Fleet of Foot wrote:
I don't know off the top of my head, why is it important?
Didn't say that it necessarily was, why do you ask?
Fleet of Foot wrote:
I don't know off the top of my head, why is it important?
Didn't say that it necessarily was, why do you ask?
Serious question. Have you actually read the book? I'll admit, I have only read 500 or so of it's 900 pages but I've been impressed of what I've read so far. I'll generously infer that you have read the book and disagree with everything in it because he has not coached anyone of significance or has PR's that suck. At least we know your criteria. No problems amigo.
it seems that you were implying that since he hasn't coached anyone of importance, and since he hasn't run any elite times, then he must not be important to running. if that is how you feel then why don't you go ahead and say that you are an idiot
What are Noakes's PR's?
How many research papers did Lydiard publish ? How much can Paul Tergat bench press ? What's Tiger Woods' mile PR ?get the point yet ? Don't know, don't care.
Okay, never say that I haven't humored you: you are an idiot. It means nothing to me that any random Letsrun poster has been impressed by something he read, I'm looking for successful real-world application of the load that he peddles on bookshelves. Seems his myopic supporters keep coming up short with that. How unexpected.
"Paula nor Ndereba should be running in the WC marathon" citing some SHIT FROM THE 1950's.
Actually, while his opinion on this matter is controversial, he does have more of a basis for it than "some shit from the 1950's". At least read his book before you make more of an ass of yourself.
Following the logic of this thread, you'd turn to Lydiard to advise you on writing a research paper, ask Tergat to coach you to bench press success, and ask Eldrick for pointers on improving your mile time. Good luck with that!
Following the logic of this thread, you'd turn to Lydiard to advise you on writing a research paper, ask Tergat to coach you to bench press success,
Ummmm ... no. Nice non-sequitur though.
Noakes is an expert on the science of running. He makes comments to the press about the science of running. He made those comments as scientific information for the general public, not to provide an unsolicitied coaching service to Radcliffe and Ndereba.
elflord wrote:
Noakes is an expert on the science of running.
Says who? A bunch of boobs on the web who are easily impressed by anything in print?
I read the first edition of "Lore of Running," and I read the most recent edition of "Lore of Running." There is useful information in the book, but I wouldn't rely on Noakes as my primary source of information about training or racing. I would not rank "Lore of Running" among the best books for runners who are serious about getting to a high level of the sport.
How sad. wrote:
Okay, never say that I haven't humored you: you are an idiot. It means nothing to me that any random Letsrun poster has been impressed by something he read, I'm looking for successful real-world application of the load that he peddles on bookshelves. Seems his myopic supporters keep coming up short with that. How unexpected.
You think there is no applicable information? I guess all of the injury treatment stuff is wrong. You can always just walk it off. His nutrition and training sections are equally applicable. So I guess that means about 2/3 of his book
Says who? A bunch of boobs on the web who are easily impressed by anything in print?
No, a bunch of fellow scientists in academia, who review and accept his papers for publication
358 hits for Noakes TD on pubmed
Spot on. He certainly has some interesting points, but I will contend that the "biologically" implausibility of PR's performance really sticks in my craw. We certainly don't have a full understanding of a cell's network structure, how can we say, with any certainty that we understand the networking of human physiology? It is ill-advised to extrapolate from empirical observational data to deduce a causal pathway on association alone. I know he goes into some detail, but when I read that, I felt that there is greater need to understand some fundamental pieces of athletic performance before he made a blanket statement such as this.
Also, I'd say the work on hyponatremia is not only "succesfully" applied, it is potentially lifesaving. The real "idiot" in this discussion is "how sad" (how aptly named), who dismisses Noakes despite knowing absolutely nothing about him.
A true measure of an idiot is having a strong opinion despite ignorance of the subject matter. "How sad" measures up quite well.
if you guys went to Noakes' most recent seminar in Helsinki, then you would have something to bleat about
:)
care to enlighten us?
It is ill-advised to extrapolate from empirical observational data to deduce a causal pathway on association alone.
The "causal pathway" issue is a red herring. If we observe that (X) goes with (Y) for some random sample, it's not unreasonable to extrapolate to other members of the population. I believe that in this case, there is a good deal of data to support Noakes' claims. For example, the physiological model he's appealing to has been validated on a number of occasions (the example in his book applies, but there are subsequent examples too)
oldguy wrote:
No, not the same Japanese runner as in Athens. But I agree with your basic point. People like Noakes overestimate their ability to extrapolate from physiological theory to real-world applications.
What credentials do you bring to have me trust in your judgement regading Noakes?
No, as soon as he puts something into print, I can bleat all I want. Baa Baa Baa Baa. :)
But for clarification, I don't think that he's unqualified to make statements like that. I just think that it's more of a ploy to get people to pay attention to him (not that there's anything wrong with that).
ethicist wrote:
What credentials do you bring to have me trust in your judgement regading Noakes?
I'm smarter than Tim Noakes, I'm faster than Tim Noakes, and I'm better-looking than Tim Noakes.