Re: Re: bell curves

#15349
Ryan wrote:
r-at-work wrote:
less in not more… but how much ‘more’ a person can tolerate is very personal…

Of course but it’s wrong of people to scare others away from doing more when they may have the ability and desire to do more in order to reach higher levels of performance. If you haven’t explored your limits, how can you know where your limits really are? Even more, how can someone who doesn’t even know you know where your limits really are?

r-at-work wrote:
and sniping aside if Galloway can get a thousand couch potatoes out for three days a week, good for them… maybe 50 will realize that 4-6 days would be even better for them…

I have never said otherwise. Remember, I’m not the one who brought up Galloway in the first place. However, in this discussion which was meant to be about people getting the wrong message on how to reach high levels of performance, I will say that Galloway’s “walk breaks help you finish faster” message is as off base as nearly anything out there.

All this may indeed be true, yet those who truly do have the ability and the desire would not be at all influenced by the likes of Galloway. That Galloway is known to prevaricate to support and spread his $15.95 gospel is not much of a secret, and he should of course be rebuked as often as he is praised (even though he is given far too much credit for getting any fanciful number of couch potatoes to exercise) for doing so. Both sides of the usual Galloway debate give him far too much credit, though.

Ryan wrote:
r-at-work wrote:
the same for cross-training… it has it uses… it’s better than no training and can help to re-motivate, or keep condition up while recovering from an injury…

I believe I mentioned something along the line of it has its place in certain situations. If I didn’t, I should have. However, the best way to improve your running is almost always through running.

Cross-training is erroneously used outside of the contexts of injury recovery or adding more training volume once maximum running mileage has been determined (by actual and honest trial) and reached.

Ryan wrote:
r-at-work wrote:
quality vs. quantity… as others have said periodization has it’s place… but what most of you see as quality and quantity is beyond what some people are capable of… for lots of reasons… age, ability, time constraints and proper coaching…

Again, I know this time that I stated we all have to find our personal balance. My message is about not letting people convince you that an inferior way is better than time tested methods. This means using both quantity and quality, whatever those terms may mean for you as an individual, in a balanced approach that has you building your fitness with quantity, followed by building your quality on top. Like a former coach of mine said, running is like building a pyramid. The bigger the base, the higher the peak. Without a base of aerobic conditioning, all the speedwork in the world is only going to produce limited results and will be much more likely to produce injury.

Yes, some of those same people underestimate (or limit) what they actually are capable of because they short-change their aerobic development. I am unaware what “most” here “see as quality and quantity” so I cannot really comment on that statement.

Ryan wrote:
r-at-work wrote:
this whole discussion has to be tempered with the knowledge that while lots of miles & hard training helps those who don’t get injured, we all have our breaking point and some have busy lives that take up lots of time… there are only so many hours in the day and rest is important…

Once again, I mentioned somewhere finding your personal balance. As for injuries, very few people get injured during low-intensity base building. Injuries frequently happen because of too much intensity, not too much base training.

Rest and recovery are absolutely critical, to curtail those would be a mistake. A busy life is a result of personal choices and should not be mentioned as an insurmountable obstacle in the same light as genetics; basically, everyone who has the desire and ability does the best with what one has where one is. As indicated, injuries most often occur when one attempts what one’s body is hardly prepared to handle; cover the prerequisites and the risk for injury not-so-coincidentally is lowered.

Ryan wrote:
r-at-work wrote:
there is no difinitive magic number of miles everyone needs to run… you have to find what works for you…

As I quoted a guy who knows his running elsewhere, you have to find your “sweet spot”.

Precisely. High mileage and low mileage are both relative terms and mean different things to different people. I have seen this mentioned elsewhere: right mileage should be the focus, the optimal maximum amount that one can handle at any given point in the training cycle. There is a great quote posted over at Kemibe.com that neatly encapsulates the key idea here:

Keith Dowling, 2:13 marathoner wrote:
Some say there’s no magic formula. I say there is. It’s just that the magic is different for everyone.

Ryan wrote:
r-at-work wrote:
I just wish I could remember where I read what I will now probably misquote… it was something like ‘if you can run 60 miles and do good, than try 70 miles and see if it makes you better’… what hit me was the person didn’t say ‘IT WILL make you better’… but SEE…

This is exactly my point. People are afraid of trying more because they are told from all angles that they will get burned out or injured. Forget that talk for a while and try doing more. See what happens. There are no guarantees but I would be willing to bet doing a little more would lead to good results more frequently than it would lead to bad results for the typical American runner.

I see those who get wrapped up and obsessed over numbers and then let numbers intimidate them. If 50, 60, 70, or whatever scares a person, then quit counting for a while and just let the running come to you.

Ryan wrote:
r-at-work wrote:
last note… from raising children… they change so fast, but we do too… so what works for you this year made need to be tweaked next year.. there is no right answer for each of us that holds across time… but certain emperical (based on observation, not theory) truths hold for all runners… as long as they stay healthy, and other things being equal, like weather, terrain, age, ability…

And this plays out in both ways. As we gain experience, our bodies should strengthen and be able to handle more training load. This is how the elites get where they are. We miss the years of them building one year on top of the other. On the flip side, at some point in our lives, as we get older, our bodies can not hold up to as much. For some, the additional strength gained by training will offset this. For others, this means you may have to back off some. No book or article in a magazine or on a website will tell you what you have to do, though. Don’t let them scare you into believing that something that may be just right for you is too much.

Adult humans do not change at a rate (provided a lack of major trauma or disease) that would warrant any significant revamping of training on a yearly basis, though status quo is the path to stagnation. As indicated, it is a building process and will take time to accrue and mature.