RW Article on Webb's Training

I haven't looked at RW in years, but my children gave me a gift subscription, and the issue with Webb was the first to come. The most striking thing about the issue in general, is that it's difficult without paying attention to distinguish between the advertisements and the articles: they all look alike.

Are there any interesting points at all in the Webb article, or is it basically fluff?

I haven't read the article yet, but is there anything about his therapist and the injections? I'm curious about his calendar. I'm wondering how long he weaned himself before the Games.

dc449 wrote:

Its really a shame that the one real, widely read running publication is completely incapable of writing real articles.

Wait, Running Times isn't "real, widely read"? Maybe not as wide as RW, but a lot more real.

>>>>More rife with fallacy yet is the article's discussion on so-called "core stability" training. While the running community seems to be hopelessly attached to the nebulous concept of core training, most of the performance training world is waking up to the fact that "core stability training" has no scientific basis and that the entire concept has been thoroughly molested in the fitness industry by individuals promoting themselves and companies marketing stability training gimmicks. There is simply no reason to believe that so-called "core stability" exercise have any relevance whatsoever to running.

You try running with poor core/pelvic stability with the corresponding problems of mucles imbalances with the overworking mucles getting so tight and fatigued you can't get any useful drive from them. There's the recruitment of other muscles to stabilse the core that are not designed to designed to do that job (eg psoas). These cause all sorts of tilts and instability in your hips, lordosis, and of course tightness of the back, tightness of the glutes, prirformis etc..causing sciatic problems, pain and tightness in your hamstrings etc.. Not to mention the potential injuries. The problems occur most when you're doing you're most intense phase of training due to the force put on the muscles. As an qualified Exercise Phys, coach and massuer I'm forever having to experience these problems.

While naturally you won't get anywhere if you don't do the miles never underestimate the importance of core/pelvic stability.

Hope this contributes something

Omniscent wrote:

More rife with fallacy yet is the article's discussion on so-called "core stability" training. While the running community seems to be hopelessly attached to the nebulous concept of core training, most of the performance training world is waking up to the fact that "core stability training" has no scientific basis and that the entire concept has been thoroughly molested in the fitness industry by individuals promoting themselves and companies marketing stability training gimmicks. There is simply no reason to believe that so-called "core stability" exercise have any relevance whatsoever to running.

.

I disagree with the core strength issue. I'm not saying anyone should cut short their running routines to do a half hour of core stability training, but my experience as a coach and as a runner says that a moderate core-strength program is arguably some of the best ancillary training that a runner can do.

Like so many things in the US of A, there are all kinds of true believers out there who promote the idea that the "right" core strength program will do everything from curing cancer to bringing peace to the world. There's also evidence that doing TOO much core training can actually tighten the abs to the point where they resist the efforts to breathe as deeply as one does when racing. I use a 6-exercise circuit (on the smiweb.org site that I believe has Michael Stember modelling their exercises), both myself and with my team. Only takes about 5-10 min depending on how many sets you do.

While I won't say that it specifically causes us to run faster, in my own case I'm having less back trouble at age 50 than I had at age 25 after a year of doing this program. Our athletes like it too, and I noticed when we started doing this last year that our beginning runners didn't have near the number of cramps and sideaches like they usually do.

What does the research say on this issue? You'd think someone would have done a study for as much as it's used.

JimG wrote:

dc449 wrote:

Its really a shame that the one real, widely read running publication is completely incapable of writing real articles.

Wait, Running Times isn't "real, widely read"? Maybe not as wide as RW, but a lot more real.

It definately isnt as widely read as RW. I've read it a few times and find it a bit better, too bad it isnt as widely distributed. Sill, I think it leaves a lot to be desired.

Trackhead, 26 is a very good time.

I wouldn't listen to people who critique others' times. Most every good runner I know is happy to find someone slower who trains and works hard at it. They would never tear down someone who trains as hard as you. Let that be a sign that the guy criticizing you either

a. runs less than 30 miles a week or

b. is fat and slow and gets his grins ripping others

trackhead,

are you still living in s.f.?

I split my time between SF and SD. I'll be in SF for about 2.5 weeks soon, visit some family around Christmas and then I'm off to London for a week of fun in cold and rain, until mid Jan. when I'll be back in SD.

like a sperm

anyone have a link to the article or can post it in entirety on the boards?

Usher wrote:

I disagree with the core strength issue. I'm not saying anyone should cut short their running routines to do a half hour of core stability training, but my experience as a coach and as a runner says that a moderate core-strength program is arguably some of the best ancillary training that a runner can do.

While I won't say that it specifically causes us to run faster, in my own case I'm having less back trouble at age 50 than I had at age 25 after a year of doing this program. Our athletes like it too, and I noticed when we started doing this last year that our beginning runners didn't have near the number of cramps and sideaches like they usually do.

What does the research say on this issue? You'd think someone would have done a study for as much as it's used.

As a coach and athlete, I completely agree with you. And the advantages for both distance and sprint training are neither unknown nor new. See "Better Training For Distance Runners," p.23.

Regarding research, there is a paper from research done at Stanford about the effect of ab/hip stability on ITBS. They had runners with ITBS do a variety of crunches, including diagonal and twisting varieties, and had nearly a 100% cure rate. This can be found in medline.

I have similiar results for runners doing ab core work.

macker,

I agree completely with you. I have no problem with the penguins or 15 mile a week people at all, everyone has different level of involvement in the sport. What drives me absolutely nuts (you see this a lot on the RW boards) is people who will run 3-4 days a week (because they "can't handle" more) and spend hours streching, weight training, with the belief that it leads to equal improvement as running, or even better is necesarry so that the can run. And the f***ing magazine does nothing but support these ideas. If you want to run 15 miles a week and run your 25 minute 5k, great, I couldn't be more happy for you, but the magazine needs to stop spreading these ridiculous training assumptions. They need to show what it takes to be good; write some real article about threshold training, hill training, increasing mileage and the sport will take a turn for the better. I know that when I was a young aspiring runner, reading my RW, I had just as much desire to succeed as anyone else. But, I was not presented with proper information. Unlike most, I was driven to research further and uncovered "real training". I'm sure there are many other cases just like this, but the kids never end up getting any real training information. Its really a shame that the one real, widely read running publication is completely incapable of writing real articles. Nothing is wrong with Bingham and walking marathons, but include real advice for those who want to be the best they can be, not some 20 mile a week, 14 hours a week streching nonsense.