; the actual fact is; there NO one single element in the act of running that works alone. Everything is interacting?EVERYTHING. Instead, this whole argument has become the argument of ?Well, can you run without legs?? ?Well, can YOU run without heart and lungs?? And most sensible people would notice that there?s nothing better to waste time on than such an argument. At least for me, as a practical coach, it doesn?t mean Jack.

When you look at more recent ?discoveries?, or at least pointed out by Richard, have been; ?Running significantly improve muscle power??well it should. My question then was ?would improving power actually help running performance?? He didn?t come back with any specific ?suggestion? then. Well, actually I think it will help. And that?s why we do hills; and Arthur Lydiard was doing that 50 years ago. Nothing new there. Then he had this thing about running economy. He seems to have been fixated by the fact ?oxygen consumption decreases? as running economy improved (come to think of it, how did they measure running economy? I didn?t bother reading the entire argument but has it been addressed? If the researchers determined the improved running economy by decrease of oxygen consumption or usage or whichever the term you want to use; then, duh, it will decrease!). So my question was, based on that ?newly acquainted knowledge?, what practical ?suggestion? could science, or this particular research, offer to runners and coaches? He dodged this question conveniently by stating that his suggestion was to ?consider genetic differences? and ?spend years thinking about single topic? which of course has got nothing to do with running economy. Well, here?s a news for you; I believe running economy is very important and that?s why we do hill exercises?not simply hill running, but hill exercises?and sprint drills. Arthur Lydiard was doing that 50 years ago. Nothing new there. I was in fact hoping some ?scientific suggestion? of something like ?you should spend at least 30 minutes a week working on your form; then your time will improve such-and-such?? Nothing practical like that. So basically, to me, all those ?most recent scientific discoveries? that Richard loves to interpret and post according to his own interpretation are nothing new and nothing practically beneficial at all?maybe just goof for a talk over coffee for the **** of it.

You see, Arthur Lydiard used to say that there?s NOTHING we don?t know about training. We know everything there is to know about training. The important thing is how you put them all together in a balanced way to best suite YOU. Science sure can help you with that. But science will not come up with some new and innovative idea to all of a sudden improve running over-night?well legally at least. All the running we do strengthen your legs; YES. But that is nothing but a side-effect. Improving your aerobic capacity is the single most important aspect of this part of training and that?s why Lydiard termed it ?Aerobic Base Building?. The best way to develop this is by running a lot. Yes, you will get stronger legs; yes, your running economy improves? But those things, no matter how those researches put it to make it sound like a new and exciting ?discovery?, are old business; we knew that all along.

Now, this genetic stuff?I believe this is what he termed ?the single most important aspect of athletics? but he never quite answered whether I was right or wrong so I wouldn?t know for sure and he thinks I completely dismissed that, and I don?t know where he got that idea. As Rengle said, I?d be fool to ignore the genetic differences of the individuals. That?s why I?ve been applying it to my own coaching people for the last, say, 20 years? You can?t get around it. But I wouldn?t necessarily call it ?genetic differences?. Training background differences, perhaps. I don?t know who the **** he thinks he is to determine so-and-so has less talent because he/she gets injured by running only so much? At least this is what I read from what he?s saying. I knew of a guy who, when he was a bit overweight, his friend took him out for a 10-mile run to make fun of him; and he ended up running it comfortably and, since he enjoyed it so much, turned to become a marathon runner and ended up running 2:20 marathon?very quickly. It didn?t take him more than a few years to post that time. But that was all he could manage. Did he have talent? You better believe he did! He went so quickly from almost sedentary over-weight state to running just about 100 miles a week and running 2:20 marathon. Then if he?s so talented, how come he never become an internationally great runner? On the other hand, I also knew a guy who, according to Lydiard, was completely devoid of any athletic talent. He was the slowest guy Lydiard ever coached (well, until he met me, I guess! ;o)) but he loved to run so he ran everywhere. 20 years later, he came out and ran 2:15 and won the New Zealand marathon championships and went on to Germany and won the first ever masters championships in just over 2:20. Kim knows this guy. So what is talent? What is genetic?

I tell you, probably the single most important thing in athletic achievement even Richard doesn?t seem to address is the power of the mind. It?s all in your head. If you?re already defeated before you even start, there?s not even a point of trying. All the talent in the world won?t mean Jack if you don?t have the right mind to get out and do the work?the appropriate work. And when it comes down to coaching, it?s ALL in how you deliver the message. The single worst thing you can do to the athletes is to tell them that they don?t have the physical make-up to be good. It?s pre-determined and there?s nothing you can do about it. But there are TONS you can do about how to improve upon what you?ve got. THAT?s what I?m talking about?what is the practical suggestion to improve upon what we?ve got. If the genetic make-up is so important, then Richard is right, there?s NOTHING he can suggest besides ?Find better parents.? Of course, it?s a bit hard to do. So walrusgod and all those young aspiring athletes out there; if you have time to spend whining about lack of physical talent or having bad genes, spend more time trying to figure out how to effectively improve whatever the physical make-up that you?re born with. I?ll tell ya, some of those researches are actually interesting and educational. But ALWAYS think about how you can apply it to your advantage. NEVER ever take that as your liminations.

I?m sure, if Richard reads my post, he would come back all defensive and says, ?What!? I never meant it that way?? Or ?you?ve read me wrong?? or something like that. Well, if I read you wrong, then come out and tell me exactly what you?ve meant; not like one of those Zen Q&A that nobody seems to understand. I?m still all ears if you do have any practical suggestion to improve performance based on any of your research readings. We actually do need someone like you to read ALL the new papers out there?at least I?m too busy coaching people or running myself.

When you say"

quote:<HR>Originally posted by Nobby:
http://B] one of those Zen Q&A that nobody seems to understand. B<HR>

Do you mean something like:

If Richard was in the forest talking about running, and there was nobody there to hear him, would he still be wrong?

I'm gonna spend YEARS thinking about that.

quote:<HR>Originally posted by Nobby:
I was thinking about what Andy said during my run this morning?of course it was only 40 minutes or so, I didn?t spend several years, thinking about single topic; so it may not count but? I really can?t think of any scientific discovery that benefited actual training for middle distance and distance running since perhaps 1968 (or thereabout) high altitude Olympics. Until the Olympic Games were awarded to Mexico City, nobody knew much about the affect of high altitude and high altitude training and I believe science helped athletes and coaches great deal. But beside that, I can?t think of many things that actually ?guided? athletes and coaches.

I may not head to the local library, checking out some books or ?thinking about single topic? for years, or actively seek most up-to-date scientific journals and, frankly, I don?t have time to do those things because I really don?t think that would significantly improve my knowledge on how to train/coach (I do, however, try to stay up-to-date by picking and choosing what?s valuable). Richard likes to talk about his ?Power Running? theory and even go as far to ?suggest? that we change Arthur Lydiard?s term, ?Aerobic Base Building? to ?Power Base? by pointing out that ?running significantly improve muscle power?? Running is series of ?jump? on one foot/leg, bringing the entire body weight against Gravity to throw it completely up in the air. And we say that we do it 1000 times a mile (well, for us slower people, a bit more than 1000). If muscle power didn?t get improved by doing this, there?s something wrong! As many ?scientists? or ?researchers? like to do, and in a way, that?s their job, he likes to pin-point one single aspect of things probe it. It was muscle power before and now running economy. Or whatever it may be?be it mitochondria or VO2Max or white muscle fiber or whatever; the actual fact is; there NO one single element in the act of running that works alone. Everything is interacting?EVERYTHING. Instead, this whole argument has become the argument of ?Well, can you run without legs?? ?Well, can YOU run without heart and lungs?? And most sensible people would notice that there?s nothing better to waste time on than such an argument. At least for me, as a practical coach, it doesn?t mean Jack.

When you look at more recent ?discoveries?, or at least pointed out by Richard, have been; ?Running significantly improve muscle power??well it should. My question then was ?would improving power actually help running performance?? He didn?t come back with any specific ?suggestion? then. Well, actually I think it will help. And that?s why we do hills; and Arthur Lydiard was doing that 50 years ago. Nothing new there. Then he had this thing about running economy. He seems to have been fixated by the fact ?oxygen consumption decreases? as running economy improved (come to think of it, how did they measure running economy? I didn?t bother reading the entire argument but has it been addressed? If the researchers determined the improved running economy by decrease of oxygen consumption or usage or whichever the term you want to use; then, duh, it will decrease!). So my question was, based on that ?newly acquainted knowledge?, what practical ?suggestion? could science, or this particular research, offer to runners and coaches? He dodged this question conveniently by stating that his suggestion was to ?consider genetic differences? and ?spend years thinking about single topic? which of course has got nothing to do with running economy. Well, here?s a news for you; I believe running economy is very important and that?s why we do hill exercises?not simply hill running, but hill exercises?and sprint drills. Arthur Lydiard was doing that 50 years ago. Nothing new there. I was in fact hoping some ?scientific suggestion? of something like ?you should spend at least 30 minutes a week working on your form; then your time will improve such-and-such?? Nothing practical like that. So basically, to me, all those ?most recent scientific discoveries? that Richard loves to interpret and post according to his own interpretation are nothing new and nothing practically beneficial at all?maybe just goof for a talk over coffee for the **** of it.

You see, Arthur Lydiard used to say that there?s NOTHING we don?t know about training. We know everything there is to know about training. The important thing is how you put them all together in a balanced way to best suite YOU. Science sure can help you with that. But science will not come up with some new and innovative idea to all of a sudden improve running over-night?well legally at least. All the running we do strengthen your legs; YES. But that is nothing but a side-effect. Improving your aerobic capacity is the single most important aspect of this part of training and that?s why Lydiard termed it ?Aerobic Base Building?. The best way to develop this is by running a lot. Yes, you will get stronger legs; yes, your running economy improves? But those things, no matter how those researches put it to make it sound like a new and exciting ?discovery?, are old business; we knew that all along.

Now, this genetic stuff?I believe this is what he termed ?the single most important aspect of athletics? but he never quite answered whether I was right or wrong so I wouldn?t know for sure and he thinks I completely dismissed that, and I don?t know where he got that idea. As Rengle said, I?d be fool to ignore the genetic differences of the individuals. That?s why I?ve been applying it to my own coaching people for the last, say, 20 years? You can?t get around it. But I wouldn?t necessarily call it ?genetic differences?. Training background differences, perhaps. I don?t know who the **** he thinks he is to determine so-and-so has less talent because he/she gets injured by running only so much? At least this is what I read from what he?s saying. I knew of a guy who, when he was a bit overweight, his friend took him out for a 10-mile run to make fun of him; and he ended up running it comfortably and, since he enjoyed it so much, turned to become a marathon runner and ended up running 2:20 marathon?very quickly. It didn?t take him more than a few years to post that time. But that was all he could manage. Did he have talent? You better believe he did! He went so quickly from almost sedentary over-weight state to running just about 100 miles a week and running 2:20 marathon. Then if he?s so talented, how come he never become an internationally great runner? On the other hand, I also knew a guy who, according to Lydiard, was completely devoid of any athletic talent. He was the slowest guy Lydiard ever coached (well, until he met me, I guess! ;o)) but he loved to run so he ran everywhere. 20 years later, he came out and ran 2:15 and won the New Zealand marathon championships and went on to Germany and won the first ever masters championships in just over 2:20. Kim knows this guy. So what is talent? What is genetic?

I tell you, probably the single most important thing in athletic achievement even Richard doesn?t seem to address is the power of the mind. It?s all in your head. If you?re already defeated before you even start, there?s not even a point of trying. All the talent in the world won?t mean Jack if you don?t have the right mind to get out and do the work?the appropriate work. And when it comes down to coaching, it?s ALL in how you deliver the message. The single worst thing you can do to the athletes is to tell them that they don?t have the physical make-up to be good. It?s pre-determined and there?s nothing you can do about it. But there are TONS you can do about how to improve upon what you?ve got. THAT?s what I?m talking about?what is the practical suggestion to improve upon what we?ve got. If the genetic make-up is so important, then Richard is right, there?s NOTHING he can suggest besides ?Find better parents.? Of course, it?s a bit hard to do. So walrusgod and all those young aspiring athletes out there; if you have time to spend whining about lack of physical talent or having bad genes, spend more time trying to figure out how to effectively improve whatever the physical make-up that you?re born with. I?ll tell ya, some of those researches are actually interesting and educational. But ALWAYS think about how you can apply it to your advantage. NEVER ever take that as your liminations.

I?m sure, if Richard reads my post, he would come back all defensive and says, ?What!? I never meant it that way?? Or ?you?ve read me wrong?? or something like that. Well, if I read you wrong, then come out and tell me exactly what you?ve meant; not like one of those Zen Q&A that nobody seems to understand. I?m still all ears if you do have any practical suggestion to improve performance based on any of your research readings. We actually do need someone like you to read ALL the new papers out there?at least I?m too busy coaching people or running myself.<HR>

Perfect, Nobby.

quote:<HR>Originally posted by Richard99:
mrinertia,

Since people respond very differently to training, doesn't it make sense that no one training program is going to be right for all or most? Doesn't it follow that since people have widely varying levels of "trainability" that there will also be equally wide variability in optimal training load? In terms of mileage, itsn't it logical, based on the fact that people have widely varying talents, that some will respond best at 40 mpw, some at 80 mpw, and some at 120 mpw (or whatever mileages you care to insert)?

<HR>

Yes. Different people respond differently to different training volumes. They respond differently to different intensities. They respond differently to different types of sessions. I do not responsd well at ALL to interval work. Others struggle with longer runs.
But there are limits and commonalities. I don't erspond well to interval work. But that doesn't mean that I just need to do long jogs all the time if I want to do as well as I can. I still need to find ways to get sued to running at racing speeds. We all need to improve the ability of our cardiovascular systems to deliver oxygen throughout our bodies and to improve the efficiency with which our muscles use oxygen, That requires a certain amount of what most of us call base work. How much each person eneds and can handle will vary. But we all need it but many people, perhaps most people, these days, underestimate how much of this sort of work they can handle.
Again, the only way to find out what level you need and are able to tolerate is to kep pushing the limit up. Simply deciding that you can't handle or benefit from a lot of distance work because your early racing results aren't good is almost more an indication that your aerobic fitness, yes that's the term for it that the rest of us understand, is underdeveloped rather than an indication that you are physically unable to benefit from much of a training load and instead should lift weights, ride an exercycle, or read every physiology study you can get your hands on.