Tinman's "diminishing returns" philosophy about training is a great way to justify laziness

Yea, I've never understood why people think that fast running is the injury villan. The most common distance running injury is stress fractures, which are more a function of the cumulative pounding of all miles, hence why runners get it far more commonly from marathon training than mile training. I'm sure if there were data that shows injury rate per event speciality, it'd show that injury rate increases as event distance increases.

fact checker 642572498 wrote:

There is zero data that suggests running at 3k or 5k pace causes injuries. There is, however, data that suggests THRESHOLD pace has the highest likelihood of injuries.

Prove what you claim.

jamin wrote:

Yea, I've never understood why people think that fast running is the injury villan. The most common distance running injury is stress fractures, which are more a function of the cumulative pounding of all miles, hence why runners get it far more commonly from marathon training than mile training. I'm sure if there were data that shows injury rate per event speciality, it'd show that injury rate increases as event distance increases.

That's a false premise jamin. Like everything else, you've got it all bass-ackwards. Here's the elephant in the living room -- you still haven't made a commitment to training. You have no intention to do so. You never will. Ever. You love to wallow in self-pity, misery and ennui. Prove me wrong, for once.

jamin wrote:

Yea, I've never understood why people think that fast running is the injury villan. The most common distance running injury is stress fractures, which are more a function of the cumulative pounding of all miles, hence why runners get it far more commonly from marathon training than mile training. I'm sure if there were data that shows injury rate per event speciality, it'd show that injury rate increases as event distance increases.

Well Jamin.....it doesn`t look you read the article I showed? The thing is that different kind of injuries are related to the fast pace and the slow pace. So purely logical a 3k pace gives increased risk of injury compared to a 5 k pace when it comes to frequency of injuries related to faster paces.This is a simple explanation why injury risk decrease in a system with maxVO2 pace at 5 k pace compared to 3 k pace. Also why injury risk decrease in a low mileage system compared to a high mileage .

If you use runningworld info to train your athletes, I feel sorry for them. The "study" mentioned there is illegitimate as it looks at things ex post facto and is 100% relying on assumptions.

fact checker 642572498 wrote:

The "study" mentioned there is illegitimate as it looks at things ex post facto and is 100% relying on assumptions.

The study is legitimate.

"Data were typically collected retrospectively over a period of one week to several years. This approach may have caused injured runners to underestimate or to overestimate the amount of training completed before suffering injury compared with healthy runners. This may lead to a biased estimate."

"The available evidence presented in this commentary was all based on self‐reported data, which may not be a valid method when measuring volume and pace during running. It is suggested that the types of studies cited are replicated in future prospective studies using more accurate and objective measurements methods like the use of a GPS."

The authors made disclaimers and welcomed better methods for the future.

The best available data shows a correlation. You can disagree, but the study itself is legitimate.

Laziness is moving up from 800m to 5000m. 800m is just too hard. Few can hack it more than a year or two without burning out.

malmo wrote:

jamin wrote:

Yea, I've never understood why people think that fast running is the injury villan. The most common distance running injury is stress fractures, which are more a function of the cumulative pounding of all miles, hence why runners get it far more commonly from marathon training than mile training. I'm sure if there were data that shows injury rate per event speciality, it'd show that injury rate increases as event distance increases.

That's a false premise jamin. Like everything else, you've got it all bass-ackwards. Here's the elephant in the living room -- you still haven't made a commitment to training. You have no intention to do so. You never will. Ever. You love to wallow in self-pity, misery and ennui. Prove me wrong, for once.

Well.....I don`t agree with you malmo. I mean when it comes to Jamin`s commitment to training.))

Actually he is now not far from the ideal training I would describe for him if I had been the coach. A couple of weeks ago he did 20 x 400m at 68 sec and one min rest. His lactate threshold pace is getting faster and so even his distance runs. I think he is close to understand what I have told him is the right way for him to reach his potential.

Piano_Man87 wrote:

malmo wrote:

That's a false premise jamin. Like everything else, you've got it all bass-ackwards. Here's the elephant in the living room -- you still haven't made a commitment to training. You have no intention to do so. You never will. Ever. You love to wallow in self-pity, misery and ennui. Prove me wrong, for once.

OK, but your weird vendetta against Jamin's training aside, you didn't really back up what you were saying either.

From my point of view, this stress fracture thing is not really a thing of racing distance. If I understand malmo correctly, that's what he means, too.

Thing is: From the mile up to the marathon there is not THAT much difference from the pounding aspect.

Roughly 90 - 130 miles are a good guideline for elites. And when you run more like the mile, you will run more quick stuff in spikes. So you have - in my opinion - quite equal pounding all across the board.

And this makes perfect sense: Because when you really commit to training you push the boundaries. And it's not a question of "uh yeah, I run 5k in 14:45" or "I run 13:00". It's basically the same ballpark, especially when you wanna develop into a high level athlete.

That was a point from malmo: No stress fractures in mid distance runners might be more telling about their training than about the distance. Cuz training for an 800, 1500 or steeple is freakin' hard on the body, too. Because you PUSH. So when you get s atress fracture: Eat well and don't be frustrated. It happens. Injuries part of the game. Some have more luck. Some less. Every athlete is an experiment of one. So sometimes you might overdo it a bit or have bad luck.

Kind regards

Pikachu

jamin wrote:

Yea, I've never understood why people think that fast running is the injury villan. The most common distance running injury is stress fractures, which are more a function of the cumulative pounding of all miles, hence why runners get it far more commonly from marathon training than mile training. I'm sure if there were data that shows injury rate per event speciality, it'd show that injury rate increases as event distance increases.

The studies I have seen suggest things like runners knee, IBTS , Plantar Fascitas, shin splints, and achilles issues are all much more common than stress fractures. I am also not sure if the injury rate between a 800m guy and a marathoner differ much. One gets stress fracture. The other tears a hamstring.

I am pretty sure in the end it is always the combo that kills you. Tire your legs out in a workout and they don't do a good of job absorbing impact stress when our out running 10 miles. Or you hurt yourself doing the workout cause your are tired from those other 100 miles you ran.

Jan Stensson , Coach JS wrote:

malmo wrote:

That's a false premise jamin. Like everything else, you've got it all bass-ackwards. Here's the elephant in the living room -- you still haven't made a commitment to training. You have no intention to do so. You never will. Ever. You love to wallow in self-pity, misery and ennui. Prove me wrong, for once.

Well.....I don`t agree with you malmo. I mean when it comes to Jamin`s commitment to training.))

.

You are completely ignorant about Jamin's lack of commitment. I don't use the ignorant an insult, it's a state of cognition. He's been doing this crap for about ten years now. This is probably the 20th iteration of his "going to start training " threads. Jamin's commitment usually lasts a few weeks, at most. He simply doesn't not follow through with anything. He lacks any ability to concentrate or follow up.

Now for the good news: He actually has talent. He's more talented than college teammates of mine who have run in the 14:06 - 14:20 5k range, but they were committed and persistent, and grounded in their approach. He's more talented than a college teammate of mine who ran a 2:17 marathon during winter break after xc season. A physics major who made time to run.

Jamin lives in a fantasy world called Gonna-do. He has a lot of anonymous stalkers who get off on seeing him fail, but there are quite a few more of us who see his talent and want to see him realize what he's got. What he really needs is an old-school local running club with committed runners who meet regularly every week and work together to grow and achieve. Seattle used to have clubs like that, I'm not sure if they do that any more?

Yes, I want Jamin to prove me wrong. If he does I'll be happy for him.

Go to effort-and-technique-focused training and eat lots of meat, fish and eggs and injuries are almost impossible.

You literally highlighted and bolded the parts that prove me right. Thank you.

It’s not gonna happen malmo. Not until Jamin and I agree on a time and place to race at a true catch-distance race. Probably 1k or 1200m. Until that day, he won’t be motivated enough.

But they're all STILL ALWAYS HURT. Baha let me put some tape on it.

fact checker 642572498 wrote:

You literally highlighted and bolded the parts that prove me right. Thank you.

You've asserted a lot of things in this thread, but have not posted a single thing backing yourself up. Put up or shut up.

Risk for tibial stress fractures is negatively modified with impact fatigue. Continuous running at lactate threshold pace was shown to impair the stretch-shortening cycle and eccentric function of the musculoskeletal system. Results showed fatigue associated with tibial impact accelerations within 15 to 20 minutes of running at LT pace exhibited the strongest risk for tibial stress fractures.

fact checker 642572498 wrote:

https://journals.lww.com/acsm-msse/Fulltext/2012/10000/Effects_of_Fatigue_on_Running_Mechanics_Associated.12.aspx

Risk for tibial stress fractures is negatively modified with impact fatigue. Continuous running at lactate threshold pace was shown to impair the stretch-shortening cycle and eccentric function of the musculoskeletal system. Results showed fatigue associated with tibial impact accelerations within 15 to 20 minutes of running at LT pace exhibited the strongest risk for tibial stress fractures.

Wow. I think you completely missed the point of the article. But here's a pretty important synopsis made by the researchers:

"It seemed that the variables demonstrating a significant change after 40 min showed a consistent trend of change across both running bouts, with the changes only reaching statistical significance after 40 min in most of these variables."

ExPhys wrote:

fact checker 642572498 wrote:

https://journals.lww.com/acsm-msse/Fulltext/2012/10000/Effects_of_Fatigue_on_Running_Mechanics_Associated.12.aspx

Risk for tibial stress fractures is negatively modified with impact fatigue. Continuous running at lactate threshold pace was shown to impair the stretch-shortening cycle and eccentric function of the musculoskeletal system. Results showed fatigue associated with tibial impact accelerations within 15 to 20 minutes of running at LT pace exhibited the strongest risk for tibial stress fractures.

Wow. I think you completely missed the point of the article. But here's a pretty important synopsis made by the researchers:

"It seemed that the variables demonstrating a significant change after 40 min showed a consistent trend of change across both running bouts, with the changes only reaching statistical significance after 40 min in most of these variables."

WRONG. Did you even read the study or did you just find one random sentence to copy and paste?

I will try to dumb it down for you.

Purpose:

"Given the high training workloads that trained distance runners perform at, there is a requirement for research to assess the timing of progressive fatigue effects across high-intensity LT running. The purpose of this study was to examine the acute effects of progressive fatigue in trained distance runners on running mechanics associated with tibial stress fracture risk"

Method:

"Twenty-one trained male distance runners performed three sets (Pre, Mid, and Post) of six overground running trials at 4.5 m·s−1 (±5%). Kinematic and kinetic data were collected during each trial using a 12-camera motion capture system, force platform, and head and leg accelerometers. Between tests, each runner ran on a treadmill for 20 min at their corresponding lactate threshold (LT) speed. Perceived exertion levels (RPE) were recorded at the third and last minute of each treadmill run."

Results:

"Previously identified risk factors for impact-related injuries (such as tibial stress fracture) are modified with fatigue. Because fatigue is associated with a reduced tolerance for impact, these findings lend support to the importance of those measures to identify individuals at risk of injury from lower limb impact loading during running."