For Hodgie....was curious about the 88 trials race

[quote]a guest wrote:

In other words, what energy are being worked and how.

Make that "energy systems."

guest,

You are such a baby. You say that I take your comments out of context, just to be a dick. You say that this link you provided is to one of the best sites we will ever see on this board!

The link is to a basic schedule backed up by science (that makes it authentic, eh guest) & meant to promote a book!

Now I think the book is pretty decent, as I have said & Pfitzy does know his stuff, but it ain't even close to being a great link or a great book.

If anyone talkin shi* here guest, it be YOU!

guest say:

[Are we talking about Pete Pfitzinger, the guy with the ADVANCED DEGREE IN EXERCISE PHYSIOLOGY...?

(Here's one of the best links you'll ever see on this board.)

http://www.runningtimes.com/issues/01julaug/marathon.htm

]

guest also say:

[I never sent that as an example of what verbatim work-out to do. Hodge does that.]

So are folk's supposed to use this schedule only as a guide and interpret their own schedule from it? Why don't it say so.

Does'nt sound very scientific.

guest say:

[Internet meassage board wannabee-mentors who type their old work-outs and simplistically say, "Do this and you'll be as good as I was (or wasn't, depending on perspective)]

My philosophy from my website:

Regarding sound training methods and the science behind it, which has been discussed a lot lately: I can honestly say that after 30 years of involvement in long distance running as an athlete and a (sort of) coach, I cannot tell anyone "exactly" how he or she should train.

I only know what worked for me and my contemporaries; I can offer broad guidelines based on that experience, giving young runner a starting point to work out what will be best for him or her.

I have read books by David Costill, Jack Daniels, and Peter Pfitzinger/Scott Douglas. Very interesting. I highly recommend them, but contrast them with books by Arthur Lydiard and some of the great biographies - Peter Snell, Murray Halberg, Ron Hill, Ron Clarke, Clarence DeMar, and even Bill Rodgers and Frank Shorter. The latter provide inspiration and methodology. While reading them you want to head out for a run.

Everything we need to know about training was discovered many years ago through the ultimate science: trial and error. The exercise physiologists merely explain (perhaps correctly, perhaps not) why they think these methods work, and many write books suggesting they themselves invented the best methods.

When you begin to believe, that is when you will be on the right track to try and accomplish whatever you have set out to do. My advice is to start with Lydiard for some sound training methods, followed by the "Horatio Alger"-type biographies for inspiration.

Guest,

Dick Quax (Olympic silver medalist behind Viren) once said that he "accepts good advice easily, and bad advice I dismiss even more easily." The trick, of course, is figuring out which advice is good, and which advice is bad. When I was trying to transform myself into a faster runner, limited by my own exceedingly modest talent, I read everything I could get my hands on, including books and articles by exercise physiologists. I've long been interested in exercise physiology, and my understanding of physiology has helped me in my own training. But I've rarely found the specific training recommendations of exercise physiologists to be very useful, unless those recommendations were based on the experiences of successful coaches and athletes rather than the crude laboratory experiments and sloppy science that characterizes so much of the work that has been done in the field of exercise physiology. (Earlier today, I happened to come across a quotation from the Wizard of Oz that reminded me of the field of exercise physiology. "I can't give you brains," said the Wizard, "but I can give you a diploma.")

I'm not a "worshipper" of either Bob Hodge ("Hodgie-san") or George Malley ("malmo"), but I respect their experience and the wisdom that they have acquired over the years. I also respect the experience and wisdom of Wetmore and Vigil -- not because they have graduate degrees in exercise physiology, but because they've demonstrated an ability to develop fast runners. (In fact, I would think that Wetmore would be slightly embarrassed by having a masters degree in "movement science," and I'm confident that he would acknowledge that Lydiard's "Running the Lydiard Way" had more influence on his training ideas than his graduate work at Columbia did.) Vigil, in particular, had tremendous success with runners of remarkably undistinguished pedigree when he was at Adams State.

My advice to most runners is to learn as much as you can. Even people with Ph.Ds in exercise physiology can have useful things to say. But pay special attention to the training methods and ideas that have produced fast times, especially in runners who had much less success when they were relying on other methods and ideas.

A while back, on Runner's World Daily, I believe, there was a Brief Chat with Tim Hacker. The interviewer asked if Hacker thought he had an advantage over his competitors because he was an exercise physiologist. He replied, "No. Runners figure out what works, then physiologists figure out why."

If you want to run as well as you can, you'll go much farther imitating successful runners who may not know or care much about what V)2 max is than you will listening to physiologists who know what things like VO2 maxes are but who've neither coached successful runners nor been successful themselves.

The East Germans had the best exercise physiology in the world and never produced as many successful distance runners as Lydiard or Cerutty did with local runners, and the East Germans needed drugs to produce the successes they had. No US coaches have had the successes of Bill Bowerman or Bill Squires and neither had an exercise science degree or USATF coaching certificate.

I think Rod Dixon's "train like an animal and drink lots of beer" is the best running advice around.

you're the dick here. If Hodgie-san or Malmo get on the board and say that it's possible to run really fast by running a lot and learning to listen to your body without knowing what VO2 max is, then they're right because they've done it, which is the ultimate proof. If you think they'd have been faster had they paid attention to such things, you certainly have the right to say so. If you or someone you know languished at a certain performance level for a while not knowing about VO2 maxes, learned about them and got much faster, then you've got a good argument.

Calling someone a dick with outdated information because their experience contradicts your opinion just makes you look like a dick.

HRE wrote:

He replied, "No. Runners figure out what works, then physiologists figure out why."

That seems to be very true. A lot of Peak Performance articles (www.pponline.co.uk) seem to be something along the lines of "A new study just proved that what the Kenyans do in training is the best/ one of the best methods to improve (insert energy system here)."

Thanks for the summary of your race.

"Clean pair of 'heels'" was mostly about Murray Halberg's travel excursions and people he met, some about racing, and almost nothing about training.

I have to agree with Hodge, and having the M.S. exercise science degree. Any degree means basically nothing. It's what you learn in practice that counts. And most of what you learn is [or should be] from practice, not from sitting in a classroom.

Although I did learn it was hilarious when one instructor kept unknowing stepping back and forth over a black beetle while giving his lecture at the front. And he kept wiping the chalk on his face. I kept trying to stifle but finally had to leave the room to keep from bursting out laughing.

It was the most instructive and entertaining class that I had.

Hodgie will you be around for PP's NY/Cornell/re-union? Do/will, you want more info? It should be this JUlY. I could provide info if needed.

Until some 2:06 marathoners or 7:29 3Ker's come on here and knock Hodgie, I'll keep on listening. He's been there....he's done it...I'm buying.

Guest loves to invoke the names of anyone who has an exercise physiology degree, like Wetmore and Pfitzinger, yet doesn't know a damn thing about them.

Wetmore had an English degree, and cut his teeth as a voluntary assistant coach at Bernards in NJ. His mentor was legendary high school coach and "that 70s dude" Ed Mathers. Exercise physiology was an afterthought.

With Pfitzinger, guest conveniently ignores the fact that his formal education prior to his marathon success was an MBA from Cornel. Pfitzy showed no interest in exercise physiology until long after his running career was over. Even now, all of the concepts he promotes are the same as those he put to work in his Cedar Street days.

Guest has yet to demonstrate any comprehension or formal education in his beloved advanced exercise science. The guy's a tool.

speaking of "sloppy science":

i read two articles recently concerning middle-distance training, both written by Ph. D's in exercise physiology-- one referred to the 800 m as 30% aerobic/70% anaerobic, while the other described the 800 m as 50%/50%... what other field of "science" would allow such a discrepancy???

Don't know, but send me the info. about it if you like.

From "Clean Pair of Heals"

p. 27-28 "Into The "Stable""

"It was tough training, but I thrived on it. Under Arthur's influence I became choosy about foods and set myself a PATTERN OF LIFE (my emphasis) as regular as I could make it.

I soon found out what Arthur believed we should do and expected us to do we had to adopt a routine. I don't mean by this that we stuck strictly to rule of thumb. He had schedules worked out for training for all distances from the half mile up, but they were flexible, and he adjusted them to suit the individual needs of his runners.

He insisted that it was better to do a few miles a day (CONSISTENCY) than to do one or two long runs and nothing else for the rest of the week. There had to be a system and it had to be followed.

He taught us the habit of training hard and making every moment in a workout count. He gave us no time for recovery periods or rests. There were no stops to take pulse counts. With him, it was get out and run--and enjoy it. We did.

The routine was SIMPLE. (my emphasis) A tap on the shoulder at 6 a.m. and a cup of tea under the nose. We would drink it and sleepily pull on shorts and a pair of shoes. About eleven minutes and two miles later, we would find ourselves trying to hang on to the fleeing figure of Arthur Lydiard away up the road--and liking it.

Those morning runs were longish, 8-13miles-ending up with a plunge staight into the sea.

The problem, as I see it, is that "advance exercise science" is currently under the umbrella of the PE Department, it acts as though it were in the Sociology Department, when it should be moved to the Science Department.