deluge
04-13-2005, 07:45 PM
kinda taking a chance here as I did it on a whim but here it goes:
The Great Training Debate: Who Knows Best?
It has occurred to me over months and years that there are so many various ways to train. No ****, right? I mean look there’s Daniels, Lydiard, Paavo, Canova, Hogan, Coe, Kellogg, “Hadd” & “Tinman”…. The list goes on and on…Some of these people have similar if not the same philosophy. Some of these people have totally contrasting philosophies. Some of these are “household” names while others are…well not. All of these people have had successes. All of these people have had failures. All have nay-sayers and all have diligent followers. Again, a resounding “no ****”. But they all have something else in common. They are all based, in some way or another, on science. But wait, how can this be? Yes, some of them are similar, but then again there ARE differences and some of them are completely different. Yet there supposedly based on science, on FACT. If they are all based on fact then why are they all different. Maybe this is a stupid question with an easy answer but I have been recently motivated to right and ask this because I’ve seen so many threads and been asked questions by people on the RIGHT way to train. What’s the best way to train, Is it high or low mileage, Is it slow or fast, Is it at altitude or sea level, Is it by time or by distance, Should I do the plyometrics or go for a bike ride? I mean its kind of ridiculous. I see so many people looking, searching for the ‘best bang for your buck’. Or in other words to quote OAR, people are looking for “the secret”. And there’s no harm in that, I know and I’m not annoyed with people asking and learning, I do it all the time, it’s life. But you know, to me, I’ve always believed and I think it’s obvious that there isn’t one “true” way to train.
There also has to be something wrong and right about all these training methods. Whether someone coaches by science or intuition I think they can all be “right.” We see successes from both types everyday. I believe that a runner that really wants get involved in their training and ‘step it up’ should be educated about running science but needs to put faith in their coach. If one is running on their own then they need to find the type of training that fits them best. That doesn’t mean try all of them, that’s unreasonable. It means finding one that fits your lifestyle and the kind of runner that you are. A professional runner I am acquainted with said that simply the best way to improve running was by running, period and that one must get out the door everyday. I think that this is for the most part a common them in all types of training. This wasn’t a rant against people asking questions, but more of a deep thought of how and why. How can all these trainings be based on science and be different and why is it that all of them have successes. I am not anti-any type of training. I’m not against science; I’m not against “winging it”. I just believe that there is more than one type of training out there for one person and that they can find success through CONSITANCY through that training and TRUST in that training and running EVERYDAY.
So my point to this whole mess if you haven’t gotten it yet can be put simply by this:
1. Different types of training can produce similar results
2. All types of training can be successful if your CONSISTANT about it and stick with it
3. There is not one TRUE path to success
4. Training is runner specific and not one single program will work for every runner (be it physically or mentally)
Call it a bit hypocritical but I thought this might be an appropriate ending:
" What was the secret, they wanted to know; in a thousand different ways they wanted to know The Secret. And not one of them was prepared, truly prepared, to believe that it had not so much to do with chemicals and zippy mental tricks as with that most unprofound and sometimes heart-rending process of removing, molecule by molecule the very tough rubber that comprised the bottom of his running shoes. "
The Great Training Debate: Who Knows Best?
It has occurred to me over months and years that there are so many various ways to train. No ****, right? I mean look there’s Daniels, Lydiard, Paavo, Canova, Hogan, Coe, Kellogg, “Hadd” & “Tinman”…. The list goes on and on…Some of these people have similar if not the same philosophy. Some of these people have totally contrasting philosophies. Some of these are “household” names while others are…well not. All of these people have had successes. All of these people have had failures. All have nay-sayers and all have diligent followers. Again, a resounding “no ****”. But they all have something else in common. They are all based, in some way or another, on science. But wait, how can this be? Yes, some of them are similar, but then again there ARE differences and some of them are completely different. Yet there supposedly based on science, on FACT. If they are all based on fact then why are they all different. Maybe this is a stupid question with an easy answer but I have been recently motivated to right and ask this because I’ve seen so many threads and been asked questions by people on the RIGHT way to train. What’s the best way to train, Is it high or low mileage, Is it slow or fast, Is it at altitude or sea level, Is it by time or by distance, Should I do the plyometrics or go for a bike ride? I mean its kind of ridiculous. I see so many people looking, searching for the ‘best bang for your buck’. Or in other words to quote OAR, people are looking for “the secret”. And there’s no harm in that, I know and I’m not annoyed with people asking and learning, I do it all the time, it’s life. But you know, to me, I’ve always believed and I think it’s obvious that there isn’t one “true” way to train.
There also has to be something wrong and right about all these training methods. Whether someone coaches by science or intuition I think they can all be “right.” We see successes from both types everyday. I believe that a runner that really wants get involved in their training and ‘step it up’ should be educated about running science but needs to put faith in their coach. If one is running on their own then they need to find the type of training that fits them best. That doesn’t mean try all of them, that’s unreasonable. It means finding one that fits your lifestyle and the kind of runner that you are. A professional runner I am acquainted with said that simply the best way to improve running was by running, period and that one must get out the door everyday. I think that this is for the most part a common them in all types of training. This wasn’t a rant against people asking questions, but more of a deep thought of how and why. How can all these trainings be based on science and be different and why is it that all of them have successes. I am not anti-any type of training. I’m not against science; I’m not against “winging it”. I just believe that there is more than one type of training out there for one person and that they can find success through CONSITANCY through that training and TRUST in that training and running EVERYDAY.
So my point to this whole mess if you haven’t gotten it yet can be put simply by this:
1. Different types of training can produce similar results
2. All types of training can be successful if your CONSISTANT about it and stick with it
3. There is not one TRUE path to success
4. Training is runner specific and not one single program will work for every runner (be it physically or mentally)
Call it a bit hypocritical but I thought this might be an appropriate ending:
" What was the secret, they wanted to know; in a thousand different ways they wanted to know The Secret. And not one of them was prepared, truly prepared, to believe that it had not so much to do with chemicals and zippy mental tricks as with that most unprofound and sometimes heart-rending process of removing, molecule by molecule the very tough rubber that comprised the bottom of his running shoes. "