rekrunner wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
Lydiard's base period was only 3 months. How is that too long?
You already have the answer. Three months is more than enough to "lose the level of intensive ability already built" and to "destroy the level of Aerobic Power that you already reached in the past".
It's 3 steps forward and 2 steps back.
If you want to build a bigger house, you can chose 1) raze the old house and build a bigger one; or 2) add another story.
Armstronglivs wrote:
Running is a sport, not science. If it were otherwise there would be very few runners - and certainly not many from the Kenyan highlands. You don't need a degree in exercise physiology to run fast. That is effectively what Snell said when he made the observation that training is quite simple. Physiology merely tells us how it works. But the proof is always on the track - and is easily seen.
You've constructed all these false "if it were otherwise" relations that act as barriers to rational thought.
Running is a sport. Bravo. But it was the wrong goalpost. We were talking about differences in methods of training.
Training to be your best is a science. Even simple trial and error with feedback, is a valid, effective, scientific method. Have you never seen a coach at a track with a stop-watch? Have you never seen runners with heart rate monitors?
Every athlete knows from their own personal experience, what kind of training they respond to best, because of feedback. This is true regardless if the feedback is a stopwatch, heart rate monitor, or just listening to your body.
Modern training is as simple as Lydiard training, once you understand the concepts (tell me, who really understands "fractional efforts"?) -- why are you fooling yourself into thinking that there is any notable difference in complexity?
Modern training involves running, putting one foot in front of the other, hard work, to build endurance and speed.
Armstronglivs wrote:
On the other hand, science plays a major role in doping. When it is possible to land a satellite on a comet I have no doubt that science (doping) can make a human run faster.
The way you worship doping is a religion. As you say "the proof is always on the track" -- yet you are consistently unable to connect this "proof on the track" to doping.
Another failed analogy to add to the collection: satellites. Satellites, by definition, are in orbit. If you land it, then it is no longer a satellite. Science can use rocket technology in shoes to make humans faster. Ironman uses it to fly.
Your capacity for sheer drivel has surpassed itself. A satellite isn't one of your fatuous word games; it is a device that modern science has enabled to have landed on a comet. The stupendous nature of the feat is beyond your neolithic ability to understand. It makes doping a simple banality.
But your pompous arrogance exceeds even your previous world-leading standards when you maintain that Lydiard's base conditioning period was too long. He trained multiple Olympic champions and world record holders and you have done - nothing. You are a geek at a keyboard, who thinks he knows better at how to produce champion runners than a legend of the sport. Your capacity for self-delusion is of Olympic proportions - but nothing else is.