What do we really know about training?

dear god, use paragraphs!

@paragraphs, sure, but I think this is a great question. I am basically a lifelong fitness runner who just started reading about this stuff no more than two years ago. Mostly just reading Running Times, and yes Runners World, haphazardly trying to piece things together.

I have wondered about this too. For example, I read about a couple age runners, Ed Whitlock and Yoshihisa Hosaka. Whitlock ran a 2:54 marathon at age 73, and Hosaka ran 2:36 at 60.

Their training couldn't really be more different if they tried. Whitlock runs 3 hr long slow runs daily (don't know if that's 7 days/wk). No speed work. Hosaka basicaly runs a few miles of warm-up jogging, then 5X1K twice a day, 7 days a week. No long runs.

http://runningtimes.com/Print.aspx?articleID=16503

How can this be? I recall long ago in school studying about the nature of the scientific method. One of the hallmarks of science is an inexorable march towards consensus.

How much of the physiology jargon that spews forth from the so-called experts is really scientifically-derived and how much just little more than priestly ramblings?

towhee wrote:

...

How much of the physiology jargon that spews forth from the so-called experts is really scientifically-derived and how much just little more than priestly ramblings?

Yeah, lots of priestly ramblings for sure. But not nearly as many as the "proper running form" crowd which deals 100% in priestly ramblings.

Towhee, this happens a lot where looking at a block of training in veterans skews the actual course of development that got them there.

In the case of Whitlock, he was actually rather fast when he was younger. Speed is not foreign to him.

Likewise the reverse is true for Hosaka. He might only be doing speedwork now, but he has a lifetime of steady mileage through it all that casual runners taking their routine off days will never come to know.

The training adds up to a sum total and what a runner did most recently isn't a full indicator of how to get there, nor does it prove that they took the best path to where they are currently.

The whole field of physical training is still in the dark ages. It is ruled by tradition, superstition and authority rather than science and philosophy. The top coaches are the most ignorant, knowing literally less than nothing (because what they think they know is wrong), the exercise physiologists grab for government money while producing nothing of any actual value, and the average person just does whatever he's picked up. Far from knowing everything about training, most people actually know nothing about it.

towhee wrote:

How can this be? I recall long ago in school studying about the nature of the scientific method. One of the hallmarks of science is an inexorable march towards consensus.

How much of the physiology jargon that spews forth from the so-called experts is really scientifically-derived and how much just little more than priestly ramblings?

There's nothing wrong with science or physiology, science is after all about the quest for understanding the physical world. The problems is, there are many exercise physiologists who think that understanding specific cellular processes is the same as understanding training. It's not. That's where the 'priestly ramblings' comes into play.

One can study the content and nature of paint and substrate, but that doesn't mean it has a damn thing to do with understanding the art of painting.

Rational Exercise wrote:

The whole field of physical training is still in the dark ages..

Your thinking is in the dark ages. Athletic training is well understood.

Thank you Malmo & Chewbacca for replies.

Another example comes from Brad Hudson--not to pick on him, no doubt he's one of our top coaches, but this happened to make an impression with me.

Almost two years ago I recall reading this article by him about hill sprints.

http://runningtimes.com/Article.aspx?ArticleID=15737&PageNum=1

The article is spiced with plenty of physio-lingo & closes with:

"When I first started coaching Olympian Dathan Ritzenhein in 2004, he was fairly susceptible to injury...To address the problem, I had him do a lot of short, steep hill sprints. His strength improved quickly, and he's been free of major injuries for a long time now."

Well this impressed the hell out of me. The only problem of course, two years later Ritz is still known for injuries.

malmo wrote:

Rational Exercise wrote:

The whole field of physical training is still in the dark ages..

Your thinking is in the dark ages. Athletic training is well understood.

Yes, basically, do 50-120/week, with 2-3 hard workouts, pick your parents well, and you should be a stud.

malmo wrote:

Your thinking is in the dark ages. Athletic training is well understood.

Athletic training is well misunderstood by people who think they understand it.

Rational Exercise wrote:

malmo wrote:

Your thinking is in the dark ages. Athletic training is well understood.

Athletic training is well misunderstood by people who think they understand it.

Whether we understand the science or not, most of what is applied now came through trial and error.

Rational Exercise wrote:

Athletic training is well misunderstood by people who think they understand it.

towhee wrote:

The article is spiced with plenty of physio-lingo & closes with:

"When I first started coaching Olympian Dathan Ritzenhein in 2004, he was fairly susceptible to injury...To address the problem, I had him do a lot of short, steep hill sprints. His strength improved quickly, and he's been free of major injuries for a long time now."

Well this impressed the hell out of me. The only problem of course, two years later Ritz is still known for injuries.

Any real world application of science involves probabilistic outcomes, especially when it involves the human body and sports. The problem with probability is that it doesn't take sides. Favorable outcomes and unfavorable outcomes WILL(emphasis here) each get their turn. All you can hope for in athletic training is that you take steps towards skewing the results towards the favorable outcomes.

"in no other branch of mathematics is it so easy for experts to blunder as in probability theory" - Martin Gardner

Proper running form can be lumped in with all this too. Not only do we not know what the best running form is, we don't even know if there is any one proper form. I dont want this to turn into another heelstrike debate, just wanted to further illustrate our ignorance.

hmmmm wrote:

Whether we understand the science or not, most of what is applied now came through trial and error.

Too general a statement. There is still a lot of foolishness in running, and running itself is an irrational activity.

hmmmm wrote:

Whether we understand the science or not, most of what is applied now came through trial and error.

Which is part of the scientific process. Probably the most important part.

Rational Exercise wrote:

Too general a statement. There is still a lot of foolishness in running, and running itself is an irrational activity.

Citations please?

Are you going to stop talking out of your ass and post something rational with factual proof, or are you just going to continue making unjustified quips?

Rational Exercise wrote:

Too general a statement. There is still a lot of foolishness in running, and running itself is an irrational activity.

Rational Exercise wrote:

hmmmm wrote:

Whether we understand the science or not, most of what is applied now came through trial and error.

Too general a statement. There is still a lot of foolishness in running, and running itself is an irrational activity.

That was my original point, after 120+ years we still haven't got it figured out. So how much "foolishness" is left? Are we just fine tuning or is there still a lot of ground to be covered?

who's 'we'?