It might be 'common sense' to you, but common sense doesn't make it any more real. The lore of 'common sense' is laden with old-wives tales, superstition, mythology and downright falsehoods. Running lore seems to attract the kinds of people who fall for his superstitious belief system, errr, "common sense."
Malmo, with all due respect, why cant you just acknowledge that if you take a 16 year old who has never done more than 40mpw and have him do 170mpw next week, there is an increased risk of injury?
When nothing else works, dust off the granddaddy of logical fallacies - the straw man. Well done, chicken noodle guy.
Well so far I have the third lowest max (of those posting here). I did 50.5 miles the first week of this year. That was also my first time running 7 days straight. I did hit 48.5 on 6 runs back in September.
malmo wrote:
Campbells Salty Sodium wrote:yes malmo but isnt the immune system temporarily weakened during a block of high training stress? but for a guy like you, maybe 170mpw is not a high training stress.
What difference does that make? If you get sick at the same frequency as the sedentary population, then what's the problem?
My god, some of you guys are just thick.
The fact is, my peers are athletes (dozens upon dozens of them) who have put in blocks of high mileage, and I have never heard of a chronic flu problem among them. Surely if running a lot caused and increase in susceptibility to the flu or URTIs I should have noticed it? Or at least my friends, who have done this for a living would have noticed it too? But, noooooooooo, only anonymous nitwits on an internet message board are suggesting that blocks of high mileage causes the flu.
Do you think that people who actually have trained like this, and have actually done this for a living, and whose peers have trained like that, and have done this for a living,too, might have a bit more experience and wisdom to share than you do?
malmo, I have seen for over a decade now that you are loathe to be contradicted and you condescend to anyone less than a current or former national record holder. Neverthless, cross country skiers (not just local yokel schlubs but Olympic level athletes and coaches) have long held the belief that there is a relationship between high volume training, nutritive depletion, and immunity.
Here are a couple of sources one technical, the other non-technical by a nurse for popular audiences:
Immunological effects of competitive versus recreational sports in cross-country skiing.
Mueller O, Villiger B, O'Callaghan B, Simon HU.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11258642University Hospital, Department of Rheumatology, Zuerich, Switzerland.
olaf.mueller@ruz.usz.chAbstract
For a period of two months during the competitive season the effects of endurance training in cross-country skiers were evaluated in order to compare the adaptive and innate immune systems between 10 competitive athletes, 10 moderately trained athletes and 10 untrained healthy controls. The main results were as follows: the peripheral T-lymphocyte count of the competitive athletes was decreased. In contrast the number of peripheral blood NK cells was increased in this group. These data imply a diminution of the adaptive immune system due to repeated bouts of intense exercise and contemporaneous reinforcement of the innate immune response. Moreover the inducible IL-12-expression following monocyte stimulation was significantly decreased in competitive athletes. Compared with the other two groups, the moderately trained athletes showed a significantly increased production of IFN-gamma upon T-cell stimulation. These data suggest that the immune system may profit from moderate endurance training by an increased capacity to generate IFN-gamma while the immune situation following repeated exhausting exercise of competitive athletes tends to deteriorate through downregulation of IFN-gamma and IL-12.
http://www.masterskier.com/article.asp?aid=167on the road again.. wrote:
I know someone who drove 10,000 miles in a week. Still not as impressive as Malmo's numbers.
You're kidding? 10,000/7 = 1428 miles a day. At 80 miles an hour that's 17:51 a day. One day it's doable. for 7 days. that's crazy.
runski2010 wrote:
malmo, I have seen for over a decade now that you are loathe to be contradicted and you condescend to anyone less than a current or former national record holder. Neverthless, cross country skiers (not just local yokel schlubs but Olympic level athletes and coaches) have long held the belief that there is a relationship between high volume training, nutritive depletion, and immunity.
I understand that athletes of all skill levels have superstitious belief systems. Galen Rupp puts a bandiad on his nose, that doesn't make it scientific. Paula Radcliffe had a baindiad on her nose AND she wore new age juju beads. Yes, athletes, even great ones, are superstitious.
A guy claimed that the cause of me getting sick once that was coincidentally in the middle of a 180 mile week, was the running. I responded that it was a virus that caused the flu and that I, and all of my peers else I know, had 2-3 illnesses a year (important disstiction, becasue those are the people who are likely to put in high mileage blocks), no different than the average illness frequency of the sedentary population. You can call that "condescending" if you wish - if you don't use your brain then it should feel condecending to you.
'The fact is, catching colds/flus are a function of being a living human being. The average person gets ill 2-3 times a year. Runners, low mileage runners, and high mileages runners are no different. The fact that sometimes you get sick is during a block of high mileage is just as coincidental as getting sick during a block of low mileage.[/quote]'
Its not a fact though is it
If you increase stress on your body you will get more colds etc - same as if you are run down or tired. Does not mean you will never get a cold but you will be more susceptible
As you get older you generally get less colds because you immune system has built up restistance to some of them
Of course if you want to run well you will ignore that but its important to get enough rest to compensate for the miles. Unless you are a full time athlete that's not easy to do
malmo wrote:
You're kidding? 10,000/7 = 1428 miles a day. At 80 miles an hour that's 17:51 a day. One day it's doable. for 7 days. that's crazy.
Yeah, no joke. It was my dad. Trucking. Went from Indiana to California... twice, plus 1-way to Florida.
Crazy is right. Of course, he'd say the same thing about the numbers some of you guys are posting. :-)
144 (if I remember correctly...it was just over 140 though).
on the road again.. wrote:
Yeah, no joke. It was my dad. Trucking. Went from Indiana to California... twice, plus 1-way to Florida.
Crazy is right. Of course, he'd say the same thing about the numbers some of you guys are posting. :-)
I'm pretty sure his official manifest didn't show those trips. That's quite illegal. But then again, the entire trucking industry is (or used to be) illegal.
93.
Malmo, i dont understand why you have to start a pissing war over something so simple. if you take a kid who is only running 40mpw now and he runs 170mpw next week, he's more likely to get injured. which is why what you're saying makes little sense in that case.
161 in January 2003. At the very end of that week, after all those miles, I ran what still is the fastest 5k I've done since college.
MALMO im a fan of yours but your arrogance is just f*ckin out of control.
Campbells Salty Sodium wrote:
Malmo, i dont understand why you have to start a pissing war over something so simple. if you take a kid who is only running 40mpw now and he runs 170mpw next week, he's more likely to get injured. which is why what you're saying makes little sense in that case.
Who is starting a pissing war? This is a non sequitur. It is a straw man argument. It has nothing to do with the debate.
Oh, 116
Did you read the abstract? This was a published, peer reviewed article.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11258642
Skiers train 20 to 25 hr/week, and hundreds of km more than runners. Get with it malmo, better start training!
Campbells Salty Sodium wrote:
Malmo, i dont understand why you have to start a pissing war over something so simple. if you take a kid who is only running 40mpw now and he runs 170mpw next week, he's more likely to get injured. which is why what you're saying makes little sense in that case.
Did someone actually recommend that ANYBODY do this to a 16 year old kid? Did malmo? Because if he did I sure missed it.
MALMO: increased training stress = increased likelihood of unplanned setback do you believe that at all?
malmo wrote:
When nothing else works, dust off the granddaddy of logical fallacies - the straw man. Well done, chicken noodle guy.
yeah, nothing else works with you. ive tried to reason with you, but you show no mercy. you take pride in being arrogant as f*ck