Marathon Training On Low Volume???

Richard_ wrote:

don't let the facts stop you from calling me names.

G'morning, shitball!

As far as your "facts" are concerned, you might as well have linked to an article from Better Homes and Gardens or Soap Opera Weekly for all the support it lends your backward causes. That NIH abstract employs the term "dose-response," but this is for semantic purposes only and has no bearing at all on your pet bastardization of same. The study demonstrated that aerobic exercise lowers resting heart rate and blood pressure along with mortality from cardiovascular disease - not ground-breaking stuff. In fact, its conclusions diverge from the findings of exercise physiologists in that increasing intensity and duration beyond three months will certainly produce performance gains but doesn't confer added protection from CAD and the like.

Also, note that N = 11. Now that's the stuff compelling articles are built on.

Chalk up another red herring for the forum's Special Ed delegate to the exercise physiology pool.

Richard_ wrote:

Joe,

Not really.

Uh, why not?

Joe,

Two reasons. First, mostly personal preference. Second, because Antonio has his beliefs and I have mine and it is unlikely either of us will persuade the other to our particular point of view.

Richard_ wrote:

Antonio has his beliefs and I have mine and it is unlikely either of us will persuade the other to our particular point of view.

Richard_,

Your views run contrary not only to Antonio's, but to those of virtually every respected coach/physiologist. Yet this has never stopped you from wading into countless unwinnable debates. What makes Antonio's words any different? Are you in effect admitting that you simply can't counter what he's said, even with your standard back-pedaling, confabulating, and waffling? Are you finally grasping that the statement "You have your opinion andI have mine" is meaningless in that not all opinions are equally valid - yours being demonstrably less so than those of people you choose to argue with?

With utmost respect,

Jack "Goose" Gibbens

U. of Kentucky Athletics Hall fo Fame

Jack,

Perhaps I should have followed my instinct and stopped with "mostly personal preference."

Respectfully, I don't really want to have a debate as to why I didn't choose to respond to Antonio's post. I do realize that this means my reasons are open to speculation, just as you have done.

Best regards,

Richard_ wrote:

Perhaps I should have followed my instinct and stopped with "mostly personal preference."

Well, that wouldn't have worked well either, since such a statement merely begs the question of why you prefer not to respond to a post from a respected source that thoroughly counters your views. In this context, a disengagent from the discussion implies an inability to supply sufficient facts to reverse the decimation of your propositions. Your demurral in the face of Mr. Cabral's post is fundamentally similar to your habit of not responding to those whom you claim insult you in addition to swatting aside your whimsical "theories," with the added element that simply saying "I really don't care to answer" makes you look clueless beyond measure. In fact, sound a lot like the harried, unreasonable protagonist in Melville's "Bartleby the Scrivener."

With utmost respect,

Jack "Goose" Gibbens

U. of Kentucky Athletic Hall of Fame

I'm curious to know if the mileage posted are ranges or averages? Take Steve Jones for example. Did he consistantly run within the range of 80-100 mpw, or did he average 80-100mpw, which means he could have run 120 some weeks and 60-70 other weeks?

Thank you!

Renato Canova wrote:

b) If you can run every day, going to 80/90 miles per week, you become able running 2:20 and......

c) If you have the opportunity to become a PROFESSIONAL RUNNER, using two sessions a day and running 120/150 miles per week, you can run 2:10.

How?

Goose Gibbens wrote:

Mr. Cabral's post

Wasn't the post by Renato Canova, and not Antonio Cabral.

Good Marathoner Wannabe wrote:

How?

If you never take batting practice, you might hit .300. However, if you take batting practice five days a week and spend all winter working on your swing, you might hit .350.

for clarification purposes wrote:

Wasn't the post by Renato Canova, and not Antonio Cabral.

Yes. Richard_ initiated the error and I propagated it. Thanks.

Jack "Goose" Gibbens

U. of Kentucky Athletic Hall of Fame

My bad. Sorry for any confusion.

Broadview Joe wrote:

If you never take batting practice, you might hit .300. However, if you take batting practice five days a week and spend all winter working on your swing, you might hit .350.

OK thanks I will be hitting .350 by next spring. Now lets talk running. If you don't know don't respond. Was hoping for a response by Mr. Canova.

Very humourous thread. Thanks for the grins. Keep it up guys. Especially you, Richard_. You're the fuel that keeps this funny fire burning.

Pete wrote:Very humourous thread. Thanks for the grins. Keep it up guys. Especially you, Richard_. You're the fuel that keeps this funny fire burning.

Sorry, forgot to add... I especially enjoyed when an acknowledged world class coach waded in with an opinion and you chose to just ignore it.

What could he know, right?

Actually, studies have shown that world class coaches know nothing.

Broadview Joe wrote:

Actually, studies have shown that world class coaches know nothing.

You, my man, are brilliant!

Actually, though, I think it was only *one* study - it involved two coaches, both of whom had turned six or seven hundred 4:30 milers into 3:55 guys but couldn't describe the glycolytic pathway - step-by-step and enzymes and all - from memory in under a minute, marking them as know-nothings. It was published in Annals of Creative Physiology, Vol. 45, No. 11, pp. 345-349. The same authors had previously described something relating to limitations on human performance called the "Peripheral Emperor theory," which later became the "Medial Czar theory" and finally the "Retrograde CEO theory." They might be calling it something else these days, what with advances in research and all, but I can't quite remember the new name...

P450 cytochrome oxidase is sweet, and by sweet, I mean totally awesome.

Actually, I posting to give Richard major props. The guy has nuts of steel to come over here from runtex.com and keep the lower mileage discussion going. While I'm not sold on his approach, I think he can't be dismissed as easily as some would make out. In addition, he provides a necessary balance to the Japanese-style-mega-mileage freaks. If you can take the abuse, stick around Richard.

Thanks Jack.