posted Apr-11-2007 07:50 PM               

IP: Logged

posted Apr-11-2007 10:01 PM            

• "If I'm purposely twisting information, then prove it" REALLY MEANS "I'm just going to jam my fingers in my ears and dismiss those facts as your personal bias. OH SNAP!"
• "What I predict you will do is..." REALLY MEANS "I have no answer for that, so when you point this out I'll pretend all you've done is attack me, 'cause everyone loves a victim."
• "Thank you for proving me right" REALLY MEANS "I still have no answer for that, but I'm determined to keep mud-wrestling and get the last word in -- that I'm good for."
• "Somehow, I don't expect you will offer any proof of your case" REALLY MEANS "You've just exposed me as a fraud again, so I'm upping the stakes: If you don't have my lying on videotape, I never lied. BOO-YAH!"
• "We are here to discuss and debate physiological and training topics as a way of, hopefully, learning and improving" REALLY MEANS "I'm right, and everyone else in the world -- regardless of how much better educated and more experienced than me -- is wrong; why does everyone view this as so unlikely?"
• "Your opinion doesn't make it fact" REALLY MEANS "Yes, you pointed out some glaring mistakes I made. But if I force you to keep repeating yourself, I can stave off reality, at least internally."
• "Cite evidence and sources proving the research is flawed" REALLY MEANS "I wish I had a statistics primer so these SOBs would quit schooling me."

Feel free to add your own. This project could take some time.

IP: Logged

posted Apr-12-2007 06:46 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sparrowface:
My list:

--Richard is hot

--Richard is fearless

--Richard doesn't hide

--Richard goes for it.

--His info scares some of you, that's why some of you react with personal attacks

---

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!

Thanks for my laugh of the day!!!

IP: Logged

posted Apr-12-2007 07:35 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Richard99:
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.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Richard99:
There are not 2 RPE scales as the writer above has written, there are 3 RPE scales. The writer discusses the original RPE scale (6-20) and the modified RPE scale (1-10) but conveniently ignores the third RPE scale, known as a session RPE or global RPE, which is the RPE scale I was using.

---

IP: Logged

posted Apr-12-2007 08:00 AM               

IP: Logged

posted Apr-12-2007 08:01 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by fuzz:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Richard99:
[b] 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.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Richard99:
There are not 2 RPE scales as the writer above has written, there are 3 RPE scales. The writer discusses the original RPE scale (6-20) and the modified RPE scale (1-10) but conveniently ignores the third RPE scale, known as a session RPE or global RPE, which is the RPE scale I was using.

---

[/B][/QUOTE]

fuzz,

I pulled it straight out of the research by Foster & the Lore of Running. I notice you conveniently ignore the remainder of the discussion on the topic.

I wrote:

"Session RPE is rated using the session RPE scale. The scale is a modified Borg scale with different verbal anchors. From Lore of Running,

"Rating ---- Verbal Description
0 ----- rest
1 ------ really easy
2 ------ easy
3 ------ moderate
4 ------ sort of hard
5 ------ hard
6
7 ------ really hard
8
9 ------- really, really hard
10 ------- just like my hardest race ever"

And then I wrote,"Session RPE has to be measured by some scale and it is - a modified Borg scale with different verbal anchors."

Jim seemed to be intent on debating a minor and inconsequential point, presumably as a way of avoiding the real heart of the issue - ignorance of session RPE and the dishonesty of trying to claim I was using traditional RPE. What is your motivation?

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

IP: Logged

posted Apr-12-2007 08:07 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sparrowface:
--His info scares some of you,

---

What is scary is the thought that there actually might be a few unsuspecting noobs out there who believe his untested, unproven, un-peer-reviewed, pseudoscientific speculation.

edited - spelling

[This message has been edited by fuzz (edited Apr-12-2007).]

IP: Logged

posted Apr-12-2007 08:34 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Richard99:
I pulled it straight out of the research by Foster & the Lore of Running.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Richard99:
I notice you conveniently ignore the remainder of the discussion on the topic.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Richard99:
Jim seemed to be intent on debating a minor and inconsequential point, presumably as a way of avoiding the real heart of the issue - ignorance of session RPE and the dishonesty of trying to claim I was using traditional RPE.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Richard99:
What is your motivation?

---

IP: Logged

posted Apr-12-2007 09:01 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Richard99:
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."

---

HAHAHA!

Want to know how this would really go?

JimR: "Hey fuzz, how hard was your overall workout?"
Fuzz: "Level 5."
JimR: "Thank you."

Now here's how it would go with you as the researcher.

Richard99: "Hey fuzz, how hard was your overall workout?"
Fuzz: "Level 5"
Richard99: "No. It was a level 10"
Fuzz: "Huh? No, it was kinda hard near the end, but easy at the start so overall it was a 5"
Richard99" "Oh really? I guess you haven't read any of the works by such acclaimed researchers as Foster, or maybe Dr. Timothy Noakes who wrote 'The Lore of Running'. Are you saying these notable scientists don't know what they are talking about? I can show you the entries from their studies that back up my claims. Why don't you find the appropriate peer reviewed studies and present data that supports your claim that your workout was a 5 out of 10. Otherwise, it's just your opinion."

[This message has been edited by JimR (edited Apr-12-2007).]

IP: Logged

posted Apr-12-2007 09:08 AM            

"I notice you conveniently ignore the remainder of the discussion on the topic" REALLY MEANS "Yes, I lied, but prove that everything I say is a lie."

brianfie: The issue is not so much the relevance of the scales as it is Gibbens' habit of changing his story when he's caught with his thumb up his ass, and believe me, that thumb has gotten mighty filthy over the years.

If Richard says "global waming is caused chiefly by my bloviating" and later says, "my bloviating is not a contributor to climate change and I never claimed that it was," the issue isn't the extent to which his yackety-yack heats upthe planet; it's that we have yet another example of his dishonesty and pathetic attempts to cover his tracks.

IP: Logged

posted Apr-12-2007 09:38 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by fuzz:
No, you flat-out stated that session RPE uses a completely different RPE scale

---

Re-read what I originally wrote. Where did I claim session RPE used a completely different RPE scale? I said was that there were 3 different RPE scales; not that session RPE was a completely different scale. When Jim decided to focus on the use of the word scale as his way of avoiding both the meaning of my post and the heart of the discussion, I clarified that session RPE uses the modified Borg scale with altered verbal anchors.

The issue here is that session RPE is not the same thing as the other measures of RPE. The scale used to measure RPE is inconsequential to the original issue of not understanding that there is a session RPE and how it is used differently from traditional RPE.

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

[This message has been edited by Richard99 (edited Apr-12-2007).]

IP: Logged

posted Apr-12-2007 10:00 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by fuzz:

What is scary is the thought that there actually might be a few unsuspecting noobs out there who believe his untested, unproven, un-peer-reviewed, pseudoscientific speculation.

[/B]

---

It is more scary though when people use tactics such as your are doing ostensibly to protect the ignorant.

It's smacks of mobbing or a reminds me of a bunch of thugs with baseball bats 'cleaning up the neighbourhood.' More inquisiton than science, I am afraid.

-b

IP: Logged

posted Apr-12-2007 10:07 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Richard99:
Where did I claim session RPE used a completely different RPE scale? I said was that there were 3 different RPE scales; not that session RPE was a completely different scale.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Richard99:
There are not 2 RPE scales as the writer above has written, there are 3 RPE scales.

---

page 7:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Richard99:
The writer discusses the original RPE scale (6-20) and the modified RPE scale (1-10) but conveniently ignores the third RPE scale, known as a session RPE or global RPE,

---

IP: Logged

posted Apr-12-2007 10:32 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by brianfie:
It is more scary though when people use tactics such as your are doing ostensibly to protect the ignorant.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by brianfie:
It's smacks of mobbing or a reminds me of a bunch of thugs with baseball bats 'cleaning up the neighbourhood.' More inquisiton than science, I am afraid.-b

---

IP: Logged

posted Apr-12-2007 10:39 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Richard99:
I said was that there were 3 different RPE scales; not that session RPE was a completely different scale.

---

actually, you did

quote:

---

Originally posted by Richard99:
There are not 2 RPE scales as the writer above has written, there are 3 RPE scales. The writer discusses the original RPE scale (6-20) and the modified RPE scale (1-10) but conveniently ignores the third RPE scale, known as a session RPE or global RPE, which is the RPE scale I was using.

---

and it's fun to watch you dance around your own words.

None of that even touches your lack of understanding of any form of RPE in the first place. Claiming that people routinely run 10ks and marathons at an RPE of 10 out of 10 is just plain nonsense on your part. Pointing to the ambiguity of Noake's table (and I'm sure he would be willing to acknowledge such ambiguity) doesn't change the fact that you have no idea what you're talking about.

and if you want to keep yammering about this trying to backtrack over your own claims, go right ahead. The entertianment value in this is pretty well dried up.

edited to say: looks like fuzz already pointed out your contradiction.

[This message has been edited by JimR (edited Apr-12-2007).]

IP: Logged

posted Apr-12-2007 11:28 AM            

IP: Logged

posted Apr-12-2007 11:38 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by fuzz:
Pointing out errors and unproven speculation is scary?

---

This was done much more eloquently and usefully in the first couple of pages of this topic by runawayjesse and a couple of others. You seem rather to delight and persist in beating up on the person rather than on the issues, and that adds nothing to the debate.

-b

IP: Logged

posted Apr-12-2007 11:40 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by brianfie:
This was done much more eloquently and usefully in the first couple of pages of this topic by runawayjesse and a couple of others. You seem rather to delight and persist in beating up on the person rather than on the issues, and that adds nothing to the debate.

-b

---

There isn't any debate.

IP: Logged

posted Apr-12-2007 12:31 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by brianfie:
This was done much more eloquently and usefully in the first couple of pages of this topic by runawayjesse and a couple of others. You seem rather to delight and persist in beating up on the person rather than on the issues, and that adds nothing to the debate.

-b

---

You can't debate an issue with someone unless they are intelligent enough to discuss the issue, and honest enough to participate in a genuine debate. Richard is neither, therefore until he a) becomes educated, and b) becomes honest, any discussions will unsurprisingly end up coming back to his lack of intelligence and honest.

IP: Logged

posted Apr-12-2007 01:12 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by brianfie:
You seem rather to delight and persist in beating up on the person rather than on the issues, and that adds nothing to the debate.

-b

---

IP: Logged

posted Apr-12-2007 01:29 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by brianfie:
This was done much more eloquently and usefully in the first couple of pages of this topic by runawayjesse and a couple of others. You seem rather to delight and persist in beating up on the person rather than on the issues, and that adds nothing to the debate.

-b

---

Brian, that won't work. Go back and watch the progression, even from my side.

Richard's opening post was the study...which is fine...and he presents it like this:

"How Much Do Elites Run? Jason conducted a study in 2004 of the training characteristics of the US Olympic Marathon trials qualifiers."

and he even separated the males participants of the study into two groups, national class (2:15-2:22) and elite (<2:15). I pointed this out:

quote:

---

Originally posted by JimR:
The US Oly trials isn't really an exclusive haven of elites.

---

as the study info clearly identified the two groups. This is how Richard responded:

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.

---

You can see how that's going to go. Pointing these details out to Richard simply gets a lot of consternation from his part and he'll insist the study was solely about elites. It's difficult to discuss the study itself when you can't get past the issue of Richard's twisting of it to apply to elite marathoners.

IP: Logged

posted Apr-12-2007 03:36 PM            

brianfie, go back and read how much genuine science I, fuzz, AndyHass, JimR and others have contributed here as a result of dealing with Richard the Liar-Hardened versus how much Richard himself has offered. Believe me, we've tried to hash out the statistical principles and the physiology; this is no blind bashing-and-mockery session.

Something has gotten you to read about 200 posts so far despite your being put off; what, exactly?

On my group blog, which chiefly deals with science issues, I wrote about why this article Gibbens wrote is a heap of rubbish. Here, Gibbens claims that a neat, universal relationship exists between sprint speed and distance potential and gives a chart clarifying this relationship. However, not only does he not even state where he got his figures, he ignores all sorts of empirical data to the contrary and fails to take into account why his assertion is not widely valid -- he doesn't consider differences in muscle-fiber types.

I may not have been kind to him in writing this, but I would hope people would recognize its topical nature and genuine intent. If you care to read the posts, they're here, here, and here.

Also, he's been doing this for years. If he had any intention of being anything other than a pest and an attention whore, we'd know by now. Not only has he earned his tarrings and featherings, at some level he relishes them.

Maybe if Gibbens were somehow right in this and the rest of us out to lunch, and this was clear to all observing, you'd be just as adamant about telling him to lay off even if the posting style of the participants were precisely the same. But I doubt it.

[This message has been edited by kemibe (edited Apr-12-2007).]

IP: Logged

posted Apr-12-2007 07:51 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by kemibe:
brianfie, go back and read how much genuine science I, fuzz, AndyHass, JimR and others have contributed here...

---

That's fine advice, brianfie. Do a raw count all the research study citations, research study quotes, quotes from physiological textbooks, and other similar credible sources that Kevin and the others in his list have cited on this thread to date and then post your findings. Just how much genuine science have these guys really cited in support of their claims? Your finding should be very interesting.

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

[This message has been edited by Richard99 (edited Apr-12-2007).]

IP: Logged

posted Apr-12-2007 07:55 PM            

Some of the assertions are far from convincing. The idea that maximum performances are accurately determined by sprint speed is frankly silly. Everyone can remember their school days - where the lads that won the sprint events were usually a completely different set of ones to those who won the cross country and distance events. Most of my school cross-country team couldn't even qualify for the 100m final on sports day (including one guy who now runs 5k sub 14 mins).

The assertion that spring speed can't effectively be trained is also highly dubious. As a teenager, I played soccer and tennis - in both these sports you'd see huge flat pace improvements in response to structured sprint training (mainly building strength and working on technique). It's noticeable that Andy Murray has improved his speed recently after working with a dedicated sprint coach.

IP: Logged

posted Apr-12-2007 10:12 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Richard99:
That's fine advice, brianfie. Do a raw count all the research study citations, research study quotes, quotes from physiological textbooks, and other similar credible sources that Kevin and the others in his list have cited on this thread to date and then post your findings. Just how much genuine science have these guys really cited in support of their claims? Your finding should be very interesting.

---

I used none since it's not necessary (I don't need a counter study to discuss a study). This isn't a contest of 'how many studies can you quote from'.

IP: Logged