The New Math

[lanceandrew]
<< Bingo! Jackpot! That's what I need to hear baby! Music to my ears! >>

What music?
Aretha RULZ ~

"What you are?
Baby I got.
What you need?
Do you know that I got it?

Gimme
Respect!
Just a little bit,
Baby, just a little bit...

OOO your kisses.
Sweeter than honey
Guess what?
So is my money..."

R-E-S-P-E-C-T

_______
Blog, or dog? Who knows. But if you see my lost pup, please ping me!
<A
HREF="http://journals.aol.com/virginiaz/DreamingofLeonardo">http://journal
s.aol.com/virginiaz/DreamingofLeonardo</A>

Lanceandrew said:

"scientific research suggests that during this month before the race
[MARATHON] no workout should cover more than about 10 miles". - Runnersweb
__

Ooooh! Countering every training schedule I've ever seen.....I Love this 🙂

"Bottom line? Remember that it is your overall fitness which will determine
your success at marathon racing, not the quantity of miles in your training
log or even the number of long runs which you have completed". --Runnersweb

I wonder if there's any relationship between "overall fitness" and "quantity
of miles in your training log or even the number of long runs which you have
completed" ?

What a bunch of bozos. Are they related in any way to runners world ?

Cheers,
--
Donovan Rebbechi
http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/

Donovan Rebbechi said:

I wonder if there's any relationship between "overall fitness" and

"quantity

Quoted message said:

of miles in your training log or even the number of long runs which you have
completed" ?

Goes back to the prediction formulas that showed total mileage to be
more important than the length of long run. I'd wager that the ability
to train for and recover from 60 MPW average indicates a lot more
"overall fitness" than the runner doing 35mpw even if both are doing a
20 every other week. They're right that overall fitness improves the
performance. They're wrong not to see the direct correlation between
volume/distance and fitness.

JJ my .02

Quoted message said:

From: Jsquared [email hidden]

Quoted message said:

total mileage to be
more important than the length of long run. I'd wager that the ability
to train for and recover from 60 MPW average indicates a lot more
"overall fitness" than the runner doing 35mpw even if both are doing a
20 every other week.

Anecdotally, I can say that bears out for me....it seems that when my overall
running volume is up, running the longer distances in races is much
easier/faster than when the opposite is true, and both training regimens
typically include roughly the same amount of long runs.

Mike C

Mike Conway said:

Anecdotally, I can say that bears out for me....it seems that when my overall
running volume is up, running the longer distances in races is much
easier/faster than when the opposite is true, and both training regimens
typically include roughly the same amount of long runs.

I'm hoping this is true and should get a pretty good idea in NY. My
average training volume is about 20 mpw greater than last year over the
last 4 months even though training conditions have been much worse on
average. (what doesn't kill you makes you stronger theory) But I've done
better on long runs also, so I can't really discount some help in that
department.

JJ

"Jsquared" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Donovan Rebbechi said:

I wonder if there's any relationship between "overall fitness" and

"quantity

Quoted message said:

of miles in your training log or even the number of long runs which you
have
completed" ?

Goes back to the prediction formulas that showed total mileage to be more
important than the length of long run. I'd wager that the ability to train
for and recover from 60 MPW average indicates a lot more "overall fitness"
than the runner doing 35mpw even if both are doing a 20 every other week.
They're right that overall fitness improves the performance. They're wrong
not to see the direct correlation between volume/distance and fitness.

I would agree with this as well. My running history over
the past 4.5 years since I began bear this relationship out
perfectly.

Still, it is a known fact that long runs really help improve
the capillarization to the leg muscles, improving the aerobic
engine. I think the bottom line is that the long runs will
allow for a faster marathon, simply because they improve
the engine in a way that I can't see with constant mileage.

.... but you certainly can run a decent marathon on decent
'no-long-run' mileage.

It's an interesting debate.

cheers,
--
David (in Hamilton ON)
www.absolutelyaccurate.com
www.allfalldown.org

Does Runnersweb cite the research?

"Lanceandrew" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"scientific research suggests that during this month before the race
[MARATHON]
no workout should cover more than about 10 miles". - Runnersweb
__

Ooooh! Countering every training schedule I've ever seen.....I Love this
🙂

"Bottom line? Remember that it is your overall fitness which will
determine
your success at marathon racing, not the quantity of miles in your
training log
or even the number of long runs which you have completed". --Runnersweb
____

Bingo! Jackpot! That's what I need to hear baby! Music to my ears!

http://www.runnersweb.com/running/rw_news_frameset.html?http://www.runners
web.com/running/news/rw_news_20041030_PPO_MarathonMistakes.html

"Sam" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Does Runnersweb cite the research?

Full article is here: http://tinyurl.com/6t3w4

I recall reading this same article on the Peak Performance website but do
not remember if the original research was cited. The same article also
advises the traditional long run build up (to 22 miles) but to complete
these long runs four weeks before the goal race. Also realize that the
advice is geared toward a 4+ hour marathoner who had signs of overtraining
going into his last 'thon. I imagine different advice would be given to
stronger athletes with faster recovery times.

<< (what doesn't kill you makes you stronger theory) >>

Or disabled.

_______
Blog, or dog? Who knows. But if you see my lost pup, please ping me!
<A
HREF="http://journals.aol.com/virginiaz/DreamingofLeonardo">http://journal
s.aol.com/virginiaz/DreamingofLeonardo</A>

Matthew Venhaus said:

"Sam" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Does Runnersweb cite the research?

Full article is here: http://tinyurl.com/6t3w4

I recall reading this same article on the Peak Performance website but do
not remember if the original research was cited. The same article also
advises the traditional long run build up (to 22 miles) but to complete
these long runs four weeks before the goal race. Also realize that the
advice is geared toward a 4+ hour marathoner who had signs of overtraining
going into his last 'thon. I imagine different advice would be given to
stronger athletes with faster recovery times.

Here is the Peak performance article to which (I think) you are
referring. Specifically check out the
section titled: "Mistake No. 1" www.pponline.co.uk/encyc/0869.htm

For what it's worth, I follow this advice. I do a 4-week taper and
nothing longer than 10 miles during
those last 4 weeks. Works for me.

Anthony.

<< Anthony.

<pre wrap=""> >>

</unwrap/>

_______
Blog, or dog? Who knows. But if you see my lost pup, please ping me!
<A
HREF="http://journals.aol.com/virginiaz/DreamingofLeonardo">http://journal
s.aol.com/virginiaz/DreamingofLeonardo</A>

"Matthew Venhaus" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"Sam" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Does Runnersweb cite the research?

Full article is here: http://tinyurl.com/6t3w4

I recall reading this same article on the Peak Performance website but
do
not remember if the original research was cited. The same article also
advises the traditional long run build up (to 22 miles) but to
complete
these long runs four weeks before the goal race. Also realize that the
advice is geared toward a 4+ hour marathoner who had signs of
overtraining
going into his last 'thon. I imagine different advice would be given
to
stronger athletes with faster recovery times.

Sam et al,
This is Owen Anderson's neural training that appeared in three or four
issues Research Running News. Owen also published a paper with some
cites to Bilet that the ideal taper is four weeks. I personally did not
agree with the four weeks and the data points were too few for my
satisfaction.

I have a friend that tried the "Neural Training" for two marathons and
really [censored] the bed both times. I understand this is anecdotal but when
I read this stuff something left me cold but can't cite why without
reviewing all the lit.

-DougF

(Mike Conway) said:

Quoted message said:

From: Jsquared [email hidden]

Quoted message said:

total mileage to be
more important than the length of long run. I'd wager that the ability
to train for and recover from 60 MPW average indicates a lot more
"overall fitness" than the runner doing 35mpw even if both are doing a
20 every other week.

Anecdotally, I can say that bears out for me....it seems that when my overall
running volume is up, running the longer distances in races is much
easier/faster than when the opposite is true, and both training regimens
typically include roughly the same amount of long runs.

Mike C

Same here. Even though I didn't get in the long runs heading into my
IM, my overall volume was up over previous years and I felt the best
on the run I've felt in many moons.

Mike Tennent
"IronPenguin"

Thanks
"Matthew Venhaus" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"Sam" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Does Runnersweb cite the research?

Full article is here: http://tinyurl.com/6t3w4

I recall reading this same article on the Peak Performance website but do
not remember if the original research was cited. The same article also
advises the traditional long run build up (to 22 miles) but to complete
these long runs four weeks before the goal race. Also realize that the
advice is geared toward a 4+ hour marathoner who had signs of overtraining
going into his last 'thon. I imagine different advice would be given to
stronger athletes with faster recovery times.

"Doug Freese" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"Matthew Venhaus" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"Sam" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Does Runnersweb cite the research?

Full article is here: http://tinyurl.com/6t3w4

I recall reading this same article on the Peak Performance website but do
not remember if the original research was cited. The same article also
advises the traditional long run build up (to 22 miles) but to complete
these long runs four weeks before the goal race. Also realize that the
advice is geared toward a 4+ hour marathoner who had signs of
overtraining
going into his last 'thon. I imagine different advice would be given to
stronger athletes with faster recovery times.

Sam et al,
This is Owen Anderson's neural training that appeared in three or four
issues Research Running News. Owen also published a paper with some cites
to Bilet that the ideal taper is four weeks. I personally did not agree
with the four weeks and the data points were too few for my satisfaction.

I have a friend that tried the "Neural Training" for two marathons and
really [censored] the bed both times. I understand this is anecdotal but when I
read this stuff something left me cold but can't cite why without
reviewing all the lit.

-DougF

Anderson may"publish" but I have searched many times for peer reviewed
papers and never found one.

I like Billat's ideas, but a 4 week taper seems long to me. There are a lot
of physiological responses that have half lives much shorter. Mujika has a
long review paper in Sports Med that I will get in a couple of weeks. More
data points!

"Sam" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Anderson may"publish" but I have searched many times for peer reviewed
papers and never found one.

I like RRN but one must read it with both eyes open. Many of the
articles are leading edge meaning a hint of evidence with small/narrow
cited studies which suggest further analysis is warranted but not
biblical.. As for Owen and staff , they are facilitators, they reads
the journals for some common theme and then write an article.

I'm not sure how you mean no peer reviewed papers. The footnotes for all
the articles are loaded with classy journals. Journal of Amer Med,
Clinical Journal of Sports Med, Journal of Applied Physiology, and many
others. I admit I don't subscribe to these but are they all not
reviewed?

Quoted message said:

I like Billat's ideas, but a 4 week taper seems long to me. There are
a lot of physiological responses that have half lives much shorter.

Here is my take on taper. The length of you taper is proportional to
your recovery rate which is proportional to your years of training. By
training I mean quality training. A more general swag, those on the
beginning cusp of running need longer tapers, more experienced people
need less. In general, a taper is nesessary but the length of said
taper can not and will not be the same for everyone.

-DougF

I was referring to Anderson not having a history of his own research studies
being published. I realize now I did not make that clear. I have also
found errors in Anderson's reports. Anderson=Cliff Notes.

I would agree that a taper needs to be set for each person, but the half
life of some things like plasma volume and mitochondria are stable across a
population.

"Doug Freese" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"Sam" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Anderson may"publish" but I have searched many times for peer reviewed
papers and never found one.

I like RRN but one must read it with both eyes open. Many of the articles
are leading edge meaning a hint of evidence with small/narrow cited
studies which suggest further analysis is warranted but not biblical.. As
for Owen and staff , they are facilitators, they reads the journals for
some common theme and then write an article.

I'm not sure how you mean no peer reviewed papers. The footnotes for all
the articles are loaded with classy journals. Journal of Amer Med,
Clinical Journal of Sports Med, Journal of Applied Physiology, and many
others. I admit I don't subscribe to these but are they all not reviewed?

Quoted message said:

I like Billat's ideas, but a 4 week taper seems long to me. There are a
lot of physiological responses that have half lives much shorter.

Here is my take on taper. The length of you taper is proportional to
your recovery rate which is proportional to your years of training. By
training I mean quality training. A more general swag, those on the
beginning cusp of running need longer tapers, more experienced people need
less. In general, a taper is nesessary but the length of said taper can
not and will not be the same for everyone.

-DougF

<< I have also
found errors in Anderson's reports. Anderson=Cliff Notes.

I would agree that a taper needs to be set for each person, but the half
life of some things like plasma volume and mitochondria are stable across a
population. >>

O I don't think so.

_______
Blog, or dog? Who knows. But if you see my lost pup, please ping me!
<A
HREF="http://journals.aol.com/virginiaz/DreamingofLeonardo">http://journal
s.aol.com/virginiaz/DreamingofLeonardo</A>

<< Anderson=Cliff Notes. >>

But indeed,
My Uncle Felix gave me my copy ~
Collector's Edition,
Printed in Denmark, all Fairy Tales.
The Bookplate de Felix says ~
Romance
Literature
Travel
History ~
Ex Libris.

_______
Blog, or dog? Who knows. But if you see my lost pup, please ping me!
<A
HREF="http://journals.aol.com/virginiaz/DreamingofLeonardo">http://journal
s.aol.com/virginiaz/DreamingofLeonardo</A>