| Author |
Topic: The Truth About Mileage |
Richard99
Cool Runner |
 posted Apr-10-2007 09:47 PM
   
There is a specific scale for measuring session RPE as I have shown but, in any case, scale has nothing to do with the original issue of the dishonest of repeatedly claiming I was referring to something other than session RPE.------------------
Richard
World's Fastest Slow Guy
www.powerrunning.com
IP: Logged |
JimR
Cool Runner |
posted Apr-10-2007 09:48 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Richard99:
There is a specific scale for measuring session RPE
no, there isn't
IP: Logged |
Richard99
Cool Runner |
posted Apr-10-2007 09:53 PM
Why would anyone believe you when you've been dishonest on the topic of session RPE so far?------------------
Richard
World's Fastest Slow Guy
www.powerrunning.com
IP: Logged |
kemibe
Cool Runner |
posted Apr-10-2007 10:37 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Richard99:
Why would anyone believe you when you've been dishonest on the topic of session RPE so far?
He hasn't, and you're fooling no one. But who cares? Even if you could argue your way out of this purely supplementary example of your own ignorance, you'd still have to explain a whole lot of other baseless and errant things you've said and done, such as being frankly unable to understand the difference between the same group of people being observed training and racing serially in two distinct ways and one group of people whose members are observed training and racing once in a whole menagerie of ways. A sixth-grader could figure out the difference; you can't. You'll also conveniently never get around to explaining the "rational, logical, evidence-based" reason for your declaration that runners of average talent (which you cannot define) should train 2-3 days a week at most, nor will you admit that attempting to align your suggestions with those in the RT article was completely unjustified (2-3 days a week doesn't yield close to 60 miles a week). You are a spectacle. I hope you realize that you cannot delete this thread -- if you try, only page one will disappear and the juciest, most embarrassing material will remain.
IP: Logged |
JimR
Cool Runner |
posted Apr-10-2007 10:57 PM
kemibe's right, you're a spectacle, and that's the only reason this thread is going on.I'm sure if you google it up, you'll find references to session rpe and even 'session rpe tables', but these are just variations on the theme, modified for a specific purpose the same as every other modification of the borg tables has been made. None of this has anything to do with your use of them and your blatant misrepresentation of their intent.
IP: Logged |
kemibe
Cool Runner |
posted Apr-10-2007 11:03 PM
quote:
Originally posted by JimR:
...the 20 point scale (sometimes called the 15 point scale as the first 5 values are not used)
As an aside, the 6-20 numerology seems goofy until you understand why it was set up this way. Valid perceived-exertion scales are known to correlate very well with subject heart rates. So a 6 works out to be about a 60 (a typical person's resting HR), a 12 about a 120, and a 20 a 200 or all-out (this all assumes a relatively young person). There is no way a marathon would ever work out to be a 10 out of 10 on any such scale, because HR in a marathon is significantly lower than that for a half-marathon or 10M or 10K or 5K or 800m no matter how fast or fit you are. People can talk while racing marathons, but see if they do this during a mile or a 5K. Richard is just talking more crap here.
IP: Logged |
martinjames
Cool Runner |
posted Apr-10-2007 11:07 PM
We're with Jim R. Go away.
IP: Logged |
martinjames
Cool Runner |
posted Apr-10-2007 11:09 PM
The real question is this: Is it OK to run on a train track?
IP: Logged |
bigapplepie
Cool Runner |
posted Apr-11-2007 12:28 AM
quote:
Originally posted by martinjames:
The real question is this: Is it OK to run on a train track?
That's an interesting question. There are a range of possible answers ranging from no to yes, depending on your genetics. I examine this further on my website under the section on rate of perceived stupidty.
IP: Logged |
tuscaloosarunner
Cool Runner |
posted Apr-11-2007 05:37 AM
I think Richard's threads should be used in Guantanamo.
IP: Logged |
JimR
Cool Runner |
posted Apr-11-2007 06:16 AM
quote:
Originally posted by kemibe:
As an aside, the 6-20 numerology seems goofy until you understand why it was set up this way. Valid perceived-exertion scales are known to correlate very well with subject heart rates. So a 6 works out to be about a 60 (a typical person's resting HR), a 12 about a 120, and a 20 a 200 or all-out (this all assumes a relatively young person).There is no way a marathon would ever work out to be a 10 out of 10 on any such scale, because HR in a marathon is significantly lower than that for a half-marathon or 10M or 10K or 5K or 800m no matter how fast or fit you are. People can talk while racing marathons, but see if they do this during a mile or a 5K. Richard is just talking more crap here.
Right. Richard wanted to make comparisons of efforts over distance between different runners and even diffirerent distances for the same runner, which violates a simple rule of using RPE...it's the subject that must make those evaluations, not the host. Richard claimed you run both 10ks and marathons at an RPE of 10, and that both an elite and a midpacker run full marathons (or, what was it...20 mile runs?) at the same RPE, a clear misunderstanding (or misrepresentation) of the scales. There are way too many errors in how Richard was using them to cover them all.
IP: Logged |
Richard99
Cool Runner |
posted Apr-11-2007 06:42 AM
Jim,No amount of wordsmithing or wiggling by you changes the facts of the situation. What started out as seemingly ignorance of session RPE by you and others turned into dishonesty with the continued propogation of a false argument after it was pointed out that you were using the older RPE measure while I was using session RPE. ------------------
Richard
World's Fastest Slow Guy
www.powerrunning.com
IP: Logged |
AndyHass
Cool Runner |
posted Apr-11-2007 08:19 AM
I think Richard should run on a train track. With his iPod.
IP: Logged |
fuzz
Cool Runner |
posted Apr-11-2007 08:48 AM
quote:
Originally posted by Richard99:
There is no need for backpedalling. Session RPE has to be measured by some scale and it is - a modified Borg scale with different verbal anchors.
False. The session RPE method uses the standard Borg RPE scale.
IP: Logged |
Richard99
Cool Runner |
posted Apr-11-2007 09:31 AM
quote:
Originally posted by fuzz:
False. The session RPE method uses the standard Borg RPE scale.
From the article you cited: "Foster et al developed a method of evaluating training using a variation of the Borg Rating of Perceived Exertion (RPE) scale..." Foser, who invented session RPE, uses a variation of the modified (1-10) Borg RPE scale. The variation to the modified Borg scale he made was to alter the verbal anchors. ------------------
Richard
World's Fastest Slow Guy
www.powerrunning.com
IP: Logged |
JimR
Cool Runner |
posted Apr-11-2007 09:38 AM
It's just a modification of the scale, Richard, there are many out there. There's still only 2 fundamental scales, not 3.
IP: Logged |
fuzz
Cool Runner |
posted Apr-11-2007 09:44 AM
Richard, you were going on about "a specific scale for measuring session RPE, " as if there were some other, distinct, legitimate scale. But there isn't. The Borg scale is the Borg scale. People might monkey with the verbiage and declare that 1 = "comatose" and 10 = "head explodes," but it doesn't change its essential meaning.
IP: Logged |
TommyL
Cool Runner |
posted Apr-11-2007 10:00 AM
Richard, What is your stance on global warming?
IP: Logged |
JimR
Cool Runner |
posted Apr-11-2007 10:34 AM
quote:
Originally posted by fuzz:
Richard, you were going on about "a specific scale for measuring session RPE, " as if there were some other, distinct, legitimate scale. But there isn't. The Borg scale is the Borg scale. People might monkey with the verbiage and declare that 1 = "comatose" and 10 = "head explodes," but it doesn't change its essential meaning.
Session rpe and related scales are just implementations / modifications of rpe. Calling it a unique thing on it's own is like declaring a taxi to be a 'new type of car'. It's not.
IP: Logged |
fuzz
Cool Runner |
posted Apr-11-2007 10:48 AM
About now he's furiously googling for something, anything to bolster his claim that changing the language on the scale changes the meaning of the scale itself. He won't find it, but rest assured he won't come back & admit it in this thread.And he has the cojones to call you dishonest.
IP: Logged |
fredurie
Cool Runner |
posted Apr-11-2007 12:13 PM
http://www.letsrun.com/forum/flat_read.php?thread=1850687
IP: Logged |
kemibe
Cool Runner |
posted Apr-11-2007 12:34 PM
quote:
Originally posted by JimR:
There are way too many errors in how Richard was using them to cover them all.
Yeah, the interesting thing is that the sheer number of mistakes, lies and conflicting statements extreme woow-woos like Gibbens expel makes them in some ways harder to argue with than someone who's merely wrong about an important fact or two but otherwise has a handle on the basics. You'd think someone who basically gets everything wrong, defying not only integrity and wisdom but the laws of probability, would be easier to debunk than a common dupe. But the problem lies in deciding exactly which lies and mistakes to counter first -- the glaring ones, the real whoppers, or the flat-out insane claims. quote:
Originally posted by JimR:
No amount of wordsmithing or wiggling by you changes the facts of the situation.
Since we're wasting time with this, we should start a list of Gibbens statements that are indictative of his admitting defeat -- things he only says when he actually figures out (not that he'd ever admit it) that he's thoroughly wrong. This is one of them; it's a variant of "You can keep saying that, but you still haven't offered any facts, data or evidence to support your claim." Get it? If you can just discard evidence you don't like and pretend it's someone's whimsical, wild-ass guess, you too can be like Richard! WHEEEEEEEEEEEEE!
IP: Logged |
JimR
Cool Runner |
posted Apr-11-2007 01:50 PM
quote:
Originally posted by fredurie:
http://www.letsrun.com/forum/flat_read.php?thread=1850687
Damn....Heather ripped him a good one in that thread. Go girl go!
IP: Logged |
Richard99
Cool Runner |
posted Apr-11-2007 07:06 PM
quote:
Originally posted by fuzz:
About now he's furiously googling for something, anything to bolster his claim that changing the language on the scale changes the meaning of the scale itself.
fuzz, The use of the scale is the important issue, not whether the session RPE is a completely different scale or simply a modification of Borg's scale. I don't claim it is completely different, as it is a modification of the Borg scale. Its use, however, is markedly different from how RPE had previously been measured. Borg's original and modified scales are used to provide an instantaneous measure of exertion. Researcher: "Hey fuzz, how hard are you working right now?"
fuzz: "Level 7" The traditional and modified Borg RPE scales were never used to measure the overall intensity of a workout. That is what is unique about session RPE. Because of that, session RPE is not interchangeable with the traditional Borg RPE measures. In the above example you were working at a level 7 when the question was asked of you. However, if you were asked 30 minutes after your workout were complete as to how hard the overall workout was you might give a completely different level than 7. Just because you were at a level 7 at some point during the workout doesn't mean you have to rank the overall workout as a 7. You could, but it is not mandatory. JimR: "Hey fuzz, how hard was your overall workout?"
Fuzz: "Level 5."
JimR: "But you were at level 7 during the workout."
Fuzz: "Yeah, but only for a few minutes. The rest of the workout was pretty mild so, overall, it gets a 5." Because of the very real difference between these 2 measures of intensity, trying to use a traditional Borg RPE measure in the calculation of training load doesn't make sense, which is why I used session RPE. The best I can tell is that Jim and others had never heard of session RPE when I originally brought it up and are now propogating a lie rather than admit to their original ignorance on the topic. ------------------
Richard
World's Fastest Slow Guy
www.powerrunning.com [This message has been edited by Richard99 (edited Apr-11-2007).]
IP: Logged |
bigapplepie
Cool Runner |
posted Apr-11-2007 07:24 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Richard99:
Researcher: "Hey fuzz, how hard was your overall workout?"
Fuzz: "Level 5."
So what the heck is level 42?
IP: Logged |
