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/
