2x20?? and other base trainning ideas

[WarrenG]

Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha.....

If I was hiding, I would not put my personal website in my profile.

You really are bad or lazy with links.

Also, emoticons...

Gee Steven, I am always nice to you, online and in person.

 

[acoggan]

What Warren claims:

If you look back in this thread you will see that I asked Andy for evidence to verify his point of view. I did not ask him about race results

What Warren actually wrote in post #77 of this thread (emphasis added):

"Andy Coggan, the sideline observer who once again displays lack of experience and his lack of real-world understanding and how these relate to PubMed studies by showing a poor ability to understand what can be applied from a study and what is not appropriate. You have virtually no measureable results to verify your point of view while all around the world others have ample evidence for their view that contradicts yours. Since you lack real-world experience and measureable results I guess that makes you "belief-based".

When someone disrespects me and my point of view about most of what I offer about training that person is also disrespecting the point of view of my coach, Dr. Max Testa, because much of what I pass along here is what he has taught me.

See, the above completely explains your problem, Warren. First, you've got such a case of hero worship that when somebody raises a question about training that Testa has happened to have prescribed for you, you not only take it as an attack upon him, but an attack upon yourself. Second, you often do such a poor job of "passing along what he has taught me" (you) that of course your claims are going to be questioned. Take, for example, your prior stance on the utility of lactate measurements versus field tests: you've frequently referred to the latter approach as "the MacDonald's approach to training", "close enough when good enough is all that matters", blah, blah, blah. Now, contrast that extremist stance to the much more balanced and reasoned post you put up right before this one to which I am responding. Except for the details re. different fiber types, etc., it sounds almost exactly like what I've told coaches in the seminars I've given on laboratory-based testing: it has both advantages and disadvantages, that properly interpreting the results requires a considerable depth of knowledge that many do not possess, and that you really need to recognize these facts versus simply embracing it *****-nilly as the standard against which all other approaches must be judged. I'm sure that if you actually knew the general topic (i.e., the physiology of exercise and training) better and kept your emotions more in check, more of your posts would read like that one. (Of course, I'm not actually advocating that you change your posting style, since that would make it harder to push your buttons! )

So, go back and read Andy's comments to me that begin with things like, "Anyone who thinks that obviously doesn't understand much about ex phys, Anyone with the common sense to think for themselves...etc. etc.

While you take such comments as a personal affront as well as an attack on your coach, you'll note that I rarely, if ever, say anything specifically about him. The reason is that I don't know him, don't really know what his positions or opinions on various topics might be, and don't trust you to adequately represent them here, or on any other forum. That said, I still stand by comments such as above, even if it turns out that they happen to apply to Dr. Testa...so if it does turn out that way and I happen to be seated next to him at a meeting or something, I'll have to try to convince him of the error of his ways. If he's as up-to-speed on the literature as you say he is, then we'll probably have a high old time discussing various studies and what they might mean...

 

[WarrenG]

What Warren claims:
Originally Posted by WarrenG
If you look back in this thread you will see that I asked Andy for evidence to verify his point of view. I did not ask him about race results



What Warren actually wrote in post #77 of this thread (emphasis added):

"Andy Coggan, the sideline observer who once again displays lack of experience and his lack of real-world understanding and how these relate to PubMed studies by showing a poor ability to understand what can be applied from a study and what is not appropriate. You have virtually no measureable results to verify your point of view while all around the world others have ample evidence for their view that contradicts yours. Since you lack real-world experience and measureable results I guess that makes you "belief-based".

I already knew your race resuts weren't sufficient so some other results would are needed from you. Results could be in the form of good studies using appropriate subjects, or improving race performances from a number of people you interacted with regards to their daily training and response to that training, especially people who are/were near their potential.

WarrenG wrote: Disrespecting is different from disagreement. When someone disrespects me and my point of view about most of what I offer about training that person is also disrespecting the point of view of my coach, Dr. Max Testa, because much of what I pass along here is what he has taught me."

See, the above completely explains your problem, Warren. First, you've got such a case of hero worship that when somebody raises a question about training that Testa has happened to have prescribed for you, you not only take it as an attack upon him, but an attack upon yourself.

You snipped my very relevant first sentance from the passage above, which I have included above. I recognize the difference between diagreement and disrespect. I also understand that what I do for training may not be appropriate for everyone.

(Of course, I'm not actually advocating that you change your posting style, since that would make it harder to push your buttons! )

That you desire to "push someone's buttons" says something about you that is not admirable.