I know the answer, I just need to hear it... (Read 380 times)

 

False dichotomy.

 

 

(yes! finally my chance to sound smart!)

That's not what that means...

 

That's not what that means...

Hydrogen ions?

 

Persoanally

Let's keep this family friendly, champ.

 

Hydrogen ions?

I can easily refudiate this unsubstantiated and baseless claim because the non-scientific asynchronous dichotomous data presented earlier in this thread clearly blames someone positively external from the discussion who has negatively supported racers running races enough for them to run enough miles miles in training. Therefore, no. Understood?

 

I can easily refudiate this unsubstantiated and baseless claim because the non-scientific asynchronous dichotomous data presented earlier in this thread clearly blames someone positively external from the discussion who has negatively supported racers running races enough for them to run enough miles miles in training. Therefore, no. Understood?

I tell you what, you ain't no Hemingway my friend.

So I am not sure about this particular experiment being tested in a lab, however I do know about Dr. Jack Daniels doing experiments with swimmers comparing varous rates of recovery during interval training between those that did complete rest verses active rest during the recovery periods.  He would have a group of swimmers perform intervals and then half the swimmers undergo complete rest during recovery and the other half undergo active rest during recovery.  He also measure lactate levels in the blood of these swimmers during all phases of his experiment.  The conclusion was that active rest during the recovery period allowed for a quicker recovery than full rest.  Doesn't quite answer your enquiry below, but it's the only example I can think of at the top of my head where lab testing did confirm pratical live experience.  Whether or not this has been done specifically to show race performance verses positive, negative, or even splitting; I am not aware of any specific reports.  But I am sure it must have been done.  Jack Daniels did a lot of data gathering on his athletes.  -- But I personally used this as a mental note to personally slow down to a jog or even a walk (but not just stand around and do nothing) if I wanted to recovery faster.  It just seems counterintuintive until you understand why it works that way.  I don't know, maybe it's just the way I personally think.

Sorry I am new to the RA discussions and have not been through this all with you before if these topics came up in the past.

To be honest, when I ran my first couple of races, I had the very same questions that the OP had as far as going out too fast in the beginning.  I often wondered why (despite what the more exerienced runners kept telling me) why not take advantage of the fresh legs.  I am going to slow down and push harder at the end of the race, I might as well get as much I can out of my legs while I can and run hard now.  Then I learned the science behind it and the lightbulb went on.  Other people I guess learn differently.

Plus I find the science part very interesting.

P.S.  I did say that you all don't know anything, or the answers you provided were false or stupid, I just felt that the answers previously provided didn't fully answer the OP completely.  Sorry if I offended anyone.

I love it when an epistemological squirmish breaks out. What does it mean to know something? Or to give a full explanation?

 

Stoshew claims that we don't really know anything until we've traced that knowledge back to fundamental physiology -- the Science.

 

Mikey claims that fundamental physiology is not the best criterion for knowledge in this case -- instead, it's the practical lived experience of runners and racers. This is referred to by Stoshew as "anecdote."

 

How to resolve this dispute? We look at the nature of the question: the criterion for what counts as an answer depends on the question that is being asked. In this case, we have a question about appropriate racing strategies. Have racing strategies ever been tested in a physiological laboratory? I am trying to imagine the physiological laboratory that can test racing strategies.

 

Here's an idea: you could have thousands of people over decades run races, and then measure their relative performance positive splitting, negative splitting, and running even splits under tons of different conditions. That sounds like a pretty good lab. We don't really need to know about what's going on inside of their bodies because the question at stake is a question of racing, not a question of physiology -- moving a body from A to B as quickly as possible. We just need a bunch of bodies and a start and finish line. A stopwatch would be nice. Maybe some fancy "chips" that we could tie to shoes.

 

Instead of scientists, who are prone to jargon that can sometimes impede inquiry outside their field, we could just give the job of analysis to those weird, old bone-legged, crow-eyed runners who seem to show up at each of these experiments.  This is their field after all. They could just watch over a few years, Try it themselves hundreds of times, talk to their friends, check out the race results, and then draw conclusions.

 

Maybe Stoshew is right -- maybe the scientific method is the best criterion for knowledge. He's just misidentified the correct laboratory for inquiring into the fact.

^^^^^^^

So people around here don't like Jack Daniels or the 180 spm theory?