Nothing new about distance training has been discovered since January 1, 1980.

coach d wrote:

lifting heavy weights improves running economy because it causes a more explosive footstrike

because wrote:

Coach d is right, a more explosive footstrike is more economical regardless of whatever else improves economy.

No, coach d, you are totally wrong as usual.

An explosive footstrike is extremely uneconomical, which is why there are NO top sprinters who are any good at running events were economy is important.

I see hard/easy/hard/easy/easy/hard or 3 harder workouts a week....lots of workouts in a week it seems

this compares to 2 hard workouts per re: Moses Mosop/R. Canova with 2-3 recovery/easy days between very hard work

I see many long runs, maybe too many too fast vs long fast runs at 95% MP spaced furhter apart.

I see a workout of 1000 meter repeats with short 100m recovery. other workouts have shorter recovery vs longer recovery re: Canova training ideas.

I see a tempo session one day followed by long 20M run of unspecificed pace the next day.

maybe not easy enough on easy days and not hard enough on hard days with not enough rest/recovery

Sprinting is an event where economy is not important. That's probably a bigger reason why sprinters are good at sprinting events, but not at economy events.Are you the only one saying that? How about giving us a link, or some other kind of authoritative reference? Can you quantify "extremely"?Don't get me wrong -- it's just that I've never seen any peer-reviewed paper written by "bass ackwards".

bass ackwards wrote:

An explosive footstrike is extremely uneconomical, which is why there are NO top sprinters who are any good at running events were economy is important.

I think you guys need to realize that explosions still come in many sizes. You can still get a lot more snap in your ankles without actually bounding like a Kangaroo.

rekrunner wrote:

Sprinting is an event where economy is not important. That's probably a bigger reason why sprinters are good at sprinting events, but not at economy events.

Economy is just as important in sprinting as in any other race. It doesn't matter what the fuel source is, fuel economy is vital for all distances.

I'm sure they do. Are small explosions economical? Are large explosions uneconomical? It's not my claim. I was only asking where I could find out more about how explosive footstrikes are related to economy.Kangaroos are actually very economical when they bound. They actually consume less energy at high speed, than at low speed.

SMJO wrote:

I think you guys need to realize that explosions still come in many sizes. You can still get a lot more snap in your ankles without actually bounding like a Kangaroo.

Sorry. You need to do better than that. Economy among sprinters is at best of secondary importance, but in my opinion is not even secondary, or tertiary.Did you know that dragsters consume between 4 and 5 gallons of fuel during a quarter mile run?http://www.nhra.net/streetlegal/funfacts.htmlDo you think these guys, if they consume 5 gallons, strive to consume 4? Do they strive to go faster with 5? Or do they strive to go faster by consuming 6?Economy in a running context is usually measured as the oxygen cost of running. For sprinting events, oxygen doesn't really play a major role, since the important sources of rapidly produced energy are anaerobic.

common sense... wrote:

rekrunner wrote:

Sprinting is an event where economy is not important. That's probably a bigger reason why sprinters are good at sprinting events, but not at economy events.

Economy is just as important in sprinting as in any other race. It doesn't matter what the fuel source is, fuel economy is vital for all distances.

What about the belief that protein unconditionally improves athletic performance and builds muscle? Did runners in the 70s and earlier know to get their protein powder and tons of it? also lean white meats?

Kipketer_Pumpkin_Eater wrote:

What about the belief that protein unconditionally improves athletic performance and builds muscle? Did runners in the 70s and earlier know to get their protein powder and tons of it? also lean white meats?

That's just another crazy myth that has no credibility.

Hardloper wrote:

Nothing. Everything since then has been re-hashing of the same concepts already understood by runners in the late 70's / early 80's. All improvements since then have only come through better technology, faster courses, and a larger global talent pool of participation.

I think you are on to something. I also think we need to question current concepts of training. Especially the notion of "base" and how "base training" is used up by doing intervals and races. It just seems unscientific and some theory some guy made up. Maybe "base training" is unnecessary.

We need to question training because sports exercise physiologists do complete 180s and say "oops, we were wrong".

For example, look how some have gone from total carb loading to now saying you should now do paleo diet. Did they do this to sell an updated version of a book?

And theories like "central governor" where the mind limits performance, etc.. Where is the research to back this stuff up?

rekrunner wrote:

Sorry. You need to do better than that. Economy among sprinters is at best of secondary importance, but in my opinion is not even secondary, or tertiary.

[/quote]

You are clueless. Do you really think that Usain Bolt isn't running economically when he wins by such big margins?

aspiring miler wrote:

And theories like "central governor" where the mind limits performance, etc.. Where is the research to back this stuff up?

Why don't you google it and find out just how much research Noakes did?

common sense... wrote:

rekrunner wrote:

Sorry. You need to do better than that. Economy among sprinters is at best of secondary importance, but in my opinion is not even secondary, or tertiary.

You are clueless. Do you really think that Usain Bolt isn't running economically when he wins by such big margins?[/quote]

You´re the one who is absolutely clueless. Like somebody else said: running economy is how much oxygen you consume at a given speed. Oxygen consumption is irrelevant in sprint races, since they are largely anaerobic.

No, you guys are clueless. You are talking specifically oxygen economy. By your definition either sprinters aren't runners or they have the best O2 economy of all runners.

Good economy comes from good biomechanics regardless of the percentage of aerobic or anaerobic contributions, to argue otherwise is just stupidity.

The problem with research in exercise is it ignores prior training. No one has the same prior training before a study starts. So it is all kind of bogus.

You cherry picked out the switch from carbs/glycogen to a paleo diet for athletes.

I searched that and found nothing but garbage promotional stuff, pro-paleo sites, and anecdotes about how some people are carb resistant. No scientific peer-reviewed scientific surveys.

Please post the scientific proof that carbs/glycogen no longer matters. Not that the switch worked for someone or someone else and they "felt better". Name some top athletes who have switched too.

I never mentioned paleo, you got the wrong guy.

common sense... wrote:

No, you guys are clueless. You are talking specifically oxygen economy. By your definition either sprinters aren't runners or they have the best O2 economy of all runners.

Good economy comes from good biomechanics regardless of the percentage of aerobic or anaerobic contributions, to argue otherwise is just stupidity.

Sprinters aren't runners.

Regardless your nonsensical ramblings, sprinters don't have good biomechanics for running vs sprinting, and they also have poor economy.

Sorry, you still need to do way better than that. Let me clue you in. If you compare sprinters to sprinters, then, other things being roughly equal, economy becomes marginally important. But, that wasn't really the context. Pick whatever fuel you want, sprinters are uneconomical compared to middle and long distance runners. Like dragsters, sprinters consume fuel at high rates. Sorry for you but facts are facts.What are the primary factors that separate Usain Bolt from Zersenay Tadese or Derek Clayton? Usain's superior economy? Get a clue. Tell me for sprinting why economy is of primary importance over factors like peak power, and maximum rate of energy production.Pick whatever fuel you want, fuel economy is of secondary importance (at best) in any effort lasting 20 seconds or less. Fuel economy becomes important when there is a high risk of running out of fuel prematurely.

common sense... wrote:

rekrunner wrote:

Sorry. You need to do better than that. Economy among sprinters is at best of secondary importance, but in my opinion is not even secondary, or tertiary.

You are clueless. Do you really think that Usain Bolt isn't running economically when he wins by such big margins?[/quote]

EPO