It might just be coincidence, but western running started going down the toilet at pretty much the same time it became fixated on science. I saw a quote from Tim Hacker many years ago in response to being asked if he thought having a grad degree in exercise physiology gave him an advantage over his competition. He said something like, "No. Runners figure out what works and physiologists explain why."
HRE wrote:
It might just be coincidence, but western running started going down the toilet at pretty much the same time it became fixated on science. I saw a quote from Tim Hacker many years ago in response to being asked if he thought having a grad degree in exercise physiology gave him an advantage over his competition. He said something like, "No. Runners figure out what works and physiologists explain why."
You have a good point there HRE, but as so often there are always exceptions . Coach Gerschler and his scientific coworker Ph Reindel prepared a training system scientifically that brought out several star runners at the time. I belive it`s necessary to take advantage of previously scientifically-based knowleadge and then further develop it in order to create more powerful methods into the future. In this innovative work there is a need for both running experience and scientifically evidence.
SUPERIOR COACH JS wrote:
HRE wrote:
It might just be coincidence, but western running started going down the toilet at pretty much the same time it became fixated on science. I saw a quote from Tim Hacker many years ago in response to being asked if he thought having a grad degree in exercise physiology gave him an advantage over his competition. He said something like, "No. Runners figure out what works and physiologists explain why."
You have a good point there HRE, but as so often there are always exceptions . Coach Gerschler and his scientific coworker Ph Reindel prepared a training system scientifically that brought out several star runners at the time. I belive it`s necessary to take advantage of previously scientifically-based knowleadge and then further develop it in order to create more powerful methods into the future. In this innovative work there is a need for both running experience and scientifically evidence.
Rudolf Harbig, the best runner Gerschler ever produced. He ran 146 for 800. Snell never ran intervals, only repetitions. He ran 1:44. So why should I do intervals, when I can just run 400 hard 400 easy till I feel I got enough in for the day?
Rudolf only had to run 1:46 to be the best of his time , Snell had to run 1:44 20 years later to be the best in the world then Rudolf was a faster 400m runner than Snell so I`m sure he had run 1:44 or faster if it was needed back then . Harbig is the only man to hold both world records at 400/ 800 at the same time. Unfortunately he never got the chance to reach his optimum , he was killed as a soldier in the second war. RIP
Peter Snell vs Rudolf Harbig wrote:
SUPERIOR COACH JS wrote:
You have a good point there HRE, but as so often there are always exceptions . Coach Gerschler and his scientific coworker Ph Reindel prepared a training system scientifically that brought out several star runners at the time. I belive it`s necessary to take advantage of previously scientifically-based knowleadge and then further develop it in order to create more powerful methods into the future. In this innovative work there is a need for both running experience and scientifically evidence.
Rudolf Harbig, the best runner Gerschler ever produced. He ran 146 for 800. Snell never ran intervals, only repetitions. He ran 1:44. So why should I do intervals, when I can just run 400 hard 400 easy till I feel I got enough in for the day?
Snell never ran intervals ? I assure you that it is not true .....and it`s told one of his favorites was 20 x 400m !
SUPERIOR COACH JS wrote:
Peter Snell vs Rudolf Harbig wrote:
Rudolf Harbig, the best runner Gerschler ever produced. He ran 146 for 800. Snell never ran intervals, only repetitions. He ran 1:44. So why should I do intervals, when I can just run 400 hard 400 easy till I feel I got enough in for the day?
Snell never ran intervals ? I assure you that it is not true .....and it`s told one of his favorites was 20 x 400m !
Lydiard didn't do intervals, he did repetitions.
BergLaufer wrote:
SUPERIOR COACH JS wrote:
Snell never ran intervals ? I assure you that it is not true .....and it`s told one of his favorites was 20 x 400m !
Lydiard didn't do intervals, he did repetitions.
"Berglaufer" , that`s not true. I`m sure, and tomorrow ( this day in Sweden) I will show you evidence of that . Good night! ))
SUPERIOR COACH JS wrote:
BergLaufer wrote:
Lydiard didn't do intervals, he did repetitions.
"Berglaufer" , that`s not true. I`m sure, and tomorrow ( this day in Sweden) I will show you evidence of that . Good night! ))
He said this in his lectures.
BergLaufer wrote:
SUPERIOR COACH JS wrote:
"Berglaufer" , that`s not true. I`m sure, and tomorrow ( this day in Sweden) I will show you evidence of that . Good night! ))
He said this in his lectures.
And you were at one of these lectures ? He gave a lecture in Tokyo where he told that he was misunderstood by many when it comes to the basic aerobic phase . Anyway I will give you evidence tomorrow that his runners and his program shows they did intervals .
SUPERIOR COACH JS wrote:
BergLaufer wrote:
He said this in his lectures.
And you were at one of these lectures ? He gave a lecture in Tokyo where he told that he was misunderstood by many when it comes to the basic aerobic phase . Anyway I will give you evidence tomorrow that his runners and his program shows they did intervals .
He mentions it somewhere in this lecture:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=fiUEoTIJNII&feature=youtu.behttps://m.youtube.com/watch?feature=youtu.be&v=HSA7nKTHko0SUPERIOR COACH JS wrote:
HRE wrote:
It might just be coincidence, but western running started going down the toilet at pretty much the same time it became fixated on science. I saw a quote from Tim Hacker many years ago in response to being asked if he thought having a grad degree in exercise physiology gave him an advantage over his competition. He said something like, "No. Runners figure out what works and physiologists explain why."
You have a good point there HRE, but as so often there are always exceptions . Coach Gerschler and his scientific coworker Ph Reindel prepared a training system scientifically that brought out several star runners at the time. I belive it`s necessary to take advantage of previously scientifically-based knowleadge and then further develop it in order to create more powerful methods into the future. In this innovative work there is a need for both running experience and scientifically evidence.
You need to see if the science actually produces results. If it does it's probably "good" science. But if science decides that some sort of training is better than what was previously done yet fails to improve on what was previously done you'd do well to ignore that science. The big thing from science in the 90s was that you didn't need to do all the miles people had done in the 60s, 70s, and 80s. But the results were not as good no matter how sound the methodology of the science was.
HRE wrote:
SUPERIOR COACH JS wrote:
You have a good point there HRE, but as so often there are always exceptions . Coach Gerschler and his scientific coworker Ph Reindel prepared a training system scientifically that brought out several star runners at the time. I belive it`s necessary to take advantage of previously scientifically-based knowleadge and then further develop it in order to create more powerful methods into the future. In this innovative work there is a need for both running experience and scientifically evidence.
You need to see if the science actually produces results. If it does it's probably "good" science. But if science decides that some sort of training is better than what was previously done yet fails to improve on what was previously done you'd do well to ignore that science. The big thing from science in the 90s was that you didn't need to do all the miles people had done in the 60s, 70s, and 80s. But the results were not as good no matter how sound the methodology of the science was.
That sounds okey . But my coaching shows it`s definitely possible to reach at least the same results as the high mileage phase systems, so what do you think they actually did wrong back then? My guess is that it was not proper balanced systems with too much quality workouts .... ?
SUPERIOR COACH JS wrote:
HRE wrote:
You need to see if the science actually produces results. If it does it's probably "good" science. But if science decides that some sort of training is better than what was previously done yet fails to improve on what was previously done you'd do well to ignore that science. The big thing from science in the 90s was that you didn't need to do all the miles people had done in the 60s, 70s, and 80s. But the results were not as good no matter how sound the methodology of the science was.
That sounds okey . But my coaching shows it`s definitely possible to reach at least the same results as the high mileage phase systems, so what do you think they actually did wrong back then? My guess is that it was not proper balanced systems with too much quality workouts .... ?
There's many right ways to do high mileage and get results. But apparently low mileage is the way to go, but there is only one right way to do it?
Please high school runners don't fall for this. You need rest.
Knot4hs wrote:
Please high school runners don't fall for this. You need rest.
Jim Ryun ran twice a day in high school. Ritzenhein ran twice a day in high school. Rudy Chapa ran twice a day in high school. Lindgren ran twice a day in high school. George Malley ran twice a day in high school. Many of the Kenyans amd Ethiopians run twice a day getting to school and back. Kids aren't as soft as you think they are.
LMAO what a loser wrote:
Knot4hs wrote:
Please high school runners don't fall for this. You need rest.
Jim Ryun ran twice a day in high school. Ritzenhein ran twice a day in high school. Rudy Chapa ran twice a day in high school. Lindgren ran twice a day in high school. George Malley ran twice a day in high school. Many of the Kenyans amd Ethiopians run twice a day getting to school and back. Kids aren't as soft as you think they are.
I know how it is.Most of the Kenyan and Ethiopian kids dont run to school and back. Some of them do it. Its just a myth that many of them run twice a day getting to school and back.
Kenyan mzungu wrote:
LMAO what a loser wrote:
Jim Ryun ran twice a day in high school. Ritzenhein ran twice a day in high school. Rudy Chapa ran twice a day in high school. Lindgren ran twice a day in high school. George Malley ran twice a day in high school. Many of the Kenyans amd Ethiopians run twice a day getting to school and back. Kids aren't as soft as you think they are.
I know how it is.Most of the Kenyan and Ethiopian kids dont run to school and back. Some of them do it. Its just a myth that many of them run twice a day getting to school and back.
so all the east African champions who said they ran to school and back are lying?
What do I think actually went wrong with western training in the nineties? I think they didn't run enough and thought they could compensate by being clever and finding magic combinations of workouts. But that's just my opinion.
From Wikipedia: "Aerobic exercise provokes a systemic cytokine response, including, for example, IL-6, IL-1 receptor antagonist (IL-1ra), and IL-10 (Interleukin 10). IL-6 was serendipitously discovered as a myokine because of the observation that it increased in an exponential fashion proportional to the length of exercise and the amount of muscle mass engaged in the exercise."
Might indicate it's better to do one longer run than a double to stimulate muscle regeneration.
dan062419 wrote:
From Wikipedia: "Aerobic exercise provokes a systemic cytokine response, including, for example, IL-6, IL-1 receptor antagonist (IL-1ra), and IL-10 (Interleukin 10). IL-6 was serendipitously discovered as a myokine because of the observation that it increased in an exponential fashion proportional to the length of exercise and the amount of muscle mass engaged in the exercise."
Might indicate it's better to do one longer run than a double to stimulate muscle regeneration.
+ 1