1

The scientific burden of proof leads to smaller book sizes. (Read 377 times)

    I was quietly browsing a stack of books yesterday at home:

     

    The Lore of Running, by Noakes

    Better Training for Distance Runners, by Martin and Coe

    The Runner's Body, by Tucker, Dugas, and Fitzgerald

     

    My lady entered the room and was confounded by the size (giggity) of Lore. When she saw Better Training resting beneath it, she could maintain her silence no more and asked me why the books were so big. I pointed out that until recently not much research had been done on running, so Noakes presented one of the first major attempts to cover all topics of running in as much scientific detail as possible. I added that much of his science has since been debunked. I told her that Better Training probably makes fewer false claims, but benefits from a book like Lore already taking a stab at things.

     

    I then beheld the book in my hands, The Runner's Body, and couldn't help but notice that the most modern and scientifically safe book of the three was far smaller (and probably less useful to a new runner).


    just a simple cat

      Due to my purchase of a Nook, my upper body will get far less of a workout toting heavy books.

       

      I  guess as you get more bodacious, you begin to lose more brain cells, because there is a limit to how much magnificence your body can house

          Of course you can get unlimited information about running right here on the interwebs, with absolutely no burden of proof.  Books are so obsolete.

          Well at least someone here is making relevance to the subject.

            Well at least someone here is making relevance to the subject.

              Looks like the tail wagging the psychologist! HAHAHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

              "If you have the fire, run..." -John Climacus