Excercise Science Misconception About Running

the body can be trained in two ways (in running)

1. Make the body more efficient over long distances

2. Increase your capacity for intense exercise

(1) this is how almost all distance runners train. Miles and long runs make the body more efficent, shrinking muscles, decreased lung capacity, thinner lighter bones, more efficient heart, loss of fast twitch muscle fiber.

(2) the less common approach would be training that is done in all out efforts by reaching your max heart rate in intervals that last no longer than what you can sprint, and resting until your heart rate drops which increases your bodys capacity for extreme tests of fitness...like a mile race or 800. This training increases lung capacity and makes the heart stronger and puts on muscle, makes bones stronger and increases testosterone.

Ive studied both and have done both, these are small descriptions but before you criticize what ive said i would suggest reading up on the effects of intense intervals and cardio type exercise on the body. I know from doing both that they are both effective for performance, but some people may be better picking one over the other it just depends on the athlete.

I'm not arguing anything or for one thing or another just stating the two major ways of exercise-intesity vs. volume

modern distance running is a combination of the two but what they do to the body actually contradicts itself.

Not LSD wrote:

So this guy my wife knows is an ex sci major and he today posts on facebook that if people want to run faster they should only run 20 min a day and do tons of drills and weights because running fast is about stride length and that 20 min is all you need to maximize your aerobic capacity. I have argued this till I am blue any suggestions?

Why waste your time arguing with such an idiot?

Not LSD wrote:

quote "the best crossfit guys can run marathons faster than the best marathoners in the world. The reason they don't do marathons is because there is more money in crossfit."

That's laughable. Why weren't there a bunch of crossfitters on the start line at Dubai last weekend? Or London, Boston, NYC? Indeed, surely some crossfitter is inspired enough to take a week out for the trials and 2 more for the games, and win Olympic gold for his country over 5k.

I would like you to please cite some sources for your outlandish claims that running high mileage shrinks running specific muscles, decreases bone density and decreases lung capacity. I believe you are mistaken and would please like you to tell me from where you got these ideas.Secondly, these two concepts of training are not mutually exclusive and to suggest so is to set up a false dichotomy.

Not LSD wrote:

So this guy my wife knows is an ex sci major and he today posts on facebook that if people want to run faster they should only run 20 min a day and do tons of drills and weights because running fast is about stride length and that 20 min is all you need to maximize your aerobic capacity. I have argued this till I am blue any suggestions?

In the spirit of George Sheehan's idea of the "Experiment of One," challenge this guy to put his program into action on himself, with a view toward becoming a marginally competent competitor at any distance race, given, say, a year or so.

testering wrote:

For those that are seriously invested in it, they are trying to isolate the 'know' and the 'feel' down to certain factors, science requires, by and large, a reductionist approach. In the current funding environment, unfortunately a lot of the results need 'immediate' interpretation - hence each 'new' variable becomes a hit. .

The problem with this 'reductionist' understanding of the parts -- of painting, aerodynamics, and automotive engineering -- it will not make one an artist, or a test pilot, or a racecar driver. Understanding physics does not make you qualified to coach gymnastics or dance. I could go on and on with this.

Making illogical leaps of logic is how we get so-called 'scientists' claiming that there is a 'proper' or 'better' footstrike, etc, when the best runners in the world, year after year, refuse to subscribe to what is proper in the minds of the whitecoats. Of course the whitecoats will tell you that the elites only run fast becasue of an accident of birth, and if only they knew what the scientists know, just imagine how good they would be? Rubbish. When you consider that the athletes and coaches knowledge was EARNED over the decades, collectively through millions of man-hours of sweat and toil, through failure and success that was shared and tested in the fires of competition, a reasonable person would think they know something?

The whitecoats are so far removed from the sport of competitive running that they could be looking through a knothole in the leftfield fence, while the athletes, coaches, and agents are on the field and in the dugouts. They are in the game.

Jumbo Elliot knew more about training for peak performance than the collective wisdom of every exercise physiologist who has ever lived, yet you couldn't find one whitecoat, NOT EVEN ONE, who would ever model a training program after Elliots. That, in itself, is a huge indictment on the 'science' of exercise physiology.

Be wary of voodoo. It's doodoo.

The number of crossfitters who could run 800 meters at KB's 5k record pace is vanishingly small. Ask him to go down to the track and see if he can pop off a 12:36 5k. Or let's make it easier on him - see if he can run a 1:30 600m.

What exactly is a 'cross fitter'? I've never heard of it.

Fitness fad. You've probably seen them around and you didn't realize it. One day it's yoga, another it's running an interval workout, the next it's rolling a truck tire up a hill or something like that. Sort of an "all around" fitness approach. They have a few gyms around here, and I'll occasionally see a large group of people doing plyometrics of some kind in their parking lot while I'm on my morning run.

Malmo,

Your thoughts sound a bit unnecessarily stereotyped and dichotomous.

Would you not agree that a good middle ground might be best? Do you really not know single person who is a good experienced coach and athlete, who knows the history of the sport and embraces physiology and how that might inform coaching decisions?

I tend to think that anyone who dispels either side entirely is a bit short-sighted. This particular person the OP is talking about clearly thinks science has completed the picture of training (which shows a poor understanding of how science works) and obviously doesn't even know much of the science. But I also know coaches that totally dismiss anything scientific and don't even understand basic physiology who make serious errors in training because of their lack of knowledge and trust in "what they have always done."

Why not be open to both experience, history and scientific knowledge as use all the available information to inform your coaching decisions?

Physiology doesn't stack up with coaching experience, but it's good information to know, and can inform and refine what experience proves. It isn't essential, it isn't preeminent, but it also doesn't hurt.

That said, I would prefer an expert running coach with a token understanding of physiology than an expert physiologist with a token understanding of coaching distance running.

So here is my update for the day. He starts the day posting some more stuff like "I personally know of a dozen crossfitters who trained and were able to qualify for Boston this year on nothing but this training. This shows how explosive training benefits you more." To which I respond that I know thousands that just ran miles and were able to qualify. He then comes back and says that though they qualified they could have been much better by doing explosive stuff and lowering their miles.

I then through down the challenge of each of us doing our own programs for 6 months and meeting for a 10k or higher race. Granted this is probably a bit unfair because I have a pr of 14:20 and his is 18:00 (which by the way I think should make him think that maybe I know what I am talking about). On another note though he has been very active over the last 2 years and I haven't run much more than once a week for 3 years.

He ignores this basically and then comes back talking about how even though Haile G is fast that he would not be competitive in any other sport on the planet whereas a crossfit person can be good at any sport. I told him that this is fairly true but that he was talking about how to best run fast not be good at any other sport.

I then post malmo's article that he put on here. He comes back and says that it is all untrue and who is this malmo guy he obviously has no clue and has never competed before. I tell him that (honestly I don't know a lot of who malmo is) malmo was one of the better runners in his day and that he knows what he is talking about and that all of that is in fact true.

Finally I close with that I think we are going to have to disagree about this because he obviously isn't willing to listen to anything and he just keeps making up more and more points that have nothing to do with his original topic. I sign off that in my opinion the only way to become a truly good runner is through miles of trials and to call me up when his pr is within a minute of mine and I will start to believe him.

You dipped to his level.

7/10

Exercise physiology, like any profession, has its share of people who know their stuff and its applications and people who don't. Unfortunately, the ones who don't know their stuff are the ones who usually wind up being the topic of interest in places like these and give the science a bad rap.

There is a guy I know who has a PhD in exercise physiology who couldn't believe that the college XC team was running 50+ miles a week, and stated that they shouldn't be doing that because they only need to race 3.1 miles. I can think of two things wrong with that statement. His expertise is not running, yet, he had a strong opinion about it.

What is more dangerous is an exercise science major. He/she may have not even had any real exercise courses yet, but simply by being a major they are an expert and people listen to them.

this information could be found in dr. al sears books or one of his many article and studies. they are not made up they are scientific facts...the place for you to find them are in the book P.A.C.E. by Al Sears, md

Dr.S wrote:

Exercise physiology, like any profession, has its share of people who know their stuff and its applications and people who don't.

And I might add, coaching, like any profession, has its share of people who know their stuff and its applications and people who don't.

The best coaches are the ones who are most knowledgeable about the factors that make people run fast. This is history, experience, science, etc. Dismissing all exercise scientists because some people in that field are not coaches (but seem to think they are) is like dismissing all coaches because you had one polyester-pant-wearing, fat, whistle blowing coach in your life.

I also worry when the emphasis is on experience only. Because I have heard some really bad coaching based on "what worked for me."

bigger picture wrote:

[quote]Dr.S wrote:

Exercise physiology, like any profession, has its share of people who know their stuff and its applications and people who don't.

And I might add, coaching, like any profession, has its share of people who know their stuff and its applications and people who don't.

The best coaches are the ones who are most knowledgeable about the factors that make people run fast. This is history, experience, science, etc. Dismissing all exercise scientists because some people in that field are not coaches (but seem to think they are) is like dismissing all coaches because you had one polyester-pant-wearing, fat, whistle blowing coach in your life.

I also worry when the emphasis is on experience only. Because I have heard some really bad coaching based on "what worked for me."[/quotr

training should be individualized

I see, you cite a quack doctor instead of any real scientific evidence.A guy who is promoting a 12 minute exercise routine. That is not going to convince anybody.Oh course I know you are just a troll. http://www.pacerevolution.com/

granddaddypurp wrote:

Aghast wrote:

I would like you to please cite some sources for your outlandish claims that running high mileage shrinks running specific muscles, decreases bone density and decreases lung capacity. I believe you are mistaken and would please like you to tell me from where you got these ideas.

Secondly, these two concepts of training are not mutually exclusive and to suggest so is to set up a false dichotomy.

this information could be found in dr. al sears books or one of his many article and studies. they are not made up they are scientific facts...the place for you to find them are in the book P.A.C.E. by Al Sears, md