posted Apr-04-2007 11:44 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sparrowface:
Richard is not a failure. He is an accomplished (and very, very hot) Green Beret. As far as his PowderRunning goes, he does have an agenda though. He is not very up front about it, and not very honest about his motivations. There is no godly law that says he has to be. As a true American, I support his creation of a website that shouts his philosophy to the world. It may be wrong, and it may be flawed, and it might be for fame and fortune, but so what. I think it is important to attempt to disassemble the information he touts as THE TRUTH, and not destroy the man. On the surface, what he is doing is putting it out there (fearlessly, like a very, very hot Green Beret would do), and telling all of you to make him wrong, if you can. At the very least, he is advertising his website, jacking the hits up, so eventually he can sell advertising. Perhaps, even a book, and eventual guru status. There is nothing wrong with that. It is one tentacle of the American Octopus. Go Richard! Hope to meet you in a well-lit bedroom someday for PowerLoving.

---

A failure at life, and a failure at sport, are two very different things.

Disseminating false information, purposely twisting information to imply what he wants it to when it really says the opposite....while protected as free speech there IS something wrong with that. Everyone is entitled to a good defense but that doesn't mean that a defense lawyer getting off a murderer they KNOW is guilty isn't the scum of the earth.

Richard's Greatest Hits that I referred to show him being proved wrong and double-talking himself so much that he seems very confused about what he originally said himself. Disassembling his "TRUTH" into the self-delluding fallacy that it is has already been done time and time again. If he were to let the data speak for what it is, rather than manipulate it to say what he wants it to say, there'd be room for some respect even if we disagreed. I have low tolerance for trolls.

IP: Logged

posted Apr-04-2007 11:58 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sparrowface:
Richard is not a failure. He is an accomplished (and very, very hot) Green Beret. As far as his PowderRunning goes, he does have an agenda though. He is not very up front about it, and not very honest about his motivations. There is no godly law that says he has to be. As a true American, I support his creation of a website that shouts his philosophy to the world. It may be wrong, and it may be flawed, and it might be for fame and fortune, but so what. I think it is important to attempt to disassemble the information he touts as THE TRUTH, and not destroy the man. On the surface, what he is doing is putting it out there (fearlessly, like a very, very hot Green Beret would do), and telling all of you to make him wrong, if you can. At the very least, he is advertising his website, jacking the hits up, so eventually he can sell advertising. Perhaps, even a book, and eventual guru status. There is nothing wrong with that. It is one tentacle of the American Octopus. Go Richard! Hope to meet you in a well-lit bedroom someday for PowerLoving.

---

1.

IP: Logged

posted Apr-04-2007 12:09 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dakota Ridgerunner:

Even if Brian Sell ran a peak week of 155 (and I have no reason to doubt that he did), that doesn't make Jason's findings, as stated above, false.

---

What is your definition of peak mileage. Does it mean the most number of
miles that someone ran in 1 week?

What do you think Culpepper's highest week is? Do you think its a number found in this study or article.

Do you know what the highest mileage some of the sub 2:20 women run?
160 to 180

IP: Logged

posted Apr-04-2007 12:13 PM            

B.S.

IP: Logged

posted Apr-04-2007 12:21 PM            

"My view is that this is about as high as one can go in mileage terms without the effort becoming counterproductive. However, when in altitude training camps Richard would often put in an early morning run of 3-4 miles, bringing the weekly mileage up to 140. In both the Kenyan and the Mexican training camps that we have attended, three sessions a day and 150 miles a week was considered pretty normal.

How can this be improved on? The answer lies in better science, with more efficient monitoring of an athlete’s state of fatigue. Daily monitoring of stress hormones in the blood would enable coaches to pile on the work when athletes are recovering quickly and ease off when they start to become over-tired."

How many of the top 300 marathoners in the world does Noakes coach?
I guess all those Kenyans running 150 mile weeks must be wrong.

[This message has been edited by fredurie (edited Apr-04-2007).]

IP: Logged

posted Apr-04-2007 12:26 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by AndyHass:

Disseminating false information, purposely twisting information to imply what he wants it to when it really says the opposite....

---

IP: Logged

posted Apr-04-2007 01:02 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by AndyHass:
[b]
Disseminating false information, purposely twisting information to imply what he wants it to when it really says the opposite....

---

Andy,

If I'm purposely twisting information, claiming it says the opposite of what it really says, then prove it. Get the full text of any of the studies I review and show how I've skewed the data, taken things out of context, etc. Cite actually cases where I've knowingly given out false information, etc. Somehow, though, I don't expect you will be doing that. If I've deliberately done all those bad things and you know it to be true, it should be easy for you to post actual evidence and facts to prove your case.

What I predict you will do is point out errors I've made when discussing something on this forum (and I certainly make errors when discussing things on a forum). You won't actually provide any evidence of deliberate skewing of data or willfully misrepresenting facts though.

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

[This message has been edited by Richard99 (edited Apr-04-2007).]

IP: Logged

posted Apr-04-2007 01:58 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Richard99:
How Much Do Elites Run? Jason conducted a study in 2004 of the training characteristics of the US Olympic Marathon trials qualifiers. He found "that the men average 90 miles per week with a peak mileage of 120, while the women averaged 72 miles per week with a peak mileage of 95 for the year leading up to the Trials."

---

Hi Dick!

The US Oly trials isn't really an exclusive haven of elites. For some runners, a Boston BQ is just a regular Sunday run for them so getting a B (or better still, A) standard to the Oly trials is a much more challenging goal. Those that make it aren't always what would usually be classified as 'elite', many are sub-elite, many are high end regional runners, etc. It wouldn't surprise to find the averages for this group of runners to be somewhat modest by elite standards. It's important to know these are averages and for a fairly wide group. Get to the upper echilons of elite marathon runners and it's a different story.

Carry on.

[This message has been edited by JimR (edited Apr-04-2007).]

IP: Logged

posted Apr-04-2007 02:54 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by JimR:
Hi Dick!

The US Oly trials isn't really an exclusive haven of elites. For some runners, a Boston BQ is just a regular Sunday run for them so getting a B (or better still, A) standard to the Oly trials is a much more challenging goal. Those that make it aren't always what would usually be classified as 'elite', many are sub-elite, many are high end regional runners, etc. It wouldn't surprise to find the averages for this group of runners to be somewhat modest by elite standards. It's important to know these are averages and for a fairly wide group. Get to the upper echilons of elite marathon runners and it's a different story.

Carry on.

[This message has been edited by JimR (edited Apr-04-2007).]

---

Is that year round though? Someone could peak at 150 but still average around 100.

IP: Logged

posted Apr-04-2007 04:00 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by bigapplepie:
Is that year round though? Someone could peak at 150 but still average around 100.

---

Sort of a 'how long's a string?' question. Average for a year? A month? Their whole life? But I'd assume it to mean average during the current training cycle.

Point is, qualifying for the oly trials doesn't mean you're an 'elite' by world standards.

Here's the current men's and women's list. These are all athletes that have qualified to run in the US Olympic Trials marathon towards the 2008 Olympics.

Do the averages for these athletes represent the averages for elites? Nope.

edit: here's last year's IAAF lists for world's best mens and women's marathon performances.

[This message has been edited by JimR (edited Apr-04-2007).]

IP: Logged

posted Apr-04-2007 05:07 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sparrowface:
Richard is not a failure. He is an accomplished (and very, very hot) Green Beret. As far as his PowderRunning goes, he does have an agenda though. He is not very up front about it, and not very honest about his motivations. There is no godly law that says he has to be. As a true American, I support his creation of a website that shouts his philosophy to the world. It may be wrong, and it may be flawed, and it might be for fame and fortune, but so what. I think it is important to attempt to disassemble the information he touts as THE TRUTH, and not destroy the man. On the surface, what he is doing is putting it out there (fearlessly, like a very, very hot Green Beret would do), and telling all of you to make him wrong, if you can. At the very least, he is advertising his website, jacking the hits up, so eventually he can sell advertising. Perhaps, even a book, and eventual guru status. There is nothing wrong with that. It is one tentacle of the American Octopus. Go Richard! Hope to meet you in a well-lit bedroom someday for PowerLoving.

---

And I couldn't care less, as long as he's being truthful about stuff. But don't do this crap about pointing to US olympic trials qualifiers and then pass this off as though it's the 'training of elites', because it's not.

IP: Logged

posted Apr-04-2007 05:52 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sparrowface:
I think it is important to attempt to disassemble the information he touts as THE TRUTH...what he is doing is putting it out there and telling all of you to make him wrong, if you can.

---

Sparrowface,

Way to call it the way it is. You've definitely got this right.

If someone disagrees with me then I invite them to disassemble the info I put out - prove it wrong. Challenge the data. Challenge the interpretation. Show counter data supporting your point of view. This is a training forum and we are here to discuss and debate physiological and training topics as a way of, hopefully, learning and improving.

If you think I've lied, mislead, withheld, or some other evil thing, then prove it. Support your claims with factual data from the studies themselves.

Or be a worm and attack me personally.

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

IP: Logged

posted Apr-04-2007 06:09 PM               

I was speaking of Homo Sapiens. Not some future species.

Rates of improvement are slowing down. Eventually they will peak. Or are you suggesting eventual 100 mph runners?

[This message has been edited by RRainey (edited Apr-04-2007).]

IP: Logged

posted Apr-04-2007 06:14 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Richard99:
If you think I've lied, mislead, withheld, or some other evil thing, then prove it. Support your claims with factual data from the studies themselves.

---

I did. You are passing off the training of runners who have qualified for the US Oly trials as though it is the training of elite marathoners, which it isn't. Is there something more you need?

IP: Logged

posted Apr-04-2007 06:39 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by JimR:
I did. You are passing off the training of runners who have qualified for the US Oly trials as though it is the training of elite marathoners, which it isn't. Is there something more you need?

---

Prove that the athletes who compete in the Olympic trials are not elites by quoting the published standards for what constitutes an "elite" marathoner. Then address why the author of the article termed these athletes elite. I quote from the article, "How much do elite athletes run? In 2004 I conducted a study of the training characteristics of the US Olympic Marathon trials qualifiers..."

Your opinion that those marathoners are not elite doesn't make it fact. Give us proof of published standards of what constitutes an elite marathoner and post a copy of the letter you are going to send to the editors of Running Times magazine alerting them to the significant error made by the author of that article.

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

[This message has been edited by Richard99 (edited Apr-04-2007).]

IP: Logged

posted Apr-04-2007 08:10 PM            

Since each person has their own personel threshold as far as volume goes(I assume this is well known) than mileage weather it be high or low is completely irrelevant. Again all this study is saying is that by going over your personnel threshold you will not race well. Ahh, I think the theory of overtraining is already well known. As far as I know not many coaches(even Lydiard)are advocating you go over your personnel limit.

So seriously I just want your opinion. Do you think that you can reach full potentail by running at a volume that is under what you could handle? For example(hypothetical) lets say I can handle 60 MPW max or I just crumble. Not high but I found thats my upper limit. Can I reach full potentail by running 40 MPW? Do you have any data to show me?

IP: Logged

posted Apr-04-2007 08:46 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by runawayjesse:
So seriously I just want your opinion. Do you think that you can reach full potentail by running at a volume that is under what you could handle? For example(hypothetical) lets say I can handle 60 MPW max or I just crumble. Not high but I found thats my upper limit. Can I reach full potentail by running 40 MPW? Do you have any data to show me?

---

runawayjesse,

My personal bias is that each of us has a ultimate threshold in terms of adaptation to training load (I use the term training load instead of mileage because training load is a signficantly more meaningful term than mileage). Your body can only adapt so fast and so much. Exposing it to a training load above what it needs to adapt as fast and as much as it is capable of doing is counter-productive. Above that adaptation threshold your performance will not improve more, and may even hinder your progress. Going above that threshold doesn't necessarily mean you will instantly overtrain or get injured, but your performance won't improve more or faster either.

I use the example of taking aspirin for a headache. Let's say your optimal dose, as a normal adult is 2 aspirins. Well, what if you take 3, or 4, or 5 aspirin at one time? Does your headache go away faster? No, it doesn't. Maximum effective dose is 2. Taking 3 likely won't hurt you but it doesn't help you either. Your headache takes the same amount of time to go away. Taking 4 might be enough to cause a small ulcer in your stomach - nothing serious or long-term, but still your headache doesn't go away faster. Take 5 aspirin and you might have a more signficant negative reactions, but your headache doesn't go away any faster. The same thing applies with a dose of anything - including a particular training stress.

I suspect, but can not prove and have no data to support, that a person's training load threshold does not coincide exactly with the maximum weekly mileage they could run - that one could run some amount of higher weekly mileage above their personal adaptation threshold without getting injured but it would not produce a better performance.

You won't reach your ultimate potential by training below your personal adapation threshold / training load. You may or may not reach your ultimate potential by training at less weekly mileage than your body could handle without injury. If your personal adaptation threshold doesn't perfectly coincide with the maximum weekly mileage you could run, if it is less, then running the absolute maximum amount your body can withstand either won't result in your best performance or your time at the top will likely be shortened considerably.

Based on the above, I advise each person to focusing on finding their personal optimal training load, no matter what weekly mileage that may be. If it's 20 then so be it. If it's 100 then that's great too. The # isn't the important thing - finding your optimal training load is.

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

[This message has been edited by Richard99 (edited Apr-04-2007).]

IP: Logged

posted Apr-04-2007 09:18 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Richard99:
Your opinion that those marathoners are not elite doesn't make it fact. Give us proof of published standards of what constitutes an elite marathoner and post a copy of the letter you are going to send to the editors of Running Times

---

The editors of Running Times are entitled to their opinion of what constitutes an elite marathoner. Their opinion, however, is not sacred and not worth more than that of anyone who uses this site. I would also guess that the majority of respondents on this site do not think that qualifying for the Olympic trials makes someone "elite".

IP: Logged

posted Apr-04-2007 09:24 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Richard21142:
The editors of Running Times are entitled to their opinion of what constitutes an elite marathoner. Their opinion, however, is not sacred and not worth more than that of anyone who uses this site. I would also guess that the majority of respondents on this site do not think that qualifying for the Olympic trials makes someone "elite".

---

Exactly right -it's an opinion. To use a difference of opinion as the basis for a charge of lying, cheating, misleading, or similar such evil things seems to be a combination of extreme arrogance and stupidity.

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

IP: Logged

posted Apr-04-2007 10:40 PM            

www.deenakastor.com

Summer 2006 Entry (Posted August 11, 2006)

Following a leisurely post Flora London Marathon break, I was excited to speed up my legs and hit the track. I ordered new spikes and wrote out lofty goals of setting personal bests in the 5000 and 10,000 meters. My weekly mileage dropped from 130 miles during marathon training to 80-90 miles. In lowering my mileage I was hoping to sharpen my speed but this never happened.

More journals here.

[This message has been edited by bigapplepie (edited Apr-04-2007).]

IP: Logged

posted Apr-04-2007 11:08 PM               

it's like deja vu all over again

and the best part, about a month from now he'll have another insatiable craving for attention and post his bs here once again and we'll run through this once more

i mean, i'll admit the consistency of it all has a certain charm sort of like the passing of the seasons

but the repetition, and i have to assume you engage in this process expecting different results each time, strikes me as rather insane don't you think?

IP: Logged

posted Apr-05-2007 12:56 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Abadabajev:
Another dumbass physiologist article.

---

IP: Logged

posted Apr-05-2007 05:18 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dakota Ridgerunner:
Fredurie, other than anecdotal evidence, on what do you base your belief that this is false? Do you have access to the raw data from the study? Are you saying the US Olympic Marathon trials qualifiers lied to the researchers about their mileage, or that the researchers misrepresented their findings?

Even if Brian Sell ran a peak week of 155 (and I have no reason to doubt that he did), that doesn't make Jason's findings, as stated above, false.

---

As someone who was around at the time of the study and who spoke with the author of the article and research in question (I also saw early drafts of the questionnaire as well as filled one out), I have many things I can say about it. I don't have time at present because I need to get out for a run. What I will say right now is that they did not receive returned questionnaires (all were voluntary and required the athlete to spend a long time reviewing training logs and answering detailed questions that went something like "what percent of your mileage did you do at V02 max pace each week?") from all athletes at the Trials, and although I know of one very prominent women's competitor who returned the questionnaire, I think we can guess that many top athletes did not.

IP: Logged

posted Apr-05-2007 06:26 AM               

That said, Pfitz was an olympic marathoner; Daniels a medalist (albeit in Biathlon, correct?); Hanson bros did pretty well for themselves; Rubio was an OT qualifier.

And on the other hand, we have this:

Richard Gibbens Austin TX 43 314 28:11.1 28:51.0 0:39.9 9:02/M

Richard Gibbens Austin TX 44
383
32:04.5
35:16.0
3:11.4
10:17/M

And for the 10k?

11
Richard Gibbens Austin TX 44
33
56:58.00
58:02.00
01:04.00
9:10/M

I don't give a crap about the phys degree. I care about the results. I'm not changing my training on the word of 28/56 guy. Peddle the BS elsewhere.

IP: Logged

posted Apr-05-2007 06:46 AM               

IP: Logged