posted Apr-05-2007 07:20 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by kemibe:
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.

---

In other words, there are outliers. Still doesn't negate correlational data.

quote:

---

Originally posted by kemibe:
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 establishthat 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're repeating the same point yet again. I never said that correlation proves a particular training load is optimal. Correlation only tells us the possibility/chance/likelyhood that someone's performance will change with changes in mileage. And since the correlation isn't 1, by definition there will be exceptions. Exceptions don't negate the correlation, though.

quote:

---

Originally posted by kemibe:
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 sexs and ages, are in some way predictive. This is incorrect, as anyone can see.

---

You keep repeating the same point but it still doesn't change the fact that while correlation can't be used to predict how any ONE person will respond, it does tell us the likelyhood they will respond.

quote:

---

Originally posted by kemibe:
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 --

---

You keep spouting your opinion that I'm wrong and that the study is wrong. Where's your proof? Credible evidence? Basic statistical textbook citations showing the basic error made by the researchers? Letter to the editors of the research journal? Etc. You're still haven't produce any. The real truth here seems to be that you are trying to convince everyone here that just because you say it, it isn't opinion, it's fact.

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

IP: Logged

posted Apr-05-2007 07:31 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by runawayjesse:
Now whats your thoughts on that Lydiard comment by Costill?

---

????

IP: Logged

posted Apr-05-2007 07:53 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by runawayjesse:

????

---

runawayjesse,

Sorry. I overlooked this question from earlier.

Since Lydiard is well respected by many runners and his training philosophy of high mileage, base building is heavily favored by many, I think that Costill's comments could easily produce controversy.

As for the accuracy of Costill's comments, my understanding is that while Lydiard did ackowledge that some people might not perform best from high mileage it was his belief a very large majority of people would. Right or wrong, he is certainly credited by the majority of runners today as advocating high mileage base building for most people, typically expressed shorthand as 100mpw. Since I believe that not many people will benefit from running 100mpw and research clearly shows that injury rates soar above 40 mpw (research shows that more than half of all runners running 40+ mpw will sustain training altering or halting injury) I can see what Costill might have been using as the basis for that statement.

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

IP: Logged

posted Apr-05-2007 08:19 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Richard99:
You keep spouting your opinion that I'm wrong and that the study is wrong. Where's your proof? Credible evidence? Basic statistical textbook citations showing the basic error made by the researchers? Letter to the editors of the research journal? Etc. You're still haven't produce any.

---

Don't try to shift the burden onto the researchers. They may have screwed up in their methodology, but this has no bearing on your own independent commission of mistakes. I have no impetus for writing journal editors a letter about a 20-year-old study involving smokers and people who run as little as 500 meters a week simply because some strident know-nothing has chosen to use it as a means of establishing, or re-establishing, his bristling ignorance.

You are wrong for reasons I have already shown. Here are more statements from your "article" that are in no way supported by the Bern study:

The research reviewed here leads us to the conclusion that different athletes respond differently to increases in weekly mileage.

The data suggests that the performance of faster athletes improves with each increase in weekly mileage, up to some high level.

Performance for runners with average genetic talents levels off at a much lower weekly mileage with no additional improvements despite additional increases in weekly mileage.

Finally performance peaks at relatively low weekly mileages for those athletes with seemingly low genetic talents and then declines as weekly mileage continues to increase.

Each use of the word "increase" here is one hundred percent meaningless. You could just as relevantly discuss the impact of different colored T-shirts on race performance, because we don't know what would happen if these runners changed their training.

You mention "increases in weekly mileage" when no such increases were implemented or observed. If, when yackingabout "correlation," you are merely looking at the average weekly training volume A of a group of runners who finished 10 miles in an average of X minutes and comparing it to the average training volume, say, (A - 10) of another group who finished in an average of, say, X + 1 minutes, and concluding on this basis that it's reasonable to assume that someone who increases his or her mileage by 10 a week can expect to take 1 minute off his or her 10-mile time, then you are without the foggiest clue and need to check into stats rehab.

These are not opinions, as anyone can see. Simply put, the study,once again, did not involve any observation of runners who altered their training. You cannot talk your way around this, try as you might.

You can continue squeezing your eyes shut and jamming your fingers in your ears in order to ignore this and other glaring facts that expose the errancy of your positions, all while demanding evidence that your positions are erroneous.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Richard99:
The real truth here seems to be that you are trying to convince everyone here that just because you say it, it isn't opinion, it's fact.

---

Ah, the old "everyone here" trick again. "Everyone here" likely finds you tiresome and a boor, Richard. I'm talking to you, not to them.

Keep hunting, though. You may want to not go back into the 1980's, though -- I'm sure that if you try hard enough, you can find a study supporting your preconceived idea that a fair fraction of runners don't get better with higher training volumes beyond a novice amount. Then we -- excuse me, I -- can explode the hell out of that one, too.

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

IP: Logged

posted Apr-05-2007 08:48 PM            

If you take the runners in this study and stratify them into three time-based groups, as Gibbens (or the researchers) has done, then look at the training mileage of the runners in each group, youwon't learn much. The 55- to 66-minute group will include talented low-mileage runners, a few hard-working and less-talented runners putting in more mileage, and younger runners overall who tend to be male (because males on average are faster). These people are likely to be more experienced (i.e., have been training for more than a year), but the study doesn't take this into account. The middle group will also contain people training at a variety of levels, but are less talented and probably less experienced. The slowest group includes the least talented people.

Basically, when you look at a given range of results and ask,"What fed into this?" you're not asking nearly the same question as when you prescribe the same intervention to a variety of subjects and ask "What's happened?" You'll have training volumes all over the map, and the approach Gibbens has used here only obscures relationships between mileage and performance.

Think of it this way: Faster driving speeds result, on average, in worse auto-accident injuries. But if you looked at 3,000 auto-accident victims and divided them into three groups of 1,000 people each -- "slightly," "moderately," and "severely" injured -- you would see people in each group who had been traveling at a variety of speeds. You'd see more high-speed types in the "severely injuted" batch, but on the whole the true relationship between speed and severity of injury is clouded by the methodology. The proper way to go about establishing a real relationship here is to keep speed as the independent (fixed) variable and see what happens in terms of injury in each speed range.

This is not apt to resonate with Gibbens, who will merely ascribe it to "personal opinion" or demand that I take it up with a bunch of Swiss scientists who may well be dead by now. And many others may not care. But if you look beyond Gibbens' passing familiarity with basic lingo and his name-dropping, you'll quickly see that he is almost entirely full of warm, brown, foul-smelling materialwhenever he opines onthe topic of training volume. Listen to him at your peril.

IP: Logged

posted Apr-05-2007 08:52 PM               

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

IP: Logged

posted Apr-05-2007 09:22 PM               

quote:

---

Each use of the word "increase" here is one hundred percent meaningless....You mention "increases in weekly mileage" when no such increases were implemented or observed.

---

You can't be serious. You seem to be making a dishonest claim with your discussion of the use of the term "increase".

First, my review of the research clearly discusses differences in performance and mileage across groups, not individuals. I don't claim or review the study as if it examined changes in mileage for individuals. I clearly state the differences observed were across groups. You ignore this.

In the conclusions/discussion area of the article I apply the lessons learned from the study data to discuss how this info is likely to affect an individual. You use the discussion area, where I suggest application of lessons learned, to take things out of context in order to suggest that I have incorrectly reviewed the study data as being about individual increases in mileage. I'm not the best of writers but one need not be all that smart to understand where I review the study data and where I discuss and apply the lessons learned from that data; shame on you for your dishonesty and for taking things out of context.

------------------
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 09:49 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by kemibe:
Also, here's what I meant by a post hoc fallacy.

If you take the runners in this study and stratify them into three time-based groups, as Gibbens (or the researchers) has done, then look at the training mileage of the runners in each group, youwon't learn much. The 55- to 66-minute group will include talented low-mileage runners, a few hard-working and less-talented runners putting in more mileage, and younger runners overall who tend to be male (because males on average are faster). These people are likely to be more experienced (i.e., have been training for more than a year), but the study doesn't take this into account. The middle group will also contain people training at a variety of levels, but are less talented and probably less experienced. The slowest group includes the least talented people.

Basically, when you look at a given range of results and ask,"What fed into this?" you're not asking nearly the same question as when you prescribe the same intervention to a variety of subjects and ask "What's happened?" You'll have training volumes all over the map, and the approach Gibbens has used here only obscures relationships between mileage and performance.

---

If this is true and this study makes a post hoc error why are you the only person to recognize it? Why did the researchers conduct the study that way? Why didn't the editors catch this basic error? Why didn't the scientist readers of the journal respond to this basic, post hoc error? Shouldn't you be able to cite some credible source showing this to be a post hoc error?

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

IP: Logged

posted Apr-05-2007 09:57 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Richard99:
Correlation data in no way weakens my case.

---

Of course it does. I see a clear correlation between average mileage and 10-mile performance here. Are you blind?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Richard99:
Correlation, as you know, is a valid way of analyzing and determining if a relationship exists between variables. That's what the researchers have done, but you continue to opine that what they have done has violated some basic principle.

---

Wrong. What I continue pointing out is that the study did not involve any increases in mileage. It looked at one race and the training preceding it for 4,000 runners, and plotted average performance versus average mileage. So there is no observable correlation between increases in training mileage and performance, which is the relationship of interest.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Richard99:
If it is really a violation of a basic statistical method it should be easy for you to prove.

---

I've done this multiple times, including just now. You should be thoroughly embarrassed, but are shielded by a massive curtain of blissful ignorance.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Richard99:
You can't be serious. You seem to be making a dishonest claim with your discussion of the use of the term "increase" ... First, my review of the research clearly discusses differences in performance and mileage across groups, not individuals. I don't claim or review the study as if it examined changes in mileage for individuals. I clearly state the differences observed were across groups. You ignore this.

---

No, Richard, I don't ignore anything. There was no increase in mileage by individuals or within groups of any size in this study. Observing the results of people training at different mileages is not the same thing as observing what happens when you take the same group of people and observe them training sequentially at different training mileages.

Saying that the average marathon time in Cleveland, where people run 38 miles a week,is 3:42 and the average marathon time in L.A., where people run 34 miles a week, is 4:01 is not the same thing as investigating what Clevelanders do on 30 and then 40 miles a week or what L.A.ers do on 45 and then 35 miles a week. Yes, this is basic, and yes, you do not get it at all.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Richard99:
In the conclusions/discussion area of the article I apply the lessons learned from the study data to discuss how this info is likely to affect an individual. You use the discussion area, where I suggest application of lessons learned, to take things out of context in order to suggest that I have incorrectly reviewed the study data as being about individual increases in mileage.

---

As it is impossible for you to sensibly use the word "increase" when reviewing a cross-sectional (single-event) study, it is similarly impossible for me to err in stating that any use of this term -- as applied to individuals, groups, or everyone in the world -- is wrong. You have perpetrated a logical contradiction. You are jabbering into a void.

Once again, you're either ignorant or lying. I think now you're clearly more on the lying side, since even a lower primate could have grasped and internalized the relevant principles by now.

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

IP: Logged

posted Apr-05-2007 10:07 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Richard99:
If this is true and this study makes a post hoc error why are you the only person to recognize it? Why did the researchers conduct the study that way? Why didn't the editors catch this basic error? Why didn't the scientist readers of the journal respond to this basic, post hoc error? Shouldn't you be able to cite some credible source showing this to be a post hoc error?

---

It's not up to me to discern the researchers' motivations. This isn't exactly a widely cited study, so it's not surprising that such an error would go unnoticed by editors; even in prominent journals, statistical whoopsies can sneak in, often by design of dishonest researchers but just as often by mistake. You wouldn't know, because you've never taken part in a research protocol.

As for a "credible source showing this to be a post hoc error," it's not my responsibility to bring brain-dead people like you up to speed on biostatistics and research terminology. If I were here to hold your hand I probably wouldn't be so blunt, but you seemingly can't write a single coherent paragraph about running without making some sort of logical or factual error. If you don't understand it, look it up. And if repeated blasting of your mistakes frustrates you, try harder next time, and quit lying.

IP: Logged

posted Apr-05-2007 10:14 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Richard99:
runawayjesse,

Since I believe that not many people will benefit from running 100mpw and research clearly shows that injury rates soar above 40 mpw (research shows that more than half of all runners running 40+ mpw will sustain training altering or halting injury) I can see what Costill might have been using as the basis for that statement.

---

Thats interesting. Does that % of injurys go higher with increased mileage. I mean what do studies show about the 80 MPW, or 100 MPW crowd etc..

IP: Logged

posted Apr-05-2007 10:18 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by kemibe:
As it is impossible for you to sensibly use the word "increase" when reviewing a [i]cross-sectional (single-event) study...

---

Exactly. That's why I was clear to discuss differences across groups, not individuals, when reviewing the study.

The application to an individual of the lessons learned from a group is not the same as a review of the study data. That's why I separate those 2 things. No amount of wordsmithing by you changes this fact.

Your basic argument is that the regression analysis conducted on the the 3 groups of runners is invalid and that the correlational data derived from that analysis is also invalid. Yet you are unable to cite anything to show this to be true. Why is the regression analysis flawed? Why is the correlation invalid?

Instead you are hanging your hat on my use of the word "increase" in my discussion of the lessons learned from this study. Unfortunately for you your strategy of passing your opinion off as fact is completetly transparent and wholly ineffective. Your continued attempts to discredit the study data by taking my use of the term "increase" out of context is petty and pathetic.

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

IP: Logged

posted Apr-05-2007 10:24 PM            

Jesse, everyone who runs assumes a certain amount of injury risk. Gibbens, invested as he is in the idea that few people can handle honest training, makes it sound as the 40 miles a week is an established upper bound of some kind -- a well-known demarcation between "safe" and "risky." But I've never seen any studies directly correlating runners' mileage levels with injury rate, severity of injury, time lost to injury, whatever.

Some people get hurt more easily by doing too much speedwork (primarily musle, tendon and other soft-tissue injuries), while others incur overuse injuries (such as stress fractures, patellofemoral syndrome, etc.). People's individual biomechanics tend to dictate their likelihood of injury at a variety of workloads; I've known few if any people who could comfortably handle 40 miles a week who has been unable to ramp up beyond that if desired.

I worked with one guy who was hellishly prone to tibial stress fractures, so he wound up doing anything from 3 to (usually) 4 or 5 runs a week for a total of 35-45 miles, plus elliptical training onother days. He ran a 2:45 marathon off this training. But his fragility is not the norm.

IP: Logged

posted Apr-05-2007 10:25 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by runawayjesse:
Thats interesting. Does that % of injurys go higher with increased mileage. I mean what do studies show about the 80 MPW, or 100 MPW crowd etc..

---

Most studies have looked at runners as a group. They show an increasing % of injuries as mileage increases. I haven't seen any studies on injury with that high of weekly run mileage. 50+ is the highest I've seen. Here is my review of some of this research so you can see the data yourself:

Running and Injury

A more recent study on triathletes examined rates of injury amongst groups based on performance. It found that elite athletes incurred injury at the same rate as lesser athletes despite significantly higher weekly training volumes and frequencies. You can read about it here:

The Running Theory of Everything, part 3

------------------
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 10:32 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by kemibe:
Notice also that Gibbens says, "I [b]believe that not many people will benefit from running 100mpw" (emphasis mine) and expects this to carry weight, yet demands that others back up even the most self-evident comments with journal citations.[/B]

---

Unlike some others, I try very hard to indicate when I am expressing my opinion and when I am quoting/citing a study or other credible sources. I don't try to pass my opinion off as fact. I express facts as facts, and opinions as opinions, at least to the best of my ability. I often use "I believe" or "My bias" or other similar terms to indicate I am expressing an opinion not based on factual data. Similarly, I work to separate the factual data in a study from my interpretation of that data - one is factual, the other is simply a logical application of that data but is not the actual data itself..

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

IP: Logged

posted Apr-05-2007 10:32 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Richard99:
That's why I was clear to discuss differences across groups, not individuals, when reviewing the study.

The application to an individual of the lessons learned from a group is not the same as a review of the study data. That's why I separate those 2 things. No amount of wordsmithing by you changes this fact.

---

So a cross-sectional study examining only a single race magically becomes a longitudinal study of how runners' performance varies with mileage increases when you look at groups instead of individuals?

If I know that 50-year-old 20-year running veteran Joe ran 75:00 off 35 miles a week, 25-year-old newbie Bill ran 68:00 off 45 miles a week, and 30-year-old swimmer-turned-marathoner Jill ran 82:00 off 28 miles a week -- and you can add as many names to the "group" as you like -- this allows me to accurately determine how Joe, Bill and Jill are likely to perform after a year of 45-, 55-, and 38-mile weeks respectively? This is your idea of applying lessons learned?

You really are a clown. A lost cause, and determined to have the last word. There's nothing more I can say.

IP: Logged

posted Apr-05-2007 10:48 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by kemibe:
So a cross-sectional study examining only a single race magically becomes a longitudinal study of how runners' performance varies with mileage increases when you look at groups instead of individuals?

If I know that 50-year-old 20-year running veteran Joe ran 75:00 off 35 miles a week, 25-year-old newbie Bill ran 68:00 off 45 miles a week, and 30-year-old swimmer-turned-marathoner Jill ran 82:00 off 28 miles a week -- and you can add as many names to the "group" as you like -- this allows me to accurately determine how Joe, Bill and Jill are likely to perform after a year of 45-, 55-, and 38-mile weeks respectively? This is your idea of applying lessons learned?

You really are a clown. A lost cause, and determined to have the last word. There's nothing more I can say.

---

No, of course it doesn't become a longitudinal study. Correlation data doesn't prove cause-and-effect. You minimally need a longitudinal study to do that.

Correlation, as you well know, simply tells us how likely an individual is to respond a certan way to a change in a particular, meausured variable. It doesn't accurately predict how any ONE individual will respond, but it does indicate the likelyhood as to how he/she will respond. You are intent on claiming that the regression analysis done by these researchers is invalid and the correlation measured is invalid. Unfortunately for you, your opinion is not enough to prove them wrong. You need to actually cite credible evidence showing that dividing groups by meaning criteria and then performing a regression analysis violates a basic statistical principle. You won't be doing that anytime soon. And calling me names doesn't prove them wrong either but I understand why you do it. How frustrated you must be, wanting to be right, hating the data revealed by this study, unable to refute it with anything remotely credible, and then having me continually point out your inability to cite a single reliable source supporting your opinions.

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

IP: Logged

posted Apr-05-2007 10:50 PM               

I've got to go now. I'll be out of town a few days so I'll catch up with you when I get back.

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

IP: Logged

posted Apr-05-2007 11:22 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Richard99:
No, of course it doesn't become a longitudinal study. Correlation data doesn't prove cause-and-effect. You minimally need a longitudinal study to do that.

---

Well, how about that. Gibbens admits he made a mistake. There's hope for humanity yet.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Richard99:
Correlation, as you well know, simply tells us how likely an individual is to respond a certan way to a change in a particular, meausured variable. It doesn't accurately predict how any ONE individual will respond, but it does indicate the likelyhood as to how he/she will respond.

---

In that case, looking at Graph 1, it is clear that, all else being equal, we would expect a runner increasing his or her mileage to get faster. No argument there.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Richard99:
You are intent on claiming that the regression analysis done by these researchers is invalid and the correlation measured is invalid. Unfortunately for you, your opinion is not enough to prove them wrong.

---

Nope. Their methods are questionable and I've explained why, but the take-home message is that you have erred. I've pointed out how; you can argue as much as you like, but others aren't apt to be fooled.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Richard99:
You need to actually cite credible evidence showing that dividing groups by meaning criteria and then performing a regression analysis violates a basic statistical principle. You won't be doing that anytime soon.

---

No, I won't, because I've never heard of "meaning criteria" and have already explained the problems with segregating data into dependent-variable (in this case, 10-mile time) groups and looking backward at the independent variable (inthis case, mileage) for answers. This is basic statistics, though again, not to a know-nothing like you.

I suggest you start here, then click on data dredging to gain a sense of where I'm coming from, assuming you're genuinely interested.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Richard99:
How frustrated you must be, wanting to be right, hating the data revealed by this study, unable to refute it with anything remotely credible, and then having me continually point out your inability to cite a single reliable source supporting your opinions.

---

Yes, that must be it, since you're at the forefront of a running revolution, with hundreds of ardent followers across the country, and have not only become a well-respected coach and author (much to the consternation of Daniels, Pfitz, McMillan, etc.), but have retroactively deprived me and everyone I know of the performances we've achieved through high-mileage trainingover the years.

While you're at Wikipedia, I suggest you hunt around for "projection."

IP: Logged

posted Apr-06-2007 10:33 AM               

Richard, a ways back I had some of the same arguments about the same studies you cite. I suggest you go to grad school and I even designed some studies for you. Did you follow through? Or do you still have difficulty discerning between a trend, causation, correlation, or an outlier?

I don't have time today for this, but thanks for putting up the good fight kemibe.

IP: Logged

posted Apr-06-2007 10:46 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by dg12:
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.

---

If you think he can be diplomatically debated, you really need to read this whole thread again. Kevin has mopped the floor with Richard's gray matter yet he still yammers on like he has a shred of credibility left or hasn't had his lack of any real knowledge or analytical ability exposed.

I don't mind when people disagree, it happens all the time. But when an ignorant fool continued to play "expert" long after their ignorance has been made painfully obvious, I'm through accomodating them. Feel how you like about that. I'm a scientist, and criticism is part of the scientific process. He can't back up his claims, again and again and again, so the criticism mounts. The weakness is not mine, but his.

IP: Logged

posted Apr-06-2007 10:56 AM               

It's called a regression analysis, but it isn't. Those graph lines are flat. The two graphs he had on that page were superimposed in matching scales, and came out like this:

It's junk math. It's adding up numbers by first discarding the numbers you don't want.

IP: Logged

posted Apr-06-2007 11:56 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Richard99:
Right or wrong, he is certainly credited by the majority of runners today as advocating high mileage base building for most people, typically expressed shorthand as 100mpw. Since I believe that not many people will benefit from running 100mpw

---

Richard, running 100 miles a week is not high mileage.

If you're running 20 a day, 100 is a taper.

If you had ever been there you would understand.

IP: Logged

posted Apr-06-2007 12:12 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by AndyHass:
He can't back up his claims, again and again and again, so the criticism mounts.

---

True to form, and reminiscent of the beating he took after posting his misinterpretations of the Furman FIRST study (page one of that thread unfortunately lost to posterity).

IP: Logged

posted Apr-06-2007 12:17 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by AndyHass:
If you think he can be diplomatically debated, you really need to read this whole thread again.

---

Exactly. The fact that Gibbens may not drop terms like "idiot" or "moron" doesn't make him respectful. The fact that he's both of those things and more doesn't make him disrespectful, but what he has no respect for is basic knowledge, science, reason, the experience of others, and even the very definition of words.

If I recall, Andy is a Ph.D. biochemist and would be utterly bored by the treatise on statistics here were it not for the surreal flagrancy with which Gibbens repeatedly claims no one has provided evidence or proof that he's wrong when he's wrong by definition. Not only can RG not tell the difference between intersubject and intrasubject variation, he refuses to admit it even when he plainly recognized he's been thoroughly marauded. He deserves every shred of ridicule he gets, and don't worry, he relishes the attention -- sometimes, people with a bug up their butt and absolutely nothing of value to say would rather be reviled than ignored anyway.

Hopefully, his out-of-town trip will find him at a basic reasearch methods seminar, but I have a feeling he's probably headed to a gathering of Tonka Toys aficionados or something.

IP: Logged