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

"Which is faster, the fox or the rabbit?  The Rabbit.  The fox runs for his dinner, the rabbit runs for his life." --Chinese Proverb

SJ, I'm not sure what you're trying to get out of your conversations.  If you really want the bio-mechanics of running to change in your envisioned way, it's pretty clear what you need to do.  You need to publish your research in peer-reviewed journals on bio-mechanics, preferably backed by repeatable and statistically relevant evidence of benefit.  I'll assume you are working from a credibility deficit as I don't think you have a PhD, or a higher degree in bio-mechanics or a related field.  So this will be an up-hill battle.  However, if you want to be taken seriously the path to recognition is well understood and formalized.  Getting money to do the research will involve many grant proposals, of course.  You'll need to demonstrate that you are not some mad scientist just eager to empty someone else's deep pockets.  Obviously, being independently wealthy would be a boon.

It will take some salesmanship and a lot of work.  Unfortunately, you cannot short-cut it by confronting non-believers with conjecture.

If you just want to fancy yourself as the person who one day will be recognized as the brilliant first discoverer of the new bio-mechanical reality, then I guess you can wait for someone else to do the hard work of science to prove the theory.  I guess that kind of vain goal can be achieved in the way you are currently pursuing.  Good ideas are a dime a dozen, though; the people who are remembered for changing a field are the ones who proved it scientifically, not the first person to scribble it on a napkin -- or in modern parlance, message board.

I imagine finding your theories falling on deaf ears frustrating; I hope the above suggestion helps you find a more satisfying path to your goal.

 

Oh, and the best part of it all to me is how people who have never done anything new or controversial in their lives deems themselves to have the answers to how I'm "supposed" to share my world. Are you writing on any brain surgery forums by chance telling surgeons how to improve their skills?

 

Actually the research I did was the first follow-up work to a body of work in the lab which was truly dogma-breaking and controversial.  So I got to see first-hand what that scientist encountered when he tried to tell the world that the old dogma was incorrect.

Yes, when he submitted it to the top 2 journals in the world...and it was reviewed by peers whose career had been made by constructing the old dogma....it was rejected.  The author was indeed bitter.  However, rather than ranting at people on a message board and alienating everyone he came in contact with in the field, he did a strange thing.  He went back to the bench and continued to run experiments that produced actual, reproducible data backing up his work.  

Soon, he submitted to the next tier of journals.  Not quite as prestigious, but certainly reputable and recognized.  Several rejected, but one accepted.  A few months later we had CNN in the lab doing interviews.  The top journals that had rejected him apologized and wanted the next follow-up papers.  11 years later, whole sections of scientific conferences are now being organized around a topic that was, back then, unbelievable to many in the field.

The key to this is that, while some whose work will be invalidated by the new paradigm may resist, in the end the excitement over the data will win and the field will shift.

You whine because "nobody will take 5 minutes to try your methods", but the problem continues to be that you make outrageous claims without a shred of evidence.  Take a single 36:00 dime-a-dozen 10K runner and improve their speed like 20% (which you claim is easy to do)....post the proof...I'll personally fly to Oregon to learn your methods.

Scientists and physiologists use evidence.  Crackpots use unsupported claims and insults and claim that the reason they are not taken seriously is because nobody else is smart enough to understand them.

Actually the research I did was the first follow-up work to a body of work in the lab which was truly dogma-breaking and controversial.  So I got to see first-hand what that scientist encountered when he tried to tell the world that the old dogma was incorrect.

 

Yes, when he submitted it to the top 2 journals in the world...and it was reviewed by peers whose career had been made by constructing the old dogma....it was rejected.  The author was indeed bitter.  However, rather than ranting at people on a message board and alienating everyone he came in contact with in the field, he did a strange thing.  He went back to the bench and continued to run experiments that produced actual, reproducible data backing up his work.  

 

Soon, he submitted to the next tier of journals.  Not quite as prestigious, but certainly reputable and recognized.  Several rejected, but one accepted.  A few months later we had CNN in the lab doing interviews.  The top journals that had rejected him apologized and wanted the next follow-up papers.  11 years later, whole sections of scientific conferences are now being organized around a topic that was, back then, unbelievable to many in the field.

 

The key to this is that, while some whose work will be invalidated by the new paradigm may resist, in the end the excitement over the data will win and the field will shift.

 

You whine because "nobody will take 5 minutes to try your methods", but the problem continues to be that you make outrageous claims without a shred of evidence.  Take a single 36:00 dime-a-dozen 10K runner and improve their speed like 20% (which you claim is easy to do)....post the proof...I'll personally fly to Oregon to learn your methods.

 

Scientists and physiologists use evidence.  Crackpots use unsupported claims and insults and claim that the reason they are not taken seriously is because nobody else is smart enough to understand them.

The key thing here is that it is reproducible. I'm sure that if someone else did research and found something different SJ would claim "they were doing it wrong" or "that's not what I'm trying to do"

Also SJ's problem seems to be that he is reaching conclusions first, and THEN going back and trying to prove them right by cherry picking pieces of evidence to fit his argument and ignoring everything else.  This is similar to the whole 9/11 conspiracy theorist and the people who argue that we didn't land on the moon.  None of those people use what is traditionally thought as the scientific method. 

For anyone who is a "this american life" fan, SJ reminds me of this episode. (IT'S FREE!!!)

http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/293/a-little-bit-of-knowledge

Sports jester reminds me of the guy from Act 3 almost perfectly.  Anyone who has 15 minutes needs to listen to it just because it's a good story. Although new research may prove the guy in the epidsode right in a way. 

You people do realize it's a waste of time attemptng to hold a sensible conversation, or argument for that matter, with sport jester, right?

<<blah blah still no proof or real athletes trained, always an excuse why I can't do it blah blah>>

Years and years, same dance around real proof.

What are you talking about? There isn't an argument when sports jester is always right.

That would depend if you are talking from his perspective or anyone else's.