Biggest Running Fallacy

The Ghost of Lydiard wrote:

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.

If you don't like scientific explanations, then how about this one. There have been several studies that have looked at vertical jump before and after distance training. I believe one is mentioned in one of David Costill's works that describes how a large group of elite distance runners had a vertical jump that was significantly lower than a group of sedentery average people. The interesting thing is that in monitoring this same group something like 20 years later in which some still continued to run and some had given it up completely, the ones who had given up running completely vertical jump improved significantly! It rose back to normal levels, which was several inches higher than when he was in distance training.

The details are off the top of my head so I probably messed some of the specifics up, but the just of it is there.

I know it's not sprinting directly, but it does kind of show what happens to that explosion ability when training by running a lot of miles. Once the runners stopped, they got several inches better at the vertical jump even though they did no training what so ever for it.

This is a perfect example of what is wrong with the use of science. Science tends to take a study and then tell us what this means.

Which sprinter ran in excess of 100 miles in this study? If the answer is none, then it is not applicable.

yeah, how about we go back to the dark ages and ignore science? wtf

The Ghost of Lydiard wrote:

This is a perfect example of what is wrong with the use of science. Science tends to take a study and then tell us what this means.

Which sprinter ran in excess of 100 miles in this study? If the answer is none, then it is not applicable.

Fallacy: That taller guys run faster downhill than shorter guys.

Ha...lets go run a hill and see..:) Hill running is a combination of fitness and form. Most runners break running downhill.

Alan

The runner's high entry was good...

Fallacy: "You, too can have washboard abs."

Me... I went straight to the keg...

The only thing wrong with science is how little people actually seem to understand what science actually is. "Science" does not only happen in a lab, and the results of "Science" are not only found in studies. The scientific method is a pattern of reasoning and "Science" is nothing more than the application of that pattern of reasoning to evaluate a hypothesis.

When a person ups there mileage in search of a better marathon time they are conducting a scientific experiment. Their hypothesis is that running more will make them faster, their experiment is conducted out on the roads, on the track, and on trails, and at the end of it there is a result. With that result they then either prove, or refute their hypothesis - they either got faster by running more or they did not. The next time around they either repeat the same training or try something different. This is scientific training whether it involves men in white coats, lactate thresholds, and VO2 Maxes or not.

Science does not "take the results of one study and tell us what it means" - people do. Inference is not part of the scientific method, it is something people do either before or in lue of a scientific experiment. Science is simply formulating a hypothesis, performing and experiment to test the validity of that hypothesis, the either accepting or rejecting that hypothesis based on the results of that experiment.

If a scientific study determined at corrolative relationship between distance training and a reduction in vertical jump, then a person might reasonably infer as similar impact on sprinting ability. However there is nothing scientific about making such an inference so don't blame "Science" because you don't agree.

Let's say you will be paid $1million to improve a 10.0 100-meter sprinter by .1 seconds. Would you go for the 100-mile-a-week plan or do shorter stuff and less mileage? Justify your response

In reply to the original poster's point:

I agree with you. I have decent sprint speed. I've cracked 11(FAT)in more than one 100m race. However, my finishing kick in a mile race or a 5k race is nearly pitiful. My aerobic development is not great, so by the time I get to the end of a 5k race having run the first 3 miles at 6:00 pace, my kick is gone. I can't move much faster than I'm already moving by that point. If it was an open 200m race I'd run a 22-23, faster than most guys in your typical local road races. But that doesn't matter at the end of the race when other guys are feeling fresher than I am because they are more aerobically developed. If I can finish the last 200m in 35-36 sec I'm doing well.

On the other hand, if I ran 70+ miles per week things might be different. Then my speed might become a real factor at the end of a race. But I don't run that many miles. Sprint speed does NOT necessarily mean you can outkick slower guys at the end of a distance race.

Why are we talking about whether or not a sprinter will get faster from 100 mpw?

Wasn't the original comment about 800 runners?

You can at least argue that 100 mpw COULD make an 800 runner faster based on the fact that the 800 contains a large aerobic component. True, they may lose some raw speed, but who knows, maybe the aerobic gain will outweight that loss, and the runner will end up faster over 800 meters.

You can't use 100 meter runners as your evidence when talking about 800 meter runners. The races are too different.

Yeah, I started that as an "exaggeration point" towards the 800m discussion - ie 100mpw for all 800m runners? Became a fun discussion though!

Good thread.

Biggest Falacy is that EPO "allows one to cut 8 seconds off per mile". I am a true case that this is not true. I could only run 13:20 for the life of me, and then i ran 12:34. EPO actually takes off ~12 seconds per mile.