Magness Science of Running discussion thread

I wonder if these guys have read it

https://www.facebook.com/#

!/photo.php?fbid=765055660172626&set=gm.757107277633401&type=1&theater

Read it over the weekend after catching this thread last week. Possibly the worst thing I read on print ever. Atrocious quality, not even know where to begin with the writing so I won't. The content is only ok, but it's very confusing. Really hard to believe how bad it is.

Just wanted to say I'm reading this book right now, have read many other books such as Daniels', Martin and Coe, Lydiard, Noakes, etc, and my opinion is that Magness has provided some good information, some of which is not found in any other books, but that his work comes across as very amateurish. The writing is not great, some of the reasoning does not seem sound to me, and I get the feeling he's not really the intellectual that guys like Daniels and Noakes are, but then that would make sense given their different backgrounds and years of experience.

I like Magness and thank him a great deal as his old website was one of the first sources of good info I ever came across, and I do think he has provided some good info in his book, but at the same time I feel like it could have been a lot better. I probably won't pick up a second edition if it comes out, but I'd be interested to skim through it if it does.

The Holy Trinity of running books remains "Daniels' Running Formula," "Better Training for Distance Runners," and "Running to the Top," but "The Science of Running" is a decent addition to any serious runner's/coach's library.

I may update my thoughts after I finish. I've skipped around some, but I've read about half of the book so far.

James Harden wrote:

Am I the only one who doesn't give a f*ck about the editing? If I wanted a perfectly edited book I'd go pick up The Sound and the Fury.

As someone with a decent science background, I like the way this book was put together. If I didn't have this background though, I don't think the science chapters would be useful unless I read some A&P/Kinesiology primers first. The training chapters are definitely useful for anyone and still make the book worth a read if you're not a science person at all.

Lol, yes you seem to be the only person who doesn't care. For other examples of edited books beyond the Sound and the Fury, you could check out any other book ever.

Another thing about the editing - it implies no one else gave this book a read before it was published. No colleagues, mentors, other experts. No one with a running or scientific background read it, said "hmm, but what about...?" and forced Magness either clarify, re-state, or revise a position. It seems like one guy wrote up his opinions, may or may not have read them a second time, then shipped them out to the world. That's not very scientific.

Steve Magness :

"In looking at the research and the pathways involved in EPO production and RBC increase, it can be seen that in order for hypoxic training to increase RBC mass a sufficient intensity and duration is needed. The intensity must be high enough so that a drop in oxygen saturation occurs, while being low enough so that sufficient time can be spent training at that intensity for the pathway to be activated."

I give kudos to Steve for taking the time to write book....but it is mediocre to dreadful, at best. It is obvious, he has not published a scientific paper in his life. Now that he has started graduate school, he will go back to this in 5 years, and probably be embarrassed. Some issues, beyond the horrible editing:

1) His grandiose "jumps" in scientific mechanisms, most of which are based on rodent studies and/or single studies (poorly done studies) does a mis-service and distraction to the small number of things that really work.

2) Horrendous referencing/citations. Missing primary studies, or glosses over, doesn't cite, seminal studies.

3) Concept of fiber type "training" is intriguing, but based on about 3 studies...thus on shaky ground.

4) We are all a huge product of our biases, and those that have taught us. There really isn't anything "new" that any of us do around training that our coachgodfathers haven't done in the past (e.g. Lydiard, Bowerman, etc. etc. etc.)- we just understand how to string the training together more efficiently. Way more homage should've been paid to the godfathers of training.

I know Steve and to him about the book. He stated the biggest mistake he made was putting out a deadline that limited the time for reflection. Your damned if you do and damned if you don't. People were clamoring for his book and a lot of programs have benefited from his work. Lafayette boys in Missouri have made a huge leap from this book's ideas. In my process of writing Sprinter's Compendium I have found quality research studies that are on humans are extremely limited. Then add to the fact of trying to find athletes who are elite are few in number and fewer still who have coaches who allow their prized possessions to be lab rats. This means there will be limited studies to support our coaching logic. Often studies confirm what we already knew. I applaud Steve for pushing the envelope and he will rewrite some time in the future, further improving our understanding.