I must be pretty simple, too, because I cannot figure out this argument. What you are claiming, if I am understanding correctly, is that the best way to train is to check signs which may — may — be signals of training adaptions and then with that information gaze at tea leaves while sniffing cinnamon or something to determine alterations to the training? Or does it mean that the best way to train is still the same Lydiardesque way, but with the ability to track signs which again may — may — indicate the desired adaptions to training? Should this apply to all those who already do know precisely where they are fitness-wise during every phase without looking at heart rate or blood lactate or toenail fungus levels or aura reading? How to measure readiness for kung-fu tournament?
So, this technology has been around for at least ten years now, right? Where are the numbers of sub-2:20, sub-2:30, sub-2:40, sub-2:50, etc. marathoners to rival those of the glorious 80s, when runners did not have such wonderful, supposedly dramatically-route-shortening technology and were forced to take the “longest route” yet were still able to easily and consistently outperform you? To me, thinking that anyone is actually taking the “longest route” when they have the background and education level in the sport of someone like Ryan is most absurd — about as absurd as dupes who go around with the belief that they have invented a better wheel or have found secret shortcuts.