 posted Apr-10-2007 09:20 AM
   
Time to post this, I guess:Richard on RPE (perceived exertion), during discussion of use of RPE and duration for calculating workload in runners:
"I understand that the pace one can maintain decreases as the race distance increases. Race pace for a marathoner is slower than race pace for a 10k, for example. Though this is true, it has nothing to do with how RPE is measured. RPE is not pace dependent, it is effort dependent.
If you raced a 10k at an all out effort - meaning you ran the 10k as fast as you physically could on that day, setting a PR in the process, and there was no way you could have run that 10k even 1 second faster, you left it all out on the race course - you ran an RPE of 10. If you raced a marathon at an all out effort - meaning you ran the marathon as fast as you physically could on that day, setting a PR in the process, and there was no way you could have run that marathon even 1 second faster, you left it all out on the race course - you ran an RPE of 10. You ran at a faster per mile pace, at a higher % of max pace, at a higher level of blood lactate, at a higher % of max HR during the 10k. All of which has nothing to do with the amount of effort you put forth in both races. In both races, despite differences in the above measures, you ran the same level of overall RPE - 10 in this case. How could a slower pace per mile end up being the same effort as a faster pace per mile? Because you ran the slower pace per mile for a longer duration, resulting in equal RPEs."
Richard fluently misrepresents a pretty standard methodology of determining effort. RPE is a rating developed by Dr. Gunnar Borg in the 1950's to help evaluate effort during exercise. It's been modified countless times to apply to other fields such as the medical community, industry, etc. The standard interpretation of the Borg 20 point scale for exercise reads like this:
6 No exertion at all
7 Extremely light
8
9 Very light - (easy walking slowly at a comfortable pace)
10
11 Light
12
13 Somewhat hard (It is quite an effort; you feel tired but can continue)
14
15 Hard (heavy)
16
17 Very hard (very strenuous, and you are very fatigued)
18
19 Extremely hard (You can not continue for long at this pace)
20 Maximal exertion
20 point scales are not often used, so a modified 10 point scale was developed. A rendering of a standard 10 point scale:
0 Nothing The feeling you have at rest. There is no feeling of fatigue
0.5 Very, very light Working at a desk, reading, listening to music or watching tv while physically at rest. 1 Very light Getting dressed. Little or no fatigue. 2 Fairly moderate Feeling you might get while slowly walking across your yard. 3 Moderate Comfortable but slightly elevated breathing. You should be able to talk while walking. 4 Somewhat hard Walking briskly to the store. Aware breathing is deeper and slight feeling of fatigue. 5 Hard Rushing for an appointment. General fatigue but you could maintain this level. Breathing is somewhat deep. 6 7 Very hard Vigorous exercise. Definite feeling of fatigue and breathing hard. 8 Vigorous exercise. Definite feeling of fatigue and breathing hard. Difficult to maintain. 9 Very, very hard Extremely vigorous exercise. Very definite feeling of fatigue and laboured breathing. You could not exercise at this level for long. 10 Maximal All out exercise/exhaustion.
In these cases, the main point is the maximum level. Maximum effort is only obtained near the point of exhaustion and can only be attained briefly.
Richard, however, tries to convince us that a person can run an entire 10k race, and even a marathon, at a maximum level of effort (RPE of 10) on a 10 point scale. Richard declares "In both races, despite differences in the above measures, you ran the same level of overall RPE - 10 in this case." Imagine, if you will, running at such a hard effort that you are about to reach exhaustion, so hard that you simply would be unable to keep it up. Now imagine trying to do that for 26 miles without taking a breather. You would be dead in the first mile if you tried, more likely much less than that. Now, why does Richard make such a blatantly ridiculous claim? The snippet above is from the defunct Runtex forum, where Richard attempted to show that 'average' runners incur the same workload over a given distance as their 'elite' counterparts, and tries to twist this concept to make it appear average runners work often twice or 3 times (or more) as hard. This takes some mathematical wizardry on Richard's part, and it doesn't work. Nobody races marathons at maximum RPE. Calcuation of workload is a concept of taking rated effort (RPE) and multiplying this by duration of the workout to get workload. Richard's interpretation of RPE simply could not be used in this calculation since his already includes duration in his RPE value (mathematically, since his RPE is already 'effort*duration', his workload calculation would end up being effort*duration*duration . . . an improper workload calculation). My favorite exchange in that thread occured when I pointed out his inclusion of duration in his RPE rating and thus rendering it useless for normal workload calculatoin, clearly revealed by his quote: "How could a slower pace per mile end up being the same effort as a faster pace per mile? Because you ran the slower pace per mile for a longer duration, resulting in equal RPEs.". Richard, naturally, claimed otherwise, since this deflated his argument. He then presented this hilarious challenge to me: "Show me where I said RPE includes duration, without using my example above". Classic Richard. The Fallacy of Listening to Richard The perposterous is the realm of Sir Richard's lair. Sometimes he outdoes even himself, to crest above the cream of lunacy, and present to his (rather limited) viewing audience a concept too ridiculous even for us to carry forward in hopes to hear yet more entertaining rubbish from Richard's fingertips. In Richard's forum thread 'The Fallacy of Listening to Your Body', Richard attacks the rather common sense principal of recognizing when you're overdoing it, feeling sudden pain, etc. and cutting back (or off completely) to avoid jeapordizing your running future. This likely stems from Richard's own foray into 'high mileage' training (although he probably didn't break 50/week) and his own failure to 'listen to his body' and cut back when the warning signs flashed in big pink neon "STOP!". Richard presents us with an anecdote excavated from that bible of running philosophy, Runner's World, about a guy who trained for a marathon, and did a long run despite experiencing knee pain at the start. "there was a bit of pain in back just above the knee at the beginning of the run". A bit of background, the subject of this story had never run a race before, and decided to run NYC on a whim. On a scale of 0-10 for injury likelihood, he flashed at 9+. In the end, he gets runner's knee (pretty common in this situation), loses training time, runs NYC anyway and suffers through it, etc. etc. Richard takes this information and distorts it into a prime example of why 'listening to your body' doesn't work, and let's us know that the common statement 'Listen to your body' is a load of bunk. Interestingly enough, no alternative is presented. So we're left with being told we're to ignore warning signs of stress and discomfort and train anyway, because this seems to be the only real information we can draw from what Richard is saying. According to Richard: "So, what is a runner to do? Is there some way to detect in advance when overtraining or injury is knocking at the door? Candidly, I haven’t been able to find one. I do know, however, that when your primary method is “listening to your body” you seem to be more likely to hear a siren’s song leading you to the cliffs of destruction and not dependable signals for avoiding injury." Now, I don't know how everyone elses personal experiences have been, but I've found that my body is remarkably good at letting me know when I'm overdoing it. I've skirted problems and injury by paying attention to these little twinges and twangs that occur. I've learned which ones are red herrings that I can put to one side, which ones need immediate attention, and which ones mean adjust my training so I can still move forward with minimum risk. Richard's interpretation of 'listening to your body': "To me the term 'listening to your body' means the body is sending unique, detectable signals that overtraining and injury are imminent" One could get picky here and point out that if overtraining and injury are imminent, then you can't avoid it anyway, since by definition imminent mean's it's about to happen. If it wasn't, then it wouldn't be imminent. That aside, the body can give all sorts of signals to you, but it's experience that's the tool that lets you decipher the meaning. An inexperienced runner, as presented in Richard's story, may not have correctly diagnosed his knee pain the first time around, but I'm pretty sure he'll have a clear idea of it the next time 'round. I still shake my head trying to figure out what message Richard's trying to give us on this one. I can't even understand it from his normal stance of attacking what he calls 'conventional training wisdom'. It's just dumb all around.
Richard's now running around the net posting some info on a Running Times commentary regarding training volume to achieve certain marathon goals, like 2 1/2 hours, 3 hours and 4 hours.
He presents a quote and a chart: "'While elites nearly universally run 100-120 miles/week in preparation for the marathon, how much you need to do depends mostly on your goals, which in turn are dependent on how much mileage you can handle without injury.' Jonathan included 3 charts from 3 different authors - Jeff Galloway 1991, Mark Conover 1996, Mark Winitz 2003 - prescribing how much mileage for what time goal. Here is the breakdown of the recommendations for the 4 hour, 3 hour, and sub 2:30 hour marathoner. 4 hours: JG = 30-40 mpw, MC = 21-30 mpw, MW = 30-40 mpw
3 hours: JG = 45-55 mpw, MC = 35-50 mpw, MW = 60-75 mpw
sub 2:30: JG = 70+, MC = 54-85 mpw, MW = 80+ mpw" A little note here that the prescribed volume is what they feel, on average, a person needs to achieve a marathon goal. Richard tangents away in discussion of 'genetic talent': "...the recommendations for mpw are completely consistent with 1) the belief that variations in genetic talent exist, 2) these large genetic differences result in large differences in weekly mileage producing optimal performance, and 3) the higher your genetic talent the more likely you are to be able to run higher weekly mileage and benefit from those higher weekly mileages. The training recommendations in articles such as this are completely consistent with the belief that genetic talent exists and that the more talent one has the more likely that person is to be able to run high mileage and benefit from that higher weekly mileage." Nothing in the article discusses 'genetic talent'. The volumes prescribed are only what they feel is necessary to run a marathon in those time goals, there's no mention nor discussion regarding what any person or group actually could be running or what potential they may have. ---- And finally, let's take a peek at Richard's latest race efforts and see how 'Powerrunning' is working out for him: Chuy's hot trot 5k, 2006 : 61 Richard Gibbens Austin TX 44 383 32:04.5 35:16.0 3:11.4
10:17/M Chuy's hot trot 5k, 2005 : 46 Richard Gibbens Austin TX 43 314 28:11.1 28:51.0 0:39.9 9:02/M Texas Round-up 10k, 2006:
11 Richard Gibbens Austin TX 44 33 56:58.00 58:02.00 01:04.00 9:10/M
Do note that Richard has in the past run in the 42's for 10k and considerably better than 29 min for 5k, so his Powerrunning theories are certainly not working for him.
IP: Logged |
