posted Apr-06-2007 03:55 PM            

I remember seeing the charts some time ago, but back then I didn't pick up on the fact that even the "slowest third" was actually much faster than a hacker like me, who usually finishes in the bottom third (or half) of races. Does that mean runners in my time range (10 mile time of about 90 min) should restrict themselves to 20 km per week to optimize finishing times? Perhaps 10 km per week?

At one time in life Richard had faster finishing times than me, That seems to have changed as he follows his formula of low volume and high intensity, resulting in progressively slower race times. I, on the other hand continue to increase volume with selective bouts of higher intensity. In spite of being on the hind end of my sixth decade in life, I continue to set new personal bests or near bests in every race I enter.

Richard might argue that my results are anecdotal, or that they are statistically invalid due to the sample size. Nevertheless, results like mine are quite common among runners (of all ages) who listen to those who are more experienced, and who patiently build their base over months and years.

Indeed Richard, we are a far more important experiment than all of the studies you've dredged up over the years. Results count for something.

IP: Logged

posted Apr-07-2007 01:09 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Number 1 Adherent:
I remember seeing the charts some time ago, but back then I didn't pick up on the fact that even the "slowest third" was actually much faster than a hacker like me, who usually finishes in the bottom third (or half) of races.

---

There's more to it, which most are missing here and how Richard's trying to mislead you.

Look closely at the chart, those that are doing 20k a week and finishing between 74 and 85 minutes. Then it attempts to project how they would finish at 60k a week...but it only shows for those that finish still between 74 and 85 minutes. See the problem yet??? You can't force their finishing times at 60k a week, or 40k a week, to the same range. Your forcing the result. You can't do that with data, it's not valid.

IP: Logged

posted Apr-07-2007 05:47 AM            

IP: Logged

posted Apr-07-2007 09:40 AM               

I haven't named-called Richard here either. Tell you what, why don't you look at what I posted above and see if there's anything incorrect in what I've said.

IP: Logged

posted Apr-07-2007 10:04 AM            

IP: Logged

posted Apr-07-2007 10:12 AM            

Optimal training load is somewhere between too little and too much.

You can't argue with that.

Training load = duration x intensity

As he points out, Ron Hill's optimal training load was 100 mpw.

Hold on, is mpw a measure of duration, or intensity?

IP: Logged

posted Apr-07-2007 10:55 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by bigapplepie:

Optimal training load is somewhere between too little and too much.

You can't argue with that.

---

I don't think anyone here is arguing with that.

IP: Logged

posted Apr-07-2007 11:29 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by bigapplepie:
The other thing to consider is that Richard is right.

---

Except that he's not, because when someone manipulates or fails to understand basic statistics (JimR and I have established Gibbens' incompetence in this area beyond any doubt) and doesn't even know what "increase" means, he by definition cannot be right. Look at this:

Your continued attempts to discredit the study data by taking my use of the term "increase" out of context is petty and pathetic.

How do you take such a term "out of context"? Either the runners in the Bern study increased their mileage and re-assessed their fitness or they didn't. In this case it was the latter. Gibbens looked at various runners in the same race and labeled those who went in with more training under their belts as having "increased their mileage." This is ground-level simple, but Gibbens is to much of a putz to admit to his mistake.

Furthermore, he deserves to be ridiculed because of his unflagging and exorbitant disrespect for the truth. His unyielding habit of calling basic and widely accepted facts and definitions "personal opinion" is almost quaint in its stubborn, childish inanity. People act as though he's unfailingly polite; for one thing this is untrue (see above quote, plus his reference to Andy as "a worm"), and for another he strives to avoid name-calling solely for strategical reasons -- he doesn't have facts on his side, so he figures he can discredit people by claiming they have "sunk" to "personal attacks." This is the same tactic used by the liars at the Discovery Institute (an "intelligent design" creationism group), but in the end it doesn't matter because if someone is inventing "facts," this ultmately becomes clear to interested observers.

quote:

---

Originally posted by bigapplepie:
Optimal training load is somewhere between too little and too much.

---

Agreed. And ever since he started his misinformation campaign, Gibbens has been trying to produce data demonstrating that, on average, this load lies somewhere to the south of practically nothing. He's drummed up countless studies -- many of them not even dealing with runners, featuring fewer than a dozen subjects, lacking control groups, following people for absurdly brief periods of time, or some combination -- and attempted to use these to establish the idea that his putative "bell-shape distrubution curve" is shifted far to the left of where real-world observation reveals it to be. He'll also piggy-back his opinions on to studies that don't actually support his conclusions. He's about as honest a "scientist" as the Internet entrepreneurs churning out gr0w-your-pen1s pills and Nigerian money scams.

All anyone has to do is think of the runners they've known and spoken with and ask how many of them have failed to improve after gradually increasing their training to levels above three or four days a week; whether we've coached people or not, we all know that the typical runner has no problem running five, six or even seven days a week and that dismissing daily training as the sole purview of people with "elite genetics" (another term Gibbens can't codify) is foolhardy. But Gibbens simply hand-waves this stuff away by calling it anecdotal, even though the sum total of the experience of distance runners across the globe overwhelmingly places Gibbens in the upper echelon of cranks and liars.

Considering Gibbens' insistence on having his ideas taken seriously, is also more than fair at this point to demand evidence of results. Whom has he coached using his methods? Do we have testimonials from people who have gradually worked up to daily or near-daily training, only to cut their workload in half and see better results? Have any of us ever known anyone who has run his or her best marathon on three days a week after experimenting with a full range of workloads? I think the answers to all of these basic questions are clear.

About the only thing Gibbens hasn't yet tried is redefining "fast." Eventually this will be his only remaining option -- to claim that a 23-minute 5K is actually faster than a 15-minute 5K "in context." Don't put it past him.

In summary, we have someone who:

* Plays the "Just-because-something-is-popular-or-accepted-doesn't-make-it-true" card;

* Insists that his "anti-conventional-wisdom" ideas are worthy of consideration;

* Bungles basic statistics;

* Abuses and misrepresents studies;

* Lacks the integrity to own up to his errors;

* Has no results to back up his claims;

* Ignores various results that eviscerate his claims;

* Cannot or will not distinguish between facts and opinions;

* Does not acknowledge common dictionary definitions of words.

If you think this is someone who isn't begging for a good verbal whipping, by all means listen to him and see where it takes your running. Just don't forget to post the results.

IP: Logged

posted Apr-07-2007 11:45 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sparrowface:
I think Richard has travelled more in one week as a Green Beret than you'll do in your lifetime. He also could probably kick the ass of most people on this thread in anything involving mental endurance and toughness, and just plain kick ass--he's tough.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sparrowface:
And he probably doesn't feel like a turd, he's tougher than that..

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sparrowface:
If you notice, he rarely sinks to the level of getting personal and insults.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sparrowface:
He just posts his opinion about studies, and the rest of you feel so threatened that you have to resort to name-calling and ostracization. Feeling superior.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sparrowface:
Well, I can tell you that none of you here are--never will be. Richard would put his life on the line for all of you.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sparrowface:
I'm not saying his opinions are correct,

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sparrowface:
I'm saying that he really beats all your asses here, just for the reason that you have to resort to mudslinging. Once you do that, he wins.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sparrowface:
Go, Richard! And thank you for being a truly brave man--many of these guys here would run for the hills at the mere thought of having to defend the country with their life.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sparrowface:
You're a true role model. Go!!!

---

[This message has been edited by fuzz (edited Apr-07-2007).]

IP: Logged

posted Apr-07-2007 12:13 PM            

Elite U.S. marathoners have been doing 140 mile weeks since
the 70's.

Karp is full of krap.

IP: Logged

posted Apr-07-2007 12:23 PM            

MM: Many of the marathon guys average anywhere from 120 to 140 miles a week during their heaviest training periods"

from mensracing

IP: Logged

posted Apr-07-2007 12:41 PM               

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. 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.

---

Wow, I sure seemed to get you pi$$ed off there, didn't I Richard?

It was you that said this study covered elite AND national class runners. That's not opinion, that's stating what you've already said which already proves my point.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Richard99:
Also, very insterestingly, his study revealed that elite male marathoners (sub 2:15) didn't run more per week than national class marathoners (2:15 - 2:22).

---

[This message has been edited by JimR (edited Apr-08-2007).]

IP: Logged

posted Apr-07-2007 12:42 PM            

quote:

---

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

---

Of course not. Are you a rookie? People drop their mileage
to race and recover.

The guy said peak mileage was 120 and that is either
misleading or BS.

IP: Logged

posted Apr-09-2007 10:20 AM            

"Continuity of racing is also a crucial part of marathon preparation. I raced 22 times last year. In those races, my readiness varied from tired and out-of-shape to tapered and focused. We have such a competitive local circuit in the Bay Area that finding a good race isn't difficult. Going into a cross country race off a 130-mile week teaches you unique lessons about toughness. This year, I've been lucky enough to be one of the top dogs on the local circuit. If I enter a local race where I'd be the favorite if tapered, and instead run 130 miles that week, suddenly I'm no longer the favorite and I have to find a way to win."

IP: Logged

posted Apr-09-2007 05:32 PM            

"I recommend 2 – 3 days a week of running for runners of average talents. Those runners with above average genetic talent can run more often, say 4 or 5 days per week, while elite level talent can run even more often – 6 or more times per week."

The RT article, on the other hand, flat-out states that most runners can expect to improve by upping their mileage to as close to 60 a week as poissible and that many can expect to improve at even higher levels. The disparity between this recomendation and "2-3 days a week" is stark and obvious, unless Gibbens is suggesting double or triple workouts on those 2-3 days.

This is one more instance of Gibbens pretending that something that doesn't support hsi wacko ideas actually does support them, and another example of him stating the obvious (people have different high-range training-volume optima) and warping it ad absurdum (most people shouldn't run more thana couple of times a week).

In writing the RT article, Jason Karp, like Gibbens, goes out of his way to paint himself as an iconoclast and a visionary (the Einstein reference was funny) and overreaches to some extent in trying to get some ex-phys luminaries to support his 70-miles-a-week quasi-ceiling. But he's neither remotely as ignorant nor nearly as dishonest as Gibbens, and in fact makes some necessary concessions, albeit grudgingly.

IP: Logged

posted Apr-09-2007 05:48 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by fredurie:
Of course not. Are you a rookie? People drop their mileage
to race and recover.

The guy said peak mileage was 120 and that is either
misleading or BS.

---

Fred, that's my point.

Some people quote x miles a week as an average while others quote it as a peak. Then they get in to arguments about it.

I was just trying to define the terms.

For instance, when you say Kastor runs 130mpw is that 10 months out of a year or two?

IP: Logged

posted Apr-09-2007 06:52 PM               

Of all the various arguments I've seen over the years the most idiotic one so far were some folks on this forum who basically claimed we should disallow all research that doesn't agree with conventional wisdom because a few scientists over the past hundred years or so have been dishonest when reporting on the results of their research.

However, this thread has produced the 2nd most idiotic argument - namely that not accepting an opinion as a basic fact and having the gaul to dare ask for supporting evidence makes that person worthy of ridicule. Idiotic because basic facts are readily available and if the opinion were truly a basic fact the opinion giver would provide so much supporting evidence so quickly that it would make your head spin.

Here's the bottom line for me. For those of you who would like me to be quite, go away, change my tune, etc., here is all you need do - prove the research wrong. I'm a fan of logic, reason, and science so I am persuaded by that stuff. The vast majority of my beliefs and writings are based on research, logic and reason. Think I've interpreted a study wrong? All you need do is offer a logical counter-point to any research you find objectionable and support your argument with credible data, facts, etc. Think I'm misrepresenting a study's data? Cite the study, cite the facts, and prove your case. Do that and I will change, alter, modify, etc my philosophy and/or training recommendations in line with the data & research you have provided. I guarantee it.

On the other hand, as can be seen in this thread, I am generally unpersuaded by opinion when credible data and/or research contradicts that opinion. Presenting your opinion as fact and refusing to support your opinion with any credible data, sources, etc. only leads me to believe you know your opinion is unsupported by the facts and I will point it out every time.

I predict that my detractors will not even attempt to prove they are right and I'm wrong. I predict they will, instead, continue to insist that they are right despite no supporting evidence, all the while calling me names for my stubborness at not accepting their opinions & beliefs as facts.

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

IP: Logged

posted Apr-09-2007 07:53 PM               

IP: Logged

posted Apr-09-2007 08:03 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Brian McN:
When people publicly attack someone of Lydiards credentials they should bear the burden of proof for their arguments not the other way around.
There are very few that follow Lydiard's base program in the way he instructed. As they add mileage they do their usual speed work and races before they are used to the increase. No wonder they get injured. So some idiot then does a study and tags every high mileage runner as a Lydiard athlete. I own every book that Lydiard wrote. I've also read nearly every page I could get my hands on from other running experts. Some of which I don't agree with completely but at least I've read all of their views on training before I would make a comment about them. Yet I'm not a reporter or a physiologist working for a running magazine. I know that they know very little about Lydiard based on what they said. Why should we believe in anything else they might say?
His training methods aside Arthur Lydiard was one of the people responsible for the running boom that occured in New Zealand, Japan and in the U.S. and taught that running can be for everyone not just track athletes. To say he hurt more runners than he helped is an ignorant statement with no proof.

---

THANK YOU! You are right. I hear more people shunt Lydiard that know absolutly nothing about his training methods. It's BS man. I'm not disagreeing with Richard but that Lydiard comment is wayyy out of line.

As far as I'm concerned Richard believes one should train at their personal optimal threshold. Lydiard believed in the same thing. So untill you can show me a study that tells us different than I'm still not so sure the point your trying to make.Lydiard made these points through trail and error over 40 years ago.

IP: Logged

posted Apr-09-2007 08:05 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Richard99:
Well, I see nothing changed while I was away.

---

What, you expected not to be a laughingstock anymore?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Richard99:
Of all the various arguments I've seen over the years the most idiotic one so far were some folks on this forum who basically claimed we should disallow all research that doesn't agree with conventional wisdom because a few scientists over the past hundred years or so have been dishonest when reporting on the results of their research.

---

Nice strawman. I can't help but notice that despite your fascination with evidence, logic, reason, stc. that you give no examples of such arguments.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Richard99:
However, this thread has produced the 2nd most idiotic argument - namely that not accepting an opinion as a basic fact and having the gaul to ask for supporting evidence makes that person worthy of ridicule.

---

Leave ancient France out of this.

What makes you worthy of ridicule is both your incessant dismissal of what plainly qualifies as evidence to anyone else in favor of some private standard and your inability to furnish that which you clamor for so loudly (i.e., evidence).

You posit out-of-hand that runners of "average genetic talent" (which you cannot define) are advised to run 2-3 times a week (for reasons you cannot scientifically support). You cite an article as if it agrees with your philosophy when it plainly does not, as I have shown. So in one fell swoop, you contradict yourself, ignore facts, and make unsubtantiated claims -- in other words, you commit precisely those analytical mistakes you claim you are wrongly accused of. That you steadfastly refuse to acknowledge this is of no relevance whatsoever, though this and your resultant and growing frustration are risible. I think that even if you understand nothing else, you see that you haven't fooled anyone.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Richard99:
For those of you who would like me to be quite, go away, change my tune, etc., here is all you need do...

---

Are you kidding? Money can't buy this kind of entertainment.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Richard99:
The vast majority of my beliefs and writings are based on research, logic and reason. Think I've interpreted a study wrong? All you need do is offer a logical counter-point to any research you find objectionable and support your argument with credible data, facts, etc. Think I'm misrepresenting a study's data? Cite the study, cite the facts, and prove your case. Do that and I will change, alter, modify, etc my philosophy and/or training recommendations in line with the data & research you have provided. I guarantee it.

---

Of course you won't. What you'll do is what you always do -- dismiss evidence and facts as unsubstantiated opinions, accuse your interlocutors of being the ones conflating the two, and babble on like an angry toddler, unimpeded by reality and impressively unmoved by such things as basic defintions, the scientific method, valid research methods, and more.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Richard99:
I predict that my detractors will not even attempt to prove they are right and I'm wrong. I predict they will, instead, continue to insist that they are right despite no supporting evidence, all the while calling me names for my stubborness at not accepting their opinions & beliefs as facts.

---

I predict that when you return to this thread, you won't address a single factual matter that's come up in your absence; you'll just whine, ironically, that no one is dealing in facts and evidence. For example, you won't address what I wrote about your suggestions vs. Karp's, you won't address what JimR wrote about your claim that a marathon can be run at 100% perceived exertion from wire to wire, you won't deal in any way with the numerical chicanery inherent in the three time-based groups from the 10-miler (mainly because you can't understand it, but tough), and you still won't admit that a cross-sectional study cannot be used to predict how people will respond to training alterations.

Oops! Too late, you've already done this!

You have private definitions of words like "reason" and "logic" just as you have a private definition of "increase." In fact, you speak a wholly private language most of the time. As long as you keep doing this, you'l make no sense at all, remain confused as hell, and serve as a punching bag for the many who know more than you do who happen to be bored and sufficiently derisive.

Well, go ahead, sir. Respond to the factual issues in this thread or reply to this with a "See? Meanie has no proof!" burst of vacuity. (I have a million dollars riding on this, so please remain 100% predictable, if you would be so kind.)

IP: Logged

posted Apr-09-2007 08:11 PM               

You completely proved me right.

Thank you.

I predict you and others will continue to prove me right.

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

IP: Logged

posted Apr-09-2007 08:31 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Brian McN:
When people publicly attack someone of Lydiards credentials they should bear the burden of proof for their arguments not the other way around.

To say [Lydiard] hurt more runners than he helped is an ignorant statement with no proof.

---

Well, see Brian, guys like Gibbens have this strange idea that more firmly established an idea is, the more likely it is to be wrong and the more evidence its supporters should marshal on its behalf before it can be taken seriously. This is how cranks get started, always.

So what if "Lydiard says nothing but long slow distance in the base phase" is a myth and few have a clue what he means by "one-quarter effort" and "three-quarters effort"? Guys like Karp start with a conclusion and try to gather evidence and observations to support it rather than start with the observations. He's got an agenda of becoming recognized; contributing in a meaningful way to running's knowledge base is barely onhis radar screen.

Gibbens is pretty much the same, only he's an outright imbecile. In concert with the idea that "conventional wisdom" is suspect, he figures that anything he says about such wisdom need not be backed up with evidence or even a working knowledge of the field(s) he addresses. Gibbens holds others to extreme, even parodic standards for what constitutes evidence, yet offers nothing at all to support his own ideas and in fact doesn't even try, just as he doesn't bother learning how people perform basic computations. He just stipulates things as he goes and strings together bursts of ad hoc nonsense, contradicting himself, others, and published work all the while, then sulks when people laugh at him for it.

Right now, he's ignoring at least 5-10 specific allegations and challenges lingering in this thread in favor of loudly accusing his critics of (and this is the kicker) not dealing in facts and specifics. He essentially lives on another planet. You can tell the man "Three times four is twelve!" and he'll tell you to either use numbers to prove your case or shut up. This is his modus operandi; his participation in this thread will be limited to mindless assertions of his own rectitude, followed by a quick but overdue slinking away into the shadows. Then, in a month or two, he'll have another epiphany or go off his Haldol and return here as if nothing ever happened, boasting a fresh supply of woo-woo, bunk, and garbage for people to smash to smithereens. And history will repeat itself again.

[This message has been edited by kemibe (edited Apr-09-2007).]

IP: Logged

posted Apr-09-2007 09:02 PM               

What a sad little man you are.

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

IP: Logged

posted Apr-09-2007 09:32 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Richard99:
Kevin,

What a sad little man you are.

---

Reduced to hurling impotent insults already, are you? And I thought you deplored that stuff!

Feel free to address the many mistakes of yours that people have highlighted before you disappear altogether.

IP: Logged

posted Apr-09-2007 10:19 PM               

IP: Logged