To Hadd: malmo disagrees with you. Can you explain the disconnect?

It's not a wordplay game. Aerobic development comes easily at a young age. Improving performance also requires improving the skill of improving neuromuscular coordination.

It depends how much you care about improving. There are lessons to be learned which may take you decades, or you may never learn them. But I could explain them to someone who is interested. Not someone like you who doesn't care about maximizing potential.

Some people, a very tiny minority, want to learn more about this, you are not one of them, so why waste your time arguing?

wellnow wrote: It's not a wordplay game.

...

Aerobic development comes easily at a young age.

...

Improving performance also requires improving the skill of improving neuromuscular coordination.

...

Not someone like you who doesn't care about maximizing potential.

...

why waste your time arguing?

You have made it wordplay game by writing whatever you like with an air of authority and not a shred of verifiable evidence. You can tell me your improvements have come from little aliens inside your head and I'll be no less (nor more) convinced of your theories.

...

Aerobic development takes many years of smart training, and can be optimized at any age after starting 7-10 years of smart, deliberate work.

...

?? I'm not sure what you mean by "the skill of improving neuromuscular coordination," but I'll agree neuromuscular coordination plays a role. How big? Nobody knows for sure, even not you.

...

Indeed I DO care about maximizing my potential. In fact you and I are not that very much different. We're close in age and ability, and I also set new PBs last year, but at different distances than you (3000 included). I attribute this to smart, well balanced training that is based on a foundation of aerobic work with a correct proportion of faster, well-designed workouts.

...

I don't know... why do YOU waste YOUR time arguing if you refuse to accept MY point of view?

But you are equating 'aerobic development' with improvements in performance. And I am telling you that my 'aerobic development' peaked at the normal age 18-20

So why argue the point, when it's pure dogma?

If you care so much, then ditch the dogma. It's not that hard to do.

wellnow, since my own efforts to find the research have gone unfruitful, can you post ONE LINK from a credible, peer-reviewed study that proves absolute aerobic development peaks at age 18-20?

You have yet to prove anything, you've just made assertions. You can keep SAYING "drop the dogma" but the only proof you've offered is "because I know so."

wellnow wrote:And I am telling you that my 'aerobic development' peaked at the normal age 18-20

...

So why argue the point, when it's pure dogma?

...

If you care so much, then ditch the dogma. It's not that hard to do.

And I am telling you that you have absolutely no reliable way of verifying that particular claim.

...

Why argue the point when it's completely made up?

...

If you care so much, then ditch the mushroom-fuelled theories based on strawman arguments. It's not that hard to do.

what kind of str training? ihgh rep? low rep? bodyweight?

I don't really think it matters but I have done 1.57 for 800m and 4.04 for 1500m. My 10 k best is 33.14 (haven't run it properly since then) and my half marathon is 1.15 officially (faster unofficial)

The strength training was as far as im concerned very high rep oriented. They worked a lot with medicine balls and focused on the small muscles. I remember a training session with one of my friends / competitors who's strength training reflected the philosophy from the training camps pretty much and I was almost killed! I think I did 1000 reps or more only as training the stomach muscles. My hips, my bag and a lot of normally bad trained muscles didn't really feel well the next days :)

Im actually only 21 so my experience is of course somewhat less than a lot of runners on this board. And my times aren't that great but I don't see the necessity in shouting about my specific times. Im proud of them no matter what and know that I can improve so much more. I just try to contribute in this discussion and try to back up wellnow and his other supporters. He knows much more than me but almost everything he says makes so much sense to me. Though I have read alot myself and I can only agree about his statement that there is very much bad science around. As long as you are an "educated coach" from the 80's or something you think you can talk about anaerobic tresholds and how bad lactic acid is and that you can dobble up your VO2max and I could really continue until christmas... I remember when I read Daniels' Running Formula some years ago. First I thought it was all so smart but then later I discovered Lore of Running by Noakes and some articles showing almost completely different stuff and it was not before then that I really felt that I had discovered the real truth (or at least a part of it).

So many conservative runners and coaches around doesn't want to learn anything new. It attacks their good old belief in wrong and right and what to do and what not to do and why and why not. To begin teaching yourself new stuff is the same as admitting that you in a kind of way have to start all over and learn how things REALLY work.. In my opinion a lot of (not everyone but a lot of) people in her disagree with wellnow and calls him arrogant and stuff like that because they don't understand him and actually don't want to understand him!

I don't really run the longer distances that much - or at least I don't train very much for them.. I was actually still aiming at the 800m and 1500m when I ran the big mileage... I have been in shape for 15.20 for 5 k, sub 32 for 10k and about 1:11 - 1:12 for half marathon but that doesn't bother me that much

This message board is often good for a laugh.

Lydiard is lionized by countless posters if anyone questions his one man, self as the experimental subject approach. "It worked," the Lydiardites will tell you and many are elite runners, "so don't worry about the lack of academic degrees and reviewed research that went into Arthur's books."

I don't know whether wellnow is right or wrong but he has argued in a civil and reasonable fashion and my own experience has got me thinking(and yes, I do have a background in reading in scientific literature).

This need to defer to authority, to adhere to dogma reminds me so much of the lemming mentality surrounding the global warming campaign and I think the hostility on display, the hostility against a theory about improving in of all things road running is an indictment of the education or lack thereof that must prevail in the high schools and colleges.

It is a discussion about running, people.

I don't know if you're comparing wellnow with Lydiard, but the obvious difference between the two is that Lydiard produced nuerous Olympic medalists, world record holders and Olympians. And yes, arthur ran into some very stiff resistance and skepticism throughout his career. He was always able to answer the critics with something other than his own opinions.

Wellnow has run some very decent times for a middle aged guy but nothing that several others his age haven't matched or exceeded. He presents himself as an expert and certainly seems to think that he is but I see nothing that suggests that to be the case.

Wellnow

You seem to think that your observations of your own responses to training (basically a case study with an n of 1)provide evidence for your own ideas. However, you do not KNOW that your observed changes in performance are due to the mechanisms you think they are (unless you have physiological data from yourself throughout the duration of your career).

I dont think anybody is necessaerily arguing with you that 'skill' is important (although your definition of it is unusual), but the question relates to how important skill is in relation to other factors.

You have described your training / performance history as evidence of your ideas. Here's my history;

Many years ago I popped out several 1500's in the 3.45 range after the typical approach to training of miles in the winter, track sessions in the spring, and racing in the summer (of interest, one year I also ran a couple of indoor races in the 3.50 range off absolutely nothing faster than about 70s 400m pace for months - one of these included a final 600m in 86s). I was only 20/21 at this time, and after one of these seasons my coach and I decided to run a 'serious' indoor season to have an attempt at qualifying for the Euro indoors. As a result I set off on a programme that included much faster race specific training prior to Christmas. We will never know how this would have ended up as I went down with pneumonia in early January and was unable to train properly again unill mid-feb. Desperate to make up for lost time I set off on a programme to get myself into good shape for an early start to the season that included a lot of intensive race pace work (or faster). Things turned around quickly and in training I was soon 'flying'. I remember a few sessions in particular - e.g. 10x300@40 (3 mins), 200,400,600,600,400,200@26, 55, 87, 86, 54, 24, or the best - 3x400+300(1 & 6 mins) @59 + 38. Could also bash out 3x800 @ sub 2 off 3 mins. After these I couldnt wait to race, but guess what? I was rubbish. Every time I would waltz through the first 1000 or so feeling like I was walking and then start a slow drift backwards through the field. At one point mid-season I did manage a 3.46 but other than that it was largely a struggle to break 4 minutes. Even over 800m I would get to 600 at a good pace but then die a painfull death.

After this season I'd just graduated and was back at home for a few months while looking for a job. After a poor season and being jobless I was not exactly full of motivation. I ran for an hour or so most days and on Sundays met up with a couple of local old guys who ran marathons and we would run for 2 hours of more around the country lanes at a nice conversational pace. Eventually I started a new job (involving a massive change in location) in the February and I started 'proper' training on the track again in March. In my first session I ran20x200 in 31 and was so sore afterwards that I could barely walk for a couple of days. Within a couple more sessions however, I was going very well again (as well as the previous year). This time when I came to race I really was flying and ran 3.43 and should probably have gone much faster in an end of season race where I hung on to 3.45 after going through the first 800 in 1.55.

So Wellnow - using your ideas, how do you explain my observations on these performances. I certainly have my own ideas as regards to what has happened.

(sorry for the ramble)

HRE wrote:

I don't know if you're comparing wellnow with Lydiard, but the obvious difference between the two is that Lydiard produced nuerous Olympic medalists, world record holders and Olympians.

HRE wrote:

Wellnow has run some very decent times for a middle aged guy but nothing that several others his age haven't matched or exceeded.

i don´t intent to be in the Olympics. i know i’m not a world top class runner.

for a middle aged runner wellnow did what Lydiard couldn’t do. both did what they did self coached.

i’m self coached too. i follow wellnow. Lydiard it´s useless

gallagher wrote:

I don't know whether wellnow is right or wrong but he has argued in a civil and reasonable fashion and my own experience has got me thinking(and yes, I do have a background in reading in scientific literature).

I have no hostility towards wellnow. I think some of his critiques (about the aerobic/anaerobic model) are fine. It is probably true that there are other things going on. I don't see that his own theories are well supported by evidence, though. It may be that what he claims to be the main source of improvement (neuromuscular coordination) is not is only measureable indirectly as running economy. I don't think improvements in economy can only come from neuromuscular coordination, though. I'm glad he posts interesting theories but he is all too often as dogmatic about his ideas as he claims others are about theirs.

Proud Mary wrote:i’m self coached too. i follow wellnow.

Morten DK wrote: I don't really think it matters but I have done 1.57 for 800m and 4.04 for 1500m. My 10 k best is 33.14 (haven't run it properly since then) and my half marathon is 1.15 officially (faster unofficial)

This is why you were asked about your PBs. The trend, getting clearly worse with distance, shows you lack aerobic fitness.

Morten DK wrote:I have been in shape for 15.20 for 5 k, sub 32 for 10k and about 1:11 - 1:12 for half marathon but that doesn't bother me that much

Don't claim times until you've actually run them.

while self coach i do wellnow train and not Lydiard because wellnow does best times than did Lydiard.

when i will be world top class i will follow Lydiard.

last week my hope is to coach Alan Webb but he goes to Alberto. anyhow i don´t think that Webb will be in the next olympics. i m sorry.

Yes, I think you could have run faster, but my question is; what happened next? Did your running career end just when you was gettin good?

We have all trained too hard at some point, but I think it's something you have to go through, learning from your mistakes.