Power Running Physiology Enters the Mainstream (Read 2197 times)

Not to mention, they back their combined approach up by actually training runners...

So, you are implying that since they back their combined approach by actually training runners it means their physiological beliefs are correct. Nice. Welcome to a bold new world where muscle is at least as important as the aerobic system in terms of determining performance. (While I think muscle is more influencial, I recognize that admitting it is equally influencial on performance is a big first step for many.) Anything is possible in this new world. The next 10 years are going to be very exciting.

So, you are implying that since they back their combined approach by actually training runners it means their physiological beliefs are correct. Nice. Welcome to a bold new world where muscle is at least as important as the aerobic system in terms of determining performance. (While I think muscle is more influencial, I recognize that admitting it is equally influencial on performance is a big first step for many.) Anything is possible in this new world. The next 10 years are going to be very exciting.

Focus, Dick, focus. Quote where they said EQUAL. Having trained real runners means they have actual experience validating that their system leads to improved running performance. While I have torn asunder your beliefs many times, the theoreticals mean nothing to anyone here if they do not actually improve one's running. Which you have never demonstrated and consistenly fail to provide evidence for. Moreover, theories that cannot be validated in practice are invalidated.

I'm still lost. Who ever said muscles had nothing to do with running? I'm pretty sure the reason to do drills and strides and whatnot was to work the muscles.

Scout, It's not that conventional thinking completely ignores muscle; it is just that conventional thinking has always treated muscle as an minor component in performance. For example, for the sake of discussion let's say that performance is half determined by aerobic factors and half by muscle factors, as the authors of the book Run Faster suggest. With both muscle and aerobic being equally important, if you were writing about running performance wouldn't you spend just as much time writing aboout aerobic stuff as you did about about muscle stuff? Seems only logical that you would equally address both factors since both factors contribute the same to performance, right? Now, go peruse all running books except Run Faster or Lore of Running. Check Daniels Running formula, or any book by Pfitzinger, Lydiard, Henderson, Galloway, etc. How many chapters do each include focused on muscle? The answer is none. That's right, not even a single chapter on muscle. Some include next to nothing on muscle factors. Perhaps nothing more than a single paragraph. Compare that to the number of chapters on aerobic factors. Each of those books include a detailed discussion of aerobic factors. In addition to the chapter on aerobic factors they will include aerobic factors sprinkled throughout the book. Assumming the authors of those books write about what they believe to be most important in performance, then, clearly, conventional wisdom has always placed much, much emphasis on aerobic factors and little on muscle factors.

I've read several running books. All of them mention muscular conditioning as part of the equation. Either your reading comprehension sucks, or you're highly selective. I think Dr. Daniels even has a whole bunch of training paces. I don't recall, as I have not read him very thoroughly. Ask Globule, he would know.

That tons of accomplished coaches and experts spend the majority of their writing talking about aerobic conditioning, yet also include muscle conditioning/plyos/etc in a balanced approach, and have thousands of successful athletes between them, while you, a raving, illogical, self-promoting internet troll who has never trained anyone to anything, gets wrapped around the axle blabbering about only one factor being important, should tell you something. Your mom called, by the way. She wants her basement and computer back.

It's not that conventional thinking completely ignores muscle; it is just that conventional thinking has always treated muscle as an minor component in performance.

I've been reading this with some humor and frankly have little to offer in the ways of science combined with running. However, from my engineering point of view Rich you have me to the point of saying "Elvis has left the building". I will preface this with saying I have read most of the books discussed and am currently reading the Lore of Running (interesting to be sure) and I recall discussions of muscle strength gained through specific drills (sort of like all others here have mentioned in their posts - hills, strides, bounding, running lots, etc., but your comment above is ludicrous on its face. You contention is that since the writers only devoted a chapter or a paragraph to your chosen grail, this means they denigrate or marginalize the concept or importance all together. ? Perhaps it is that the concept of developing and using muscles in the act of performance exercise is of such simplistic and accepted knowledge, that they do not feel the need to further a conversation that is best handled by strength and conditioning types and that they would rather discuss the other limitations of performance and how to develop this (ie aerobic and chemical system). I don't know if you have perused the local library aisles, but there are countless books on increasing muscle strength and aptitude for specific performance. Personally, I believe it most efficient to offer strength development programs that fit seamlessly into the training by doing the things you would in the act of the exercise. No need to spend all that time at the gym if I can get targeted conditioning during normal trianing - see hills, strides, bounding, stairs, fartleks, etc. So lets see if I can exptrapolate on what I've heard in your posts. If I want to write a book to help people improve in a sport of mine I can focus on something generally accepted and already covered ad nauseum by other subject matter experts (you need strong trained muscles to be a better athlete at a given sport) or I can lend my particular expertise honed from running/training/racing/testing and experimentation in an area that is less well known and discussed and in which I might offer some insights into improvement. Currently you seem to advocate the latter at the expense of the former. At best its a boring rehash and at worst it might the biggest marketing flop since New Coke. Either way, it is not something to shake the foundations of conventional wisdom of running training. IMHO Now back to lurking and reading the discussions. This is great theater even if only one side is focused on true scientific principles.

Aerobic capacity is an attribute of muscle. Why are they being discussed as if they're two distinct tangible entities? Saying "muscle is at least as important as the aerobic system in terms of determining performance" is like saying "the brain is at least as important as the intelligence quotient in terms of determining intelligence." It sounds retarded beacuse it is retarded.