pr100 wrote:
livelikeaballer wrote:I probably missed a few things, but that's the gist of it.
Altitude is very important.
You have to be able to close in 52/32.
...err "52/53"
pr100 wrote:
livelikeaballer wrote:I probably missed a few things, but that's the gist of it.
Altitude is very important.
You have to be able to close in 52/32.
...err "52/53"
he said if your not olympic caliber your better off running 30 minutes a day and lifting weights to look good.
People say the same thing about shoes vs barefoot, but the strike plate data isn't extremely different (although the profile is)...
Re running surface and impact: "runners decreased leg stiffness by 29% between the last step on the soft surface and the first step on the hard surface (from 10.7kNm−1 to 7.6kNm−1, respectively)."
http://www.jbiomech.com/article/S0021-9290%2899%2900078-0/abstract
If safety is your only concern, I'd choose a flat paved bike path that is away from traffic. That being said, I run on trails all of the time b/c I like them
txRUNNERgirl wrote:
I'd like to know where they run (100+ miles/week) to avoid the roads. I live very close to Nike and there is a bike path, nature reserve, Hollister and the Berm. All those areas other than the Berm are asphalt.
No idea, but they obviously do some miles on the track. My local track has a ~1km dirt warmup path around the track grounds - I'll do 3 or 4 km warmup/warmdown before/after a track session on that.
You don't need a very big grass/dirt area to put the miles in. It can get a bit boring if you're running around a small area on your own. But I guess these guys normally run with other people anyhow, which makes it less boring.
The other thing is to cycle somewhere to start running, which is a nice way to warm up anyhow.
The berm because of it's crazy softness probably causes more injuries then anything. It's woodchips but incredibly soft woodchips. It makes sense given the crazy number of achilles or lower leg tendon issues in the group. I'm pretty sure they've had 4 or so achilles surgeries in that group.
are treadmills considered soft surfaces?
you guys are missing the common denominator in ALL the injuries among Alberto Salazar's athletes; they are ALL running in Nike shoes!
txRUNNERgirl wrote:
I'd like to know where they run (100+ miles/week) to avoid the roads. I live very close to Nike and there is a bike path, nature reserve, Hollister and the Berm. All those areas other than the Berm are asphalt.
There are trails around the Nike campus for sure, but they probably head out to Forest Park in NW PDX. Lots of space, one trail is even 30 miles around. They have cars and live to train so they're out there if u want em
Tyrannosaurus Rexing wrote:
Bubbadeeboo wrote:The body senses the change of surface, adjusts muscle tension accordingly and the impact profiles are fairly consistent... Ceteris paribus.
That may be true to some extent, but I don't come close to buying that entirely.
So....you are saying that if I ran on a trampoline, or on a giant wet sponge, there would be no absorption of impact by the surface, and it the impact forces to my body would be exactly equal to running on cement? When I throw a rubber ball on cement and it immediately rockets back up skyward, but then I do the same thing on grass and it comes back more slowly and not as high.....what happened there? My body is not a rubber ball, no, but is it magic or something?
I also understand that if the surface is "too" soft (like deep sand), then one loses potential energy and has to work harder (of course) to leave the ground on each step, thus the muscles work harder (concentrically). This could be a training advantage or disadvantage. (a stimulus of course, but a strain possibly, and not running as efficiently as possible). But there is still certainly absorption of impact forces by the surface, the body it is not having to absorb almost of all those forces being returned immediately by the impact as it would on cement.
I can take my shoes off and immediately run comfortably on grass without any "practice." I can not do this on the roads, and instead immediately feel shock to my feet, quads, and knees. This is not in my head, this is not because of lack of practice, this is not because my body is not working correctly (as you seem to think the body can work). This is because of the lack of absorption of impact by the surface I am running on.
Not exactly rocket science if you ask me.
Actually, what appears to be missing is the only thing that generally settles issues like this - SCIENCE. One can't study science for long before if becomes pretty obvious that INTUITION is very often wrong. Soft surfaces, lower impact forces, less injury. Makes intuitive sense. But very well may be wrong. Unfortunately, of course, if the medical issue at hand doesn't cause people to die (and even sometimes when it does, of course), there's often not enough rigorous research to produce a clear answer(s).
Not sure how good the research is on the surface/injury question, but whatever there is, it's probably better than the average person's small set of anecdotes (and very possibly better than Salazar's larger set of anecdotes, too). My guess is that he's MORE sure about the importance of surface than he ought to be, based on the available research.
I didn't listen to the interview but RWorld says Ssalazar says, "You move up when you feel you’ve sort of plateaued at the lower distance and only when you feel you’re not a medalist at the shorter distance."
My only thought when I read that was, "Tell that to Sammy W."
http://www.runnersworld.com/elite-runners/galen-rupp-wont-run-marathon-2016-olympics
exercise science is one of the sorry sciences with little rigor and consistency. you can feel the difference between hard surfaces and soft surfaces when you run, meaning that the forces are higher on the hard surfaces. I was not able to get my mileage up high without injury until I moved most of my training off the roads. However, after a number of years of very gradually increasing the # of road miles (physiologically adjusting gradually) (just coming up to 5,000 miles for the year, for the first time after 4 years of 4,000 plus miles each), out of necessity, I've been able to stay healthy with most of my miles on the roads this year. I still run on grass/dirt whenever I can, but I'd have to drive 30 minutes each way most days to run on dirt. There is a very noticeable difference when my feet are starting to hurt and I get off the pavement.
Transcribed for you below (12:00 to 14:20):
--------------------
Interviewer: With Matthew, do you see his strength as 5 and 10 as well?
AS: No, he will be 1500 straight through the next Olympics. Matthew's only 22, 23 right now.
Interviewer: Okay, so he'll focus on the mile and the 1500.
AS: Yeah, he'll stick with that. My belief is you only move up when you feel you've sort of plateaued at the lower distance and your results at that level aren't good enough. If you're still one of the top two or three in the world at a lower distance, there's no guarantee that if you go up to the upper distance that you're going to be top two or three in the world at the upper distance. It's a gamble. I think it's only when you feel that you're not a medalist in the Olympics at a shorter distance that you move up.
Interviewer: So have you had more athletes come your way after your success at the Olympics with both Galen and with Mo?
AS: I've had a lot of requests, but I really haven't accepted them. I mean, I like the number of athletes that we've got right now and I just don't feel that I can handle any more than I have at this point.
Interviewer: How many are you dealing with?
AS: I train eight athletes right now.
Interviewer: Eight athletes and that's plenty?
AS: Right.
Interviewer: So, between this next spring, at this point, any marathoners?
AS: Well, Dathan Ritzenhein. And that's it for right now. I sort of believe unless I was to have someone that I knew can be either a medalist or a top 5 or 6 in the world, I'm not going to bring someone on. And that's kind of what we do with our group. We have a few people that are developmental, to help other runners in the group. They're a little more of a far shot, you know, a little more of a gamble, but I don't bring in people just to make an Olympic team. We have probably 85% of the Olympic team in Nike. So they don't really need me to be training somebody to make the Olympic team, because we're going to have somebody, it's going to be a Nike athlete in the end anyway. So my goal, our mission statement has always been to get Americans that can medal at the World Championships and the Olympics. So that's something that we're sticking with.
--------------------
He's talking about Centro. Why move Centro up? He's already got a medal at Worlds and 4th at the Olympics, and he's still young. No need to move him up to the 5k, where he's unproven, when he's a contender for the win in the 1500m.
Sammy W. had impressive credentials at 10,000m - 26:41 for 3rd and a world junior record in the same race where Bekele ran 26:17. But just over 2 weeks later Wanjiru broke the world half marathon record. He was probably top 5 in the world in the 10,000m, but the best in the world at the HM when he moved up.
Sammy was never going to beat Bekele in Beijing, and he knew it, hence the move up early if he was to get gold. Also, Kenyans have notoriously short careers, and every incentive to move up sooner rather than later. Rupp will be be fine at 10,000 in Brazil '16.And for crying out loud, rojo, you call yourself a coach and a fan of the sport and yet you don't have time to listen to the currently most successful coach out there when he hands you this stuff on a platter? Pretty sad for your charges.
rojo wrote:
I didn't listen to the interview but RWorld says Ssalazar says, "You move up when you feel you’ve sort of plateaued at the lower distance and only when you feel you’re not a medalist at the shorter distance."
My only thought when I read that was, "Tell that to Sammy W."
http://www.runnersworld.com/elite-runners/galen-rupp-wont-run-marathon-2016-olympics
I agree with Rojo, but the reason Salazar is not moving Rupp to the marathon is because he doesn't know how to train him for the marathon. When marathons can be jogged with 52 last 400's then he'll have it made.
Also I agree that Salazar is too definitive with his opinions, and often quite wrong. He had open heart surgery and yet he's giving aggressive advice about how to stay healthy, that he got from doctors. NO THANKS.
I would rather get my advice from Ed Whitmore.
what does "7. Running specificity cannot be beaten." mean?
Race pace specific or just running itself?
High Wire wrote:
And for crying out loud, rojo, you call yourself a coach and a fan of the sport and yet you don't have time to listen to the currently most successful coach out there when he hands you this stuff on a platter? Pretty sad for your charges.
this was pretty much my reaction when he said he didn't even bother listening to it yet.
http://i.imgur.com/i5XMu.gifSlackin'
In the context it means you can't train the best for running without running. Just in general. So do the most running you can handle without getting injured, including easy runs and workouts, and then cross train on top of that if you can. The implication, I guess, is that you can't expect to run once a week and cross train the rest of the time and reach your full potential as a runner.
J.R. wrote:
I would rather get my advice from Ed Whitmore.
Well said. Who?
livelikeaballer wrote:
Matthew's only 22, 23 right now.
Good that he knows the approximate age of one of his athletes.
Frigging dingaling.
J.R. wrote:
I would rather get my advice from Ed Whitlock.
andy1564 wrote:
Well said. Who?
Ed Whitlock!
Spellcheck alert.
