posted Apr-12-2007 10:20 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Richard99:
That's fine advice, brianfie. Do a raw count all the research study citations, research study quotes, quotes from physiological textbooks, and other similar credible sources that Kevin and the others in his list have cited on this thread to date and then post your findings. Just how much genuine science have these guys really cited in support of their claims? Your finding should be very interesting.

---

IP: Logged

posted Apr-12-2007 10:28 PM               

------------------
Richard
World's Fastest Slow Guy
www.powerrunning.com

[This message has been edited by Richard99 (edited Apr-12-2007).]

IP: Logged

posted Apr-12-2007 10:34 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Richard99:
If a point is in dispute is it prudent to reference credible sources for help discerning the correct answer?

---

all that was done

IP: Logged

posted Apr-12-2007 11:38 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Richard99:
Just how much genuine science have these guys really cited in support of their claims?

---

Although we both know you're lying again, it's useful to keep exposing those lies.

In my last post, I linked to your gallantly ignorant exposition on the relationship between speed and endurance, where you throw out a bunch of numbers relating people's 100m capacity to their potential at various distances, but give no sources for these numbers; you couple this to the claim that muscles, broadly speaking, limt endurance performance and sign off by claiming that the "central governor" plays an important role. Not only do you not support any of this with "genuine science," but you make a point of not doing this, even writing, "No research study dissections, no in-depth discussion of intricate physiological factors, no pH or lactate charts; just a straight forward [sic] explanation of how endurance performance is physiologically determined, all without including a lot of physiological jargon...If you are curious about the research data supporting this explanation...The supporting research data is all there, waiting on you."

How convincing, Richard -- "trust me, I'm right." Sounds like a guy who really values "research study citations, research study quotes, quotes from physiological textbooks, and other similar credible sources."

In my responses to this amalgam of horsecrap, I explained, item by painful item, why your claims are false. I linked to relevant studies, explained the differences between muscle fiber types, and explained that Noakes himself has to date published no research suggesting the central governor is performance-limiting. I gave various examples demonstrating that your proposed, unsupported relationship between sprint speed and distance potential was about as rigid as methane gas. Everything is referenced and cited -- a lot of Ph.Ds read that site and I wouldn't want to screw up in front of them, now, would I?

The links to those posts are right above. If you believe you can counter any of the scientific arguments I have made, do it. Otherwise, feel free to continue humiliating yourself for the amusement of everyone.

IP: Logged

posted Apr-12-2007 11:51 PM            

For those of average genetic talent, performance can be maximized with just 2 – 3 days per week of running if the right types of runs are conducted.

You make a lot of dumb claims on your site, but this, I would say, is basically your central dogma: That most people would benefit by running less.

Ever hear of the Randi Paranormal Challenge, Richard? James Randi is a well-known skeptic who has offered a $1 million award to any woo-woo (e.g., psychics and other scam artists) who can scientifically prove, to the satisfaction of a disinterested party, that his or her claims about seeing the future, speaking to the dead, etc. are valid. So far no one has done this.

If you are confident in the above statement -- and we'll pretend that it's not something that anyone can and should laugh off the running stage -- I challenge you to support it. This will require a number of things:

1. An acceptable working definition of "average genetic talent."

2. A valid number of data points inthe form of runners who have trained at a variety of volumes and frequencies for extended periods (with ample time between these periods) and found that 2-3 sessions a week optimize performance.

3. Evidence that a strong positive correlation exists between training response and objective performance (that you believe this is the case is implicit in your claim).

4. If possible, a reasonable physiological explanation for why this amount of work is, in fact, optimal for most people but not for others.

So go ahead, Richard. Let's have it. You've been plugging away for years, yet all we know is that you still lie to suit the needs of a given conversation, and every serious runner I know runs 5-7 days a week in order to maximize improvment. No high-school or collegiate cross-country or track team I know oflimits training to 2-3 days a week -- we're talking about hundreds of thousands, possibly millions, of people now. In other words, history is not on your side, so you have your work cut out for you.

Also, it would be unfair for me to be a judge in these proceedings, given that I know you are a duplicitous hammerhead. So post your findings on as many high-caliber running sites as possible (powerrunning.com does not count) and let others judge the results. I can live with them, whatever they are.

IP: Logged

posted Apr-13-2007 05:13 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by kemibe:
There's someone in every crowd observing an Internet scuffle who calls mindlessly for a cease-fire, and equates an overwhelming rout expressly invited by the "abused" party with an unfair lynching. In some cases, these are "concern trolls" who secretly agree with party being marauded, but for obvious reasons don't dare say as much, so they call for an end to the hostilities on the basis of ersatz humanism.

brianfie, go back and read how much genuine science I, fuzz, AndyHass, JimR and others have contributed here as a result of dealing with Richard the Liar-Hardened versus how much Richard himself has offered. Believe me, we've tried to hash out the statistical principles and the physiology; this is no blind bashing-and-mockery session.

---

Kembie: Many thanks for writing at such length in response to my post. You are a good writer and I enjoyed reading it, in spite of the barbs aimed at me

Eloquence aside, however, your post will serve well to illustrate better the objections I have been raising in this thread.

You start off by making insinuations about my state of mind and secret sympathies; my hidden beliefs and timidity about voicing them. All wide of the mark as cheap shots frequently are. These points cannot be drawn from observations, since I am quite a different character than the one paint. Yet you feel justified in making these points anyway.

I could dismiss this by thinking: "Well its par for the course on an internet forum - just sport." But you argue fiercely elsewhere under the banner of objectivity, provable facts, evidence and science.

What happened to the principle of objectivity when you characterized me with your opener? Do you perhaps consider the legitimate playing to the gallery? You seem to move effortlessly between talking science and shooting from the hip, oblivious to the incongruity.

It is to this incongruity that I am trying to draw attention in this thread. And in this matter, I cannot see that much difference between what you and others are doing and the inconsistencies you are accusing Richard99 of. (Please accept that I am not secretly tempted by his theories.)

When it comes to personal attacks, some will happily cheer them on, ignoring all objectivity. As can be seen from the last few pages of this thread. But anyone truly interested in discovery, in the wider sense, will not applaud. Such people will require consistency on a broader level.

Why taint your well made arguments with such venomous personal attacks? Perhaps you don't see how this limits your influence.

-b

IP: Logged

posted Apr-13-2007 08:03 AM            

IP: Logged

posted Apr-13-2007 08:06 AM               

If you love saying your VO2max (especially the max part) has increased, then far be it from me to steal that bit of pleasure from you. If you keep on saying it, nothing bad will happen to you just because VO2max is really VO2peak.

Seriously though, here is where I think we are today in terms of physiological explanations for performance.

The cardiovascular/anaerobic model, which is the oldest physiological model of endurance performance, is in tatters. There is an ever increasing body of credible evidence that is against this model and the research that was initially credited with supporting the model has been shown to have significant problems.

The physiological community does not yet know what limits endurance performance, but since the belief in VO2max limiting performance is slowly being cast aside, at least 7 additional models explaining endurance performance have been introduced by physiologists. Over the next few years the physiological community will be investigating those models in an attempt to discern if one accurately explains performance from a physiological standpoint.

So, that's where things stand today in terms of physiological explanations for endurance performance. The old model (VO2max) is in disarray and new models have been proposed as replacements but there is no agreement in the physiological community as to which one, if any, are correct.

------------------
Richard
World's Fastest Slow Guy
www.powerrunning.com

IP: Logged

posted Apr-13-2007 08:08 AM            

So far, you've offered nothing topical whatsoever -- you've only chimed in here and there to express your distaste for the tenor of the proceedings; so which of us is doing more to drag the discussion further into the mire? (Sorry to be so rude again, but there it is.)

Anyway, I fully expect you to take Mr. Gibbens to task for his own malfeasance at some point in the near future.

IP: Logged

posted Apr-13-2007 08:18 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Richard99:
The cardiovascular/anaerobic model, which is the oldest physiological model of endurance performance, is in tatters. There is an ever increasing body of credible evidence that is against this model and the research that was initially credited with supporting the model has been shown to have significant problems.

---

Gibbens should go to work for the Discovery Institute, where "Darwinian evolution is a theory in crisis, and we'll be providing evidence for Intelligent Design any day now" is the standard party line.

I'd love to see someone explain the efficacy of EPO and blood-doping in the context of cardiovascular factors not being limiting in endurance exercise.

IP: Logged

posted Apr-13-2007 09:01 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by kemibe:
brianfie, if you see what I wrote as the leveling of a "venomous personal attack" against you, we obviously don't see things with remotely enough similarity to even address each other.

---

I saw what you wrote as erroneous and that was my point. I do not take it to heart. I think the venom is being directed elsewhere at the moment.

-b

IP: Logged

posted Apr-13-2007 09:09 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Richard99:
So, that's where things stand today in terms of physiological explanations for endurance performance. The old model (VO2max) is in disarray and new models have been proposed as replacements but there is no agreement in the physiological community as to which one, if any, are correct.

---

Newtonian mechanics, while incomplete, remained a perfectly useful physical construct even after the General Theory. It remains so to this day for 99.99% of day-to-day physics. So it is with the phys theories. Maybe the Central Governor or one of the other half-dozen theories will prove out. Maybe none of them will. Maybe some PhD phys candidate is cooking up the Theory of Everything in her fevered brain right now.

The point is, until then we don't know. I don't know, you don't know, kemibe doesn't know, nobody knows. You're on firm ground when you post information about these new theories. You wander off the reservation when you fly from tentative, unproven theories to specific prescriptions (e.g., the 3-day week for the "average" runner). When you post that sort of thing, it has been and will continue to be ripped apart everywhere you post it.

edited for lousy grammar.

[This message has been edited by fuzz (edited Apr-13-2007).]

IP: Logged

posted Apr-13-2007 09:29 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by brianfie:
I saw what you wrote as erroneous and that was my point. I do not take it to heart. I think the venom is being directed elsewhere at the moment.

-b

---

hee...but what you're missing here, yes we've got pointed sticks with Richard on the ground and we're stabbing away at him. And as you speak up and we pause to look over at you and say "what's that?", Richard's grabbing our spears and thrusting them into himself saying "more! more!".

You see, Richard's last several attempts to get a rise out of the populace came up flat, so he's more than happy to have this reaction.

IP: Logged

posted Apr-13-2007 09:46 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by JimR:
hee...but what you're missing here, yes we've got pointed sticks with Richard on the ground and we're stabbing away at him. And as you speak up and we pause to look over at you and say "what's that?", Richard's grabbing our spears and thrusting them into himself saying "more! more!".

---

Ah..I see! But then should we not have a special space for people who want to pleasure each other so?

IP: Logged

posted Apr-13-2007 09:53 AM               

The reason I say the VO2max theory is in tatters is that a) the evidence on which is has traditionally been based was recently reviewed and found to be in error and b) a large body of research evidence in the past 30 years has contradicted the VO2max theory.

Aside from that, I agree that we really don't know how the body functions physiologically in terms of endurance performance limitations.

quote:

---

You're on firm ground when you post information about these new theories. You wander off the reservation when you fly from tentative, unproven theories to specific prescriptions (e.g., the 3-day week for the "average" runner). When you post that sort of thing, it has been and will continue to be ripped apart everywhere you post it.

---

I would point out is that training and physiology are different things. Whether a training method is optimal or not really doesn't have any influence on whether the physiological explanation for performance is correct or not.

------------------
Richard
World's Fastest Slow Guy
www.powerrunning.com

[This message has been edited by Richard99 (edited Apr-13-2007).]

IP: Logged

posted Apr-13-2007 10:03 AM            

All that matters is that a group of one legged jitterbuggers
plateaued out at 75 miles a week, and studies are never
wrong.

IP: Logged

posted Apr-13-2007 10:08 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by snarkk:
Do Canadian runners refer to it as mileage or "kilometerage" ?

---

Neither, we just count the number of igloos we pass on a daily run and divide it by the average length of a hockey stick.

IP: Logged

posted Apr-13-2007 10:28 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Richard99:
The one other thing I would point out is that training and physiology are different things. Whether a training method is optimal or not really doesn't have any influence on whether the physiological explanation for performance is correct or not.

---

But if training methods stand apart from phys theory, then you fail on not one count but two: First, your recommended training methods for the "average" runner haven't been empirically tested. In fact, they run counter to a hundred years of empirical testing by hundreds of thousands of coaches and runners. Second, the phys theories you promote also have not been proven (at least, not yet).

History may prove you right. The problem is you have no basis for making such a claim at this time. The evidence just isn't there. In the meantime, pointing out known shortcomings in current theory and practice does not prove the efficacy of your own.

IP: Logged

posted Apr-13-2007 10:32 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Richard99:

I would point out is that training and physiology are different things. Whether a training method is optimal or not really doesn't have any influence on whether the physiological explanation for performance is correct or not.

---

OK, Richard, I have been urged by kemibe to be fair and take up my cudgel (or pointy stick) for the other side. So here goes.....

Does the above statement say "Theory can predict the best training, and still be theoretically wrong." Or does it say "Theory and practice do not have much to do with each other in sports science." Or perhaps "People developing theory are not looking at what is optimum in training".

Theory is useful becuase it can be used, not only to explain, but to predict. So, for instance, if the model explaining fatigue is all about muscle acidity, we might try eating spoonsful of bicarb. On the other hand, if the model explaining fatigue is all in the mind, we should perhaps all start meditating.

I imagine what you are advocating for training is based on some theoretical model. So what did you mean?

-b

IP: Logged

posted Apr-13-2007 11:24 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Richard99:
The reason I say the VO2max theory is in tatters is that a) the evidence on which is has traditionally been based was recently reviewed and found to be in error and b) a large body of research evidence in the past 30 years has contradicted the VO2max theory.

---

What is the "VO2 Max theory" and what is the evidence against it? Not only are you whacking away at another straw man (railing against a "VO2 Max theory" and claiming that cardiovascular factors don't limit endurance performance are not the same thing), but above you twice mention evidence that you fail to supply, and that you also mentioned without supplying in at least one other post. You just say it exists and leave it at that, while at the same time grousing that others haven't backed up their claims.

See why this weasel takes repeated metaphorical blows to the face and head, Brian? We're not mean. Richard's like a thirsty man drinking ocean water; he just can't get enough.

If you don't want to answer that, Richard, go ahead and explain who blood-boosting via EPO or traditional autologous RBC donation (which is clearly manipulating a cardiovascular parameter and not a muscular one) yields an immediate drop in distance runners' times. I guess the "Central Governor" and muscle power are limiting except when they are overridden by cardiovascular (oxygen) factors? In other words, they aren't, in fact, limiting?

And if that doesn't strike your fancy, think about my challenge, up above. Every time I happen to see you changing the subject and playing games, like you've done here by beginning to babble about training and physiology being different things, I'm going to remind you of a flurry of questions you haven't answered -- inquiries which, given your stated appetite for fruitful discourse about physiology and your supposed hankering for producing evidence in support of claims, you should be more than eager to tackle.

IP: Logged

posted Apr-13-2007 03:24 PM            

quote:

---

It is widely believed that the VO2 max is genetically determined and unchanging and that an individual is born with either a high or low "max".

---

IP: Logged

posted Apr-13-2007 06:20 PM            

This is my favorite thread ever.

IP: Logged

posted Apr-13-2007 08:24 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by JoeO:
A few years ago, Kemibe offered a similar complete and thorough dissection of Richard's site and "theories" on the Runner's World old message board. Sadly those posts appear to have been lost when RW updated all its forums. A shame given all the time and thought that went into them.

This is my favorite thread ever.

---

The dissections on ScienceBlogs.com are actually more focused, thorough treatments of Gibbens' various sputterings than anything I posted on RWOL, so in effect nothing's been lost. And you'll notice that Gibbens, though sporadically eager to run his yapper here, has yes to address a single point I made in my various posts about his lies, mistakes, misunderstandings and thoroughgoing incompetence. I'm not holdingmy breath that he will, and I know he'll mysteriously never respond to the challenge I posed to him in this thread.

IP: Logged

posted Apr-13-2007 09:02 PM               

I decided to read your piece on Marathon training at the power running site.
There are a couple of things that I felt I should comment on with regards to Lydiard.
You say that slower runners are out there longer with a higher workload than faster runners for the same mileage. I would agree with this. Suprisingly, so would Lydiard. This is why he had people he was training run for time not distance. He recommended during Marathon base training to run two to three times over 1 1/2 hours and once over 2 hours per week. He often said as you get faster you need to increase the mileage so that you hit these time marks.
Now, why would anyone regardless of genetic talent have to run longer than 1 1/2 hours for adaptation? According to Lydiard it was necessary to run for extended periods of time at a high aerobic level to put consistent cardiac pressure on your underdeveloped capillaries. It also strengthened the heart for a higher stroke volume. These adaptations increase your VO2 Max (Lydiard referred to it as your steady state) even if your VO2 Max is at a modest level of someone with little genetic talent.
The effort was only recommended to the amount that would enable you to run consistently for those time periods but no slower. After the base period you would drop your mileage down to do your anaerobic work. All the capillary beds you have revived will not go away and you will get more effective use out of the "speed work." The reduction in volume will allow you to handle the quality work with recovery regardless of your talent level. I know very few people who train this way. I doubt that the lionshare of people in any one of your studies periodizes their training correctly. I know people who run high mileage and mix it with a ton of races and speed before they have had a chance to adapt. They get injured and then someone blares the horn and somehow it is Lydiard's fault yet nobody has really bothered to read what he wrote. It is not confusing. His books are more clear than anything else I've read.
How would anyone know what there genetic talent is if they don't at least try what Lydiard taught. The high "mileage" thing does not work right away. It takes months for the heart to get stronger and capillaries to form. Full development takes years. I've heard people say they have tried Lydiard's training methods and it didn't work. After some questioning I would learn they tried it for a very short period of time or did it wrong. The funniest responses I get is when someone tries the high "mileage" thing and decides it's not for them, they then proceed to cut their mileage and do speed work and their times drop. What they didn't realize is that they were getting faster because of their body's adaptations aerobically during their base period. They really believed that what made them fast were the two or three 400 sessions they did after they gave up on mileage. You have to develope aerobically to reach your potential regardless of genetic ability.
I'm 6'3" 190 Lbs. I look more like a football player then a runner. Where would you have placed my genetic talent?
When I started running I did 20 - 30 miles per week
Result - 4:00 Marathon
I increased to 50 - 60 miles
Result - 3:05 Marathon
I increased to 70 - 80 miles
Result - 2:54 Marathon
I increased to 80 - 100 miles
Result - 2:40 Marathon
Do you see a pattern here.

IP: Logged

posted Apr-13-2007 11:28 PM            

IP: Logged