Shopping hour wrote:
rekrunner wrote:
Again -- I gave a lengthy response above that explains what I think and why.
Break it down for me.
Because of a relative weakness "aerobically".
Shopping hour wrote:
rekrunner wrote:
Again -- I gave a lengthy response above that explains what I think and why.
Break it down for me.
Because of a relative weakness "aerobically".
rekrunner wrote:
Shopping hour wrote:
Break it down for me.
Because of a relative weakness "aerobically".
Relative to what?
optimal
And what is optimal?
Here's what I said above:
If the athlete has a relative weakness "aerobically", and this is limiting his performance, than strengthening the aerobic component can improve overall "system optimization" in the short term, resulting in improved overall performance.
How do you determine relative aerobic weakness and that it is limiting performance?
Shopping hour wrote:
How do you determine relative aerobic weakness and that it is limiting performance?
I don't. Instead I express it as conditional.
Conditional in what way?
Shopping hour wrote:
Conditional in what way?
Conditional to whatever he makes up.
Shopping hour wrote:
Conditional in what way?
Improvement is conditioned on the existence of any margin of improvement, and the intervention removing the limit to improvement.
Armstronglivs wrote:
Conditional to whatever he makes up.
Since the statement is an expression of a broader relationship, it's also conditional to whatever you make up.
rekrunner wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
Conditional to whatever he makes up.
Since the statement is an expression of a broader relationship, it's also conditional to whatever you make up.
Another conditional statement.
Meanwhile ... If you believe I am "ignoring what doesn't suit" -- please tell me what it is -- I would love to consider it.
Or was that just empty rhetoric.
rekrunner wrote:
Shopping hour wrote:
Conditional in what way?
Improvement is conditioned on the existence of any margin of improvement, and the intervention removing the limit to improvement.
None of that is "conditioned" on anything. All it says is that improvement only occurs where there is improvement - a fine tautology - and it only occurs where it is possible. To use your favorite word, an empty banality conditional on your preference for pseudo-intellectual drivel.
rekrunner wrote:
Meanwhile ... If you believe I am "ignoring what doesn't suit" -- please tell me what it is -- I would love to consider it.
Or was that just empty rhetoric.
"I would love to consider it." [/quote]
Empty rhetoric.
rekrunner wrote:
Shopping hour wrote:
Conditional in what way?
Improvement is conditioned on the existence of any margin of improvement, and the intervention removing the limit to improvement.
And EPO raises the limit better than altitude does.
Tom Cochrane wrote:
rekrunner wrote:
Improvement is conditioned on the existence of any margin of improvement, and the intervention removing the limit to improvement.
And EPO raises the limit better than altitude does.
You have just entered the temple of denial.
Armstronglivs wrote:
rekrunner wrote:
Meanwhile ... If you believe I am "ignoring what doesn't suit" -- please tell me what it is -- I would love to consider it.
Or was that just empty rhetoric.
Empty rhetoric.
My conundrum here is that both you and Shopping Hour have accused me of ignoring "contradictory evidence" and "what doesn't suit", but neither of you have given any examples.
Armstronglivs wrote:
Tom Cochrane wrote:
And EPO raises the limit better than altitude does.
You have just entered the temple of denial.
Don't mistake a request for support/data/observations/experts as denial.
It does make me wonder though -- has anyone actually compared the two methods?
Hi-Lo training is far superior in one respect -- it is WADA approved.
My unconditional advice remains if you want to increase your RBCs, go to altitude.
and if you want to get more bang for your buck go there and dope. It's what all the cool kids are doing.