So this guy my wife knows is an ex sci major and he today posts on facebook that if people want to run faster they should only run 20 min a day and do tons of drills and weights because running fast is about stride length and that 20 min is all you need to maximize your aerobic capacity. I have argued this till I am blue any suggestions?
So you are saying that because of one person, that an entire science is wrong.
do not even waste your time.
Sounds like the guy is an idiot, but being an exercise science major I'm not surprised.
If you want to argue, just use every elite distance runner in the world over the last 50 years as examples.
If you multiply 20 min X 7 days, this comes fairly close to the ACSM guideline for aerobic exercise, doesn't it? Remember the old Cooper comment about running more than 15 minutes a day.
Perhaps someone needs to explain to the exsci dude the difference between running for basic cardio fitness and training for performance.
No it is not because of one exercise science guy but because I have had similar talks with other guys that were a lot like this one. They basically say that running is a sport that beats up your body (I agree with to some point) and that you are over doing it by running more than about 30 miles a week.
I tried the argument about distance runners over the last many years. I even challenged him to find me a top 50 10k or higher guy in the world that runs less than 50 mpw and he says that the reason for this is that they don't know about it but that the mindset is starting to change.
I am thinking about the argument that if you look at the last 50 years of running how the mindset changed int he 70's and 80's to longer running and the US was competitive but that in the 90's they started to less mileage and we struggled on the world scale and that just recently we are starting to be more of a high mileage mindset and we are being more competitive.
The thing about this guy is that he knows all of the terminology and the fancy words like anaerobic lactate and stuff but he doesn't know how to use them in a training sense. A person like this is hard to talk sense into.
The ACSM guidelines for exercise are not 20'/day.
OP, if you want to refute your friends claims, you simply need to read some exercise science.
While I do not agree with the 20 minutes a day theory, I think that stride length and stride efficiency is something that can greatly improve performance, but a good amount of runners don't do the necessary drills and weights needed to improve these areas. I myself have struggled getting them in, but I can always tell a positive difference when I am able to do the little things.
I think neither of you really know what you are talking about, so you are just at odds with no apparent evidence.
Why don't you gather evidence on your side, and advise him to do the same, and then meet for a debate of sorts.
If he is a future scientist, then he should be willing to look at both sides, since nothing is ever set in stone.
You should do the same, whatever you are, or are proposed to be.
Me, I am a high-mileage, exercise science type, with a doctorate, so I am always looking for answers and ideas. Whatever you guys figure out, give me a ring.
Though I do not have a exercise science degree I do have a biology degree and 15 years of running experience. I feel as though I have a pretty good idea of the body systems and the like.
My problem with this guy is that he is telling young runners (not necessarily age but experience) that to be good they need to just lift weights and do drills and run 20 min a day with a couple hard workouts and a long run and then he goes on to suggest that the elite runners are doing it wrong and need to back off their mileage. I am in agreement that for a person who has been training for many years the weights and drills can help them to improve but without maxing out your aerobic systems you aren't maximizing potential. It is like restoring a car and working on the paint job before you do anything to the engine.
On a side note even though the guy is now getting his doctorate he is not much into listening to other sides of the argument. He has gone as far as to say that the best runners in the world don't actually run but instead do things like crossfit because there is more money in it. He states this as a quote "the best crossfit guys can run marathons faster than the best marathoners in the world. The reason they don't do marathons is because there is more money in crossfit."
Since when is a recovery/easy run harder on your body than lifting weights?
I've got tendonitis in both elbows, had surgery on one shoulder, will need surgery on the other someday, and a blown disc/permanent nerve damage in my left calf-- all from lifting weights.
Meanwhile, as soon as I hit 50 miles a week my PF/shin splints/achilles/hip bursitis cleared up.
Running is the fountain of youth.
I suggest that you first learn how to spell exercise.
dsrunner has the day off wrote:
The ACSM guidelines for exercise are not 20'/day.
OP, if you want to refute your friends claims, you simply need to read some exercise science.
You are wrong:
Guidelines for healthy adults under age 65
Basic recommendations from ACSM and AHA:
Do moderately intense cardio 30 minutes a day, five days a week
Or
Do vigorously intense cardio 20 minutes a day, 3 days a week
And
Do eight to 10 strength-training exercises, eight to 12 repetitions of each exercise twice a week.
http://www.acsm.org/AM/Template.cfm?Section=Home_Page&TEMPLATE=CM/HTMLDisplay.cfm&CONTENTID=7764
And this puts your claims of knowledge of running physiology into question. If you do not know, do not claim that you know.
The workload of 20min X 7 days is almost exactly the workload the ACSM is recommending for healthy NON-ATHLETES.
Hell, even 100 meter guys spend more than that a week just warming up!
I neither know, nor care, a lick about crossfit. I do agree with you though, that no mid- or distance runner can maximize his or her potential without maximizing aerobic fitness/training. This, to me, is the best means of attaining the running specific long-term strength results these weightlifting/cross-training types propose in the short term.
my bad on the typo
Well SPRINTING is about stride length and stride frequency. And a good sprinter probably only needs to do about 20 minutes of pure aerobic work (2 to 3 mile run/jog) and then the rest drills, weights and sprint repeats.
Obviously to be better at ANY sport you have to do the sport specific training. If you're long distance running, you have to run long distances in training. If you play basketball, you have to practice basketball, scrimmage, practice plays, etc, and not just lift weights and do drills.
Basically tell this guy to take a coaching clinic (USATF or RRCA) if he really wants hear what the real experts have to say as opposed to some general college textbook on Exercise Science. Heck for his troubles he'll even get an nice "certification" out of it to go with his degree.
Look...your friend is kind of slow.
No amount of arguing will convince him of anything...some people will do anything to support their claims, and will look to any shred of argumentative evidence.
Just let it go, and be confident that he is very wrong. Debating someone like this will only tire you out and make you frustrated.
Exercise "science" is a joke anyway, almost as much as nutritional "science".
If Chiropracty is homeopathy, I'd hate to know what the f*** that makes Ex sci and nut sci
Not LSD wrote:
So this guy my wife knows is an ex sci major and he today posts on facebook that if people want to run faster they should only run 20 min a day and do tons of drills and weights because running fast is about stride length and that 20 min is all you need to maximize your aerobic capacity. I have argued this till I am blue any suggestions?
Just ask him to point to a runner that has won a major event or broken a significant record using that kind of training...
Runners World will prolly hire him. He can team up with Galloway and figure out how to finish your next marathon.
Exercise physiology is, at best, a nascent science. The problem isn't the science, it's the mindset of the types of people who are attracted to it and their lack of common sense and logical void in the interpretation and application of the subject matter. It is a discipline whose acolytes are continually trying to juxtapose the cart before the horse - or a more apt analogy - the crap before the horse.
Your wife's exercise physiology wannabe friend is simply making a common mistake that the idea that VO2max doesn't increase anymore after 20 minutes, therefore (logical fallacy), you shouldn't run more than 20 minutes. The problem with this nonsensical thinking is that VO2max is a fun factoid for some people, yet has very little to do with competitive running.
http://2008olympictrialsakatommyleonard.shutterfly.com/241
They do the same thing with intracellular responses to training, equating anything that increases mitochondrial density to being optimal for training for competitive running. Mitochondrial density and VO2max are measurable responses to athletic training, they are not the horse driving the cart. For most EP's, a little bit of knowledge about biochemical responses to training is the crap before the horse. They don't even have the decency to shovel the shit of the road.
A few years ago I was training with a friend at a gym. He had been training obsessively for a few months, I, of course, had not. We were on the stationary bikes. The tension on my bike was two notches above his. I was working at a higher cadence, and my heartrate was lower. I casually told him that I was 'in the zone' and that this was 'tempo pace'. He asked, 'how do you know?' I replied, "after 30 years of doing this you don't suppose I know what tempo pace feels like by now?" Then he went off on a tangent about mitochondria. I listened patiently to my friend, who has never taken any science classes above the general high school curriculum, until finally I asked him, "what's mitochondria?" He went silent for a moment and thought about what he was going to say, then finally said, "I see your point."