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

You seem awfully invested in this and kind of make me wonder why. Your opening shot is calling a successful coach out there a "moron"... you might disagree with what he does but the results of his guys are there, like them or not.... and then you go ranting on and on and on.

It's just a different approach from yours pal, if you have one, or if you are just a little internet troll posting anonymously from a basement....

Sentence by sentence, I'm in agreement with rekrunner. Very good.

Try again.

ExPhys wrote:

Try again.

Ok, you are a fraud. I actually copied and pasted the conclusion of the study, word for word, and you are saying that's not what the study says. You have no credibility.

What you “copy and pasted” was written in the article. Your interpretation of the results is what is misguided. As well as your application to the real world.

ExPhys wrote:

What you “copy and pasted” was written in the article. Your interpretation of the results is what is misguided. As well as your application to the real world.

ExPhys - you are not correct here. Sorry. I'm familiar with the study and I've read it several times.

Fact Checker is accurate with the results and his interpretation is on the money.

Real Scientist wrote:

ExPhys wrote:

What you “copy and pasted” was written in the article. Your interpretation of the results is what is misguided. As well as your application to the real world.

ExPhys - you are not correct here. Sorry. I'm familiar with the study and I've read it several times.

Fact Checker is accurate with the results and his interpretation is on the money.

Thank you so much Real Scientist and i'm glad you've read it several times and feel like you're familiar with it. I still disagree with Fact Checker and his application of the results of the study. Sorry.

I just read through that study. Depending on what you call LT pace, that's a hell of a test. 20 minutes LT followed by less than 1 minute break before starting the gait analysis, x 3. So 60 minutes total running at LT pace, with 2 short breaks. No wonder the subjects' form deteriorated. Looks like a race effort. Does that sound correct?

Some agree, some don`t . That`s one of things that makes it interesting to debate about running here .

ExPhys wrote:

Real Scientist wrote:

ExPhys - you are not correct here. Sorry. I'm familiar with the study and I've read it several times.

Fact Checker is accurate with the results and his interpretation is on the money.

Thank you so much Real Scientist and i'm glad you've read it several times and feel like you're familiar with it. I still disagree with Fact Checker and his application of the results of the study. Sorry.

You are allowed to have your own opinion. The rest of us will rely on science. The science is clear from the study.

I bet you also think the Earth is flat. I just pray that you will follow science and vaccinate your children.

Real Scientist wrote:

ExPhys wrote:

Thank you so much Real Scientist and i'm glad you've read it several times and feel like you're familiar with it. I still disagree with Fact Checker and his application of the results of the study. Sorry.

You are allowed to have your own opinion. The rest of us will rely on science. The science is clear from the study.

I bet you also think the Earth is flat. I just pray that you will follow science and vaccinate your children.

Oh lord. That’s how I know not to take your opinion. You bring in my future children as some sort of insult to my character and knowledge. That’s sad.

I can’t ever trust an individual who says “the science is clear” from a singular study. Best of luck to you though.

5 minute warm-up, 20 x 20 minutes LT, with short break before-middle-after for gait analysis. So they were perhaps not well warmed up to start, then ran a hard workout. And as they ran, they probably slowly loosened up, resulting in gradual change in gait. Move hip movement, etc. And they are fatigued by the end, form slips some as it might by late in any hard workout. Do you take away anything from this study that is unexpected?

That's the hardest part about any scientific study and then trying to attribute it to real-world settings. No athlete is going to only warm-up for 5-minutes before starting a tempo. That was the first limitation of the study.

Only male athletes for this study which is another issue since stress fractures seem to be a larger issue within female distance athletes.

My last issue with the study was they recruited rear-foot striking athletes. The study is now inherently focused on that type of gait, to begin with. If you're going to apply the results of this, it should ONLY be applied to those who rear-foot strike.

How do you think the 2x20 LT compares to a 10 or 15km race effort? Is this a 'superhero workout'?

ExPhys wrote:

That's the hardest part about any scientific study and then trying to attribute it to real-world settings. No athlete is going to only warm-up for 5-minutes before starting a tempo. That was the first limitation of the study.

Only male athletes for this study which is another issue since stress fractures seem to be a larger issue within female distance athletes.

My last issue with the study was they recruited rear-foot striking athletes. The study is now inherently focused on that type of gait, to begin with. If you're going to apply the results of this, it should ONLY be applied to those who rear-foot strike.

The 5 min warmup is not ideal, but it doesn't impact what they are testing - which is how fatigue from LT negatively affects form in a way that will cause injuries. If the 5 min warmup was an issue, then they would have had worse form in the beginning and better form in the end.

Using only men and only rear-foot strikers is called controlling variables. That's good science. If you want to do a study to test other variables, go right ahead and contribute to the scientific community.

You still haven't explain how this study doesn't prove Fact Checker right.

Well:

1) It DOES impact what they are testing. It drastically could alter how gait mechanics change over the course of an LT workout. It's not indicative of a true warm-up that is designed to get athletes primed to run as effectively as possible.

2) Thank you for your wonderful explanation of a control variable. My argument isn't on what they controlled for, it's taking that information and applying it to the general population. So yes, form decreases in colleged aged men who ALSO only rear foot strikes. This information can't be used to describe any other type of runner then across the entire spectrum.

Fact Checker and yourself seem to want to cherry pick the results and use that as a platform to describe LT workouts for ALL runners and how they contribute to a possible increase in TSF. That's what I disagree with you about.

Fact checker wrote: "There is zero data that suggests runing at 3k or 5k pace causes injuries. There is, however, data that suggests THRESHOLD pace has the highest likelihood of injuries." HIGHEST likelihood of injuries? The study posted does not in any way suggest that. A whole lot of back-and-forth just to string this out. Is someone trolling with socks?

ExPhys wrote:

Real Scientist wrote:

The 5 min warmup is not ideal, but it doesn't impact what they are testing - which is how fatigue from LT negatively affects form in a way that will cause injuries. If the 5 min warmup was an issue, then they would have had worse form in the beginning and better form in the end.

Using only men and only rear-foot strikers is called controlling variables. That's good science. If you want to do a study to test other variables, go right ahead and contribute to the scientific community.

You still haven't explain how this study doesn't prove Fact Checker right.

Fact Checker and yourself seem to want to cherry pick the results and use that as a platform to describe LT workouts for ALL runners and how they contribute to a possible increase in TSF. That's what I disagree with you about.

You've moved the goalposts pretty damn far from your original statement on the study. It's getting sad.

At least now you admit I was right that LT is associated with stress fractures. You learned something in this thread, thanks to me. You're welcome.