The Muscle Factor Model (Read 3142 times)

I've been kinda busy lately (and lazy?) and I was sort of intentionally avoiding this thread but, when I opened it up, man, some "heated" argument was going on.

I don't know Pete personally though some people in the past have pointed out to his website (I guess he doesn't have it any more???), saying it's very much Lydiard.  I'm not quite sure because I never took time to read too closely but, like I said before, when I read his RT article, the first thing that came to my mind was "It's Lydiard..." or at least, Lydiard hill training.

I'd have to say, in a very technical sense, I think Pete is correct that the enlargement of the muscle fibers DOES take place with training.  I thought about it, not so much to back up Pete but I just remembered talking to Coach Koide a few weeks ago that, when Naoko Takahashi really started to train to prepare for the real marathon training, she would go up and down the hills and, he said, you can visibly see her legs getting bigger and stronger.  I guess it's the anatomical and physiological changed that take place as we "train" our muscles.  The problem is--I'm not quite sure if THAT is what makes you a better runner (here I mean a better distance runner).  I have said this many many times all along with our wonderful "debate" with our beloved Dick; that it is next to impossible, if not IMPOSSIBLE to pin-point ONE factor to say this is responsible for better performance.  We just can't.  There are number of changes that occur during the course of training and these all interact to make you a better runner.  I'm sure muscle fiber enlargement does occur as our legs get stronger and that is a necessary development (to run faster) but that alone is not going to make you a better distance runner.  If that is the case, Usain Bolt would be the greatest marathon runner in the world.  As we all know, and as Spaniel had pointed out, getting skinnier would also make you a better runner because it takes 0.17 milliliter of oxygen to move 1kg of fat-free body weight (i.e.; muscle mass) 1 meter.  So, as Lydiard used to always say, having lots of extra muscles, thought makes you "stronger", won't make you run faster. 

I was talking to Peter Snell just a few nights ago and we talked about this thing about aerobic and anaerobic--some people insists that Lydiard was wrong about using these terms.  We all know that and, being an exercise physiologist himself, Peter is very well aware of that.  But, we both agreed that that was probably the best and clearest and easiest way to explain the different types of training.  "If those critics come back with a better way to convey the message, we'll listen," he said.  At any rate (I've digressed), we also talked about all these scientific mumbo-jumbo (now, I was being very careful, out of respect to him, what to say and how to say it with him being an exercise physiologist).  He basically said that, in science, you have to pick ONE element and identify what it does.  But in real life, that will NEVER happen.  It's always more than one things interacting; or one thing affects more than one element.  I don't have any problem, as a matter of fact, Dick saying that muscle strength being a very important factor--because it is.  I do have a problem him insisting, because of that, aerobic side of development is out.  Furthermore, the fact that he has NO suggesion changing the actual training methods based on his argument--he has always come back, whenever I or someone else had asked, saying that he won't change anything with the current training program.  So if it wouldn't suggest any change, what's the new finding good for? 

It seems to me, Pete's problem is (now, I'd have to admit, I'm too busy and lazy to read the entire thread here), while himself suggesting to be careful not to look at a tree without seeing the forest, by being too wrapped up with "muscle strength development", perhaps he had forgotten the whole idea of training for distance running is to run from point A to point B faster (or better).  If hill bounding alone would make a great runner, all those Russian ballet dancers would be Olympic distance running champions.  In reality, those who run a lot would still make distance running champion.

Quoted so as to preserve for all time...

Nice try, but if you are going to quote, quote the whole thing so it is not taken out of context.  Are you in the media?  Here, I'll finish it up for you.  No charge.

I don't have any problem, as a matter of fact, Dick saying that muscle strength being a very important factor--because it is.  I do have a problem him insisting, because of that, aerobic side of development is out.  Furthermore, the fact that he has NO suggesion changing the actual training methods based on his argument--he has always come back, whenever I or someone else had asked, saying that he won't change anything with the current training program.  So if it wouldn't suggest any change, what's the new finding good for? 

...

You need like 6 of them to get together and do the CARE BEAR STARE!

Don't judge me.

Facist.