Where Your Dreams Become Reality

Non-SMA120x60NT

What's Let's Run.com?

Highschool Front Page

Training Advice

More News in Our:
News Section!

Message Boards
Main Message Board

Turn Back The Clock! Today's Top Runners Talk About Their High School Careers

RECOMMENDED
READS

Comments, questions, suggestions, story you'd like to submit?
Email us

 
You are reporting the following post to the moderators for review and possible removal from the forum

Poster: also no exercise physio
Subject: RE: Is Noakes wrong?
Body:


Average_Joe wrote: I think it is the one downside to an otherwise excellent book. [...]

He postulates its existence out of thin air. [...]

He can't really describe *what* it is.
He doesn't know how it works
He doesn't know where it is located

Oh, yawn.

Yaaawwwwwwwwnnnnnnn!

Nobody should put a hypothesis before the public until it's been proven by dozens of studies, is intimately understood, and the cause and effect are well-correlated with the physiology?

That rules out a hell of a lot. I guess we really won't be discussing much at all then. Certainly nothing that touches on psychology, on consciousness. Or maybe you can tell me where consciousness is located, how it works, and describe *what* it is?

Hell, per an earlier chapter, we don't really even know (at least, didn't at the time, if the presentation is to be trusted) some of the nuts and bolts of how muscle fibers generate force. I recall at least a couple competing theories. And that's way more of a simple physical nuts & bolts proposition than anything involving the brain/mind.

Me, I'm a layman like you. That said I am convinced that ye olde cardio/aerobic model, though it has plenty of merit and has stood some time-testing, doesn't come very close to explaining everything.

And given that, I'm grateful that Noakes offers some alternatives/enhancements including his C.G. - which is plainly not offered here as a complete theory of everything with all the wrinkles ironed out.

If you wanna argue it's overemphasized for your tastes, OK, I can recognize that as a reasonable opinion. But still it's his book, and if he wants to use like one percent of it to air some ideas toward a more comprehensive model, that just doesn't strike me as so terribly offensive.



Apparently there are quite a few in the EP community (who really DO have the proper training) who likewise consider his theory something of a joke given the lack of evidence to support it.

What a surprise: much of the established community clings to the old theory and is suspicious of the new! Oh boy, whenever that happens it's damn near ironclad proof that the heretics, the blasphemers... um, excuse me, I got carried away there. But you get the idea. ;-)
Hit the submit button below if you want us to review the post. If you feel this is urgent or want a reply, email us at letsrun@letsrun.com about the post and please include a link to the thread the post is on and what page number/post on that page it is
Your name:

 

Quantcast