Power Running Physiology Enters the Mainstream (Read 2197 times)

I think it's hilarious that Rich doesn't acknowledge repeated attempts to get him to answer simple & fundamental questions. Here's something that's simple and fundamental though: if your 5k time goes from 28 mins to 32 mins in a year, something ain't working. I suggest more miles.

I responded strongly to you on the prior page because you told people that they were doing something that I believe you yourself are doing. The following are honest and sincere questions. They are also REASONABLE questions given the type of information you've posted on various message boards for years. If you choose not to answer them, that is your right. But don't let it be because these are bait (they aren't) or insincere (they are completely sincere). 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.

Sir Lopez (I think this sounds cooler...): You are completely wasting your time; believe me, I've tried that many times at CoolRunning. The best you would get is "look at my website" which actually doesn't say much either. Dick might call me a lier again but, seriously, I have asked him many times specifically what his purpose is and why he's doing all he's doing. My only logical conclusion was that he didn't care about training, actually improving performance. He actually went as far to suggest me to change the term, in Lydiard training program, "Marathon Conditioning Phase" or "Aerobic Development Phase" to "Power Development Phase" which he claims is more accurate physiologically. All I could think of was; what a nerve! For someone who never coached anybody and runs 32 minutes for 5k to insinuate he knows better than Arthur Lydiard!? I think that's when he said something about not caring about actual training (since he never suggested any specific training advancement based on his "revolutionary" theory) but caring only to "correct" terms. To my asking what specifically would he change in today's co-called marathon training, his reply was "nothing". In other words, he does not have anything specific to offer to runners/coaches; he only wants his terms/theories to be accepted and, if not, he goes "bent out of shape" anc cries out as a victim. I'd have to admit, he actually writes very well; if you hadn't been involved in running, a beginner, you may actually believe what he's saying. I just went back and checked Lydiard's "Run to the Top" and "Running with Lydiard". Fair enough; in chapter 3, "Speed and Anaerobic Development", he goes quite extensively about muscles. In fact, I remember the first time when I read the latter in 1978, that was one of the first places I read anything about slow twitch muscle fibers and fast twitch muscle fibers. And, though he may not mention "specifically" muscle, he went on quite extensively about "strengthening your legs" in his 1963 book. He would create an illusion that NO ONE paid any attention to muscles. As others have already touched, in practical world, there's NO WAY you can separate running and oxygen uptake and muscles. They are ALL interminggling. It is completely idiotic to isolate muscle development and oxygen uptake development. Just because someone might have said aerobic capacity is important, that does not mean you just sit back and breathe in and out of some sort of tube to strengthen your "breathing" while NOT AT ALL affecting your leg muscles. In fact, the importance of going through long and slow conditioning phase is to strengthen your muscles and tendons and ligaments so once you step on to faster training, you won't get injured. I know this is complete waste of time and effort to argue Dick but what I'm most afraid of is for someone who's still a very much beginner to stumble across Dick's gibbrish and actually buy into it. I would STRONGLY suggest not to ignore whatever he might have to say, however "cool" it may sound; believe me, I've coached many people, helped and advised many runners, eltes to beginners, and I've done it myself; if you skip this base building phase and go staight into 3-days-a-week of quality workouts; you will be inviting injuries and/or burn-out. If exercise physiology has offered anything in the last 20 years; it's that it's not working the way they've found out. US distance runners followed what those physiologists suggested about junk miles and all and what happened was the draught of 1990s and early 2000. Now, they've gotten away from it and started running more and they've finally climbed up very close to the top (US was the one of only 3 nations to have all 3 runners in the final of women's 5000m race along with Ethiopia and Kenya). Listening to people like Dick is the most backward thnking things to do right now.

Forget all that VO2max, lactate threshold stuff.

This, seems to me, is you saying "no aerobic bullshit", certainly not 50/50 equal kind of a deal. Okay,I've had enough of this; I'm outta here.

The word contractility belongs in the Boner thread.

Dick, if you scared off Nobby, I'm going to ask Eric to throw you off the boards. Come back Nobby!!! We LOVE you. Dick is a .... well, a Dick.

Rich, you wrote the following on the previous page about others:

You think it unreasonable to ask someone debating a topic to actually read and understand what is being said on that topic? Interesting, but I agree that is what seems to be occurring here. ... They can't pick apart something that haven't read and understood. All they can do is post inaccurate comments.

Do you honestly and sincerely not see that you are doing EXACTLY THIS by engaging Nobby the way you are doing? Based on what you keep harping on, you do not seem to be reading Nobby's post for understanding. THIS is why people grow quickly weary of you. You boo hoo when someone does it to you, but you are the master of doing it to others.

Here's a question, Rich: Have you ever tried maybe participating in some threads which were not ones you started or having any sort of conversation in this forum that was not related to your theories? You come out of nowhere and start posting this stuff....surely you can see why people would question your motives.

Not on this forum, as I've only been here a short time. Yes, on other running forums in the past. My experience has been that whether I start a thread or not, once I post in a thread and my answer is outside the norm the attacks begin. Due to that, I mostly stopped posting on others threads because the conversation always stopped being about whatever that particular thread was about and became about me (just like this thread has stopped being about physiology and is now about me). If the person that started that thread had wanted to talk about me that thread would have been about me. Since they didn't start a thread about me, I didn't think it should turn into a thread about me, so I started pretty much limiting myself to threads I started. Perhaps it's time to revisit that decision. By the way, I'm completely okay with people honestly and sincerely asking about my motives, history, etc. Many of you don't know me. As noted before, ask an honest, sincere question of me and I'll give you an honest, sincere answer, though, to be fair, I don't think one should judge whether a particular physiological or training idea is true or not based on the messenger. In the arena of ideas, any physiological or training idea should have to stand or fall based on its own merits and supporting facts/data/evidence, not who the messenger is.