Pomme D'Or
Posts: 224
Registered: 2/11/02
Powerrunning.com: dissecting and debunking
Posted: Jul 9, 2004 2:41 PM Reply
I'm responding to Richard's request to not sully other threads with chatter about his site's array of poor assumptions, errant claims, biased "research," and all-around jaunty disregard for those troublesome items most of us call facts; instead, I'll dedicate this and possibly other threads to explaining, in simple terms, exactly where Richard goes astray on his site.
After very recently discovering Richard's Web site, I quickly discovered that its operator - in addition to being, in his own words, "the world's fastest slow man" - may also the world's most sincere spoofer. Because of the sheer volume of misinformation Richard presents, addressing all of it would be too time-consuming for one lazy morning (inasmuch as re-stating the obvious bears intrinsic value to begin with). So I'll start with one page on his "Training" section, where he asks: "Does increasing mileage make for a faster marathon?" (the URL is
.)
Richard begins by calling into question the "conventional wisdom" that espouses a cause-and-effect relationship between training volume and marathon performance. (One of his favorite tactics, it seems, is to subtly malign the phrase "conventional wisdom" as if said wisdom, however firmly established, is not merely short of immutable but inherently flawed.) Ignoring a staggering wealth of available evidence - e.g., that no examples of top-tier marathoners training but three or four days a week exist and that the world is full of recreational racers who have seen their performances blossom through the simple addition of training mileage - he proposes that "other factors could exert a stronger influence on performance than does mileage" and presents in support of this notion a single study.
For several reasons - chief among them the too-brief duration of the (18-week) study, its small sample size, the athletic profile of its subjects, and the "statistically significant" but inconsequential nine-mile-per-week difference in training volume between the two study groups - this study is fundamentally irrelevant to the topic at hand. From the perspective of competitive marathoners and whose who coach them, this study examines two groups: one, a small number of non-competitive people preparing inadequately for a marathon (~29 mpw), and two, a second small number of non-competitive people preparing inadequately for a marathon (~35 mpw). That their results were similar is not only not surprising or revealing, but virtually assured in advance owing to the study parameters.
Richard clearly has little grasp on the physiology of aerobic development; if he did, he would recognize that newcomers to running would not be expected after merely 18 weeks of superior training to show the same performance advantage over a lesser-trained group in the marathon as they would in, say, a mile or a 5K race. However, as noted, this is irrelevant in the context of the study at hand; in practical terms, neither a regimen progressing from 23 to 48 miles a week over three months not one progressing from 18 to 39 miles a week over the same period constitutes adequate training for a marathon, insofar as performance is concerned. Such regimens allow newcomers to finish, but we may as well be discussing whether it takes 15 practice free throws a day to turn a basketball newcomer into a crack marksman or only 10.
Richard also makes the (noncontributory, but that's beside the point) statement that "prescribing a set distance to be run...is not an unusual approach to training and, in fact, is an approach recommended by noted exercise physiologist Jack Daniels." That he invokes Jack's name in a transparent effort to appeal to followers of Daniels' Running Formula while implicitly or explicitly disregarding the overwhelming majority of what Jack has to say is humorous but instructive.
In his conclusion, Richard touts the fact that four-day-a-week training programs have proven sufficient for runners to finish a marathon and adds, "if you want to run a marathon high mileage training is not a necessity." However, finishing or "running" marathons and reaching one's potential therein are worlds apart - as a man whose online motto is "Converting Science into Performance" should know well.
If Richard wishes to engage me in more detailed manner about his "findings" I'll be happy to do so