Probably a dumb question wrote:
Woo hoo...my thread hit 100 posts.
self-bumped twice on page 1, doesn't count. 2/10 for longevity.
last 3 pages were just senseless bickering about "oxygen economy." You should have intervened and steered it back on course. 3/10 for quality.
If you want this thread to get to 10 pages, ask rekrunner about stacking ping pong balls.
Limey UK Runner wrote:
A requirement to explicitly define a quantity is not "pompous".
Your question might not have been pompous, and the guy you are arguing with may or may not know what he is talking about, but without a doubt, you are the walking, talking textbook definition of pompous. Anyone who has ever seen you post I would expect to agree with that assessment. Nearly every word you type exudes pomposity.
I don't know what you guys are taking about, but I can still kick your collective butts regardless.
probabaly a dumb question wrote:
probabaly a dumb question
Your neat.
Have the textbooks been updated recently?
yes, but wrote:
I suggest you read some of those textbooks rekrunner, if you are so obsessed with learning this stuff it's about time you did something about it besides asking me the same questions over and over and over, day after day, month after month, year after year.
in 2007, wellnow wrote:
There is so much bad science out there that needs to be confronted. The physiology that we read in textbooks is very outdated ...
I'm always happy to read any material you suggest.
Keep up the good conversation and disregard the bad
Have you actually perused any of those text books? They all say slightly different things, or they say similar things in different ways that might help your understanding.
And yes, some of them are actually updated with each new edition.
Don't ask me to reccomend any one, read as much as you can and spend less time on this board.
Sorry I didn't respond sooner -- I don't spend so much time anymore on these forums.Yes, I've read several books, and plenty of material on the web, (e.g links to studies that people bring up in these kinds of threads). Upon your recommendation, I even read the "Lore of Running" cover to cover, to help me see what was wrong with some previous concepts of physiology. This past Xmas, I received "The Sports Genes" and read it in two weeks -- I recommend it. This habit will probably continue with or without your advice.But if I'm not allowed to ask you what you mean, I don't know what else to do with your statements I don't find in these books, or your dismissal of some basic physiology concepts, found in these books, as "dogma" or "bad science".I'm not asking for a recommendation, but the one book I'd like you to name is the one that says "aerobic development only takes weeks". My book says 260-520 weeks.
yes, but wrote:
Have you actually perused any of those text books? They all say slightly different things, or they say similar things in different ways that might help your understanding.
And yes, some of them are actually updated with each new edition.
Don't ask me to reccomend any one, read as much as you can and spend less time on this board.
You say that as if aerobic development exists or doesn't exist. Clearly there is a continuum in aerobic development that begins in hours and never really ends. I think most would agree that there thresholds at which the development makes a significant difference in performance and, at the upper end, makes no further significant difference.
To ensure a more enlightening discussion, it might be helpful to agree on what constitutes "aerobic development".
this is one of the most boring, useless thread in LR history (and yes, obviously that is saying something), and yet some of you keep desperately trying to bump it from oblivion when...NO ONE ELSE CARES.
Stop it. Nothing has been learned, nothing gained. Many a brain cell has been destroyed, many a minute wasted.
Please???
I look at it from the point of view of performance improvement.
another option wrote:
You say that as if aerobic development exists or doesn't exist. Clearly there is a continuum in aerobic development that begins in hours and never really ends. I think most would agree that there thresholds at which the development makes a significant difference in performance and, at the upper end, makes no further significant difference.
To ensure a more enlightening discussion, it might be helpful to agree on what constitutes "aerobic development".
I love this thread.
rekrunner, keep reading, you, but stop asking me the same questions over and over and over. You will find those references if you do your homework.
You need to get a life.