Benefits of cycling?

[dominion]

Certainly am. Providing I get a lift, my car isn't well!

You?

I think I probably will, I need the hills, and it's almost 'local'. It's probably not many miles off my route via your neck of the woods?

170mm - because the bloke who sold it said so!

[CL]

No, but I always thought people were more interested to hear what someone had to say if that someone was a big name. Although in this country (sadly) then perhaps not. Years ago I remember speaking to Tony Milovsorov (who went on to run a 2:09 marathon). Tony said he rang up Charlie Spedding for advice after Charlie had won his Olympic bronze medal. He told him "do you know, you're the only one who's bothered asking me!" This to me sums up how we don't seem to want to learn from the best.

We'd rather listen to someone with a 'coaching theory' than someone who's been out and done it. Didn't Billy Bland fall foul of the authorities because he dared say people should train hard?!

Yes if a coach tells a young athlete of today that, oh he musn't push himself too hard because he might overdo it, then that's music to that kid's ears (who will then genuinely believe there are short cuts to success!). I think the snag is that the likes of Billy genuinely don't realise that not everyone has the ABILITY to push their body as hard as he did. That that was part the reason he was so good.

Which is what you have said all along Chris. This is where the scientists will all be smiling, but I stand by my assertion that there is no substitute for learning from the best. AS LONG AS, you apply what they did to your own individual needs (which may involve for example only doing 2/3 the mileage) . If only people realised.

Theres a difference though.Famous athletes can tell you what works for them(pragmaticism), but many(not all) don't know WHY it works.

Its the job of science to tell us why.

[CL]

Tim W I've a question for you. What is V02 a function of?

[TimW]

Tim W I've a question for you. What is V02 a function of?

I don't know Chris I'm not that clever. But I don't need to know the answer to that question to be able to run fast, that's my point.

A question for you: When did you do your Sport Science degree (I'm assuming you have one, forgive me if not). I bet it was AFTER your 8:25 3K and 19:04 4ml. No one I know ever benefited from getting too bogged down in the science of running. From a running point of view I mean. I'm sure there are careers in it - great if you want to work alongside top athletes in the testing laboratory (perhaps you do that I don't know) but I don't think it helps your own running much.

I speak from experience for I did a stint of Sport Science myself. Most of the runners I came across were either past their best anyway, or thought they were on the right lines until it soon became apparent they weren't. I eventually saw what it was all doing to me, backed off from it and rescued my running career.

I don't mean to trash what you are clearly so passionate about, I just personally found I was thinking TOO much and that had a detrimental effect on my running. Although I am glad I have a basic understanding of scientific concepts.

Or maybe I just don't have the brains to understand what a function is but I don't care as long as I run faster!

[Chris]

Baz just getting round some of the fell courses with that sort of weight is an achievment in its self.Do you get injured a lot?

Inspired by this discussion I have started a new thread.

[TimW]

Theres a difference though.Famous athletes can tell you what works for them(pragmaticism), but many(not all) don't know WHY it works.

Its the job of science to tell us why.

But at the risk of sounding awkward, why do we need to know why?

[TimW]

I think I probably will, I need the hills, and it's almost 'local'. It's probably not many miles off my route via your neck of the woods?

170mm - because the bloke who sold it said so!

I think I'll be OK dominion but thanks anyway, appreciate it. See ya there

[CL]

I don't know Chris I'm not that clever. But I don't need to know the answer to that question to be able to run fast, that's my point.

A question for you: When did you do your Sport Science degree (I'm assuming you have one, forgive me if not). I bet it was AFTER your 8:25 3K and 19:04 4ml. No one I know ever benefited from getting too bogged down in the science of running. From a running point of view I mean. I'm sure there are careers in it - great if you want to work alongside top athletes in the testing laboratory (perhaps you do that I don't know) but I don't think it helps your own running much.

I speak from experience for I did a stint of Sport Science myself. Most of the runners I came across were either past their best anyway, or thought they were on the right lines until it soon became apparent they weren't. I eventually saw what it was all doing to me, backed off from it and rescued my running career.

I don't mean to trash what you are clearly so passionate about, I just personally found I was thinking TOO much and that had a detrimental effect on my running. Although I am glad I have a basic understanding of scientific concepts.

Or maybe I just don't have the brains to understand what a function is but I don't care as long as I run faster!

Tim W I asked you the question because it was relevant to our discussion on the size of athletes.

I don't have a sports science degree Tim.I believe many in that field can't see the forest for the trees.There are exceptions though, and I don't mean to tarnish the independent thinkers in this field with the same brush.

I really have an interest in WHY something is a particular way. That isn't confined to just running, I'm interested in a lot of other things equally.

I think in sporting terms people are confused about how best to proceed with their training. Yet the fundamentals regarding fitness were established decades ago. Nowadays the fitness huksters are passing off ridiculous ideas as fact, and confusing everyone who wants to benefit from exercise.

Years ago there was a sports journal on sale every month.They used to send me a taster to try and get me to buy it. One month they're telling me the calves are the most important muscles in running. The next month its the quads and so on.All they want to do is sell magazines, and so they spend all their time telling us the same things in 1000s of different ways.

Thinking Tim is what makes us human, and once you give up on that, you may as well be a vegetable. Philosophy and science are very important and running is no exception.

[CL]

Inspired by this discussion I have started a new thread.

I'm on my way

[CL]

But at the risk of sounding awkward, why do we need to know why?

Your not being awkward, its a good question.Many people don't and they do very well.By knowing why something works, you can make it better.If you're at a certain level, how would make yourself better, without the why?

Guessing won't do because you might make yourself worse.As I said on another thread, some people believe more is better. This is a philosophical error, not a scientific one.They run more and more, in the belief that doing so, will somehow overstimulate the system into producing the effects they desire.

As they get slower and slower over a period of time, they stick with this philosophy and say "hey if 50 miles a week didn't work I'd better try 100 miles." Why didn't they go the otherway i.e. lower.

This is where science comes in.If we know whats going on inside, we can adjust to it, instead of expecting it to adjust to us. 'Nature to be commanded must be obeyed.'