What is your opinion of Alberto Salazar as a coach? (Read 1632 times)

Thanks, Spaniel, for writing the response so I didn't have to. 

SJ, I think what you don't understand is that there is a large amount of risk in trying something radical.  Most of the advice people give on this forum could at worst add a few minutes to your next race.  However, playing with bio-mechanics is inherently dangerous.  For example, imagine BM-Expert99 shows up here tomorrow claiming that bounding-goose-stepping (imagine running with knee-locked legs) is faster than normal running techniques.  Some people try it over short distances and find that indeed it is faster.  So they they start training on it and get good results . . . until two years later they find out all the wear on their knees destroyed the cartilage 5x faster than normal.  Now all the people who tried this radical new method need knee replacements.

The risk is too high for life-time runners to experiment with something radical.

You'll notice the partial acceptance, or at least enthusiasm, over barefoot running.  It also has weak evidence supporting it, but a strong historical argument in favor of it.  It also has some leading bio-mechanical scientists behind it with some large institutional backing (Harvard).  Even more than your different running styles, this fad aims to destroy the entire billion dollar shoe industry.  Yet, look at its modest success.  It took about 20 years, but the theory of barefoot running has  started changing the way shoes are marketed and made.

Taking a note from its success, maybe you should write a novel: Born To Run . . . Like A Dinosaur.  I look forward to reading it.

But in short, if you want to convince people you're going to help them reduce the risk by providing more evidence that makes them believe it's worth trying and they won't get hurt.

 I'll sum it up for you real easy; horses and humans push their weight, cheetahs, and all other feline species pull it....

If your foot is landing on the ground at a speed faster than you're currently running, there can't be any braking effect...

 

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18854295

 

Funny that it took over 12 years for the "experts" to figure it out.

 

That was part of my conversation with Salazar that I laugh my ass off about.

 

I asked him if he grew up in the suburbs. He nodded.

 

So I asked him if he had ever seen a dog chase a cat. He said yes.

 

So I asked him if the dogs were bigger than the cats. He said yes

 

So I asked him if he had ever seen a dog catch a cat. He said no.

 

So I asked him. "So explain to be the difference in running technique, because the smaller runner was the better runner". Of course he couldn't.. Our conversation deteriorated quickly after that....

Just because Salazar hasnt seen a dog catch a cat doesnt mean it doesnt happen. By that logic, since you have never coached any runner to world class levels, your techniques dont work.

Essential viewing for this thread:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yVjzd320gew

Clearly I'm not an "expert" like Sport Jester, but it seems that the darker colored cat has the more energy-efficient technique (by at least 20%), using just two paws.

p'wned.

.

Hey dpschumacher,

Probably the best response I've read do far to this exchange.  First off, a couple of points  to what Salazar writes about technique. Sure minimizing vertical displacement is a goal, unfortunately, doing so also increases energy expenditure per step. Its one thing to pontificate about it, its another to explain how to do it.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16051716

To running inline, known as your running gauge with biologists, or step width in exercise sciences, has the unmentioned side effect to increasing ITBand strain risks, let alone requires supination in the feet to accomplish, not to mention increased forward lean to accomplish at maximum efficiency which increases risk to shin splint stress loads.

Not to mention that to run inline properly, with absolutely no knee strain, or optimum heel strike requires the alteration in firing sequence of every muscle in your body from the ears down compared to how Salazar or anyone else writes about running technique. Its also factor that the strongest muscle in the human body, the Gluteus Maximus(which is described as a torso stabilizer), has no functional process in running for you or Salazar and he doesn't teach its integration to be trained properly for inline running technique, because its the primary muscle of the process. Which is why Stew describes inline running as I teach it as  a "squat workout" in his runs.

As to fast and slow twitch fiber recruitment, if Salazar truly understood inline running, he'd write about why inline running transitions the work load to the slow twitch fibers, for which endurance and strength are their functional specialty, which lowers energy consumption.

Its also true that if Salazar truly understood inline running form, he'd have written how the women of Kenya carry the weightload with no energy expenditure increase.

I liken running coaches like Salazar, to claiming to be an expert in botony, but only studying one plant. To claim I don't understand running is an absurd claim given I've studied truely bipedal athletes, quadrupeds, hexepods, arachnids, and polypeds. If Salazar were my equal, he should have been able to describe the difference in running techniques between a dog and a cat; which of course he couldn't do.

If Salazar truly understood inline running, he'd be running with a measured force plate impact of less than bodyweight as I do.

To claim I don't understand football players or team sports, is the true joke of your statement. Given the running back coach of PSU liked what I teach and why I teach it, nuls your comment. Not to mention that I deal with issues of training athletes to include visual skills, improving DPM rates (in short, thinking speed improvement) let alone training them for depth perception improvement, peripheral vision skills, decreased reaction times (it isn't how fast you run, but how quick you can figure out to run fast), opponent speed perception and directional changing improvement, improving tracking skills, probability inference, as well as improved strategy development.

As I've stated, coaches know plays, I teach athletes how to execute them with greater speed and precision. It doesn't do you any good to teach an athlete to move 20% faster if their brains aren't 20% faster in speed as well to take advantage of it. That's the joke of S.A.Q training and the even more pathetic Nike SPARQ training programs. The brain doesn't follow the body, the body follows the brain, and I'm waiting with baited breath to find any trainer who understands brain plasticity training.

Please cite your Salazar reference for  the same, because distance runners would benefit from the same brain training.

"As to fast and slow twitch fiber recruitment, if Salazar truly understood inline running, he'd write about why inline running transitions the work load to the slow twitch fibers, for which endurance and strength are their functional specialty, which lowers energy consumption" - SJ

I'm not saying that he recruits people with certain types of fibers.  I have know idea how he recruits.  I'm saying that these types of factors determine who can handle intensive repetitive intervals and small total milage and who can handle week after week of 100+ or 140+ mile weeks with out breaking down, but will fall apart with constant high intensity workouts.  Now, I admit these are the extremes and muscle fibers is one of hundreds of factors that would determine this.  

"Its also true that if Salazar truly understood inline running form, he'd have written how the women of Kenya carry the weightload with no energy expenditure increase." - SJ

This statement is just simply false.  You are providing a false premise.  You are saying that one can only come to a certain conclusion by using certain evidence.  There are multiple ways to do long division, calculus, and other situations that have one correct answer.  One can come to the correct answer many different ways.  I would like you to justify thPart of Vervloet's problem may be that following his train of thought is sometimes like tracking Osama bin Laden's whereabouts. "What he's going to find is that as long as he makes references to racehorses, grasshoppers and fleas, he's going to have a very mixed reception in track and field," Veney says.is statement.  You are saying that the only way someone can come to the conclusion that inline running, minimal sway, and bounce is efficient is by citing Kenyan women.  That is inaccurate.  That's like saying that if it were not for reading the one study that you did, you would never gain any information from all  the other sources you cite.  The point you are trying to make is that their gait or whatever, is efficient and that it should be analyzed...what you actually said was that if he did not site one particular study he has no appreciation for bio-mechanics. 

"To claim I don't understand running is an absurd claim given I've studied truely bipedal athletes, quadrupeds, hexepods, arachnids, and polypeds. If Salazar were my equal, he should have been able to describe the difference in running techniques between a dog and a cat; which of course he couldn't do." - SJ

Again this is a false assertion...you are assuming that because he does not answer specifically to you in a time manner and in analogies that you prefer he is incapable.  That is like me saying that you are unable to accept criticism based on three threads I have read.  As pointed out before you are exchanging evidence and personal experience.  I worked with parolees for three years.  They regularly stated that all police are corrupt based on certain experiences.  They take a view that if lied to once, a person is completely untrustworthy.  I am sure that you are able to accept criticism.  You are able to hold normal and rational discussions.  However, that is not to say that you either do or don't on a 100% basis. 

You go back to the article... "Which is why Stew describes inline running as I teach it as  a "squat workout" in his runs."...He also writes "Brains aside, Vervloet struggles with everyday relationships. Most people's school memories include friends, a favorite teacher or perhaps the prom. Asked to name one friend from his school days, however, Vervloet cannot. "I hated school," he says. His recollections are of getting shoved face-first into lockers, having his bookbag stolen and facing constant ridicule for being different. "I remember going to school one day in fourth grade with a crescent wrench in my hand," he says....Part of Vervloet's problem may be that following his train of thought is sometimes like tracking Osama bin Laden's whereabouts. "What he's going to find is that as long as he makes references to racehorses, grasshoppers and fleas, he's going to have a very mixed reception in track and field," Veney says." 

You often do...what i have lots of experience working with...is tangential thinking.  It is very important in creativity and problem solving, but it is extremely ineffective in presenting information to another.  Again...to go back to your quote about Salazar and dogs and cats.  I developed a technique close to what you describe...as has my father who is an all American.  We also shorten our stride, lean forward, and lower our hips when running up hills.  I have generally done much better in CC that track and can beat many teammates in college over our hilly conference course and then get waxed at our year end JV race on a flat course.  However, I can't exmplain the difference between cats and dogs in detail nor do i know anything about kenyan women.  You are asserting that there for I know nothing about running, form, and have no reason for running the way that i do.  Again you are assuming that the only way to come to the conclusions that are efficient is by the method you found it.  Also...i would like to point out my Chemistry professor could explain in detail about why a reaction is endothermic.  A physics professor can explain it as well in terms of physics.  That does not make either explanation wrong.  They get to the same point...just coming at if from different sides. 

Finally...you have failed to answer a often repeated challenge.  If you have willing subjects you can get any number of runners...new untainted ones...to do you experiments for free...or say 10 bucks a week.  Every college campus in America is full of willing subjects.  You can self publish on line and use a number of years to accumulate significant data sets.  You keep shifting your sports as you get challenged in one...you tote your improvement in 5k runners...then say you don't care about track after posting videos online about proper cornering for 200m runners...then when asked for actual substantial data sets, you switch to football.  When challenged there you move on to rowing.  If you want to be published you can self publish with Amazon on any of thousands of other sites.  

and finally....

Do you really think any peer review journal board takes a different attitude? Please don't kid yourself. Why would people who earn a living being subsidized by public funding grants publish the answers to the questions, when the money is made studying them. Obviously you've never pursued publishing in any peer review article yourself have you...

Are you suggesting that 1) you will never accept public funds if offered.  2)Your articles have only been rejected due to conclusions and ...i want you to answer this specifically... there was no mention to your methodology, sample size, or evidence.  Because evidently in the article i quote at length above there are people doing the research that is similar and getting in published.  So evidently you have peers in those who published about kenyan women as well.  it seems that many other people are able to do this...so the question is...Is it possible that your social skills are interfering with your attempted to debate as suggested in the washington article at length?

The good news is Amores Perros and I are going to try to run like cheetahs tonight on the track. 

Going to spring-load the ol' vertebrae, huh?  Now that's smart thinking.  If we could only spring load the vertebrae of some ostriches, stick some kenyan women on 'em, and have them fast for three days, we'd be setting records all over the place!