Biggest Running Fallacy

because your faster than me you must be tougher.

there are 1000 runners out there who have the mental capacity to run sub 13.20/5k but simply don't have the genetics

I have followed this thread for a while now, but can no longer. Don't you guys consider ANYONES FEELINGS?! What you wrote really hurts to read...

Biggest running phallus

http://www.webcom.com/~trw/London/images/59473932.jpg

[quote]Skuj wrote:

SOME 800m runners. Not all. Not Borzy or Coe or Cruz or Kipketer or that Cuban guy in 76 who's name presently eludes me.

I think you are looking for Alberto Juanterina. Check out the very cool stamps Belgium is issuing in honor of 30 years of the Ivo Van Damme meet. ON the first page. very cool, Walker, coe and ovett too.

You're totally right, 100miles per week would zap the speed out of a lot of those guys. THis alberto was a 400 m runner stretching it to 800. His stride was one of the longest ever.

mandingo wrote:

100miles per week would zap the speed out of a lot of those guys.

There is the number one fallacy. DISTANCE DOES NOT ZAP SPEED.

Sure it does. What if Gatlin tried 100mpw?

When did Gatlin ever run 100 mpw to prove your theory? Sounds to me like you are just another one of the sheep that believe something without any proof.

Mottram told me he runs 115 mpw with 2 sessions. I bet he could smoke 99.99999999999% of the people on here. If you want to be fast, you just have to train to be fast. You can still do that while doing 100mpw.

I was being slightly ironic.

Still, 100mpw is clearly not for everyone - including some world beaters in middle and even long distance.

I understand. So he has probably NEVER run a 100 mpw yet you know how this would effect him? Based on what? FALLACY.

OK lets put it this way:

I would bet my life that if Gatlin ran 100mpw, he'd no longer run sub10.

How's that? :)

I'd agree with that, but is that because it has sapped his speed or taken away his ability to explode out of the blocks?

Well, sprinters must sprint. 100mpw would contradict the nature of sprint training.

For 800m, 100mpw may or may not be sensible, depending upon the kind of runner that you are.

Remember that man-chick who set the 800WR? She was good at 200-400 also, but certainly not 1500. Like Kipketer. 100mpw for those people goes against their strengths.

We must always work on our strengths. That reminds me of another fallacy: Work on weaknesses.

From a physiological standpoint, skuj is right. Long distance running would inhibit the sprinters anaerobic capacity through various means, notably a reduction in anaerobic enzymes. Also, it would be training FT muscles to act more like FT-A fibers or ST fibers. This could inhibit power and explosion and the anaerobic pathways.

In a simplified way sprint and endurance training are contradictory. One teaches the body how to act more efficiently aerobically while the other teaches the body how to act more efficiently anaerobically and use the CP system better.

The biggest running fallacy is that Craig Mottram is clean.

LOFR wrote:

From a physiological standpoint, skuj is right. Long distance running would inhibit the sprinters anaerobic capacity through various means, notably a reduction in anaerobic enzymes. Also, it would be training FT muscles to act more like FT-A fibers or ST fibers. This could inhibit power and explosion and the anaerobic pathways.

In a simplified way sprint and endurance training are contradictory. One teaches the body how to act more efficiently aerobically while the other teaches the body how to act more efficiently anaerobically and use the CP system better.

Hogwash. If a sprinter has not run a 100 mpw we don't know the answer.

The biggest fallacy is that science has ever added anything valuable to our sport.

The Ghost of Lydiard wrote:

The biggest fallacy is that science has ever added anything valuable to our sport.

i believe science has contributed many valuable things to the sport? why should training go through different cycles? why dont sprinters train like distance runners and why dont distance runners train like sprinters? science lets us know how a body responds to a stimulus. running is a cause-effect relationship and if you know how the body works, you can give the proper cause to result in the desired effect. in science class, you cant throw a bunch of chemicals together in a beaker and expect it to come out like you hoped. you have to understand what chemicals have what effect. that being said, distance runners dont train extensivley in a lab with all sort of wires hooked up to them. they are humans, not lab rats. but science does and can explain why things happen in running, so you do need to know at least some basic physiology knowledge. the ethiopians trianing is scientific, canova is scientific and pretty much every top coach out there is.

blaznbison24 wrote:

but science does and can explain why things happen in running,

That is exactly the point. Science is a study of what has already happened. Science may try to explain why but science is NEVER the leader. Science does not add to the sport but instead tells us why.

No body wants you wrote:

First of all, you need to reevaluate the term "kick". It is not stumbling home, struggling to finish. A true "kick" has to resmemble some sort of increase in the race pace, because if your running 40+ seconds over the last 200m, that is not a kick by any means. Dont confuse the term "kick" with just the last part of a race.

I disagree. The kick is exactly the last part of the race. It's the part of the race where you "kick it in", give everything you've got left. You don't necessarily have to increase your pace to be kicking in the last of your effort.

Actually, many kicks do become "who can slow down the least" types of efforts.

Remember Dave Wottle? Everyone thought he had a monster kick in Munich, but all he did was pace himself evenly. That monster kick was just the rest of the field dying and coming back to him.