Altitude Training Paces (Read 238 times)

No, by definition that I can teach you how to carry 20% of your bodyweight with no increase in energy expenditure to do so and you can't, is why your opinion of me is so laughable.

No, your lack of evidence is what is laughable.  Thanks for proving my point.

Good day, sir.

 

No, by definition that I can teach you how to carry 20% of your bodyweight with no increase in energy expenditure to do so and you can't, is why your opinion of me is so laughable.

 

If you can't explain the women of Kenya, then you're a pathetic moron. That's not an opinion, that's a fact.

 

If you don't want to think that learning such a skill would teach you to run 20% faster, then math, not opinion proves your ignorance.

Where do I sign up?  I can be your n=1.  Otherwise, please stop.

 

Where do I sign up?  I can be your n=1.  Otherwise, please stop.

Fine. Contact me privately and we can go from there....

I fully accept criticism from people who have actually tried what I teach for themselves. Which of course most internet idiots are far too chicken shit to do for themselves.

The basics are here; try the masking tape exercise for yourself. If your IQ is truly higher than my shoe size, that's all you should need to disprove me.

http://www.military.com/military-fitness/running/evolution-of-learning-how-to-run-distance

Biomechanics is simple actually; if what I teach is a less efficient way to run, then explain to me how the masking tape is a more difficult way to walk, because that's the only way it can be a slower way to run.

I fully accept criticism from people who have actually tried what I teach for themselves. Which of course most internet idiots are far too chicken shit to do for themselves.

 

The basics are here; try the masking tape exercise for yourself. If your IQ is truly higher than my shoe size, that's all you should need to disprove me.

http://www.military.com/military-fitness/running/evolution-of-learning-how-to-run-distance

 

Biomechanics is simple actually; if what I teach is a less efficient way to run, then explain to me how the masking tape is a more difficult way to walk, because that's the only way it can be a slower way to run.

SJ, I think you remember me.  You and I talked a few times a couple of years ago by personal message and email (September, 2011) as I was trying to figure out what you were talking about when there were RA verbal battles.  In all fairness to you, I realized that you have some intelligence.  In all fairness to the rest of those reading this thread, I realized that your comprehension, communication and tact are awful.

I did the 'masking tape' exercise.  I realized that I run on the line naturally.  My 2nd toe of each foot land on the same spot.  In fact, I've begun watching film of other runners, and realized that they also run on the line (inline).  Their toes are not 4 inches apart (or whatever I think you thought they would be).

MTA:  FWIW, I've seen MANY amateur runners at the gym or on the roads with extreme arm swing crossing their center line and severe running technique issues to understand that there's at least 20% to be gained by running inline and therefore reducing arm swing.

In fact, I was watching Ironman Kona over the weekend, and was watching the woman leader of the race running along the solid white line, with every step of her run landing square on the center of the 4 inch line (both left and right foot).  She could have run a mile straight on a balance beam.  I doubt she was trained by you.  She wasn't Kenyan, and she ran the 3rd fastest marathon of the day (with only 2 male runners beating her).  As such, I'm not sure that you could improve her running technique in a way that will gain her '20% efficiency'.

SJ, I have tried to stay out of this thread for a long time.  I think you're a great person, but I don't like the way you write or the way you 'speak' to people with different views than you.  (MTA: In fact, I believe that we all have more in common that we have differences.)  I doubt we'd be friends in real life, but I'm sure that I could laugh with you and enjoy a Heineken with you if I could trust that you wouldn't verbally assault me during the conversation .

Cheers,

SJ, here is a quote from the article that you posted:

 

"The goal of this section is not to be critical of any form. In fact, many people prefer their methods and I tell them. "You cannot argue with results." So if one of these is your form and it works for you and makes you a faster / injury free runner, then keep it up. The other forms may or may not work for you but may work for others, but the discussion is meant to look at the differences and similarities of what people swear by is the ONLY way to run. As you will see below there are MANY ways to run – which one works best for you!"

 

I read the entire article and found nothing new about running or running forms. Like many of the other runners on this site, I have been running for many years and tried many running forms. I have settled into the form that allows me to run my fastest and longest without injury.

 

Do I believe that you might have some training scheme that might make me slightly faster? Maybe. Do I think there was any new information in this article which would allow me to suddenly be able to run a 10 mile race in 48:24 (20% faster than my current PR) off of my <150 miles per month of training? No, certainly not.

 

What is more, I for one am not interested in being faster simply to have a lower time on the clock. I am interested in being faster as a reflection of the hard work that I put in so I perfer to get faster by increasing my training and not by changing my form to make some guy on the internet happy.

 

We are not the runners who are swearing by there being ONLY one way to run. We are just people who have found what works for us and are annoyed when someone tries to insist that some other way is best for everyone.

The part you failed to take notice was the comment to being an efficient walker. The science of being a good runner is determined by how efficiently you walk, not run. That's why running faster is extremely difficult; simply because the skill of being a good walker is so easily overlooked.

Do you know your Walk to Run transition Speed? In the science of studying biomechanic efficiency, your WTR measurement is far more important than how fast you run. Have you ever measured it?

For those who have never heard the term, its walking naturally on a treadmill, and slowly increasing your walking pace until you can't walk anymore, and have to run. That's the real starting point to learning how to be a faster runner. At what speed do you have to stop walking and transition to running? How many even know their own transition speed?

For most runners, its between 3-3.5MPH. In reference, I can walk at 9.5MPH. 8.5MPH with no arm swing at all.

So if you think that I can't teach anyone to run 20% faster, then you're missing the science that Stew understands; that if I can teach you to walk 20% faster, then running 20% faster is actually quite easy to do.

Can't believe I am replying to this thread.

my wife walks a lot  faster than me, i have to jog a bit to stay with her, yet she can't run more than a quarter mile with me.

If SJ can walk at 9.5 MPH, wonder what his 5k time is?  Bet it is slower than many here who need to transition to running at 3 MPH.

 

The 20km race walking world record is 9.68MPH. How is your career as a world class race walker going? Why haven't we seen you at the Olympics? The Olympic record for the 20km race walk is 1:18:46. If you walk at 9.5MPH then your 20km time should be 1:18:19.

 

Please show us your gold medal.

 

Also, of the 15 million race finishers in 2012, what was the sample size that you tested to determine that "most" have a walk/run transition at 3.0-3.5MPH and can you share the statistical tests that prove that this sample is in fact representative of the larger population?

Sorry, the world conspires against letting him prove his assertions.  (We are part of that global conspiracy.)