| Author |
Topic: Is MPW Actually Corrolated With Speed? |
Hairy Trotter
Cool Runner |
 posted May-26-2006 12:26 PM
  
quote:
Originally posted by Richard99:
Sure [studies] should [withstand logical criticism]. No question about it. What they don't have to withstand is illogical, invalid, and/or immaterial criticism which is then used to claim the study is irrelevant, useless, or non-credible.
Richard:
Again, since the topic appears to be the Furman training program and data collection "study": the point that has been made continually here isn't that this study or some of the others you cite are useless for all purposes. The point is that the Furman results do not carry the freight that you claim they do. They do not, as you say, "directly contradict the belief held by many that high mileage, base building type programs are superior." And they do not purport to identify anything related to your supposedly startling hypothesis that "optimal training frequency and mileage is dependent on a person's individual genetic talents." (And I ask again: What, exactly, do the data support on this point? Do the researchers say that they hit on the optimal frequency and mileage for any partcular person? Do you say the data do that? Why would you say that?) I explain why in my post above. If you would like further explanation of the concept of "control" or the propriety of asserting that a data set "directly contradicts" a hypothesis when the study was not designed to test that hypothesis in any way, I'd be happy to help you out. So again: the problem is not with the Furman data set per se. It is with your overreading of it. You proclaim that your "opponents" merely attack you, and you're just a messenger who's objectively reporting "the science." If you're the messenger, here's what you're doing: you arrive and announce you bear a message. You proclaim boldly what that message is. The recipients then take the message, read it, and discover that it doesn't really say -- or even purport to say -- what you claim it says. And when they point this out, you get poopy and pouty and proclaim that you're just a humble servant of the truth whom the Big Bad Liars must attack because they can't handle The Truth. If you truly believe that you add value by offering your spin on a message instead of just humbly passing it on in raw form, then work on actually understanding what this stuff means and does not mean, and how the investigative and conclusion-drawing processes work and do not work. You are, at this point, way out of the league you're trying to play in. Regarding Furman: in the 2004 and 2005 programs, self-selected groups of runners, mostly quite mediocre ones who were motivated to improve -- all of whom had a very significant aerobic "base" as recommended by the researchers -- were selected to the program based on their applications. They were indoctrinated into the program and given careful explanations of exactly what they were supposed to do and why, from a scientific standpoint, it would help them train effectively. They were monitored throughout. A significant number improved. Some didn't. A few got hurt. Now: what if another training program's designers were to operate similarly, only using different training methods? Would they work? The answers are out there. Shockingly, success rates seem to be quite high for nearly any program that (1) selects motivated, semi-experienced, mediocre runners with a decent base, (2) indoctrinates them regarding the merits of their method as a path to improvement, and (3) sets up a structured, progressive, semi-customized training plan based on a realistic appraisal of the trainees' current conditioning and performance. Check with Greg McMillan or Bob Glover or nearly any other of the many coaches who'll provide a customized, improvement-oriented, reasonably well-monitored program for average athletes. Check with running clubs that provide similar services. Hell, check with Jeff Freakin' Galloway. All have remarkable improvement rates for the athletes with whom they've worked in this fashion. Their successes to not confirm the superiority of whatever training model they use, nor do they "directly contradict" the supposed superiority of training models they did not use. Of the folks I've mentioned, only Galloway even attempts to say anything of the sort, and he is quite justifiably chewed to bits when he tries this. So are we back in the teeth of your "Big Contradiction" again? Not really. In fact, your whole characterization of the Big Contradiction is systematically flawed. Again, that's not because any particular data set out there is inherently, persistently, pervasively bad. It's because your analysis is just that: inherently, persistently, pervasively bad.
IP: Logged |
Lofcaudio
Cool Runner |
posted May-26-2006 12:38 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Richard99:
The belief that all or most runners improve performance as their weekly mileage increases is not hard to measure and should be clearly evident.
Wait a minute! Which is it? I originally responded to your claim that we cannot ignore all of the cases where people have increased mileage and not shown any success. My point (and others have stated the same) is that I've never heard of anyone properly increasing mileage/base and not having positive results. Where are these cases that you WERE talking about earlier and have now changed your tune to say that "improved performance as weekly mileage increases is not hard to measure and is clearly evident." quote:
Originally posted by Richard99:
You suggest that it takes 2 years of increased mileage before the results of increasing mileage occur. Do you realize that a factor that takes 2 years before its influence can be seen or measured is not a strong influencer of performance? This is not to say that it's does not have an influence on performance. This is to say, however, that the influence is quite mild.
I suggested no such thing. I opined that two years will show a much better indication of running potential. I would think that 95% of runners will show immediate results in a short period of time (6 months) and really amazing results if they continue to run and build miles safely over time. As for the other 5%, it may take a bit longer to show results due to other factors outside of running. And therein lies the problem. Richard99, I agree that everyone will respond differently to different levels of training. And that's due to factors that simply cannot be "controlled" in the running environment (genetics, diet, stress, etc.). However, if all of those things could remain constant, then I think we can agree that high mileage training proves to be a necessary ingredient to reaching your maximum potential as a distance runner. ------------------
Will be running Marine Corps Marathon on October 29, 2006 and the New Las Vegas Marathon on December 10, 2006 My Running Log [This message has been edited by Lofcaudio (edited May-26-2006).]
IP: Logged |
jakey
Cool Runner |
posted May-26-2006 12:48 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Richard99:
sparrow,My credentials, running experience, background, and the extensive body of research I have used in formulating my theories are prominently posted to my web site and have been since I started the site years back.
I guess December 15, 2003 does qualify as "years back", but I get the impression you want it to mean more than that. A quick whois search can reveal wonders.
IP: Logged |
Richard99
Cool Runner |
posted May-26-2006 01:36 PM
quote:
Originally posted by DanMoriarity:
You cannot measure the efficacy of increasing mileage by comparing groups of runners. Variances in natural talent, among other things skew the results. [/B]
Hence the reason I included the provision "groups of sufficient size". You need a sufficient number of subjects in each group to account for differences in genetic talent. The fact is that if you took 2 sufficiently sized groups you would account for variations in natural talent. If every individual who increases mileage improves performance then this same effect could also be measured across groups of people and groups who increase mileage would improve performance more than those groups who do not increase mileage. The way the relationship between 2 or more factors is measured is called correlation and is a standard statistical tool. ------------------
Richard
World's Fastest Slow Guy
www.powerrunning.com [This message has been edited by Richard99 (edited May-26-2006).]
IP: Logged |
Richard99
Cool Runner |
posted May-26-2006 01:48 PM
Lofcaudio, quote:
The belief that all or most runners improve performance as their weekly mileage increases is not hard to measure and should be clearly evident.
The meaning of that sentence is this: It is not a hard thing to measure if all or most runners improve as their weekly mileage increases. A basic correlation analysis can determine if that belief is true. And if increases in weekly mileage result in measurably improved performance as many suggest then it should be clearly evident in the analysis. My apologies if my original meaning was not clear. ------------------
Richard
World's Fastest Slow Guy
www.powerrunning.com [This message has been edited by Richard99 (edited May-26-2006).]
IP: Logged |
DanMoriarity
Cool Runner |
posted May-26-2006 03:35 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Richard99:
The fact is that if you took 2 sufficiently sized groups you would account for variations in natural talent.
Really? Even if you split the entire planet's population in two halves what's to say you'd have two equally talented groups? How can you possibly not recognize the logical fallacy of your statement?
IP: Logged |
Richard99
Cool Runner |
posted May-26-2006 03:56 PM
Dan,Are you suggesting that the results of studies that don't include every person on the planet are invalid? Just how many subjects do you suggest need to be included in a study before it is considered valid for that population? How many subjects do researchers believe need to be included to be applicable for a population? ------------------
Richard
World's Fastest Slow Guy
www.powerrunning.com
IP: Logged |
Hairy Trotter
Cool Runner |
posted May-26-2006 06:06 PM
From Ricardo Noventa & Nueve:"The belief that all or most runners improve performance as their weekly mileage increases is not hard to measure and should be clearly evident. All we need to do is get 2 or more sufficiently sized groups of runners and have them train at different weekly mileages with all other variable being the same (intensity, duration, & frequency). Then we compare the differences in performance across the groups. If increasing mileage is strongly correlated with improved performance, then those who run higher mileage will have improved more than those running lower mileage." Again, Richard: your lack of fundamental understanding is showing. To you, who has never designed a controlled clinical experiment, this study might be easy to design. To a real researcher, there'd be a problem. The problem would be complying with the law. Of physics. Pay attention. You propose setting up an experimental group that runs at higher mileage (i.e. volume) than a control group. But all other variables -- intensity, duration, and frequency -- would be controlled. To run at a higher volume, the experimental group would have to do one of three things that the control group doesn't do: (1) run faster than the control group, but at the same frequency and duration; (2) run more often than the control group, but with the same intensity and for the same duration per session; (3) or run longer per session at the same intensity and frequency. How would the experimental group pull off the greater mileage without increasing one of these three variables? Have you made adavances in quantum mechanics that would allow this to happen? You say that "exercise physiologists have done this." Where? What study includes a higher-volume experimental group and lower volume control group(s) and manages to keep frequency, intensity, and duration the same? More fundamentally, you snidely suggest that published research undermines Lofcaudio's "premise that the vast majority of individuals who increase mileage in a reasonable manner will experience an improvement in their performance." [These are your words. Read the rest of your bs down to the "care to guess what the results show?" rhetorical question if you'd like a refresher on your position.] So, in your view, the research undermines Lofcaudio's premise. That would mean that it shows that most individuals who increase mileage in a reasonable manner do not improve. Let's test that. If increasing mileage in a reasonable manner would have to involving increasing duration, frequency, or intensity, which would best approximate the approach of what you call the "high mileage" crowd? Duration, right? Don't those poor misguided base-builder types recommend increasing duration first and foremost, particularly for those who race at longer distances? See Lydiard's observations on this, as well as Pfitzinger, who recommends adding frequency in the form of additional days or doubles only when mileage reaches a quantum that would give Richard99 the vapours. You seem to agree when you sum up Lydiard, Glover, Pfitzinger et al about how they'd accomplish an increase in weekly mileage: as you say, under their concepts, "increases in weekly mileage are mostly accomplished by increasing the duration of workouts, not increasing frequency of training" (or, in base-building at least, intensity). So: Have there been any studies that show whether adding duration but maintaining or controlling for intensity, frequency, specificity, etc. leads to improvement in performance? Why, yes, there have! And danged if some of them, hackily summarized, aren't just a-sittin' there on Power Running Dot Com. And what do they tend to show? That people who exercise for a longer duration, but with intensity and frequency controlled, improve. And they improve more than folks who exercise for less time. Power Running Dot Com says so. As a certain Richard99 concludes, "it is clear that duration of training has a principle affect on performance." If someone is a runner, and she increases duration of training, but doesn't increase frequency or intensity, would that runner, according to the research, likely improve? Yep. More than someone who doesn't increase duration, or doesn't increase it as much? Yep. And would that runner have increased weekly mileage? Yep. In line with the advice of base-building types? Yep. So: answer your own rhetorical question. What does the most relevant controlled research show on the basic question of whether runners improve by adding miles, even if they don't add intensity or frequency? [This message has been edited by Hairy Trotter (edited May-26-2006).]
IP: Logged |
moved2wv
Cool Runner |
posted May-26-2006 06:14 PM
I just heard on Endurance Radio's podcast today that to increase race times, one should continually build endurance and then increase intensity for races. I forget with whom the interview was, but he was a triathlete/duathlete and triathlete trainer. He also made the point that frequent high intensity workouts will not increase your race times because the body can only sustain high intensity workouts for so long. In fact, your times will be slower.Endurance is the key, with periodic high intensity, shorter duration workouts/races. The podcast is from enduranceradio.com.
IP: Logged |
Richard99
Cool Runner |
posted May-26-2006 07:20 PM
Hairy,Well, imagine that. All those problems comparing differences in mileage while controlling other training variables yet people on these forums routinely claim that increasing mileage results in improved performance. How can they know that with such certainty if the other variables aren't controlled for? Why does increasing mileage increases performance? Here's the article Hairy is referencing in his post:
http://www.powerrunning.com/Training/Why%20Increasing%20Mileage%20Improves%20Performance%20part%201.htm ------------------
Richard
World's Fastest Slow Guy
www.powerrunning.com
IP: Logged |
Hairy Trotter
Cool Runner |
posted May-26-2006 08:12 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Richard99:
Hairy,Well, imagine that. All those problems comparing differences in mileage while controlling other training variables yet people on these forums routinely claim that increasing mileage results in improved performance. How can they know that with such certainty if the other variables aren't controlled for?
[/URL]
Jumping Jesus on a pogo stick. You're a funny man when you're stuck. Read slowly: Mileage cannot be an "other" variable aside from duration, intensity, or frequency. To add more mileage, a runner must add one or more of these. It's not physically possible to do otherwise. If you are aware of a way, please let me know. The problem, as usual, lies with your limitations, not with the body of research, research methodology, or the laws of physics. You said that a study could control for those three variables and yet still assess the impact of increased volume. You said that such studies had been done, and that they undermined Lofcaudio's observation that increasing mileage improves performance for most. That's wrong, Richard. There are no such studies. I look forward to you pointing me to one if such a thing exists. As an alternative, point me to a training plan -- any training plan -- that manages to explain a way for a runner to increase mileage without either running more per session, running more sessions, or running faster. And the people on these forums are right. It would be relatively easy to develop a basic assessment of whether increasing mileage improves performance relative to a control group or group. And it would be easy to do so by adjusting the variable that matters most to base-builder types. That would be done by boosting duration for the experimental group while fixing the other variables. Such studies have been done, albeit on a basic level. You seem to have at least read abstracts for a small handful of them, along with a terrific 20-year old review that you summarize very, very badly. They show exactly what you claim here that they don't: increasing mileage a la what base-building gurus recommend improves performance. They do not support, even remotely, the opposing premise.
IP: Logged |
Richard99
Cool Runner |
posted May-26-2006 09:07 PM
Hairy,You got it right - increasing mileage has little impact on performance. It's the increase in duration and intensity that improve performance. Of course, that is not quite what the base building crowd is really focusing on when they talk about base building, now is it? Sure they increase the duration of their longest run, but how many point to that as the primary factor in improved performance? None that I know of. What do they point to instead? The increase in mileage run at a base building pace. But you (and I) know the truth, don't we? ------------------
Richard
World's Fastest Slow Guy
www.powerrunning.com
IP: Logged |
jjwaverly42
Cool Runner |
posted May-26-2006 09:47 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Richard99:
Hairy,You got it right - increasing mileage has little impact on performance. It's the increase in duration and intensity that improve performance. Of course, that is not quite what the base building crowd is really focusing on when they talk about base building, now is it? Sure they increase the duration of their longest run, but how many point to that as the primary factor in improved performance? None that I know of. What do they point to instead? The increase in mileage run at a base building pace. But you (and I) know the truth, don't we?
Hi Richard, I see you're still mucking it up. :> ) What is your definition of duration? I just want to point out, being into base-building these days (not feeling part of any particular "crowd"), that I for one, as an individual, always point out to people how important long runs are for training the body to use fat as fuel, and developing the aerobic system. I also believe I am not the only one who speaks of such things that also believe in building a solid aerobic base with either perceived effort aerobic training or low-HR training. With my own experiments, I've noticed great development in speed by running all miles for a period of time at what you might call "low intensity." For me that would be 70% HRR and below. I don't negate tempo or speedwork at all, and will use some minimally after the initial base period. How do you explain someone working exclusively at 65-70% HRR for 16 weeks, and getting faster and faster at that same heart rate (never running an intensity faster than 70%)? And how do you explain the race times getting faster from such a training method? Now, I'm not the only one that this has worked for. --Jimmy My Running World
Current Training
IP: Logged |
SportiGrl
Cool Runner |
posted May-26-2006 10:51 PM
I'm not Richard but I do have some thoughts on this ... I haven't seen anybody claim that increasing milage and staying under 70% HRR for all runs would not improve times/pace as you progress in your training ... I believe the only point of real contention is whether that same person might improve even more if they added some sort of multi-pace runs to the mix during that base building phase ...
Of course running more (or more consistantly) at the same intensity/effort will bring about improvements over time ...
The difference in thought are on degrees of improvement over a given period of time; not a lack of it, right?
IP: Logged |
tigger
Cool Runner |
posted May-27-2006 09:35 AM
quote:
Originally posted by SportiGrl:
... I believe the only point of real contention is whether that same person might improve even more if they added some sort of multi-pace runs to the mix during that base building phase ...
I'm not Richard either but I stayed in a Holiday Inn last night! No, I don't think that's the issue here Sportigrl. This is a long standing argument over the merits of less frequent but high intensity training vs higher mileage. Richard's website is worth a read to understand what the disagreemet is. And Richard, after all this discussion I'm still left with the impression you don't believe all the people who base build and report results are a clear demonstration of the benefits of higher mileage at lower intensity.
IP: Logged |
Hairy Trotter
Cool Runner |
posted May-27-2006 03:53 PM
quote:
Originally posted by SportiGrl:
I haven't seen anybody claim that increasing mileage [while running at base pace for all runs] would not improve times/pace as you progress in your training ...
SportiGrl: This is what Richard is claiming -- he says the research directly contradicts this claim. He shifts around when his errors are pointed out to him, and he seems to confuse himself at times, but this is what he has been saying. He is, of course, dead wrong, both about the research and the fundamental truth of the matter. There's essentially no contradiction here between the research, the experience of thousands of runners, and your common sense. I trust that folks who have the intestinal fortitude to read a thread like this have been able to figure that out, despite the noise Richard insists on bringing to a very elementary topic. Obviously, the question of how much and what kinds of intensity will best spur whatever particuar improvements a given runner wants is a more interesting one. But even on that, there isn't nearly as much contradiction as Richard believes. All respectable coaches I've ever come across understand that more intense work -- in the right volume, at the right time, and to the right degree to spur particular adaptations -- will lead to specific kinds of improvements that matter to competitive runners, and they'll help do so with an efficiency and to a degree that base-building paces typically don't. Thus, even the most active proponents of base-building and high volume also work in substantial doses of more intense training. Richard is very, very into babbling about supposed contradictions that largely don't exist. But there really aren't large questions out there about Quality versus Quantity, in the sense that one of those things must be completely deemphasized for most runners to reach their potential. That ain't so. And it ain't so for a simple reason -- in most ways that matter, quality and quantity are mutually necessary, not mutually exclusive. Runners are working to move a challenging distance at a challenging speed. So, not shockingly, getting better at doing that involves going far and going fast. The trick is settling on the right levels of quality at the right quantity for a particular person with particular goals, talents, and proclivities. Which, of course, you along with every other person with a lick of sense about distance running know. So we get threads like this -- page after page of folks stating the obvious to counter a dingbat with a web site and a bossy, bratty child's sense of science and logic. Yay!
IP: Logged |
Southern Man
Cool Runner |
posted May-27-2006 05:10 PM
Most of the time I try to ignore Richard, so I'm sorry I dragged us all into this discussion. I actually was originally trying to agree w/ Richard in saying that large, long term studies comparing training programs just do not exist. It's not because physiologists aren't interested in such a study. I could find 3 at my local, small University that would conduct such a study. Funding is the problem. Anyway, I'm at least somewhat sorry I dragged us all into the argument (again). It does get tiring. Southern Man
IP: Logged |
AndyHass
Cool Runner |
posted May-27-2006 08:19 PM
"Do you realize that a factor that takes 2 years before its influence can be seen or measured is not a strong influencer of performance?"This is about the most reaching, desperate, naive or plain dumbest statement. With 2 brain cells working on life support I can deduce that it simply means it takes longer for the changes to occur...not that the end result is any less powerful. Any distance athlete that analyzes the impact of their training in weeks or months rather than years knows nothing of the sport in which they compete. I'm done with this thread. You can lead a rock to water, but you can't make it think....
IP: Logged |
DanMoriarity
Cool Runner |
posted May-27-2006 09:32 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Richard99:
Dan,Are you suggesting that the results of studies that don't include every person on the planet are invalid? Just how many subjects do you suggest need to be included in a study before it is considered valid for that population? How many subjects do researchers believe need to be included to be applicable for a population?
I'm suggesting nothing of the sort. I'm saying you need to study the effects on individuals not groups to get an accurate picture. Reread what I posted.
IP: Logged |
 |
