Max speed endurance



C

Cumulus

Guest
On Fri, 27 Feb 2004 04:54:19 +0000 (UTC), Donovan Rebbechi
<[email protected]> wrote:

>[unpleasentness snipped]
>
>Have you been having a bad day or something ?

Isn't life strange? I spend part of yesterday morning writing to TC about why I'm here, then I spend
part of yesterday evening realising that I'm just wasting my time, writing to someone for whom I
care little about matters that he won't, or can't, understand.

This brings into question weighty matters such as the futility of the human condition, but as you're
having difficulty with the simple stuff I think we should leave that one for another time and place.

What perturbs me most about souls such as yourself is the very timidity of their stance. You
surround yourself with information, data, statistics, research findings, etc., as a shield against -
what? Against the possibility that you may have to think for yourself, that you may have to
innovate, that you may 'get it wrong'?

Donny, the really important stuff in life can't always be measured and quantified. A protocol for
life does not exist. It's just you and
it.

May I suggest something? Let go of the data. Stand by yourself. Trust your instincts.
 
D

Donovan Rebbech

Guest
In article <[email protected]>, Cumulus wrote:
> On Thu, 26 Feb 2004 16:27:46 +0000 (UTC), Donovan Rebbechi <[email protected]> wrote:
>>Ingrid Kristiansen was a former record holder for the 5k and yet was a lousy sprinter.
>
> You'd like me to list the 5k record holders who are good sprinters? And what would that prove?
> That we can both make lists?
>
>>Sure it's fast, but it's all about endurance. Tell me something -- who is a likely to be a
>>better 5k runner, an elite marathoner or an elite 400m runner ? Could Michael Johnson beat
>>Martin Lel in a 5k ?
>
> You're being disingenuous. We both know it's *easier* to encompass 5k and marathon running than it
> is to encompass 400m and 5k running.

You argued that the running 5k was "anaerobic". That was the point I took issue with. It is
"anaerobic" in terms of technical definitions (above LT in intensity), but not in terms of training
requirements.

> That wasn't the point. The OP asked for the 'best' way to reach 5k at 16 kph, and noted that he
> was already running up to ten miles. I provided a minimum mileage, track based, answer.

FWIW, I didn't think your schedule was all that bad, and it wasn't your schedule I was disputing.

>>Even then, you need to be able to not just sprint, but actually sustain a fast pace. I've found
>>1200m repeats very effective -- the distance is short enough that one can do them at a good pace
>>(faster than 5k pace), but long enough that you can't just sprint through them. I found that the
>>end result of doing 400m repeats was that I could beat other runners in short interval sessions,
>>only to have the same runners kick my butt in races.
>
> We're all different, but 400m repeats are a good place for a newbie to start

There's nothing wrong with starting with 400m repeats, but ...

> To suggest that someone only able to sustain a fast pace for 2000m should commence at any other
> level would be ridiculous.

By this argument, someone who runs 5k at 8:00 pace should start by doing 100m sprints, since they
can only sustain a "fast" pace for about 400m. So I think it's a silly argument.

However, I agree that shorter intervals make a good starting point. Longer intervals take getting
used to and beginners are likely to "bomb out" in long interval sessions unless they start with
shorter sessions. For example, I prefer to do a few weeks of 800s before doing 1200s.

>>IMO fartlek is better done in groups or as an "entry level" speed workout that one could use in
>>weeks leading up to serious speed training (to me that means "track work" or hill work with a
>>training group)
>
> Donny, Donny, Donny, you keep telling me what you believe, rather than what may be useful
> to the OP.

I was commenting on your post, not giving advice to the OP.

> Frankly, I consider much of your advice to be a little too theoretical and research based, rather
> than founded on personal experience or observation.

In this case, I call "********".

Not only do I *understand* it, through *experience*, I get a refresher on it every week. I'm not
drawing on distant memories of great workouts in the distant past.

I've done my track workout in the last week. Have you ?

I've done fartlek running before, in groups and alone. I've done a lot of track training, it's been
my primary source of interval work, so I've probably done more track work than some of the more
experienced runners here.

You yourself said track work is "more precise". I'd argue that track work not only gives you
precision, it gives you *structure*. When you go to the track with a watch, the track is simply a
vast, barren, merciless landscape, and the watch is a brutal taskmaster. You can't fool the track
or your watch. That's what makes it so demanding -- the transparency of it all. Track workouts are
just brutal.

You can possibly make fartlek as demanding physiologically, but it doesn't come close mentally. If
you don't understand this, go outside and do some track work instead of trolling usenet.

> Would you be insulted if I used the phrase 'book learning'?

Why would I be insulted by such an obvious falsehood ?

I'm out there doing the miles, doing my track work, doing my tempos, doing my races week after week,
while you're drawing from distant memories from back in "the good old days" when you felt more like
a winner and less like a has-been.

Cheers,
--
Donovan Rebbechi http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/
 
D

Donovan Rebbech

Guest
In article <[email protected]>, Cumulus wrote:
> On Thu, 26 Feb 2004 17:35:28 +0000 (UTC), Donovan Rebbechi

>>You argued that the running 5k was "anaerobic". That was the point I took issue with.
>
> No. That was the point with which you took issue. A Yankee grad student that can't write. Now
> there's a surprise.

Sure, your writing is indeed better than mine. I never argued otherwise.

>>FWIW, I didn't think your schedule was all that bad, and it wasn't your schedule I was disputing.
>
> And this is meant to make me happy? Now I'm convinced my schedule is wrong.

It's a *fantastic* schedule. Also, let me remind you not to let Tom Wheeler paint your house.

>>So I think it's a silly argument.
>
> And boy, do you know all about silly arguments...

I'm learning from an expert even as I type ...

>>I was commenting on your post, not giving advice to the OP.
>
> Well don't bother, for I have neither the time nor the inclination to point out the many technical
> and logical faults in your inane and self-congratulatory musings.

Fair enough -- I understand that your time is an extremely scarce and valuable resource.

>>Not only do I *understand* it, through *experience*, I get a refresher on it every week. I'm not
>>drawing on distant memories of great workouts in the distant past.
>
> Therefore, when offering advice, experience carries no value, currency is all.

They are both important.

> Donny, you are verging on the offensive. May I suggest an apology would be appropriate here?

I'm sorry ``verging on the offensive'', or challenging your experience. I try to do better
than this.

Let me try to say it more politely -- I have experience and currency. I am not an elite athlete, but
my experience is very relevant to newbies who are pushing towards the 6:00 range.

In the other post, you repeatedly criticise me as being some sort of armchair-runner, which is a
mischaracterisation that borders on dishonest. Sure, I read books. I try to understand the theories.
Theories and more importantly, research results, are interesting, and they give us a framework for
explaining our observations, but I understand that you don't win races by having a better theory.

Scientific curiosity drives my interest in theories and lab results, but I can assure you that such
interest does not in any way inhibit my desire to run a great race, and do the required training.

>>I've done my track workout in the last week. Have you ?
>
> Why, yes. I have a race this weekend.

Great.

>>I'm out there doing the miles, doing my track work, doing my tempos, doing my races week after
>>week, while you're drawing from distant memories from back in "the good old days" when you felt
>>more like a winner and less like a has-been.
>
> Oh dear! Perhaps Wobbot was right,

I see your humorous side is showing.

> A 'has-been' I most certainly am, but may I point out two things? Firstly, at least for some
> portion of my running career I was 'there', which you most certainly will never be. And secondly,
> based on your posted run times, this 'has been' could still comfortably whip your ill-mannered ass
> over 5k, 10k and 10 miles.

Neither your ability nor your unique experience places you in much of a position to trash mine.
Ability is a gift, not a virtue. When a newbie who looks like he's going to be the next Roger
Bannister posts here, I have little doubt that your unique insights will be more relevant than mine
(assuming of course that you're being honest about your ability/achievements). Until that happens,
and I'm sure we can agree that it may not happen terribly soon, perhaps we can both offer
interesting and relevant perspectives.

> Frankly, if I ever find myself in New York, I would consider it a pleasure to provide you with a
> lesson in both manners and running.

I'd be happy take you up on the running lesson.

A lesson in manners ? Yes, sure. I would love to reciprocate by ensuring that you enjoy an equally
enlightening experience. I could arrange for Tom Wheeler to give you grammar lessons, how does
that sound ?

Cheers,
--
Donovan Rebbechi http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/
 
D

Donovan Rebbech

Guest
In article <3pns30ha1q52ro5h0c[email protected]>, Cumulus wrote:
> On Thu, 26 Feb 2004 20:44:20 +0000 (UTC), Donovan Rebbechi <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>Fair enough -- I understand that your time is an extremely scarce and valuable resource.
>
> I'm more than happy - when the mood takes me - to offer what I can to those prepared to listen
> with an open mind. I find it tiresome in the extreme to waste my time talking to someone who has
> nothing to learn, and who has an answer for everything.
>
> Donny, you will never rise above the herd if you insist on being right all of the time. One
> intelligent probing question is worth a thousand trivial answers. Concentrate on discovering what
> you don't know rather than expounding upon what you do.

False dichotomy. I rarely solicit advice unless I intend to follow it, so I'm not going to ask for
advice every day, but I do from time to time. I also read what other people have to say. I also ask
people for advice outside of r.r. I may even bug you for advice some day -- but I'm not going to
waste your time asking for advice that I don't intend to follow.

> I'm wondering if this is true. I think sometimes you let your 'knowledge' define your athletic
> expectations. In short, you may have been a better and more adventurous runner had you 'known'
> less. Does that make sense?

I hurt myself not that long ago by being too "adventurous". That is why over the last year, I've
trained in a way that you may consider very conservative. This is mostly because I'm still worried
about my achilles tendon, not because I necessarily believe my training is optimal (though it seems
not that bad).

I was more adventerous (and didn't "know" as much) when I was younger, and actually a little faster
than I am now.

[unpleasentness snipped]

Have you been having a bad day or something ?

Cheers,
--
Donovan Rebbechi http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/
 
D

Doug Freese

Guest
Donovan Rebbechi wrote:

> False dichotomy. I rarely solicit advice unless I intend to follow it, so I'm not going to ask for
> advice every day, but I do from time to time. I also read what other people have to say. I also
> ask people for advice outside of r.r. I may even bug you for advice some day -- but I'm not going
> to waste your time asking for advice that I don't intend to follow.

Then take a less selfish approach and toss a topic out for general discussion and see what falls.
You may find nothing of value in the dialog but there are lots of people out there that might
appreciate the discussion. This group isn't always about us individuals but the collective we(or
is that us).

> I hurt myself not that long ago by being too "adventurous". That is why over the last year, I've
> trained in a way that you may consider very conservative.

There is a tough side to being adventurous- you find your over training point and that can be
positive in a funny way. OTOH it can scare the **** out of us so we fall back to what did work and
never try again. I claim the answer is in the gray area where you need to evaluate how adventurous
you were and try again but slower or different.

> This is mostly because I'm still worried about my achilles tendon, not because I necessarily
> believe my training is optimal (though it seems not that bad).

I'm sure you have been doing things to help but I found the following web page which has helped many
people. I subscribe to the RRN so I have the written copy.

> I was more adventerous (and didn't "know" as much) when I was younger, and actually a little
> faster than I am now.

Take it from a really old guy - you need to constantly change your training as you age. It doesn't
mean you have to run slower but train differently. Enjoy when you were younger and faster but now
it's time to focus on running smarter and that may mean forgetting what used to work. It may be time
to have a "come to Jesus" discussion with yourself. ;)

> Have you been having a bad day or something ?

He just loves to bust your balls.

--
Doug Freese "Caveat Lector" [email protected]
 
C

Cumulus

Guest
On Fri, 27 Feb 2004 11:30:21 GMT, Doug Freese <[email protected]>
wrote:

>> Have you been having a bad day or something ?

>He just loves to bust your balls.

Douglas, you simply *adore* the comforting warmth that basking in rosy glow of cynicism brings,
don't you?

Look, you apologist for 'The Wisdom Of The Ancients', why don't you stop scampering around the woods
of the North East like a demented Chipmunk and actually *SAY SOMETHING INTERESTING* rather than spew
forth this homespun twaddle that you pass off as commentary on newsgroup posts.

I'll make it easy for you, it can be about anything - absolutely anything - as long as it isn't in
your normal posting style, 'cause so help me if I have to read ONE MORE POST of yours in that laid-
back, seen-it-all-before-ain't-got-no-relevance-to-my-life-cool-it-angry-dudes- the-answers-in-meg-mileage-run-so-slow-you-could-be-sleeping-
Rogers-a-****-why-do-shoe-designers-change-styles-I-like-post- your-results-on-the-web-before-I-believe-a-word-you-
say DRIVEL I will personally hunt you down like the aberration you are and thrash the living
daylights out of you with a pair of track shoes with the 5mm spikes still fitted.
 
D

Donovan Rebbech

Guest
In article <[email protected]>, Cumulus wrote:
> On Fri, 27 Feb 2004 04:54:19 +0000 (UTC), Donovan Rebbechi <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>[unpleasentness snipped]
>>
>>Have you been having a bad day or something ?
>
> Isn't life strange? I spend part of yesterday morning writing to TC about why I'm here, then I
> spend part of yesterday evening realising that I'm just wasting my time, writing to someone for
> whom I care little about matters that he won't, or can't, understand.
>
> This brings into question weighty matters such as the futility of the human condition,

It also highlights the flaws of "trusting your instincts". It's a nice example of "instinct" being
wrong, as it often is.

> but as you're having difficulty with the simple stuff I think we should leave that one for another
> time and place.

You're right, the "simple stuff" is already enough of a challenge.

> What perturbs me most about souls such as yourself is the very timidity of their stance. You
> surround yourself with information, data, statistics, research findings, etc., as a shield
> against - what?

You've misunderstood. It's not a "shield" at all.

> Against the possibility that you may have to think for yourself, that you may have to innovate,
> that you may 'get it wrong'?

"Intuition" is not "thinking for yourself". It is the opposite of thinking.

Unless you want to do pure math (which I did in grad school), if you want to actually make
inferences about the physical universe, you have better base your "thinking" on *data* extracted
from the physical universe. Such data include "statistics" and "research findings", but as you gain
experience, you become less dependent on such data. Even then, you can still use "statistics" and
"research findings" from your own experiment of one.

To ignore all known data from the physical universe is just idiocy. Even people who think they're
relying on "intuition" invariably have some basis for that intuition in their personal experience.
However, the lack of rigor in the "intuition method" often leads them to draw erroneous conclusions.

> May I suggest something? Let go of the data. Stand by yourself. Trust your instincts.

This is where we differ philosophically. In graduate school, one of the things I learned there is
that your instincts are often wrong. This is why mathematicians write proofs of everything --
because even the most insightful mathematicians and scientists are often wrong in their
"intuitions". Even if you have, or believe you have "good instincts", they are still often wrong.
Instincts are what cause people to ignore facts which are staring them in the face. "Theories" only
have the same effect if you allow yourself to become emotionally attached to them, like a religion,
but that is not an approach I advocate.

Cheers,
--
Donovan Rebbechi http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/
 
D

Donovan Rebbech

Guest
In article <[email protected]>, Cumulus wrote:
> On Fri, 27 Feb 2004 11:30:21 GMT, Doug Freese <[email protected]> wrote:
[snip]
> I'll make it easy for you, it can be about anything - absolutely anything - as long as it isn't in
> your normal posting style, 'cause so

For better or worse, Doug is simply not like you. I don't consider this a bad thing, for as much as
I enjoy your posts, I don't think there's room here for more than one of you.

Cheers,
--
Donovan Rebbechi http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/
 
T

Tim Downie

Guest
Cumulus wrote:
> On Thu, 26 Feb 2004 17:35:28 +0000 (UTC), Donovan Rebbechi <[email protected]> wrote:

>> I've done my track workout in the last week. Have you ?
>
> Why, yes. I have a race this weekend.

A race? Do tell, can we come and watch? ;-)

If you fancy a nice warm up run, come to Ben Glas farm (north of Inverannan) at 9:00 am on Saturday
and you can join me up to Tyndrum and back.

Tim

--
Remove the obvious to reply by email. Please support rheumatoid arthritis research! Visit
http://www.justgiving.com/pfp/speyside or http://www.justgiving.com/speyside if you're a UK
tax payer.
 
D

Donovan Rebbech

Guest
In article <hTF%[email protected]>, Doug Freese wrote:

> Then take a less selfish approach and toss a topic out for general discussion and see what falls.

That's what I was trying to do in the clothing thread I started up a while ago. I suppose it's also
what David "SwStudio" has done very successfully with his "training week" thread. I was reasonably
happy with what transpired, a lot of people made what I thought were good contributions to the
thread. I was able to learn something. You're right though, I should try to do this more often.

[good stuff snipped for brevity]

Cheers,
--
Donovan Rebbechi http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/
 
D

Deepest Blue

Guest
On Fri, 27 Feb 2004 15:21:22 +0000 (UTC), Donovan Rebbechi
<[email protected]> wrote:

>It also highlights the flaws of "trusting your instincts". It's a nice example of "instinct" being
>wrong, as it often is.

How was my 'instinct' wrong? In choosing to converse with someone who appears to have no
understanding of what I'm saying? Stuff that. My instinct tells me that one day, Donny, you'll
understand *exactly* what I'm talking about. So my time won't have been wasted after all.

>You've misunderstood. It's not a "shield" at all.

And you, my myopic friend, demonstrate a marked propensity to ignore what's sitting in plain view
under your nose.

>"Intuition" is not "thinking for yourself". It is the opposite of thinking.

Perhaps. But it is unique to an individual, and each individual develops their own set of
experiences and attributes which contribute to their 'instinct'. So it is 'doing something for
yourself', even if it's not, technically, thinking.

Anyway, you're running ahead of yourself. I wasn't proposing instinct as a replacement for
considered thought, merely as a useful adjunct that you should trust from time to time.

>Unless you want to do pure math (which I did in grad school), if you want to actually make
>inferences about the physical universe, you have better base your "thinking" on *data* extracted
>from the physical universe. Such data include "statistics" and "research findings", but as you gain
>experience, you become less dependent on such data. Even then, you can still use "statistics" and
>"research findings" from your own experiment of one.

I'm not going to pretend I can't see the point you're making, nor do I intend to dispute your
position, merely to question the application of the scientific method to every aspect of life.
Science does not have all of the answers. In fact, science hasn't even begun to formulate all the
questions.

To be specific; to suggest - as you frequently do - that the current scientific method provides the
most secure path to a successful running future is, I believe, fundamentally flawed.

>To ignore all known data from the physical universe is just idiocy. Even people who think they're
>relying on "intuition" invariably have some basis for that intuition in their personal experience.
>However, the lack of rigor in the "intuition method" often leads them to draw erroneous
>conclusions.

Or, more precisely, the lack of rigour in the 'intuition methods' means that it can't be adequately
expressed in mathematical or scientific terms. Therefore, in your eyes, it lacks validity.

>This is where we differ philosophically. In graduate school, one of the things I learned there is
>that your instincts are often wrong. This is why mathematicians write proofs of everything --
>because even the most insightful mathematicians and scientists are often wrong in their
>"intuitions". Even if you have, or believe you have "good instincts", they are still often wrong.
>Instincts are what cause people to ignore facts which are staring them in the face. "Theories" only
>have the same effect if you allow yourself to become emotionally attached to them, like a religion,
>but that is not an approach I advocate.

Yet again, you seek to apply the scientific method to every aspect of life without considering the
merits of the alternatives. A running example:

Many years ago I was one of the unfortunate guinea-piggies of a research group looking into the
relationship between the race performance of elite runners and their conditioning as measured by
various parameters (don't search for results, they were never published). I was poked, prodded,
de-blooded, analysed, gassed, VO2 maxed, rectal temp probed, etc, etc. over a three month period
of competition. Bottom line was that our best race results didn't correlate well with the
performance figures obtained in the labs. Boffins were mighty upset until one of the clever little
buggers noticed that when we travelled by car to race meetings we ran better than when we
travelled on the coach. Eventually, it was realised that most of us ran better when our
girlfriends/boyfriends had driven us to the meet and were watching us. In other words, the most
significant factor in our performance was the desire to look good in front of our babes/beaus, not
whether our VO2 max was sky-high.

I believe they had some difficulty expressing that in a meaningful dataset.
 
D

Donovan Rebbech

Guest
In article <[email protected]>, Deepest Blue wrote:
> On Fri, 27 Feb 2004 15:21:22 +0000 (UTC), Donovan Rebbechi <[email protected]> wrote:

> How was my 'instinct' wrong?

Your initial instinct was to respond. Logical thinking corrected this impulse.

> Anyway, you're running ahead of yourself. I wasn't proposing instinct as a replacement for
> considered thought, merely as a useful adjunct that you should trust from time to time.

Then perhaps you misunderstand me, if you believe that I don't trust my intuition from time to time.
For example, I ran my key breakthrough race Nov 23 last year (google the race report if you like)
after I'd spent a week doing absolutely *no* training to knock out a thankfully very short-lived
case of shinsplints.

Obviously, this was a risky move, and the most risk-averse strategy would have been to avoid the
race. But the weather was perfect, I was feeling fantastic, and I had an overwhelming gut feeling
that I would be rewarded with a good time if I raced. So I set aside the "conventional wisdom", for
just long enough to do that race, and it paid off.

> I'm not going to pretend I can't see the point you're making, nor do I intend to dispute your
> position, merely to question the application of the scientific method to every aspect of life.

Of course, but nowhere do I argue for applying the scientific method to everything.

> To be specific; to suggest - as you frequently do - that the current scientific method provides
> the most secure path to a successful running future is, I believe, fundamentally flawed.

I'm not sure what you mean by "the current scientific method". I've already stated that the
experiences of others (which are documented in research) are useful for someone who lacks
experience.

>>To ignore all known data from the physical universe is just idiocy. Even people who think they're
>>relying on "intuition" invariably have some basis for that intuition in their personal experience.
>>However, the lack of rigor in the "intuition method" often leads them to draw erroneous
>>conclusions.
>
> Or, more precisely, the lack of rigour in the 'intuition methods' means that it can't be
> adequately expressed in mathematical or scientific terms. Therefore, in your eyes, it lacks
> validity.

No, I mean that it leads people to conclude things that are just plain wrong. Like the Sun revolving
around the earth, or the heavier ball falling faster, or the earth being flat.

For me, the ultimate test of validity is whether it works on the race track. Zapotek's borderline
insane training was, I'd argue, valid -- for him -- because it ultimately produced results.

I agree with you that these lab tests are problematic. The more I hear about VO2 max measurements,
the less I believe that they're useful performance predictors. They may predict performance in VO2
max stress tests, but that's about it. One thing that I've learned from reading about "cutting edge"
science from Noakes is that the science isn't that well understood. What Sam calls Noakes' "central
governor model" borders on voodoo, it's almost like defining a god or something -- an arbitrary and
fictitious entity.

[good anecdote snipped]
> I believe they had some difficulty expressing that in a meaningful dataset.

Yes, again, I understand that lab testing isn't everything. Again, my approach to reviewing
empirical data is very performance oriented. I'm ultimately only interested in what produces a good
outcome on the track or the racecourse.

BTW, a psychologist would be much better at handling that sort of data (social support and athletic
performance -- it would make an interesting topic in itself) The reason the researchers couldn't do
anything with that data is that the data lay well outside of their professional training.
Basically, they don't know anything about psychology, so they can't make well-informed inferences
from such data.

Cheers,
--
Donovan Rebbechi http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/
 
D

Deepest Blue

Guest
On Fri, 27 Feb 2004 17:57:27 +0000 (UTC), Donovan Rebbechi
<[email protected]> wrote:

>Then perhaps you misunderstand me, if you believe that I don't trust my intuition from time to
>time. For example, I ran my key breakthrough race Nov 23 last year (google the race report if you
>like) after I'd spent a week doing absolutely *no* training to knock out a thankfully very short-
>lived case of shinsplints.

OMG, it's worse than I thought. You validate my observations on the relative importance of instinct
to running yet you argue elsewhere for the primacy of the scientific method.

Cannot....respond.....stunned.....by.....illogical....response....

>I'm not sure what you mean by "the current scientific method". I've already stated that the
>experiences of others (which are documented in research) are useful for someone who lacks
>experience.

But someone 'who lacks experience' is poorly equipped to make an accurate assessment on the
relevance of that research to their own position. Therefore they could be following a protocol that
may be irrelevant to their situation or, at worst, positively harmful.

>No, I mean that it leads people to conclude things that are just plain wrong. Like the Sun
>revolving around the earth, or the heavier ball falling faster, or the earth being flat.

Yeah, the earth isn't flat! Sure! Try pulling the wool over someone else's eyes will ya?

>I agree with you that these lab tests are problematic. The more I hear about VO2 max measurements,
>the less I believe that they're useful performance predictors. They may predict performance in VO2
>max stress tests, but that's about it. One thing that I've learned from reading about "cutting
>edge" science from Noakes is that the science isn't that well understood. What Sam calls Noakes'
>"central governor model" borders on voodoo, it's almost like defining a god or something -- an
>arbitrary and fictitious entity.

I think the central problem I have with Sam, Lyndon, Oz, yourself, and your fellow travellers is
that you profess to have 'answers', and you claim these 'answers' to be based upon sound,
repeatable, research.

Much of the data in the field of exercise physiology is based on an extremely small, carefully pre-
selected, study population. I'd don't question the results when applied to the study population, I
question the relevance of many of the findings to the broader athletic population as a whole.

One can't always scale up research results and expect the same results distribution to appear in the
general population. Sure, sometimes it does and then you're onto something. But when you're dealing
with something as specific as offering advice to a runner you've never met (which is, you may
recall, where this Norse saga began) then I argue that intuition is as good a benchmark as quoting
from Noakes.

>BTW, a psychologist would be much better at handling that sort of data (social support and athletic
>performance -- it would make an interesting topic in itself)

Yes, it would. So what doesn't a bright bunny such as yourself write a proposal for funding and
investigate the subject?
 
D

Donovan Rebbech

Guest
In article <[email protected]>, Deepest Blue wrote:
> On Fri, 27 Feb 2004 17:57:27 +0000 (UTC), Donovan Rebbechi <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>Then perhaps you misunderstand me, if you believe that I don't trust my intuition from time to
>>time. For example, I ran my key breakthrough race Nov 23 last year (google the race report if you
>>like) after I'd spent a week doing absolutely *no* training to knock out a thankfully very short-
>>lived case of shinsplints.
>
> OMG, it's worse than I thought. You validate my observations on the relative importance of
> instinct to running yet you argue elsewhere for the primacy of the scientific method.
>
> Cannot....respond.....stunned.....by.....illogical....response....

I did not argue anywhere that the scientific method must be practiced to the exclusion of everything
else. Indeed, in the absence of a well-supported theory, one can use intuition. Testing a hypothesis
is part of the scientific method, it is not an enemy of it. The hypothesis can be (and often is)
based on intuition.

>>I'm not sure what you mean by "the current scientific method". I've already stated that the
>>experiences of others (which are documented in research) are useful for someone who lacks
>>experience.
>
> But someone 'who lacks experience' is poorly equipped to make an accurate assessment on the
> relevance of that research to their own position.

A book that talks about "running for beginners" is probably relevant to beginners. A book about
"advanced marathoning" is probably relevant to serious marathon runners.

Research and empirical data needs to be packaged in a way that makes it comprehensible to the
target audience.

However, even then, the beginner still doesn't know whether or not this information is valid or
relevant, so they depend on the experiences of other beginners.

> Therefore they could be following a protocol that may be irrelevant to their situation or, at
> worst, positively harmful.

What are the alternatives ? They could form their own theories and test them, but this is extremely
wasteful. It's easier to learn from others mistakes than it is to repeat them all (we don't have
enough years in our lives to do the latter)

> I think the central problem I have with Sam, Lyndon, Oz, yourself, and your fellow travellers is
> that you profess to have 'answers', and you claim these 'answers' to be based upon sound,
> repeatable, research.

What are some of the "answers" that I claim to have, for example ?

I'll point out that in Lyndon's case, he has directly observed a lot of what he talks about, and has
experience that validates a lot of the theory. His experience is particularly interesting to me,
because of the profile of his "subject pool".

> Much of the data in the field of exercise physiology is based on an extremely small, carefully pre-
> selected, study population.

Not all of the studies deal with elite athletes. There are some that deal with endurance athletes of
good but sub-elite ability (comparable to the faster runners on r.r), some that deal with overweight
subjects, and some that deal with average subjects.

> I'd don't question the results when applied to the study population, I

I not only question the results applied to that population, I tend to question that the results
applied outside the bounds of the lab. Again, I'm ultimately interested in what happens on the
race track.

There are examples (in fact you named one) of factors that influence performance on the race track
but don't show up clearly in the lab.

> One can't always scale up research results and expect the same results distribution to appear in
> the general population. Sure, sometimes it

Fair enough. You'll note that I didn't criticise your program, even though as Lyndon pointed out, it
does breach "conventional wisdom". I've actually talked with people who've found that doing
anaerobic training improved their distance racing performances (though I'm not one of them)

> does and then you're onto something. But when you're dealing with something as specific as
> offering advice to a runner you've never met (which is, you may recall, where this Norse saga
> began) then I argue that intuition is as good a benchmark as quoting from Noakes.

It depends on whose intuition, doesn't it ? Maybe your intuition is good, but the beginners
intuition is not as good. When the beginner comes to you for advice, they are already looking
outside for data. If they know what's good for them, they will also attempt to find other sources
that confirm/refute your recommendations. They are *not* relying on their own intuition (well, they
may have the intuition that you're a troll and hence untrustworthy ;-)

What would be most relevant for beginners would be the advice of someone who has worked with and
coached beginners, and also understands the science.

Noakes is of limited use to beginners, except as a tool to satisfy scientific curiosity. The
information is too raw to be manageable.

Cheers,
--
Donovan Rebbechi http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/
 
D

Deepest Blue

Guest
On Fri, 27 Feb 2004 20:16:40 +0000 (UTC), Donovan Rebbechi
<[email protected]> wrote:

I think I'm flogging a patch of dust where ten years ago there lay a dead horse.

Thanks for the mental workout Donny, you're improving with every post. Who knows what you'll
eventually achieve if you keep this up? You may best me yet - yeah, I know, you thought you
already had :)

For some unaccountable and inexplicable reason, I believe I'm beginning to like you.

Have a good weekend.
 
D

Doug Freese

Guest
Cumulus wrote:
> On Fri, 27 Feb 2004 11:30:21 GMT, Doug Freese <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
>>>Have you been having a bad day or something ?
>
>
>>He just loves to bust your balls.

You're so precious when you irritated. I really enjoy your writing style albeit a vast
crock of ****.

--
Doug Freese "Caveat Lector" [email protected]
 
D

Doug Freese

Guest
Deepest Blue wrote:

> For some unaccountable and inexplicable reason, I believe I'm beginning to like you.

You like everyone when you're on your medications.

--
Doug Freese "Caveat Lector" [email protected]
 
S

Sam

Guest
"Donovan Rebbechi" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>, rick++
wrote:
> > Try running on a road. A treadmill is only a simulation, and a poor one at that.
>
> ********.
>
> --
> Donovan Rebbechi http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/

I agree and disagree. The problem with training on a treadmill for most people is that when they
race outside, they are not accustomed to the sensations or even the pounding. Granted, the American
woman who won the US marathon trials in 2000 did a huge volume of her training on a treadmill, out
of necessity. She lived (lives?) in Alaska and the Trials were in February that year. Of course the
real benefit from her probably came in that she was more heat acclimated than the other women and
the weather was unseasonably warm.
 
S

Sam

Guest
According to one source (Fox and Mathews, 1974) the 5000m is 70% aerobic. However, I believe that
more recent information pushes it closer to 80%.

If it is not aerobic why do 5K runners put in so much mileage?

"SwStudio" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:HFv%[email protected]...
> "Paul Robeson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > Sure. *Everything* is aerobic to the rec.runners. Go google for a table displaying the relative
> > aerobic/anaerobic components of the 5k. Or better still, go run one fast. Then come back here
> > and tell me it's an aerobic event.
>
>
> You may find this hard to believe Paul, but the 5k *is* an aerobic event. I believe your idea of
> what aerobic means could be misunderstood. It would be impossible to run anaerobically more than a
> very short time. Even distance such as the mile and 800m have major aerobic significance.
>
> cheers,
> --
> David (in Hamilton, ON) www.allfalldown.org