not worth much wrote:
for what it's worth wrote:Purpose of running "repeats" is to teach the body to become more efficient and relaxed at running a given pace. Repeats should be run when fully recovered, as much as 5 min. between 400's. 75/76 sec per 400 and should feel controlled.
There is more than one reason to run repeats.
I'm listening. And the other reasons are ?
I think most of you guys think the OP meant "run" when in fact he meant "rub".
kettler wrote:
SMJO wrote:The only reason to increase endurance is to get faster at endurance events.
False. I am pointing it out right here for you. You are wrong. The sum of your wrongs is not zero. I repeat, you are wrong.
Incorrect. You cannot show your trained endurance unless you actually get up and move and complete the event.
Try again.
SMJO wrote:
kettler wrote:False. I am pointing it out right here for you. You are wrong. The sum of your wrongs is not zero. I repeat, you are wrong.
Incorrect. You cannot show your trained endurance unless you actually get up and move and complete the event.
Try again.
Ah so now you're being irrelevant. No one said anything about how to show your trained endurance. That is 100% irrelevant to your comment. You said "the only reason to increase endurance is to get faster at endurance events". And that comment is false. So not only are you wrong, but you are trying to hide it. Stop trying to change the subject.
I don't think I could rub it 400 repeats. I would blow up before that.
SMJO wrote:
HardLoper wrote:You were wrong twice on one page, a rare feat even for a LetsRunner.
http://www.letsrun.com/forum/flat_read.php?thread=5617558Incorrect. Show me where I was wrong. My points were entirely based on facts, not speculation.
I already did in the thread itself. How many times do you need to be told?
Are you aware that this is a running site?
HardLoper wrote:
SMJO wrote:Incorrect. Show me where I was wrong. My points were entirely based on facts, not speculation.
I already did in the thread itself. How many times do you need to be told?
You were incorrect, just as you were when you said Webb was the only high school sub four guy to drop 7 seconds.
Incorrect about what?SMJO wrote:
HardLoper wrote:I already did in the thread itself. How many times do you need to be told?
You were incorrect, just as you were when you said Webb was the only high school sub four guy to drop 7 seconds.
The points I made on that thread. You confused opinion on a subject with actual facts.
You don't have to accept the facts, but that doesn't change anything.
SMJO and HardLoper, why don't you just go away. You ruin this thread and you ruin this site.
SMJO wrote:
The points I made on that thread. You confused opinion on a subject with actual facts.
You don't have to accept the facts, but that doesn't change anything.
What is wrong about
1. Commonwealth games are weaker than the World Championships, perhaps even the US championships
2. Nate Brannen would not have been qualified for more than 3 global championships as an American
Both are speculation.
SMJO wrote:
Are you aware that this is a running site?
You are changing the subject again. You are wrong and won't even face it. Go ahead, change the subject again. It's not going to make anyone forget that you are wrong.
SMJO wrote:
Both are speculation.
Okay. You can't say Nate Brannen is a better runner than I am then. That's just speculation. He's never beaten me after all. My high school regional mile could be more competitive than the Canadian champs, who knows?
HardLoper wrote:
SMJO wrote:Both are speculation.
Okay. You can't say Nate Brannen is a better runner than I am then. That's just speculation. He's never beaten me after all. My high school regional mile could be more competitive than the Canadian champs, who knows?
I didn't say that...
I said Brannen is more consistent and he has a medal. That is all.
Start slow and go fast right at the end. Feels great.
HEY!!!
We specifically told you and Hardloper TO SHUT THE HELL UP!!!
kettler wrote:
SMJO wrote:Are you aware that this is a running site?
You are changing the subject again. You are wrong and won't even face it. Go ahead, change the subject again. It's not going to make anyone forget that you are wrong.
I was wrong in that I thought we were talking about running and should have been more specific.
SMJO wrote:
I didn't say that...
I said Brannen is more consistent and he has a medal. That is all.
You said he "has a medal in a bigger competition than Webb has successfully competed in." Wrong no matter how you spin it.