posted Apr-14-2007 09:48 PM               

IP: Logged

posted Apr-15-2007 12:58 AM               

Constructing your training plan for today; this month, this season...is a lot like that. Many people can't see the point of plodding along for about 40 miles a week in the winter when you're 17 to be a fast 800m runner in the summer when he/she is 22.

I remember the time when I went to Arthur's house in Auckland, NZ... He was going over this handbook that he has written for Swedish federation (remember Anders Garderude?). One line from this handbook really stuck to me which I don't think he really mentioned in any of his writings in English (yes, that handbook was translated back in English...) but we are now trying to emphasize more through Lydiard Foundation materials: "You never know your true potential until you train systematically over several years." Arthur always used to tell me that most people go through their lives NOT knowing what their true potential is because they never apply themselves.

I have a 4-year macro plan of Lasse Viren leading up to Munich Olympics. How many of you know that, when he started training under Haikolla as a 19-year-old (he might have started training with him a year or two before that but this plan starts from the time when he was 19), he started out about 50km (yes, not miles!) a week? He would gradually build up to about 90km a week that year. By the time he was 22~23 in 1972, he was training 800km a month at the top, up to 17 times (workouts) a week. This is a textbook information on how carefully executed plan works. Nobody, not even Lasse Viren, starts out with 100 miles a week or whatever, and stay there throughout his/her career. If that determines whether he/she is "genetically gifted" or not, none of them would have become Olympic champion.

Lydiard always said, "What you do this year is really for the next year; it's not what you do this year or next year that counts, but what you'll be doing in 5-years time." He also always said to look at what those champions WERE doing 10 years ago before they hit the world scene.

Most people want an excuse so they don't have to try harder. The easiest excuse is to say "I don't have natural born-talent." And I'm almost tempted to say, without any scientific research to back me up, that NONE of them will EVER figure out their true potential because they will never apply themselves intelligently systematically for an extended period of time.

[This message has been edited by Nobby (edited Apr-15-2007).]

IP: Logged

posted Apr-15-2007 10:17 AM               

IP: Logged

posted Apr-15-2007 12:55 PM               

Let's take a runner who can average 90-100 mpw for extended periods of time but occasionally hits 120 or even 130 miles (I'd fit this example when I'm in decent shape). Going into a 6-month prep for a target race, this runner will likely spend 3-4 weeks getting up to normal volume, about 100 mpw, including at least 2 faster-paced workouts per week (progressions, tempos, etc). As fitness is gained, they peak out with a couple solid weeks of 120+. These weeks will still have a couple solid workouts included. Then they drop back to 90-100 mpw, but probably add a 3rd workout (or fast-finish long run) and do even more intense things like 800m/400m intervals.

Some people do "base periods" where they do nothing but slow. Personally, this has never worked for me. I try to keep tempo runs and progression runs in year-round. If I don't, going fast again is ROUGH. Most paces, except maybe mile pace and faster, are in the mix year-round, it's just the proportion done at each pace that changes.

Richard,
So you admit you're wrong about 2-3 days per week being optimal. Good. Now, provide all the scientific references Kemibe asked for that you have not but claim to have. Since aerobic "theory" is "torn and tattered", you should have not 2-3 but a long list, including prominent reviews pulling them together by leaders in the field. The conclusions you claim should be made by the AUTHORS, not YOU. If the "theory" is as tattered as you claim, this would be readily available in the literature to support you.

As someone actually trained as a scientist in a field relevant to the discussion, I can tell you that when you challenge an established paradigm (which this is), the burden of proof lies on YOU, not the paradigm. It's already been established on evidence and it's YOUR job to provide credible counter-evidence, which you haven't. The very fact that you harp for our citations demonstrates your lack of understanding of how paradigm shift works in the scientific community.

IP: Logged

posted Apr-15-2007 01:08 PM            

IP: Logged

posted Apr-15-2007 03:12 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by slowtwch:
After reading the posts on this thread I went straight to the Power Running site fully expecting to find Richard Gibbens promoting human fetuses as the new super food or something equally as horrendous. Instead I found some questionable science and, in the end, a relatively standard training plan that although it probably won't produce a fresh batch of young Olympians is also unlikely to destroy the moral fiber of our running youth either. The ultimate arbiter of any science is the abilty of a theory to predict results. Untill he can produce some statisticaly valid studies that show meaningful improvement in a group of runners using his principles of training, no competitive runners are going to pay much attention and those noncompetitive runners who do follow his advice will come to no real harm. In fact his principles of training are designed in such a loosely defined and fluid way, it seems they would allow for any result, making them unvarifiable by scientific standards. It would seem a sufficient refutation of his theories for people to point out the simple fact that no one is winning races by following his advice.On the other hand the constant vitriol dished out on both every minutia of his theories (paticularly scientificaly meaningless nonsense such as scales of percieved rates of excertion or the definition of the term elite) and his person can only serve to promote his website. It wouldn't surprise me much if I were to discover that some of the attacks on Mr Gibbens were in fact written by Mr Gibbens himself, inorder to keep this wonderful promotional device going.

---

his last 4 attempts didn't fare so well

http://www.coolrunning.com/forums/Forum6/HTML/023227.shtml

http://www.coolrunning.com/forums/Forum6/HTML/023006.shtml

http://www.coolrunning.com/forums/Forum6/HTML/022855.shtml

http://www.coolrunning.com/forums/Forum6/HTML/022456.shtml

IP: Logged

posted Apr-15-2007 03:57 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by AndyHass:
Richard,
So you admit you're wrong about 2-3 days per week being optimal.

---

Andy,

You should re-read what I wrote. I don't believe you will find that I said I was wrong about 2-3 days per week being optimal. I said I never expected someone to think a single sentence about training frequency for average folks to be a complete training prescription.

quote:

---

Originally posted by AndyHass:
Since aerobic "theory" is "torn and tattered", you should have not 2-3 but a long list, including prominent reviews pulling them together by leaders in the field. The conclusions you claim should be made by the AUTHORS, not YOU. If the "theory" is as tattered as you claim, this would be readily available in the literature to support you.

---

On the VO2max theory (aka cardiovascular/anaerobic model) being in tatters, there is an abundance of research on the topic for anyone to reference via pubmed. As you don't appear to be familiar with the research challenging the cardiovascular/anaerobic model I suggest you begin with the full text of this: 1996 J.B. Wolffe Memorial Lecture. Challenging beliefs: ex Africa semper aliquid novi.

Or, even easier, start with Noakes' review of the literature in his latest edition of Lore of Running, followed up by additional reading of the full text research studies cited.

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

IP: Logged

posted Apr-15-2007 07:11 PM               

I guess I’m not quite qualified for the debate because I haven’t quite read the RT article yet. A part of it is because I just don’t have time to read some garbage. I have decided, as early as 1980, that the Lydiardism is the way to go (that was incidentally in the middle of Coe debate); it made sense to me, and I set out to learn as much about Lydiardism as possible—I even went all the way to New Zealand for 12 months and got hooked up with Arthur’s original runners to know more about it (from a bit different angle, I guess…). During that time, I also tried to study as much as I can about the opposing opinions as well. I don’t blindly follow everything Lydiard had said; there have been some false information that he has commented. I won’t push it away by putting the colored glasses.

After studying the Lydiardism for over 20 years, working with Lydiard himself, having served as a professional coach for a corporate team in Japan for several years to work with 8 nationally-ranked athletes, and also getting acquainted personally and talking to some of the leading coaches and athletes in the world, including the late Bill Bowerman, Bob Sevene, Joe Vigil, Jeff Johnson, Dave Martin, Dick Brown, Bill Squires, Yoshio Koide, the late Kiyoshi Nakamura, Hideo Suzuki, Yasushi Sakaguchi, Pat Clohessy, Dick Quax, Rod Dixon, Lorraine Moller, Nic Bideau…. I can go on! I’m still absolutely convinced, that, if applied correctly, the Lydiardism is the way to go.

In my previous life, I “played” an engineer and worked for R&D for several years. It is much easier to isolate one variable and do a research in a lab setting. But runners, particularly if they are serious about improving performance, are one of the worse animals to do such a research. If someone comes to me when I’m training for the Olympic Trial and says, “Okay, I want to study the effect of Vitamin C so this is the training regime I want you to follow for the next 12 months; first 6 months, you take Vitamin C and the next 6 months, without; and we’ll see how that affect your performance…” I’d say hell with it. My main goal is to perform well and to participate the Olympic Trial. If I find out some form of training works better, I’ll jump. Same thing; when a runner feels low in energy, they don’t just ease back the mileage. They’ll slow down; they’ll change diet; they’ll take some vitamin and minerals; they’ll stretch more… They’ll try everything they can think of…at once!

I’ve found all the debate about validity of the research(es) on mileage highly entertaining but nothing more. When someone talks about coloration of training mileage and injury, I wonder why no one mention about shoes… Of course, coming from the Lydiard school, I believe a lot higher percentage of running related injuries are caused by ill-fitted shoes. The higher the training mileage people run, the higher likelihood that they train in well-known branded shoes, most likely more expensive model thinking that would protect them…. I believe (I’m tempted to say “The actual fact is”; and I know there’s some research done on this subject as well but I’ll avoid further argument), more often than not, that could very well cause more injury incidence. Japanese runners train in almost minimalist shoes (ASICS or Mizuno marathon shoes) and they run very many kilometers. I just don’t think it’s simply coincidence that they don’t talk much about IT band syndrome or PF or shin splint (they DO get injured, mind you…). And, as I believe someone else already brought up but, we only talk about a part of US Olympic Trial participants. We didn’t include “elite” runners from Japan, New Zealand (especially in the 70s), Australian runners… Or Kenyans or Ethiopians. So in a sense we are only dealing with very small prototypical population who are used to driving all over the place from their youth, used to eating McDonald and drinking Coke at school since they’re 4 or 5, used to wearing shoes that are like gum boots…since birth???

This sounds very much arrogant and egotistic and I apologize if I offend anybody but I just don’t have time to read too much of these physiological debate. I really don’t give a damn about how much lactate you get in your blood stream if you run so much slower than your 5k time or all that kind of mumbo jumbo that, so far in my practical coaching experience, didn’t really give me any edge. Debate about whether 88 miles a week is better than 102 miles a week or 57 mile is optimum is out of question. I follow the Lydiard principles; that’s that for me. I’m coaching this young lady who’s training for an 800m race. We have gone up to a 3-hour run, up and down the undulating course; done over an hour of hill bounding; and now I’m more concerned about developing her leg-speed. I don’t have time and energy to check how many miles she’s run in the last 3 months and what % of that were LT pace, etc. We pushed when we felt good; we took it easy or even skipped a day or two if we didn’t. I stopped her doing repeats when she’s pushing too hard; I pushed her when I thought she could handle it… I never referred to any research or study done by someone else; most of them (if not all of them) were based on my observation because I’m there, running with her (though now I can’t keep up with her!). I’m more interested in how well she’d run than some guinea pig study.

Okay, I’m biased. As some of the posters like runawayjesse (I heard you guys had the record low temperature a couple of weeks ago…how’re things going down there, buddy!?), I had a very strong personal relationship with the Old Man. And more than most people, we know just how much Lydiard had contributed to the sport as a whole; and not just running, as someone stated, jogging as well as other sports like swimming, kayaking, cycling, ball games like football and rugby…and we appreciate that. And he was always generous and willing to help others. I have a letter from him, handwritten from some hotel in Chicago while he was away from his family, traveling around the US, and he took time to write to me in person. This was way back in 1982. I try to do the same to other people. He destroyed his family by getting involved in running. One of his last comments to me was to “take care of your family.” He was a great man and a great coach. And for someone, I don’t care how well-known that person is, to come out and says that he hurt more young runners than helped is an insult and a totally false statement. If you don’t want to put an effort to run 100 miles a week, or whatever you can handle, or if you don’t care about pushing the envelope and want to dismiss the Lydiardism, that’s your problem. But Arthur was willing to preach, to whoever is interested in listening, until his last moment on this Earth. He was preaching 300 people in Chicago, 300 people in Boston, 400 people in Boulder and 600 people in Houston. Only 6 hours before he passed away, he was re-lacing some lady’s muddy shoes at SunMart Ultra Trail Run. He dedicated his entire life to helping others, over his own life, to become a better runner. If you tell him that you don’t want to train harder because you feel that’s your genetic limit, then he would turn around and tell you not to waste his time any more because he’d be busy helping others who are aspired to push the envelope to see what he/she can do with whatever that God-given “talent” might be—that could mean someone trying to run 15 minutes non-stop! He would help you just as seriously as coaching an Olympic champion. He was helping out this young lady in Hamilton in his later years. He would drive all the way from Auckland to Hamilton every weekend (or every other weekend or whatever it was). Asked what she could do for him, he simply replied that he would like to sit down and have a meal with her and her family. He would gladly give a part of his life to you but only IF you’re sincere about your approach. He wouldn’t expect world record from each and every one of us; but he expected sincere effort from each and every one of us.

At letsrun.com message board, people like myself, HRE, Kim Stevenson and Glenn McCarthy get criticized for being such a strong devotee of Lydiardism. But if you ever knew the man, you could not help it. And to see some attention-craving wanna-be comes along and bad-mouthing the Old Man without fully understanding the principles or understanding contribution of the man, is something we would not tolerate. Criticize as much as you want; but we at least can say proudly that we knew this great man in person and touched a part of history.

IP: Logged

posted Apr-15-2007 07:18 PM               

"To accommodate these uncertainties, an alternate physiological model is proposed in which skeletal muscle contractile activity is regulated by a series of central, predominantly neural, and peripheral, predominantly chemical, regulators that act to prevent the development of organ damage or even death during exercise in both health and disease and under demanding environmental conditions. During maximal exercise, the peripheral regulation of skeletal muscle function and hence of oxygen use by skeletal muscle, perhaps by variables related to blood flow, would prevent the development of muscle rigor, especially in persons with an impaired capacity to produce ATP by mitochondrial or glycolytic pathways. Regulation of skeletal muscle contractile function by central mechanisms would prevent the development of hypotension and myocardial ischemia during exercise in persons with heart failure, of hyperthermia during exercise in the heat, and of cerebral hypoxia during exercise at extreme altitude. The challenge for future generations of exercise physiologists is to identify how the body anticipates the possibility of organ damage and evokes the appropriate control mechanism(s) at the appropriate instant."

This is Noakes' classic Central Governor statement...which is every bit as bad as you, Richard. Here, he's claiming the current research doesn't FULLY explain things, so it must be wrong. He goes on to propose an alternate model, WITH ABSOLUTELY NO SUPPORT WHATESOEVER. That's right, Noakes has ZERO scientific evidence to support this assertion.

So I ask for a body of evidence, which would be necessary to support the current paradigm being "in tatters". You respond with a single article, which is Noakes driveling on about a theory he has absolutely no scientific evidence to support.

By the way, this wasn't even peer-reviewed it appears, just a lecture.....

Try again.

IP: Logged

posted Apr-15-2007 08:22 PM               

It is simply a place to start. You suggested a prominent review should be included and that is one. In the full text there is quite a bit of cited research you should review. As a scientist you'll have to actually do the work of reading the relevant research and bringing yourself up to speed on the topic. Plus I believe you won't take my word for it.

You previously wrote, "It's already been established on evidence" in reference to the VO2max theory (aka cardiovascular/anaerobic model). Based on this statement by you I suggest you need to review the research "establishing" the cardiovascular/anaerobic model. The VO2max theory always been based on assumption, as you can confirm from any physiological textbook. Here's a quote from the one in my library "The usual explanation for a lactate increase is based on an assumed relative tissue hypoxia.".(1) More recently the research "establishing" this model has been reviewed and found to be in error, as you will discover in your investigation.

As the evidence against the cardiovascular/anaerobic model has mounted, physiologists have proposed at least 7 additional models for endurance performance. Obviously the physiological community is not in agreement on the exact factors of performance or fatigue. I recommend you bring yourself up to speed on all 8 of them before annointing one as the correct model. You can start here but there is much more additional research available.

Models to explain fatigue during prolonged endurance cycling

quote:

---

He goes on to propose an alternate model, WITH ABSOLUTELY NO SUPPORT WHATESOEVER. That's right, Noakes has ZERO scientific evidence to support this assertion.

---

Are you absolutely certain of that? Noakes cites research (original and previously conducted) in support of his theory. What is your basis for your claim that zero scientific evidence supports his theory?

Research Pubmed search: studies related to the Central Governor model

1. McArdle, Katch, Katch; Exercise Physiology, 4th edition, page 123

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

[This message has been edited by Richard99 (edited Apr-15-2007).]

IP: Logged

posted Apr-16-2007 09:02 AM               

Nice cop-out. I didn't ask for a place to start, I asked for your "substantial body of evidence". All I got was one article...which was not, by the way, a review. To educate you further on science since you're still oblivioius, a review would pull together all the relevant papers, summarize their results, and tie it together. This one does not. Show me one shred of scientific evidence demonstrating WHAT the central governor is, HOW it works, or HOW it controls exercise. Noakes has never done this and does not in any of the articles you cite. It's all crackpot theory. There's a SINGLE (yes, just one) paper that indicates exercise-induced hypoxia doesn't happen. You and Noakes take that and run, despite the fact that its OWN AUthORS state that their work contradicts an established body of evidence, and say it cannot stand on its own without more work as they can't explain why (the confirmatory work has never emerged). But people like you and Noakes with a personal agenda to push throw science to the wind and run with it like it's fact.

Like Kevin pointed out, you keep whacking the VO2max straw man in a vain attempt to divert out attention.

Try again.

IP: Logged

posted Apr-16-2007 09:17 AM            

" And for someone, I don’t care how well-known that person is, to come out and says that he hurt more young runners than helped is an insult and a totally false statement. If you don’t want to put an effort to run 100 miles a week, or whatever you can handle, or if you don’t care about pushing the envelope and want to dismiss the Lydiardism, that’s your problem. But Arthur was willing to preach, to whoever is interested in listening, until his last moment on this Earth. He was preaching 300 people in Chicago, 300 people in Boston, 400 people in Boulder and 600 people in Houston. Only 6 hours before he passed away, he was re-lacing some lady’s muddy shoes at SunMart Ultra Trail Run. He dedicated his entire life to helping others, over his own life, to become a better runner. If you tell him that you don’t want to train harder because you feel that’s your genetic limit, then he would turn around and tell you not to waste his time any more because he’d be busy helping others who are aspired to push the envelope to see what he/she can do with whatever that God-given “talent” might be—that could mean someone trying to run 15 minutes non-stop! He would help you just as seriously as coaching an Olympic champion"

IP: Logged

posted Apr-16-2007 09:50 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by AndyHass:
"It is simply a place to start. You suggested a prominent review should be included and that is one."

Nice cop-out. I didn't ask for a place to start, I asked for your "substantial body of evidence". All I got was one article.

---

Andy,

I didn't say you asked for a place to start. I gave you a place to start, expecting you to do the work of educating yourself on the various models & theories.

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

IP: Logged

posted Apr-16-2007 09:54 AM               

Still waiting.

IP: Logged

posted Apr-16-2007 09:55 AM               

You're just going to ignore Nobby's posts? Seriously, can you respond to them or do you have nothing to say w/ his "real world" experience?

IP: Logged

posted Apr-16-2007 09:58 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by tuscaloosarunner:
Richard:

You're just going to ignore Nobby's posts? Seriously, can you respond to them or do you have nothing to say w/ his "real world" experience?

---

The real world is irrelevant. All that matters is unsupported,
speculative theory.

IP: Logged

posted Apr-16-2007 10:05 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Richard99:
Andy,

I didn't say you asked for a place to start. I gave you a place to start, expecting you to do the work of educating yourself on the various models & theories.

---

IP: Logged

posted Apr-16-2007 10:28 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by tuscaloosarunner:
Richard:

You're just going to ignore Nobby's posts? Seriously, can you respond to them or do you have nothing to say w/ his "real world" experience?

---

Of course he will. He doesn't care about reality, he's proven that.

Funny how The Journal of Applied Physiology, what should be Richard's Bible, is full of real PhD's taking shots at the Central Governor as an unsubstantiated theory not supported by the current body of evidence in any way (for example http://jap.physiology.org/cgi/content/full/100/2/744 and the rest of the related editorial discussion).

IP: Logged

posted Apr-16-2007 11:04 AM            

IP: Logged

posted Apr-16-2007 11:07 AM            

IP: Logged

posted Apr-16-2007 12:54 PM               

Now, when we talk about training mileage, however, I think one of the most fascinating examples would have to be 1984 LA Olympic marathon. Salazar, while he trained up to 120 miles a week, was never known as a guy who goes too far beyond 20 miles in training. Whereas Seko would go up to 50 miles. Deek trained 30 miles quite regularly. When Salazar went outside the US (here's another key sentence as far as I'm concerned...) and went to Fukuoka, thinking world record again, only to finish behind all 3 Japan's national marathon team as well as tiny Ikangaa to finish 5th; then turned around to Europe this time and got beaten by Deek and 4 other guys once again quite convinsingly. Now his confidence is shaking. He went home and started running a long distance including a 30-mile run. What happened? He got tired and tired and got himself into a stress situation. He probably lost some sharpness (remember, Seko's 10k best was 27:50 and Deek 28:10 while Salazar ran 27:25). He was never the same again.

Then in the Olympics, Lopez came out and won the gold medal as a 37-year-old who, like Salazar was, didn't run too far beyond 18 miles in training. Seko had one of the worst performaces in the Games while Deek, though respectful, managed only 6th. So is it better to forget all about long runs? How do you draw a conclusion from this result? I guess Lopez came out as a winner; but his marathon runner's career was very short (though his running career was long). Seko had one of the most impressive marathon career in history with 10 wins out of 15 starts including London, Boston, Tokyo, 4 Fukuoka. Deek also had a long prosperous career including 4 Olympics. I think that the conclusion from this is that you cannot conclude.

When you look at the lab result, one thing I always felt is, in the end, what do YOU want. If you want to jog for health; sure, I wouldn't necessarily recommend 100MPW. If you want to participate the Olympic Trial, I think it's safe to say there's a certain limit to how much you actually want to train. But if you want to perform well and go for the medal, improve your performance, so-called "known" limination of how much you can train with expected benefit return is so much more than any of lab report might indicate.

And for middle of the packers? You need to consider more aspects than just mileage. If you're dealing with someone who has been running quite a bit for quite some time and stuck at, say, 4-hours, he/she might need some faster training and drop the mileage. On the other hand, if he/she has only been running, say, 6 miles a day everyday; I would alter the training to include a long run of up to 2-hours with some easy days in between. In other words, weekly mileage shows such a small fraction of whole training picture. It is almost silly to try to find what the optimal mileage at all. I guess it all depends on what people want and are chasing. If they want some paper to be published by saying they found some "truth" or "new finding", they would do almost anything to do so. As a practical coach, my interest is to improve runner's performance. For that, there are just as many situations and solutions as the number of runners you would deal with.

Am I making sense? I feel like I'm just yapping...

IP: Logged

posted Apr-16-2007 12:57 PM               

Now, when we talk about training mileage, however, I think one of the most fascinating examples would have to be 1984 LA Olympic marathon. Salazar, while he trained up to 120 miles a week, was never known as a guy who goes too far beyond 20 miles in training. Whereas Seko would go up to 50 miles. Deek trained 30 miles quite regularly. When Salazar went outside the US (here's another key sentence as far as I'm concerned...) and went to Fukuoka, thinking world record again, only to finish behind all 3 Japan's national marathon team as well as tiny Ikangaa to finish 5th; then turned around to Europe this time and got beaten by Deek and 4 other guys once again quite convinsingly. Now his confidence is shaking. He went home and started running a long distance including a 30-mile run. What happened? He got tired and tired and got himself into a stress situation. He probably lost some sharpness (remember, Seko's 10k best was 27:50 and Deek 28:10 while Salazar ran 27:25). He was never the same again.

Then in the Olympics, Lopez came out and won the gold medal as a 37-year-old who, like Salazar was, didn't run too far beyond 18 miles in training. Seko had one of the worst performaces in the Games while Deek, though respectful, managed only 6th. So is it better to forget all about long runs? How do you draw a conclusion from this result? I guess Lopez came out as a winner; but his marathon runner's career was very short (though his running career was long). Seko had one of the most impressive marathon career in history with 10 wins out of 15 starts including London, Boston, Tokyo, 4 Fukuoka. Deek also had a long prosperous career including 4 Olympics. I think that the conclusion from this is that you cannot conclude.

When you look at the lab result, one thing I always felt is, in the end, what do YOU want. If you want to jog for health; sure, I wouldn't necessarily recommend 100MPW. If you want to participate the Olympic Trial, I think it's safe to say there's a certain limit to how much you actually want to train. But if you want to perform well and go for the medal, improve your performance, so-called "known" limination of how much you can train with expected benefit return is so much more than any of lab report might indicate.

And for middle of the packers? You need to consider more aspects than just mileage. If you're dealing with someone who has been running quite a bit for quite some time and stuck at, say, 4-hours, he/she might need some faster training and drop the mileage. On the other hand, if he/she has only been running, say, 6 miles a day everyday; I would alter the training to include a long run of up to 2-hours with some easy days in between. In other words, weekly mileage shows such a small fraction of whole training picture. It is almost silly to try to find what the optimal mileage at all. I guess it all depends on what people want and are chasing. If they want some paper to be published by saying they found some "truth" or "new finding", they would do almost anything to do so. As a practical coach, my interest is to improve runner's performance. For that, there are just as many situations and solutions as the number of runners you would deal with.

Am I making sense? I feel like I'm just yapping...

IP: Logged

posted Apr-16-2007 01:02 PM               

IP: Logged

posted Apr-16-2007 01:07 PM               

IP: Logged

posted Apr-16-2007 02:08 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nobby:
Oops! Sorry for the double post!

---

I don't care if you triple post, I always like what you write.

Keep them coming.

IP: Logged