posted Apr-05-2007 08:40 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.

---

Am I the only one who thinks this must be a parody?

IP: Logged

posted Apr-05-2007 09:57 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Richard99:
Prove that the athletes who compete in the Olympic trials are not elites by quoting the published standards for what constitutes an "elite" marathoner

---

They not all elites, Richard, only a few of them are, no need to research anything here.

IP: Logged

posted Apr-05-2007 10:00 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by hrmay:
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.

---

Thank you for the insight, Heather. Nice to see you posting again

IP: Logged

posted Apr-05-2007 10:25 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by AndyHass:
Speaking of credibility, someone got the link to Richard's Greatest Hits so the newbies can read up before they buy into any of this?

---

I couldn't find it, either. Too bad, it was entertaining. But no worries. Richard's gotten himself reamed on probably every running message board on the interwebs. He used to get reamed regularly on the Runtex board. He gets promptly reamed on Letsrun whenever he's crazy enough to open his yap there. He's even been reamed by noobs on the Runner's World forum.

Here's a proper treatment of Richard's, er, theories by someone who actually knows what he's talking about. Here're some more:

Waxing Gibbens, continued
Waxing Gibbens: getting full
Waxing Gibbens: The lunacy ends
Unrecognized breakthoughs in exercise physiology (1 of 2)
Unrecognized breakthoughs in exercise physiology (2 of 2)
Unrecognized breakthoughs in exercise physiology (3 of 2)

And finally:
No joy in Foolsville

quote:

---

In a low-grade search for April Fool's Day material, I sniffed around the most obvious candidate I could think of -- PowerRunning.com.

---

Beck was about to have a little fun with Richard's "Running Theory of Everything," but sadly, the link to it on PowerRunning is dead.

[This message has been edited by fuzz (edited Apr-05-2007).]

IP: Logged

posted Apr-05-2007 11:04 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by DanMoriarity:
Am I the only one who thinks this must be a parody?

---

I gave it a 1, and was still laughing a couple of hours later.

I was going to suggest a hot, sweaty manwich with Mr. Brutal.

IP: Logged

posted Apr-05-2007 11:23 AM            

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.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Richard99:
Sparrowface,

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

---

IP: Logged

posted Apr-05-2007 11:24 AM               

I will never understand why some would rather be a public crank than remain anonymous...

IP: Logged

posted Apr-05-2007 12:43 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Richard99:
If I'm purposely twisting information, claiming it says the opposite of what it really says, then prove it ... 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 ... 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 ... If you think I've lied, mislead, withheld, or some other evil thing, then prove it.

---

Right here.

In brief, Gibbens has taken data from a Swiss fitness and lifestyle study of "joggers (some of whom smoked) that examined the results of a single 10-mile road race and offered a graph plotting what Gibbens calls "% change in 10-mile running time" against weekly mileage:

Anyone spot the problem? That's right -- when you're looking at the results of a single race, the concept of "improvement" does not, and cannot, even apply. It's as though a bunch of kids have studied for a given number of hours before taking the SAT for the first time, and someone has subsequently plotted a graph of "hours studied vs. % improvement in SAT score." It's meaningless. (Also, Gibbens, by stratifying the runners into time-based thirds here before graphing, has also engaged in a statistical post hoc fallacy, but never mind that.)

Now, the fact that Gibbens couldn't figure this stuff out on his own is bad enough, but even after this grievous error has been repeatedly pointed out to him directly (example), he refuses to change what's on his site. Instead, he sticks to his sonorous story about others attacking him unjustly.

This isn't an honest mistake; it's truculence, willful ignorance, dishonesty, and all of those things Gibbens claims to be divorced from.

Here, he's loudly demanded evidence that he is a liar and a fraud. Well, this is certainly a definitive start, but it's not the end. Sift through those links fuzz has posted if you're really interested in what this guy is about -- how he misrepresented the RT article, how various items on his site are wracked with poor assumptions and misinterpretations, how he misapplies the findings of the Furman FIRST study (as does Runners World),and so on. He's a garden-variety clueless loon. Maybe he's a fine gentleman in the flesh-and-blood world, but he's no one anyone will benefit from listening to here.

As for Karp's survey, there are various baseline and methodological reasons for why his findings aren't particularly useful -- these came up on letsrun.com a few years back -- but these are not worth going into in Basic Training. Obviously, most readers here understand at a glance that Gibbens is pitching woo and that the bottom line is that comparing the mileage and performances of Runner A to those of Runner B is essentially pointless. As Brian McN suggests, Runner A and Runner B and the rest of us all have to discover for ourselves what our training and performance limits are. Listening to mendacious cranks like Gibbens won't get people anywhere but sidetracked and underconfident.

[This message has been edited by kemibe (edited Apr-06-2007).]

IP: Logged

posted Apr-05-2007 01:53 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by kemibe:
Right here.

In brief, Gibbens has taken data from a Swiss fitness and lifestyle study of "joggers (some of whom smoked) that examined the results of a single 10-mile road race and offered a graph plotting what Gibbens calls "% change in 10-mile running time" against weekly mileage:

Anyone spot the problem? That's right -- when you're looking at the results of a <I>single race</I>, the concept of "improvement" does not, and cannot, even apply. It's as though a bunch of kids have studied for a given number of hours before taking the SAT for the first time, and someone has subsequently plotted a graph of "hours studied vs. % improvement in SAT score." It's meaningless. (Also, Gibbens, by stratifying the runners into time-based thirds here before graphing, has also engaged in a statistical <I>post hoc</I> fallacy, but never mind that.)

Now, the fact that Gibbens couldn't figure this stuff out on his own is bad enough, but even after this grievous error has been repeatedly pointed out to him directly (example), he refuses to change what's on his site. Instead, he sticks to his sonorous story about others attacking him unjustly.

---

The only "proof" you and the other critics of that study have ever offered is your opinion. You claim it is flawed, citing your reasons why you believe it to be so, but never support your assertion with any credible data, proof, etc.

Tell us, do you personally have a copy of full text study and did you read it prior to making your claims against the study? Clearly one can not honestly & competently claim there is a problem with data analysis in a study if they have not even read the study.

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

[This message has been edited by Richard99 (edited Apr-05-2007).]

IP: Logged

posted Apr-05-2007 02:10 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Richard99:
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.

---

I couldn't agree more. Anything less would be telling someone it's optimal to overtrain. Again that study just points out that optimal training is better than sub optimal, nothing more. It's not saying lower mileage is better then high mileage and you yourself agree. If your "personal optimal training load" happens to be 130 miles per week than you agree you should run at 130 MPW correct? What I find interesting is your comment about Lydiard. You are making it out like Lydiard would have everyone everwhere run extream mileage regardless of anything. As smart as you are, I'm finding it hard to believe you really interpret his methods that way. I have been studying Lydiard and although he can be vague, I believe he believed more in optimal training. You stated this in the above paragraph-

"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."

This sounds exactly like something Lydiard would say. I would think you agree with his principles more than anyone.

IP: Logged

posted Apr-05-2007 02:20 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Richard99:
The only "proof" you and the other critics of that study have ever offered is your opinion. You claim it is flawed, citing your reasons why you believe it to be so, but never support your assertion with any credible data, proof, etc.

Tell us, do you personally have a copy of full text study and did you read it prior to making your claims against the study? Clearly one can not honestly & competently claim there is a problem with data analysis in a study if they have not even read the study.

---

The proof is a basic understanding of statistics. He did provide proof, referencing post-hoc analysis bias, a well-known FACT. It isn't kemibe's fault you had a lobotomy.

IP: Logged

posted Apr-05-2007 02:25 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Richard99:
The only "proof" you and the other critics of that study have ever offered is your opinion. You claim it is flawed, citing your reasons why you believe it to be so, but never support your assertion with any credible data, proof, etc.

---

The last refuge of the staunch whack-job: Yammer, yammer, yammer, regardless of the damning facts.

As I already wrote, it is impossible by definition to discern "improvement" in the context of a single event. You might as well label "The earth revolves around the sun onceevery 365 1/4 days" an "opinion." That you simply keep screaming in the face of the very evidence of your chicanery that you boldly requested is not likely to escape the notice of others, but if it makes you feel better, rave away like an infant.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Richard99:
Tell us...

---

Us? Is this the royal "We" you're using? You're on an island.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Richard99:
do you personally have a copy of full text study and did you read it prior to making your claims against the study? Clearly one can not honestly & competently claim there is a problem with data analysis in a study if they have not even read the study.

---

Yes, I've read the whole thing as I have PubMed access. But this is a red herring -- I don't have to know anything other than what's in the abstract (which I linked) to see that you have lied. The study involves one race, and yet you insist it reveals a relationship between weekly mileage and what you call "improvement." You are ground-level clueless, and your ongoing refusal to own up to your error and move on marks you as a man of zero integrity.

Do you really think you're fooling people?

If folks are interested in the numerous other ways in which Gibbens has misinterpreted, prevaricated, confabulated, and behaved as an all-around parody of an analyst, visit those links fuzz posted. You'll see lies, misunderstandings and confusion about the FIRST study at Furman, about the relationship between sprint speed and distance performance, and about a host of other issues, and that's just scratching the surface as it would be possible to make debunking Gibbens' endless and energetic "articles" a part-time job. But anyone who's not yet convinced that he is an ongoing joke, and has been for some time, isn't likely to be swayed by further evidence.

IP: Logged

posted Apr-05-2007 02:36 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by kemibe:
Yes, I've read the whole thing as I have PubMed access. ...The study involves one race, and yet you insist it reveals a relationship between weekly mileage and what you call "improvement."

---

Since you've read the full text study, where does my review of that part of the study differ from what the researchers themselves included in the study. What terms did they use to label and describe the data in the graph they included in the study?

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

IP: Logged

posted Apr-05-2007 02:44 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by runawayjesse:

If your "personal optimal training load" happens to be 130 miles per week than you agree you should run at 130 MPW correct?

---

Absolutely. Whatever load someone finds to be optimal for them personally is what they should run. Job #1 is to find your optimal training load. What someone predicts optimal mileage or load to be doesn't matter to a runner who is focused on finding their personal optimal training load.

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

IP: Logged

posted Apr-05-2007 02:49 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by AndyHass:

The proof is a basic understanding of statistics. He did provide proof, referencing post-hoc analysis bias, a well-known FACT.

---

Really? Why do you suppose those researchers violated something so basic in statistics? Why didn't the editors of the journal catch that basic error? Why didn't any of the scientists who read the study alert the journal to this basic error? How did Prof Noakes completely miss this basic error when I specifically asked him to review that part of the study and it's implications? Why hasn't Kemibe or anyone else written the journal and alerted them to the grevious error? Why hasn't Kemibe or anyone else referrenced a basic statistics textbook to show that a basic error was made?

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

IP: Logged

posted Apr-05-2007 02:54 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Richard99:
Absolutely. Whatever load someone finds to be optimal for them personally is what they should run. Job #1 is to find your optimal training load. What someone predicts optimal mileage or load to be doesn't matter to a runner who is focused on finding their personal optimal training load.

---

Richard,

What's your "optimal" training load? Are those nine minute miles your genetic limit? Share w/ us your "implementation" of your vast knowledge of training...

IP: Logged

posted Apr-05-2007 03:02 PM            

I'm not going to deal with his irrelevant questions here any further, as it's clear that people recognize what he's about. But I'll leave you all with one more piece of evidence of his ineptitude.

In his conclusions regarding the Bern study, Gibbens writes:

"This data quite compellingly shows that increasing mileage does not benefit all runners equally."

Bear in mind, people, that the study in question used training mileage data gathered in a questionnaire and pertaining to what runners had done in the one year before entering a 10-mile race. Because the only data points here are 1) runners' training mileage, and 2) a single race, there is no way to know how much any of the study participants would benefit from increasing their training mileage. None. All that's known is how each runner fared based on what they had done prior to this one competition.

There is no way to predict, for any of the 4,000 or so entrants, what would happen after a halving, a doubling or a tripling of mileage. It's not even addressed.

This, again, is because we are dealing with a cross-sectional study, not a longitudinal study with control and experimental groups that actually tracks what happens when one sizable group of runners continues with the training they've been doing for a while and another, similar (matched) group increases its average mileage, with both groups entering a competition at the end of the training period.

When Gibbens talks of data being "compelling," he plainly doesn't even understand what the data show. He is either:

1) an ignoramus when it comes to interpreting basic research; or
2) a liar.

Of course, he is probably quite a bit of both, but that's beside the point.

What's really amazing about him, although typical of nutjobs, is his hypocrisy: He fervently makes ludicrous demands of his interlocutors (such as asking for a dictonary or journal definition of "elite marathoner"), yet offers his opinion about the average optimal training load of runners being absurdly low without offering any hard or even soft data at all. It's trivial to point out that everyone has a different optimum (although Gibbens ignores the fact that this is fluid, not static; one can generally run more age at 25-30 than at 18-20, for example), but Gibbens constantly strives to locate this optimum at some spuriously miniscule amount.

All runners out there who have maxed out on three days of training a week and only suffered beyond that, raise your hands or give a yell. (Sound of crickets chirping)

When Gibbens says something sensible it's by accident -- the result of him parroting rathering than editorializing or monkeying. Normally he just merrily flies off the beam. And he deeply resents those with actual coaching experience, experience with running higher mileage, and expertise in dealing with basic statistics and research methodology, because such people are the quickest to ably knock him and his goofy ideas back toward obscurity. But it is funny, I admit, to watch him stammer, blow smoke, and throw tantrums.

Carry on.

[This message has been edited by kemibe (edited Apr-05-2007).]

IP: Logged

posted Apr-05-2007 03:16 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by kemibe:
As I've said, I've already thrashed this out elsewhere. It doesn't matter if Gibbens is propagating the researchers' errors or introducing his own; I've pointed out what his mistakes are and it's plain he's not going to address this.

---

Sure you've thrashed this elsewhere - exactly as you did here. No reference to the actual study, no support for your opinion, no proof. Nothing but your opinion. I keep asking for something other than your opinion and you never provide it. And, you are right, I'm not going to change the review based on your unsupported opinion. If you can come up with factual, credible data showing the researchers have made an error I'm more than willing to correct or remove my review.

quote:

---

Originally posted by kemibe:
there is no way to know how much any of the study participants would benefit from increasing their training mileage. None...]There is no way to predict, for any of the 4,000 or so entrants, what would happen aftera halving, a doubling or a tripling of mileage. It's not even addressed.

---

That's right, we can't predict how any ONE individual might respond to a change in weekly mileage. I never said we could. But, what you aren't pointing out is that this study gives us valid correlational data that indicates that the correlation for performance/mileage is not the same for all runners. Correlational data that is just as valid as the correlation data the researchers measured between performance/mileage for all 4000+ runners.

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

[This message has been edited by Richard99 (edited Apr-05-2007).]

IP: Logged

posted Apr-05-2007 03:17 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Richard99:
Absolutely. Whatever load someone finds to be optimal for them personally is what they should run. Job #1 is to find your optimal training load. What someone predicts optimal mileage or load to be doesn't matter to a runner who is focused on finding their personal optimal training load.

---

Well than I'm in full agreement with you. Now whats your thoughts on that Lydiard comment by Costill?

IP: Logged

posted Apr-05-2007 03:29 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Richard99:
what you aren't pointing out is that this study gives us valid correlational data that indicates that the correlation for performance/mileage is not the same for all runners. Correlational data that is just as valid as the correlation data the researchers measured between performance/mileage for all 4000+ runners.

---

Wrong. Correlational data means nothing inthe context of your claims about he benefits of increasing mileage.

It doesn't matter if Bob runs faster on 25 miles a week than Joe does on 50, because of differences in talent, age, experience, and a host of other things. Such a study does not tell us how much either Bob or Joe might improve by running a given amount more than they presently do.

The key here is recognizing the difference between interpersonal variation and intrapersonal variation, and you not only don't understand it, you don't even acknowledge it.

Once again: You are purporting to show that this study demonstrates "compellingly" that some people benefit less than others by, broadly speaking, increasing their training mileage -- something the study in no way even addresses

If you want to make the blanket claim that different people respond differently to different increases in training, great -- you are adding nothing new. But your insistence, iterated elsewhere, that a sizable fraction of the running populace would be best served by limiting their training to three or four days a week is something that is contradicted by the experience of literally thousands of daily or near-daily runners and that you have never been able to back up.

IP: Logged

posted Apr-05-2007 03:31 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by AndyHass:
I have low tolerance for trolls.

---

Andy, I'm a fan of yours racing wise, you're a gifted athlete and knowledgeable in teaching others.

Richard is not a troll and you know that. I'll give him that he keeps a constant good attitude towards critics.

You and others here display poor character by criticizing rather than diplomatically debating or dissenting. You say you can't help it, yes you can if you will to.

Criticism is a sickness of the soul.

IP: Logged

posted Apr-05-2007 03:42 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by dg12:

Criticism is a sickness of the soul.

---

Boy, now I have someone to adjudicate the nature of my soul!

Save me, save me!

IP: Logged

posted Apr-05-2007 03:58 PM               

IP: Logged

posted Apr-05-2007 06:47 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by kemibe:
It doesn't matter if Bob runs faster on 25 miles a week than Joe does on 50, because of differences in talent, age, experience, and a host of other things. Such a study does not tell us how much either Bob or Joe might improve by running a given amount more than they presently do.

---

You're repeating the same point but it still doesn't address the correlation issue. Correlation won't tell us what change any ONE person might experience with an increase in mileage. But, it does tell us how likely it is that performance will change with an increase in mileage.

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

IP: Logged

posted Apr-05-2007 07:01 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Richard99:
You're repeating the same point but it still doesn't address the correlation issue. Correlation won't tell us what change any ONE person might experience with an increase in mileage. But, it does tell us how likely it is that performance will change with an increase in mileage.

---

Wrong again. There are plenty of people who can run faster than whatever constistutes "average" these days in a 5K race (27-28 minutes) by running maybe 10 miles a week, if that. Many runners could break 20 minutes for 5K with ease on 10-15 miles a week, and 20 minutes is a standard the majority of runners will never sniff.

The fact that someone with sub-2:30:00 marathon ability training 25 miles a week could beat you or someone of average ability training 50-60 miles a week does not establish that the faster runner is training optimally at such a paltry level, and in fact says nothing about the slower (average) runner's training optimization either.

You've said yourself that everyone needs to go out and discover what his or her optimal training volume is. Now you're trying to have it both ways by claiming that simple correlations between runners of different experience levels and ability levels, and possibly different sexes and ages, are in some way predictive. This is incorrect, as anyone can see.

I ran cross-country in high school and in college, have coached at the high-school level, have coached marathoners individually, and have been privy to the training of scores of other runners across the whole ability spectrum. Many others here can (unlike you) make the same claim. I can honestly say that in my 20+ years of involvement, never have I encountered a healthy specimen whose optimal training level proved to be just three or even four days a week, or whose times suffered for trying to go above this level. This is a far cry from the very trivial observation that not everyone is suited for 100-mile weeks. You've picked just as much of an outward-lying point as someone pegging 120 mpw as a universal optimum; you've merely gone in the other direction.

I realize and accept that not once in the dozens of times I've seen you say errant things have you owned up to being wrong, so I expect no such admission now. However, others reading this will see the truth -- that someone who has never coached anyone or trained at a high level, and has a strange agenda of trying to propagate undertraining, is simply running his mouth in an ongoing attention-seeking endeavor, and places no premium on reality-based discourse.

You make the Internets interesting.

Edited mainly because I need a new space bar.

[This message has been edited by kemibe (edited Apr-05-2007).]

IP: Logged