What Are Junk Miles

[Quosh]

To get back to the original, slightly less profound, topic.

I've been running with a club for a couple of years. My modus operandi has been to run about 3 times per week and always run as hard as possible.

I lasted for about a year but then starting getting injured. Not much running for 8 months now.

It's finally dawned on me that I need to completely change my approach.

In future I need to step up my training very gradually; ramping-up the distance and effort over long, phased periods. And I need to vary my efforts. In other words, I should make room for easy, moderate and hard runs.

Are not easy miles, within the right structured program, a key component in allowing the body to adapt, injury-free, to the demands of somebody who aspires to run faster over any distance.

[TimW]

Proof?

You're getting like a broken record on that one CL!!

Chris drugs or no drugs runners don't get that fit on drugs alone, they still have to be doing something right as regards the training. If you or I took drugs we wouldn't automatically start running sub 27 minute 10Ks!

I think slower miles do work, I've applied the theory to my own training but ONLY AS (if you listen to me) a top up to a base of good quality aerobic running, which (you're right) is the most important thing.

With reference to your 28min 10K mate who does 50 mpw, are you sure he 'counts' his recovery miles, warm ups, warm-downs etc? And that he doesn't cross train (which is obviously "worth" so many miles a week even though it isn't actually running). Comparisons of training are sometimes invalid because how one person quantifies it can be different to another.

[TimW]

Chris drugs or no drugs runners don't get that fit on drugs alone, they still have to be doing something right as regards the training. If you or I took drugs we wouldn't automatically start running sub 27 minute 10Ks!

I think slower miles do work, I've applied the theory to my own training but ONLY AS (if you listen to me) a top up to a base of good quality aerobic running, which (you're right) is the most important thing.

With reference to your 28min 10K mate who does 50 mpw, are you sure he 'counts' his recovery miles, warm ups, warm-downs etc? And that he doesn't cross train (which is obviously "worth" so many miles a week even though it isn't actually running). Comparisons of training are sometimes invalid because how one person quantifies it can be different to another.

Chris you also refer to the "mistakes" Lydiard made. Now I'm sure he wasn't perfect but I doubt he made as many mistakes as most coaches and athletes did, or do. Didn't his results, for the most part, prove he was right? He made most of his mistakes in his early days but by using himself as the guinea pig, not others.

[Derby Tup]

Christopher, I'm nipping out for dinner shortly so haven't got time to look back through the thread. However, earlier on, someone possibly Fillippo whatever his name is, asked what job you do and speculated you were in education, perhaps a lecturer. Is this true, because I think your reply wasn't clear? Just wondered, because, as you are attempting to belittle someone who is a published writer, with a Phd and who went to the Olympics, it must be something pretty spectacular you do to put you in the superior position you're in

[Grouse]

Nobody understands quantum mechanics. Quantum mechanics is an attempt to understand something.

[Grouse]

Sorry but that's not true Chris. Your job is your business.

[Grouse]

Effects Chris. Loved it.

[TheHeathens]

Christopher, I'm nipping out for dinner shortly so haven't got time to look back through the thread. However, earlier on, someone possibly Fillippo whatever his name is, asked what job you do and speculated you were in education, perhaps a lecturer. Is this true, because I think your reply wasn't clear? Just wondered, because, as you are attempting to belittle someone who is a published writer, with a Phd and who went to the Olympics, it must be something pretty spectacular you do to put you in the superior position you're in

:w00t:

Didn't you know? He's everything - a sports scientist, philosopher, economist, physicist, mathematician, psychologist, sociologist and historian.

However, the day job is something a little less glamorous eh Chris?



I've nothing against Taxi Drivers but surely someone with opinions as strong as yours would like to put them into practice? Or is it all style, no substance?

[fozzy]

No I didn't take it out of context. He was discussing the philosophy behind Quantum and Relativity and like he said both are 'nonsense.'

Anyway you are not in a position to know that it is nonsense even with a PHD, because you've admitted you 'don't understand it properly.' I do understand it FULLY and can tell you that doesn't understand it that it is 'nonsense.'

Even a seven year old child understands that.

It seems I will have to explain this to you, as I would to a 7 year old child then. Let us look at the quote from Heisenberg again. Ok to start with, let's set the scene: Einstein and Heiseberg are having a chat. Einstein questions Heisenberg on his description of the path of an electron around a nucleus:

a central question about the philosophical foundation of the new quantum mechanics. He pointed out to me that in my mathematical description the notion of "electron path" did not occur at all, but that in a cloud chamber the track of the electron can of course be observed directly. It seemed to him absurd to claim that there was indeed an electron path in the cloud chamber, but none in the interior of the atom. The notion of a path could not be dependent, after all, on the size of the space in which the electron's movements were occuring.

Here Einstein states that Heisenberg's mathematical description of the atom does not include any description of the path of an electron within the atom, yet such an electron path could be observed if an isolated electron passsed through a cloud chamber. Einstein pointed out that since an electron is an electron, it does not matter if it is within an atom or on its own, it will still have a path that can be described mathematically.
All clear so far? Ok, lets look at the next bit of the quote:

I defended myself to begin with by justifying in detail the necessity for abandoning the path concept within the interior of the atom. I pointed out that we cannot, in fact, observe such a path; what we actually record are frequencies of the light radiated by the atom, intensities and transition probabilities, but no actual path. And since it is but rational to introduce into a theory only such quantities as can be directly observed, the concept of electron paths ought not, in fact, to figure in the theory.

Here Heisenberg retorts that he does not describe mathematically in his theory because it cannot be observed directly, rather there are other physical properties that can be measured with only infer the presence of a path. Thus he believed that he should not include it in his theory. This is rather important to understand as it explains the next bit. Still with me Chris?

To my astonishment, Einstein was not at all satisfied with this argument. He thought that every theory in fact contains unobservable quantities. The principle of employing only observable quantities simply cannot be consistently carried out. And when I objected that in this I had merely been applying the type of philosophy that he, too, has made the basis of his special theory of relativity, he answered simply: "Perhaps I did use such philosophy earlier, and also wrote of it, but it is nonsense all the same."

Here Einstein specifies that he believes all theories contains quantities that cannot be observed. Heisenberg points out that in Einstein's theory of Special Relativity, he only included quantities that could be observed. Einstein conceeds that he did use this reasoning in that theory, but that he has since changed his mind. Here then, is point I was making: Einstein does not state that the theory is "absolute nonsense," only that the line of reasoning where only directly observable quantities are included in a theory are "nonsense."

The remainder of the quote then goes on to further explain the ambigous nature of what an "observation" actually is in Quantum mechanics anyway.

As you can see when I explain it to you in these simple terms and break it down into little easy to read pieces, you clearly took your quote out of context. Perhaps you should read more carefully next time.

Ok, next point. Please define for me what "absolute nothing" really is - I would say that it is the absence of anything. The closest thing in the Universe to "absolute nothing" is deep space. This used to be described as a vacuum, which is now known not to be true. As I pointed out to you in my previous post, space is actually a seething mass of energy and virtual particles. There is therefore no such thing as "absolute nothing." Even at the point of the big bang, right at the singularity where it all started, the theories shown that there was an infinite amount of energy present - thus the universe did not come out of "absolute nothing."

Final point couple of points. As I have already said, I agree that there is some element of Philosophy surrounding the creation of the Universe. It is necessary to interpret the mathematics.

If you can't 'prove' philosophy then you can't prove anything else including physics.

Actually, what I said is "you can't prove a philosophy." And perhaps this was too strong a statement. What I meant is that, just as you cannot prove a theory, only disprove it with evidence, you cannot prove a philosophy, only disprove it with evidence and reasoning! And it is harder to garner evidence surrounding a philosophy.

Philosophy comes first because all one needs to execute it is the senses. Science depends on special equipment which are developed from a basic philosophy.

I'm not going to stray too far into this, because I don't want to get into the intelligent design nonsense, but surely our senses developed through evolution in order to detect the world around us with "special equipment" like eyes. Similar bats have developed sound-based techniques etc. The "special equipment" that science is uses is merely an extension of this - the microscope is an evolution of our need to see things in greater detail etc. Besides which, the first science advances did not require any special equipment, only the senses.

I believe that in the 16th Century, the leading philosophers believed that the Earth was at the centre of the universe and that the sun, until Copernicus and Galileo (amongst others) started to present scientific evidence that this was not true. I believe that there was an inquistion that got involved, because it did not fit in with their world view. Would you like to see a return to these good old days, Chris, where we can deny evidence to have it fit into your own little world?

As to your ascertion that you understand Quantum Mechanics fully, I find that laughable. Especially your quote about the A/S level. Did you go into great detail on General Relativity, Quantum Mechanics, Quantum Electrodynamics, The Electroweak force, Special Relativity etc... I am not saying that an A/S level is something to easy nor should having one be taken lightly, but even a full A-level in Physics doesn't even touch on these subjects in the slightest!

We did the absolute basics of Quantum Mechanics in the first year of my Physics degree. The 2nd year follow-on course showed how even understanding the basics does not mean you understand very much about quantum mechanics, partly because it can be difficult to extricate the meaning from the mathematics. By the time I did the modules on theoretical physics (some more quantum mechanics and its applications, amongst other things) and General Relativity, I just about had enough mathematical and physical knowledge to understand these courses.
This is why I say I don't understand it fully! I am big enough to realise that 4 years studying Physics (w/Astrophysics) at University is still not enough time to understand Quantum Mechanics properly. I'm afraid A/S Physics won't cut it.

Besides which, if you were such an expert, you would have studied for a PhD in it and would be writing academic papers in the field. Could you point me in the direction of the last paper you published in an academic journal please?
Although not on the subject of Quantum Mechanics, General Relativity etc, I can point you in the direction of my papers from my PhD if you like?

[fozzy]

Apologies to everyone else by the way, but if Mr Leigh will argue with me about Physics!....