Forums >General Running>What's the deal with barefoot and barefoot-ish running?
"run" "2" "eat"
scout, you are clearly harboring a fantasy of having your will harnessed.
i was quoting a song lyric. you, sir, are nobody's "baby".
i find the sunshine beckons me to open up the gate and dream and dream ~~robbie williams
Yes, and now it's fulfilled. You're on top of me.
FACT.
not bad for mile 25
SJ seems to really want to get our attention, yet he's going about it the hard way. It would be so easy for him to simply start winning major races. When that happens, we'll all start trying to run like ostriches.
I don't mind sport jester. He's mildly entertaining in a demented way. What I don't get is the phenomenon of people of above average intelligence like srlopez, spaniel and Nobby who engage with him as though he's serious. It's one of the biggest RunningAhead WTFs for me.
I don't mind sport jester. He's mildly entertaining in a demented way.
What I don't get is the phenomenon of people of above average intelligence like srlopez, spaniel and Nobby who engage with him as though he's serious.
It's one of the biggest RunningAhead WTFs for me.
Actually, I don't generally (sometimes but not generally) engage Copernicus "on the level". Sometimes. Not generally.
But that said, I'm 99.99999% sure Copernicus is not Richard. Too many differences, and too much out in non-RA places that seem to diverge.
There seem to be similarities in argument style and sticktoitiveness.
Sticktoitiveness, yes. Argument style, nah. Richard is a lot of "woe is me". Copernicus is way more "fuck you fucking fucker, I am so much smarter".
Richard never called me a tool. Copernicus has on several occasions.
(and I didn't really mind it so much. Be the hammer! Not the nail!)
Options,Account, Forums
What are you, an idiot? The polar bear is gonna catch and eat the ostrich way before it gets to land.
It's a 5k. It hurt like hell...then I tried to pick it up. The end.
I sure hope Nobby wasn't actually expecting an answer to his question.
Well, actually I was:
I'm definitely not Richard, If you want to decrease aerobic need, you have to focus on running economy; ie improving your locomotion skills. Running further, or faster has no bearing on how good a runner you actually are. That's a measure of speed to energy expenditure. In no way does it focus on skill. And the skill to being a better runner, is reducing the level of energy expenditure per step. What defines that energy consumption efficiency isn't how fast one can run, but how fast one can walk. Do you know your walk to run transition speed? If I can walk at a speed you have to run, then obviously I'm consuming less energy per step than you are and will decrease your aerobic demand. The world's best runners are children of the world's most efficient walkers. That's the connection the coaching community won't acknowledge because they can't explain how the women of Kenya carry 20% of their bodyweight with no energy expenditure increase. Top African runners don't walk like we do, nor do they run like we do; which is why despite millions of dollars spent, nobody has beaten them http://www.ottopohl.com/Stories/2002_Stories/NYTheads2.htm
I'm definitely not Richard,
If you want to decrease aerobic need, you have to focus on running economy; ie improving your locomotion skills.
Running further, or faster has no bearing on how good a runner you actually are. That's a measure of speed to energy expenditure. In no way does it focus on skill.
And the skill to being a better runner, is reducing the level of energy expenditure per step.
What defines that energy consumption efficiency isn't how fast one can run, but how fast one can walk. Do you know your walk to run transition speed? If I can walk at a speed you have to run, then obviously I'm consuming less energy per step than you are and will decrease your aerobic demand.
The world's best runners are children of the world's most efficient walkers. That's the connection the coaching community won't acknowledge because they can't explain how the women of Kenya carry 20% of their bodyweight with no energy expenditure increase. Top African runners don't walk like we do, nor do they run like we do; which is why despite millions of dollars spent, nobody has beaten them
http://www.ottopohl.com/Stories/2002_Stories/NYTheads2.htm
But with this answer, now I know that jester is, just as Richard is, nothing but a theorist and doesn't have any practical value to me or any other runner/coach out there whose objective is to run faster or improve your running perfomrance; not to carry 140lb bag for 3 days or not to use arm or run like an ostrich or whatever.
Interestingly, though, it was Renato Canova who I had a discussion on "modern" training and he suggested that we need to work on "muscle fibers" (believe it or not, much like what Richard would tell you) but the big difference is; he suggested short hill sprint to stimulate white muscle fibers ALONG WITH all the aerobic distance work you'd do. I had an argument with that in a very practical sense and we went at it each other for quite some time just on that topic. But, you see, our focus was; so with this idea, how would you impliment that in the ACTUAL WORKOUT. I (we) say do longish hill at slower speed between long aerobic phase and speed training as a transition. Canova says short sharp (fast) hill sprint in the earlier phase. Now, THAT is a workout suggestion. Interestingly, though, Canova said he got that idea when he went to Finland and then the head of Finnish athletic federation showed him the hill Lasse Viren used (interestingly, not Lasse himself but someone else) and that was 60m long. This, at first, he 3-mailed to me and I thought he misspelled. He said it was very short 60m hill. Now everything I read about Viren's training, including a first-hand interview with his coach, Haikkola, said 300~600m hill. So I don't know just exactly what kind of hill training Viren did... Maybe someday when I had a chance to see him again (I only met him back in 1999 once), I'll ask him. Either way, that, Canova said, is where he got the idea of short alactic hill training. To me, anybody who sing broken record songs of "aerobic model is out of date" or "no need for long runs" or "no need to develop VO2Max but muscle power" but has no suggestion on practical sense--instead of Sunday long run, no long run at all but do 25 X 50m hill sprints every weekend..." Whether you agree or not, THAT is the actual training idea that you can actually impliment into your program to see if it works or not. Anything else, to me, is nothing but a theorist and not worth my time to look into.
What are you, an idiot?
I'm a level. Or a square. Maybe a drill. Maybe droll.
What about an otter Gallow-Walking?
The process is the goal.
Men heap together the mistakes of their lives, and create a monster they call Destiny.
Canova says short sharp (fast) hill sprint in the earlier phase.
How steep was the hill? If it is steep enough (and short enough), isn't this the kind of strength workout that many training programs, such as Brad Hudson, would have throughout their training cycle alongside lots of aerobic running?
Although "25 X 50m hill sprints every weekend" would be a bit more than others would recommend.
Nobby, I thought that I read about using shorter, steeper hill repeats in Lydiard's program as well. Of course, it's been a while, so I could be mistaken.
Depends. Does it minimize its vertical lift like an ostrich?
How steep was the hill? If it is steep enough (and short enough), isn't this the kind of strength workout that many training programs, such as Brad Hudson, would have throughout their training cycle alongside lots of aerobic running? Although "25 X 50m hill sprints every weekend" would be a bit more than others would recommend.
Hudson got that idea from Canova. 25 X 50m is hypothetical. I would do it and I would highly doubt Canova would do it that much either. But here's the thing; we ask people like Richard or jester who trash aerobic trainng and emphasize "muscles"... I haven't seen any specifics coming from these guys. Would you settle with 5 X 50m hill sprints day in and day out? That's not enough for me to feel good but, then again, in their mind, that sort of workout might be the road to Olympic gold medal; I wouldn't know... Like I said, no specifics coming from these guys at all so I can't even guess.
I THINK you might be thinking about Arthur's writing back in 1970, "Distance Running Training Schedule" (or something like aht), where he wrote something like "one of the best ways to develop fine speed is 50/50 sprint-float workout OR short sharp hill sprit..." That is true and you CAN do that. But Arthur's signature hill training is a long hill at slow speed to work on your leg strength and technique. Also, yes, the previous guy said something about short hill sprint year around, not just beginning of the program. You CAN do that way as well but I thought, somewhere, Canova said in the beginning of the program' this is probably because, unless you are competing over hills (like cross country), why keep on doing hill sprints when you can actually sprint on flat? That would be more "race-specific". You've got to remember; once you get near actual races, with a certain percentage of your work, the closer to race-specific situation, the better. Going up hill IS slightly different from running flat-out over a flat surface. Why sprinting up hill just to show how tough you are? There's almost no point in it.