Smoove wrote:
my peeve wrote:
I just don't like it when a person or two takes over the entire thread. Know-it-alls, and everything becomes about them.
But of course in this day, the vociferous narcissists rule.
Not sure why you had to attack me without provocation!
not you, the other one
you put in a lot of good work and seem encouraging toward others
other guy is taking potshots but all defensive and cloaked when called out
On the topic of 90s runners from the Midwest let's not forget Tim Hacker and Steve plasencia.
team1 wrote:
why do people run marathons? Finished the Revel Lemmon in 2:40:11. lost those 12 secs in the last mile. technically a PR but the course dropped 5000'. My old PR was 3:07. can write more later but it hurt a lot more than i expected. Bus snafu had us arrive at the start 10 minutes before the start. f***in A!
Congratulations! Looking forward to the details. My knees are hurting with just the thought of it. Ouch!
Allen1959 wrote:
team1 wrote:
why do people run marathons? Finished the Revel Lemmon in 2:40:11. lost those 12 secs in the last mile. technically a PR but the course dropped 5000'. My old PR was 3:07. can write more later but it hurt a lot more than i expected. Bus snafu had us arrive at the start 10 minutes before the start. f***in A!
Congratulations! Looking forward to the details. My knees are hurting with just the thought of it. Ouch!
No sh*t man. I wouldn’t be able to walk after that downhill pounding. My chopstick legs would crumble.
Team1. What was the shoe of choice? I would figure something w a lot of stack and Cush like a Hoka or zoom fly even.
outsiderunner wrote:
Stone/RS - Thanks, guys.
Stone - Question for you..So, do you think I should go for the jugular at Richmond?
Here’s the big question you have to ask yourself, and only you can answer.
Are you willing to go for broke, even if that means risking a blowup and not running a PR? Or would you be more satisfied with a guaranteed PR in the 2:45 range, with a possibility of 2:43 or 2:44 if you closed well, but knowing that means you left some in the tank.
Based on your 20 miler and your training since then, I am very confident in your ability to hold 6:15-:20/mi for 26.2. I think if things went perfectly, you could approach 6:10/mi. So the way you seem to always do it, the way to hedge your bet, is run 20 miles at 6:15-:20/mi and then bring it home as fast as you got left the last 10k, which I am betting is 6:00-6:05/mi.
But if you are going for the jugular, click off as many 6:10-6:15s as you can from the gun. That’s where your fitness is at right now.
Elixer,
That’s funny. You say that I don’t give enough information about Lydiard and yet in all those paragraphs you did nothing to further that agenda either.
In saying that Lydiard did not wake up in the morning and decide what he was going to do you are drawing a false dichotomy. Nobody is suggesting that level of ambiguity and on the other end we both agree that Lydiard did not spell out the details of every workout.
We can go as far as outlining the phases, describing the effort scale, and the way to approach repetitions in the anaerobic conditioning phase. The latter can include runs at “faster race pace” but with respect to the distance being trained for. A 5K runner and a marathon runner will train differently at this stage.
Above all we can emphasize that “miles make the champions” and that we should spend the majority of our training life improving the aerobic system.
There is no shroud of mystery here or charlatanism. It does require a lot of patience, self-knowledge, and discipline however.
too hot wrote:
Elixer,
That’s funny. You say that I don’t give enough information about Lydiard and yet in all those paragraphs you did nothing to further that agenda either.
In saying that Lydiard did not wake up in the morning and decide what he was going to do you are drawing a false dichotomy. Nobody is suggesting that level of ambiguity and on the other end we both agree that Lydiard did not spell out the details of every workout.
We can go as far as outlining the phases, describing the effort scale, and the way to approach repetitions in the anaerobic conditioning phase. The latter can include runs at “faster race pace” but with respect to the distance being trained for. A 5K runner and a marathon runner will train differently at this stage.
Above all we can emphasize that “miles make the champions” and that we should spend the majority of our training life improving the aerobic system.
There is no shroud of mystery here or charlatanism. It does require a lot of patience, self-knowledge, and discipline however.
It's honestly a waste of time asking you anything. I think you'll find I gave my thoughts which counteracted your reply to Smoove re Vo2max and work and sprintwork in those phases which was more than I've ever seen you post on these threads regards specifics, you even dodged that in your reply. I don't claim to be an expert in Lydiard or any coach(far from it) and being critical of others training but I know bs and spin talker when I see them because I have a grasp on the basic fundamentals which you don't. You are just repeating the same stuff ad nauseam even when asked a question which should open up an oppurtunity to be more insightful. A simple answer like how a 5k and marathon build up would differ for instance but you'd rather just say it's different and add nothing to it. Why? I don't know but every further post here leads me to believe you are talking out of your you know what.
I apoligise to all the regulars for jumping in and disrupting this thread in a non-positive or constructive way and I'll let it go now.
Elixer,
I agree. You have added nothing positive to this discussion. Like others, all you’ve tried to do is discredit me by picking on one thing I said to Smoove about speedwork in the anaerobic phase. Meanwhile you ignore all the other posts including the last one where I outlined the principles of a Lydiard approach. It is clear to me that you are no Lydiard expert because people like you are never satisfied with open-endedness. I have done nothing but reply to all the points that have been raised against me. If you are really interested in why I gave Smoove that advice concerning speedwork go back and read the specifics of what he was doing. I am not going to do that research for you.
too hot wrote:
We can go as far as outlining the phases, describing the effort scale, and the way to approach repetitions in the anaerobic conditioning phase. The latter can include runs at “faster race pace” but with respect to the distance being trained for. A 5K runner and a marathon runner will train differently at this stage.
One last post on this quote. "Can include runs at faster than race pace". When training for a marathon, anearobic conditioning workouts are always faster than race pace by definition. Anaerobic is faster than lactate threshold so you are mostly talking about 10 mile and below pace for someone like Smoove. The whole idea of the phase is to create oxygen debt, something you never have at marathon pace.
The whole phase is there directly to target lactate buffering at efforts higher than lactate threshold.
Elixir, your posts about Lydiard have been far more informative than anything too hot has ever written.
Unfortunately you can’t reason with someone who can’t reason.
Too hot also has a sick fascination with Smoove. The only reason he comments on RunnersFix is because of the link to Smoove.
So in summary.
Too hot answers no questions even when proven wrong. Let’s chalk it up to massive post-Chicago devastation.
JB must be passed out from eating too many corn dogs, but it’s finally game time.
RRR/Stone/Bdubs - in his speech before the seminal 2008 LSU game Coach Saban implored his team to do what I will do each to you in Houston. Listen for yourself...
Can I get a roll tide?
I dislike Bama. And esp hate that midget of a coach they have.
Dude was weaned on a pickle.
Wait, so maybe I got lucky somehow and got some of it right?
Fan of the man wrote:
So in summary.
Too hot answers no questions even when proven wrong. Let’s chalk it up to massive post-Chicago devastation.
One of the trolls earlier used the word narcissism without realizing that “protecting” your regular username when talking about me is also narcissistic.
Of all the trolls, though, fan of the man is the lamest. At least Curious Observer took the time to link different threads together even if it was sloppy and not well thought out.
Fan of the man has no reading comprehension, memory loss, limited vocabulary, provides no material of his own, and has nothing but a sick fascination over Smoove once you realize that this week’s thread contained no criticism of Smoove whatsoever.
Elixer -
In the interest of keeping things constructive, let me suggest that it's possible to interpret too hot's perspective on training in a more charitable light. (Just to be clear, I'm not referring to the bad behavior that he has said he regrets and which it seems like Smoove and others are prepared to leave in the past at this point.)
One of too hot's fundamental principles seems to be that training should primarily be guided by feel/effort, and one of his fundamental critiques of much contemporary training is that it tends to place too little emphasis on feel/effort and too much on external data from watch, HRM, GPS, etc. While it's possible to argue that these two sources of information need not necessarily conflict with each other (what we might call the tea-and-crumpets theory), it's too hot's contention that they do tend to come into conflict and more specifically that an over-emphasis on external data tends to obstruct the development of athletic self-awareness that he sees as a crucial aspect of training. In short, you might say that too hot regards much of contemporary training as being too mechanistic.
This, in essence, is the message that too hot wants to communicate. My sense is that when you or other people try to pin him down on what we might call the mechanics of Lydiardesque training, he resists giving you the kind of response you want partly because that's simply not what he's interested in talking about and partly (and perhaps more importantly) because he sees that kind of discussion as being contrary to his fundamental point.
So, basically, in dialogue form:
too hot: Your approach is too mechanical!
you: Why don't you tell me about the mechanics of your approach, then!
too hot to you/you to too hot: @%$#*&!
If you see what I mean.
I'm not saying that my interpretation is necessarily correct, though I think it would explain at least some of the mutual frustration. And even if it is fairly accurate, I'm not saying that too hot's perspective is necessarily right, though I do think that the argument for training by feel has something to contribute to the conversation.
Anyhow, if my interpretation is somewhat on the mark - too hot can let us know if it's not - then I hope it can help us have a more constructive conversation going forward.
going faster miles an hour wrote:
Elixer -
In the interest of keeping things constructive, let me suggest that it's possible to interpret too hot's perspective on training in a more charitable light. (Just to be clear, I'm not referring to the bad behavior that he has said he regrets and which it seems like Smoove and others are prepared to leave in the past at this point.)
One of too hot's fundamental principles seems to be that training should primarily be guided by feel/effort, and one of his fundamental critiques of much contemporary training is that it tends to place too little emphasis on feel/effort and too much on external data from watch, HRM, GPS, etc. While it's possible to argue that these two sources of information need not necessarily conflict with each other (what we might call the tea-and-crumpets theory), it's too hot's contention that they do tend to come into conflict and more specifically that an over-emphasis on external data tends to obstruct the development of athletic self-awareness that he sees as a crucial aspect of training. In short, you might say that too hot regards much of contemporary training as being too mechanistic.
This, in essence, is the message that too hot wants to communicate. My sense is that when you or other people try to pin him down on what we might call the mechanics of Lydiardesque training, he resists giving you the kind of response you want partly because that's simply not what he's interested in talking about and partly (and perhaps more importantly) because he sees that kind of discussion as being contrary to his fundamental point.
So, basically, in dialogue form:
too hot: Your approach is too mechanical!
you: Why don't you tell me about the mechanics of your approach, then!
too hot to you/you to too hot: @%$#*&!
If you see what I mean.
I'm not saying that my interpretation is necessarily correct, though I think it would explain at least some of the mutual frustration. And even if it is fairly accurate, I'm not saying that too hot's perspective is necessarily right, though I do think that the argument for training by feel has something to contribute to the conversation.
Anyhow, if my interpretation is somewhat on the mark - too hot can let us know if it's not - then I hope it can help us have a more constructive conversation going forward.
I'm sorry GFMAH but I understand what too hot is saying and he doesn't get the basics of Lydiard. He can preach the benefits of training by feel all he wants but that does not make it lydiard. I haven't wore a watch in training or racing for over 4 years, am I training the Lydiard way?
I am not asking too hot to say run this workout Tuesday and this workout Thursday and plan out a schedule day for day. I am asking him what he does to achieve the goals of each phase. A simple concept he doesn't get like the fact that he doesn't understand what efforts even equal anearobic respiration in the posts above. The whole goal of that phase is to run faster than threshold. If you don't understand that that is faster than marathon pace like he clearly doesn't, you cannot comprehend or structure a proper lydiard plan or any training plan for that case. This is very basic stuff he doesn't get.
The argument is not quite as simple as you have made it above with regards that small convo piece.
Looking good OR
As usual GFMH you are right on the mark
Elixer wrote:
I'm sorry GFMAH but I understand what too hot is saying and he doesn't get the basics of Lydiard. He can preach the benefits of training by feel all he wants but that does not make it lydiard. I haven't wore a watch in training or racing for over 4 years, am I training the Lydiard way? I am asking him what he does to achieve the goals of each phase. A simple concept he doesn't get like the fact that he doesn't understand
That’s funny because I outlined the phases and already described the goals of each.
Run a lot, Run by effort
Run hills, technique drills
Run past your anaerobic threshold
Repeats get shorter and faster
Taper
If you understand that template, you can begin to formulate your own plan. Could we delve further? Sure. But the variables after this point increase to the degree that each runner and situation vary from one another.
The vast majority on this thread are so far from embracing the core of Lydiard philosophy that it makes little sense to take an even more granular approach.
[/quote]