Forums >General Running>Power Running Physiology Enters the Mainstream
Prince of Fatness
Ugh. This thread makes my brain bleed.
Not at it at all.
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) ...
You are asking for too much there.
I give these other guys credit for taking the time to pick apart what you are saying.
Spaniel, I agree with you but why are you so angry. It seems like he is advocating FIRST - run less, run faster.
Rich, why are you posting these articles.
Good Bad & The Monkey
I'm running somewhere tomorrow. It's going to be beautiful. I can't wait.
Poor baby
Believe it or not, there are other runners here who are coaches and trainers, who are, to some extent, hyping their own websites or programs or techniques. But ALL of them are also real members of the community - so nobody minds when they decide to post an article. (Of course, the fact that they share their training, and happen to be two and half hour marathoners, probably helps ...)
Your entire theory relies on there being little or no importance to the aerobic system. I can post appropriate quotations from you if you like. Finding quotes from a book that, taken in its entirely, completely disagrees with you, that put some importance on training muscles, is not bringing "the tenents of your power running theory into the mainstream." They are presenting muscle training in an entirely different context that what you describe. It's like saying Lydiard agrees with you. Not to mention, they back their combined approach up by actually training runners...
Muscular power, not strength, is the primary component of running (strength and power are not the same thing).
"He conquers who endures" - Persius "Every workout should have a purpose. Every purpose should link back to achieving a training objective." - Spaniel
http://ncstake.blogspot.com/
Feeling the growl again
Please take the time to read and understand what I write. I didn't say half of running could be related to aerobic fitness. I said for "sake of discussion" - in other words, for discussion purposes only let's assume it to be correct. My personal bias is that muscle is the single most influencial factor of performance, but not the only influencer of performance.
"If you want to be a bad a$s, then do what a bad a$s does. There's your pep talk for today. Go Run." -- Slo_Hand
I am spaniel - Crusher of Treadmills
1. How have your training times improved by using your theories and ideas? 2. How many others have used them... and to what degree of success? 3. You wrote previously that there are two groups of runners: fast and slow. And you are the fastest in the slow group. a. What is the line between the two groups? b. How was this scientifically determined? c. How do you know you are the fastest in that group? These are five clear questions that can each be answered in a few sentences.
One day at a time
Hey Dick, turns out Coolrunning still exists as a forum: http://community.active.com/community/coolrunning?view=discussions Any chance you could return there?
As for Noakes, that is a whole other entertaining story. There was a great thread on letsrun a few months back where I engaged him on his Central Governor theory. First he says you can't override it (a central tenant to its legitimacy), then contradicts himself and talks about how he overroad it all the time in the Comrades Marathon. I pointed out the inherent contradiction, and he back-talked himself and stated you can't contradict it. The poor man became so turned around that he finally said his whole point to the theory was that "the brain was involved". I see why he and Dick get along so well-- they follow the same logic (or lack thereof). They suffer one of the same fatal flaws -- truth and real science play second fiddle to the attempt to create some sort of theory to play the role of legacy for themselves.
In context of your theory: Strength as defined by Websters is the capacity for exertion or endurance Power as defined by Websters is physical might Seems pretty close to me. In fact, they are even referenced as synonyms. Go figure.