Is there a Better Book on Running than Noakes's The Lore of Running ? (Read 1050 times)

Depends what you need the book to tell you.

Ahh yes. The argument that only a person with cancer can be an oncologist or oncologic scientist. I've always loved that. Experience => expertise, as the only path. Got it.

I thought Don Quixote was pretty good.

As Trent said, it depends on what you're looking for. I refer to Martin and Coe's Better Training for Distance Runners (or something like that) at least as much as Noakes. I'm in the process of reading Keith Livingstone's Healthy Intelligent Training, which tries to explain Lydiard training in modern terms - and tell what was actually done vs how it's simplified in a book.

Ditto. Martin and Coe's book rivals that of Noakes for running physiology. And their 82 page chapter on periodized training is the best that I have found. OTOH, it does depend on what you want from a running book. Neither Noakes' nor Martin/Coe's book is a "cookbook" for marathon training. Pfitz's books are better for that purpose. And "Daniels' Running Formula" is an excellent hybrid of basic running physiology and a training guide.

Tilting at windmills. To improve your turn-over.

Hudson's book is better, Pfitzinger's book is better, both of Bill Rodgers' books are better, anything written by John L. Parker is better, I could go on but you get the idea. I'm not too impressed with the musings of a physiologist who has never been a top runner, far better to read about someone who's actually been successful in the sport and find out what they did.

Ted Williams is widely considered one of the best baseball players of all time. He was also one of the suckiest managers (of the Senators and Rangers). Meanwhile, Earl Weaver and Tommy Lasorda were not great players, but they were very good/great managers. That said, Noakes needs a better editor and I didn't like the book much.

What does it suggest to improve my 5K time?

Ride a horse.