Davan

[bantazmo]

who thinks this guy trys to screem everyone down on this forum. Frankly I feel like no one can talk about training without him telling us we are all wrong and then going off about about Ben Johnson

[teamV]

who thinks this guy trys to screem everyone down on this forum. Frankly I feel like no one can talk about training without him telling us we are all wrong and then going off about about Ben Johnson

hahah qfe

[Brumund-Smith]

Your purpose of this was what? I can think of 3 people I have had a problem with at all on this forum and I kept it within the realm of actual debate and discussion each time. You, on the other hand, cannot and think that someone saying you are incorrect and then attempts to prove it is a personal attack. Most of the threads about BJ I don't even bring up, but when I see pure bullsht I can't let it stay.

EDIT: I should mention you are the same guy saying that somebody who weighs 180lbs is smaller than somebody who weighs 173lbs (and of course, them weighing 173lbs means they were on steroids LOL!) at about the same height. I think that is what you are getting all upset about, along with the fact you said SMTC didn't use weights when the fact is they did and you can find plenty of information about it. In fact, a quote from Tom Tellez goes "Everything else equal, the strongest wins." Look at pictures of Mike Marsh for even more evidence of obvious weightlifting taking place in the SMTC group.

davan, without the EDIT portion, that was a decent post. But you just HAD to go in there and criticize again. That is exactly what bantazmo is talking about.

[eerroognp]

davan, without the EDIT portion, that was a decent post. But you just HAD to go in there and criticize again. That is exactly what bantazmo is talking about.


ohhh snap...*as i run off back to the distance runners thread*

[Brumund-Smith]

It's pretty simple. Of course it is a criticism, I would hope somebody would call him on the "180lbs is less than 173lbs."

That's at least as logical as you believing the 400m Hurdles is closer to the 800m than the 400m.

[Brumund-Smith]

Oh yep... of course. Very. Did you ever get that audio clip?

What audio clip? The Michael Johnson one? No, I forgot to rummage through the box of tapes when I was home a couple weekends ago. I can assure that he did not back up your point of view though (he'd have to be an idiot to do that).

[bantazmo]

:eek: Just because someone wieghs less then someone else has nothing to do with someone taking riods. If you ever walked into a 24 hr fitness you could see that. Also, since you cannot seem to get it in your head that the Santa Monica track club did lift wieghts. He said he did have people use wieghts. But, also made some reference that he had them lift as a diversion. He also said in this article which you have not read that wieght gain is suspect to riod use. Finally he said that their is no quantifiying strength and that he yells at people who say look at that strong runner because he believes there is no definying what strong really means. That is what he said. End of story

[thabreeze]

What audio clip? The Michael Johnson one? No, I forgot to rummage through the box of tapes when I was home a couple weekends ago. I can assure that he did not back up your point of view though (he'd have to be an idiot to do that).
I was the one that brought up that Michael Johnson quote at edmonton in the world championships. He said that the 400 hurdles is similar to the 800 from an energy standpoint. I can't remember his exact quote, I'll look at the tape and try to post his exact quote tomorrow, but I am sure that he did NOT say that the 400 hurdles was closer to the 800 than the 400. He did say, however, that there are 2 kinds of 400 hurdlers: some that can move up to the 800 and some that can move down to the 400.

[Brumund-Smith]

All right, that'd be great if you could put his exact quote up there. Thanks, thabreeze.

[Brumund-Smith]

davan, you are blatantly wrong about the whole 400m Hurdle thing. It is so obvious to everybody except you. I really can't believe you don't see how completely and totally wrong you are about it.

[remiks]

And I specifically said in my original post that it is closer to the energy requirements. Of course, when you say it, it's awesome for the forum and when I do, well you know that bit. ;) Good post though.
You didn't specify anything, you posted a graphic with elapsed time and energy systems, and that just indicated that the 400 was closer to the 400h than the 800.

[Brumund-Smith]

For one, that only goes by times and two it still shows that based on time, it falls in the same energy system as the 800m. It in no way shows that the 400m and the 400mh are closest in regards to energy system, unless you are inductively trying to pick something out that the data doesn't say.

Brumund, give thabreeze the same criticism (albeit misguided) as he is stating the same thing my original point about the 800m/400mh hurdles was.

This really should be going on in the other thread, but you clearly stated that time was not the only factor (in order for you idiot theory to work, time would have to be a VERY SMALL factor) and then you tried backing up your claim by showing the TIME REQUIREMENTS of the energy systems. That is one of the many contradictions that you made in that argument. I'll deal with that a little bit later.

Second, thabreeze was basing his entire statement on one comment that he thought Michael Johnson had made. That was all he posted. Now, when it was brought up again, he said the following, "I am sure that he did NOT say that the 400 hurdles was closer to the 800 than the 400. He did say, however, that there are 2 kinds of 400 hurdlers: some that can move up to the 800 and some that can move down to the 400." That backs up MY point. He isn't keeping going with that ridiculous theory.

Back to the time requirements again. As most of us who have trained 400m runner, 400m Hurdlers or 800m runners know, the well-trained body can take around 40 seconds of near-maximal effort before it really starts feeling the effects of lactic acid. A world class 400m runner only has to hold back a slight amount in the beginning of the race in order to try to hold off the onslaught of this lactic acid. If the lactic acid build-up occurs after 40 seconds, a 44.5-second 400m runner is only in that huge hurt zone for less than five seconds. A world class 400m Hurdler has to hold back maybe a tiny bit more at the beginning of the race because he will be feeling the effects of that lactic acid build-up for another three seconds (on average). The step count will obviously help dictate which part of the race the athletes will hammer and which part they will relax (a disadvantage which has a lot to do with why the 400m Hurdlers run slower than the open 400m runners). Now, no 800m runner is going to start off at a 400m-flat pace knowing that he must deal with that same lactic acid build-up for AN ENTIRE MINUTE!!! Those are the people who can barely crawl across the finish line. An 800m runner must take the first half of the race SIGNIFICANTLY easier than a 400m Hurdler. That same 400m Hurdler will run a VERY SIMILAR race strategy to that of a flat 400m runner (with adjustments coming to match the stride pattern). Now do you see the idiocy of your argument?

[remiks]

For one, that only goes by times and two it still shows that based on time, it falls in the same energy system as the 800m.


It shows that its closer to the 400. The chart said something about lactic acid development between 40 - 110 or 120 seconds. And I remember asking you why you thought that even though the 400 and 400h were in the same neighborhood time-wise (and I'm aware that there's more lactic acid built up in the 400h), the 400h was closer to the 800. I just don't recall a clear response as to why you believed that, other than you dsecribing the fact that jumping over the hurdles developed used more energy than the flat 400.

[Brumund-Smith]

He stated again that the ENERGY requirements are close to the 800m.

Who stated that? When?

Again, you are going completely based on time when the event takes more energy. If time was the only requirement, split rep speed endurance would not generate that much lactic when it clearly does. Lactic in fact can start coming anytime after the alactic point (after around 6-8.5 seconds), it just depends on how much we are talking. I really doubt that by literally increasing the density (and therefore the intensity) of the race by adding hurdles (more work in the same amount of time) is not going to change the time that lactic comes about and the amount.

There is no way you can argue that time is the LARGEST factor when comparing the two. The 400m Hurdles is INCREDIBLY closer to the time requirements of the 400m than it is for the 800m. Therefore, these other requirements would have to make a MONUMENTAL difference. You still have not been able to show AT ALL that clearing the hurdles causes this monumental difference.

Let's say that a 44.0 in the 400m is equivalent to about a 47.5 in the 400h and about a 1:43.5 in the 800m (just for the sake of simplicity). Now, the 400h time is only 3.5 seconds away from that 400m time, but 56 seconds away from the 800m time. That is an incredible 1600% increase. Now you tell me what is so difficult about the hurdles that makes up this HUGE HUGE HUGE difference in time. If the hurdles took that much more energy, THE PEOPLE WOULD RUN SLOWER IN THEM! It absolutely boggles my mind that you can't understand this very very very very very very very simple 'revelation.'

Moreover, you are considering simply one race rather than a championships set-up where multiple rounds, each developing significant lactic, take place and clearly effect the final results (or else Webb would probably be placing better at the WC level).

Are you admitting that you are wrong when only one race is considered? If you have some sort of evidence to back up your claim, you wouldn't be throwing in this whole 'multiple rounds' tangent. You are obviously wrong about the one-race situation, and you are a little less wrong about the multiple rounds situation. Yes, the athletes will need a little more endurance in order to make it through multiple rounds. But enough to make the event itself closer to an 800m? Sorry, not even close. Remember, the 400m runners need more endurance to run multiple rounds too. The 800m runners also need to run these rounds. Therefore, the difference is negligible in all of them because all of them are in exactly the same situation. So that argument is over before it even begins.

This should be in the other thread or (well it will be since I consider that thread dead) dropped, as stated before. Again, Brumund, thank you for keeping the name calling out and the maturity in this debate.

It is hard to be mature when arguing against somebody with the logic of a three-year-old child.

As for the original topic of this thread, the thread poster is just trying to spark some interest and get some attention, very obviously.

It appears to me that he's just trying to insult you because he doesn't like you.

[thabreeze]

And I specifically said in my original post that it is closer to the energy requirements. Of course, when you say it, it's awesome for the forum and when I do, well you know that bit. ;) Good post though.
Actually, looking back at the edmonton tape, I completely misquoted Michael Johnson. He actually didn't say anything about the 400 hurdles. He said that there are 2 type of 400 runners. Some that move up to 800 and some that move down to the 200 and he used Monique Hennigan as an example that can move up to the 800. But whatever the case, I know the qoute I heard, maybe from carol lewis would still agree more with brumond-smith

[Brumund-Smith]

Actually, looking back at the edmonton tape, I completely misquoted Michael Johnson. He actually didn't say anything about the 400 hurdles. He said that there are 2 type of 400 runners. Some that move up to 800 and some that move down to the 200 and he used Monique Hennigan as an example that can move up to the 800. But whatever the case, I know the qoute I heard, maybe from carol lewis would still agree more with brumond-smith

Thank you thabreeze. A little rationality. There goes a huge part of your already-weak argument, davan.

[eerroognp]

this is so much fun!!!