My running brain is being rewired... normal service probably won't be resumed any time soon....

Simon, thank you for making this post, it is sure to make some people think about their training. I have not read all the sources that you posted, but I did quickly look through the powerrunning site. The publishers seems to have just repackaged some of Noakes ideas with the central govenor model and its implications to run training.

To say that Noakes' ideas and theory is accepted would false. But he does yell pretty loud and actually makes some sense (intuitively) so he gets noticed. One question that a person should ask after reading the CGM theory is, "Can fatigue happen outside of the central system?" The answer is obviously yes it can. Therefore, how does the CGM account for fatigue in those situations?

Here's a study to look at directly that asks that question: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&lis...

Here's a thought. What about running lots of miles really fast. So you get quality and quantity... maybe that is the "short cut" to success? Here's one guy that followed that model: http://www.google.com/search?source=ig&hl=en&q=mark+nenow&btnG=Google+Se...

Of course the hills here in KY were enough interval training in themselves I imagine.

My "comment" got a bit long, so I pulled it out and posted it on my blog here: http://www.yourrunning.com/blog-how_to_run_faster_the_debate_continues

Thanks Gary!

Simon.

Richard has been a source of amusement in the online running community for some time. Those who position themselves as visionaries had better have something to support their contentions besides resistance itself, and Gibbens cannot even interpret a study properly, much less buttress what he says with anything resembling anecdotal or hard data.

Burt is such a crank it's impossible not to just laugh at him. The two of them make quite a pair.

People looking for shortcuts in all areas of life have the best of intentions. They are also wrong, because people have been looking for the same thing -- in running and elsewhere -- for ages and haven't found yet struck gold. The world typically doesn't work in accordance with our comforts and desires; if we struggle with increasing the amount of work we can put into an endeavor, this doesn't mean we can still maximize our fitness for the endeavor in some other way.

Anyway, someone pointed me at Gibbens' latest "everyone else is wrong, which is why I remain anonymous in running" bit of yelling, and I spent some time debunking it:

http://scienceblogs.com/bushwells/2007/02/unrecognized_breakthoughs_in_e...

http://scienceblogs.com/bushwells/2007/02/unrecognized_breakthroughs_in....

Of course, you can just as easily look at someone like me as being "hard-headed" or "dogmatic" (as Gibbens does) as you can as an experienced runner and coach who has considered the issues as thoroughly as Richard has and also has the facts on his side. It makes no difference to me either way. But I'd be careful who and what you listen to if you're genuinely interested in improving.

I just read the Runner's World article in the 3/07 issue that talked about "training your brain" which was interesting. The most interesting thing about the article is that the writer acts as though the ideas Noakes puts out is "the answer". I actually like Noakes stuff, I love his book Lore of Running. In fact if you check my blog you'll find me referencing it quite a bit, and I actually like the idea of CGM from an intuitive perspective. But there are way more folks in the ex phys field that disagree with his interpretations than agree with him.

The RW article seems to have pick out this paper: http://bjsm.bmj.com/cgi/content/abstract/39/2/120 (and the other versions of it) and ran.

Like I said though, I haven't made up my mind... not that it really matters. Most of us just need to run more and run faster in training.. do that and we get faster.

The comedy for me was that RW would have a schedule to follow that is supposed to target the CGM and its regulation. How does one manage a physiological system through training when no one (even Noakes would probably admit that) knows exactly what that physiological system is?

Thanks for the warning and sound advice, Kevin.

I'd be wary about calling anyone a "crank", as history is littered with cranks who turned out to be right. Also, just to get this out of the way, the "online running community" appears incapable of debating issues like this without descending into insults and personal attacks. If Gibbens and Marshall are being laughed at by those people, it is not important. But I WILL take everything you say under advisement :)

As I said to Gary, I can't see anything in either Rich Gibbens' or Marshall Burt's work that amounts to a short cut. I don't know where that misconception comes from.

I know who you are, and I have a great respect for you; in fact a favourite quote of yours appears on this site and at the bottom of all my emails:

"Run as much as you can as often as possible and run like hell when moved to do so." (Kevin Beck)

However, when I read your "debunking" of Richard's "yelling", as you call it, what I see are extremely valuable comment, but also quotes taken out of context and some galloping assumptions and put-downs that are surely unnecessary unless, as I suspect, your motive is partly to entertain and amuse. I think that has got in the way sometimes.

I'm not going through all this stuff on a "he said, you said" quest, but I would like to make a plea for an open-minded exploration and practical experimentation with "new" ideas.

I've put "new" in quotes, because as Rich and Marshall make clear, all they are doing is interpreting research (yes, and I accept that you maintain they are incapable of doing this) and because my own reading throws up many similarities between what they are saying and what some of the undisputed greats have done (and in some cases are still doing). I'm referring to people like Zatopek, Coe, El Guerrouj and the Moroccans, plus the Kenyans and the Ethiopians. (Those are MY connections -- don't blame Gibbens and Marshall.)

Look at the opening statement of your debunking, for example:

"...Gibbens did his best to force-fit author Jonathan Beverly's analysis to his own longstanding crank-a-wank conclusion: that logging the sort of mileage recommended by experts in the discipline isn't nearly as important as a means of improving performance as, say, is figuring out how talented you are or running really fast for brief amounts of time."

It sets the tone. "Crank-a-wank"? And then, Gibbens is no an expert in the discipline. So what? A major preoccupation among the online running community is that as far as the world success of American distance runners goes, the "experts" are doing an incredibly bad job. To add insult to injury, these experts haven't even got the intelligence to change what isn't working, but have continued to bury athletes with the same type of training that has brought almost zero success at a world/Olympic level.

That's why we need some fresh thinking, wouldn't you agree?

In another part of your "debunking" you dismiss an entire paragraph of Richard's with the words: "I'm tempted to call out parts of this paragraph, but the entire thing is garbage." Zounds! When I originally read just the first sentence of that paragraph on Rich's website, I had a real "aha!" moment.

That first line is: "Obviously, endurance runners don't routinely compete at their top running speed."

Now this IS obvious, if you've got the brains to see it; but garbage, it ain't. Where I went with it was, wow! Of course! I never thought of that before..that's true, so what is that about, and what IS the connection between "top" running speed and "the pace you can sustain during longer events?" Which is what Rich asks. Not, as you refer to it "potential at the long distances", which is an entirely separate issue. (My emphasis added.)

One last thing that leapt out at me is that you seem to be suggesting that we're born with specific proportions of muscle fibre type (let's call 'em slow twitch and fast twitch for convenience), which decides our endurance and/or speed capabilities and that's it.

You say: "Someone born with a lot of slow-twitch fibers is not going to have much luck turning himself into the next Asafa Powell, the world-record holder in the 100-meter dash (9.77 seconds). But Powell, for all his wondrous jets, would not be able to keep up with Kenenisa Bekele, the world-record holder in the 10,000 meters."

Again, that's not REALLY the point that Rich was getting at with his reference to speeds at shorter distances being able to predict performance at longer distance, now is it? There's an important point there, which by using an extreme example you've very effectively not just debunked, but buried in concrete. But why?

The fact is that research -- and experience -- tells us that runners with the fastest 20 or 30 metre sprint times will also tend to be the quickest over 5k. It's not an EXACT progression/prediction, but the raw-speed-fastest distance guys are the ones who win medals and Olympic titles and set world records. See what Gebreselassie can do from 1500m to marathon for a "live" example; Seb Coe for a slightly less "live" example (no offence, Seb); see research by Bundle, Hoyt, Weyand, Rusko and the "heretic" exercise physiologist Owen Anderson.

Both Rich and Marshall subscribe to the belief (I believe :) ) that things are a lot more mutable -- or "plastic" to use the biological buzzword -- than you suggest. In debunking Rich, you link to a study that, as far as I can see, actually supports Rich and Marshall's point of view. The first line of the report actually starts:

"Skeletal muscle demonstrates a remarkable plasticity, adapting to a variety of external stimuli...including habitual level of contractile activity (eg, endurance exercise training), loading state (eg, resistance exercise training)...."
The conclusion of the report is headed, "Can You Become a Slow-Twitcher?" and the authors agree that you can, giving examples of the medical advantages of what they term "muscle remodeling". What am I missing?

Kevin -- I hope you'll continue to let us benefit from your experience and knowledge.
You have a real talent for cutting through the c--p and writing really clearly about complex stuff. The quote of yours that I use is like a knife through butter when applied to most training questions.

I just can't shake the feeling that Rich and Marshall are really onto something. Maybe, like most of us at one time or another, then can get a bit evangelical and self-defensive about things; I haven't experienced that from them. And having seen how the running community treats new ideas, I can't say I would blame them. It would be great if we could tease out of their many ideas the stuff that really works.

Hi Simon,

"I can't see anything in either Rich Gibbens' or Marshall Burt's work that amounts to a short cut."

In fact, the "article" of Gibbens I discussed doesn't include any training advice, period. What it does include is a number of demonstrably erroneous claims about human physiology and performance. Elsewhere, though Gibbens (and I haven't followed him or online forums in general much in the past couple of years) has staunchly recommended running startlingly few miles in order to get better. Perhaps history has been kind to the occasional rare crank, but much more commonly they have faded into their rightful place in obscurity, and as yet Gibbens gives us no empirical reason to think he's on to anything but plenty to serve notice of his incompetence.

Here's the bottom line: Has the guy got ANY ideas you know of he has put to use, even badly? Does he coach anyone? Conduct any field or even lay research? Has he done ANYTHING but run his trap online? The answers to all of these questions is "no."

Has he shown he is either unwilling or unable to present the finidings of published studies capably or honestly? Has he misrepresented or misinterpreted a whole slew of them? The answers to these questions is "yes."

Until this changes, he is simply not worth taking seriously.

As far as my being overly insulting toward him, well, Richard Gibbens, such as he even matters, long ago exhausted his right to gentle treatment with his unwaveringly mendacious style and evasiveness upon being grilled about the facts. And while I admit to having some fun with it, the only people who believe the presentation detracts from the package are those inclined to defend his goofball ideas anyway. The facts are what they are no matter how impolitic I and others may be about examining them.

"as far as the world success of American distance runners goes, the "experts" are doing an incredibly bad job. To add insult to injury, these experts haven't even got the intelligence to change what isn't working, but have continued to bury athletes with the same type of training that has brought almost zero success at a world/Olympic level.

That's why we need some fresh thinking, wouldn't you agree?"

Who are these experts who aren't doing their jobs, and what is the evidence that the training they recommend isn't working? More to the point, who are the "we" in need of fresh thinking? I se Americans doing better on a world stage compared to five years ago; I see people I work with axcross the ability spectrum continuing to improve using tried-and-true methods. I see myself dealing with this all the time, and people like Gibbens, who is not even a coach, spouting off about what never worked before but surely WOULD work if people would just give it one more try. Are you seeing why this merits due scorn?

If you can't see how Gibbens' prediction chart is a dismal failure as applied to the well-trained masses, I guess I have nothing to add. But you did write:

"...the raw-speed-fastest distance guys are the ones who win medals and Olympic titles and set world records. See what Gebreselassie can do from 1500m to marathon for a "live" example; Seb Coe for a slightly less "live" example (no offence, Seb)"

Did these guys ever train in accordance with what Gibbens would reccommend?

"The conclusion of the report is headed, 'Can You Become a Slow-Twitcher?' and the authors agree that you can, giving examples of the medical advantages of what they term 'muscle remodeling'. What am I missing?"

You're missing both the extent to which this is feasible and, more importantly, the mechanism by which it can be achieved by runners. The answer is not but doing what Gibbens suggests and precisely by undertaking the sort of long, slow distance he consistently decries.

If you want to go ahead and argue that world-beaters tend to be quicker out of the gate that most runners, well sure -- that stands to reason. You won't take someone who struggles to run the 100m in 15 seconds and make him a 13:00 5K guy. As far as a nice neat curve relating 100-meter speed to ultimate potential, though: absolute bunk. Again, if you believe I have only offered extreme examples, I can serve up dozens more; I know too many people who have run 3:50 or faster for 1500 meters with no better than 55-56 5400m speed to count, and I similarly know of plenty of sub-50 400m guys who have trained quite properly but never been able to break 34 for 10K 1:15 for the half-marathon.

Not only does Gibbens' model fail, he doesn't try to substantiate it to begin with. He just POSITS it and says "resreach has shown" or something, without a single example, yet you evidently just swallow it.

I should really let this one go as it's as big a waste of time as it ever was; Gibbens is not going to hurt anyone by thrashing away in his little vaccum. My suspicion is that you have found your own running stagnant at times and have grown weary of the standard fare as a result. Fair enough; but if you genuinely feel the running world at large is missing some piece of the training puzzle, be very careful where you go looking for fresh ideas.

Simon,

Thanks for sending me the link to this. It was an interesting read and even pulled Kevin out of the woodwork.

As you weight the pros and cons of both sides of the discussion (I figue that Noakes, Burt, and are basically one the same side and Kevin could be the spokesman for the other side) you might keep this in mind:

1. When a side makes an argument or claim look closely at their supporting evidence. Is it mostly composed of valid research data or is it anecdotal observation?

2. When someone claims another is misinterpreting research do they actually support their claim by referencing the study and supporting their point with data from the study? Or do they merely claim a misrepresentation has occured while failing to demonstratively prove it? As an example, review my challenge of Hadd's interpretation of Dudley's study vs. pretty much anytime someone claims I've misrepresented or misinterpreted research. Note that I even went so far as to get permission from the copyright holder so I could post data directly from Dudley's study in order to prove Hadd's inaccuracy.

3. When someone challenges an idea or theory are they forced to go to extreme examples to do so, picking examples from the far ends of the bell curve and using exceptions to try and disprove a correlation? Or are they able to make their case using data found within the known or expected correlation for that idea?

4. When someone challenges an idea or theory do they include a generous portion of name calling and personal insults to try and dismiss opposing arguments? If actual data were available to support an argument it should be used. Personal attacks are often a means of camaflauging the lack of true supporting data.

I suggest that any argument based mostly on anecdotal observation, examples only from the ends of the bell curve, and points unaccompanied by references to actual supporting research is most likely to be a false, inaccurate argument. If actual, valid data were available to support one's belief it would be used. The absence of it provides a strong clue as to the invalidity of the argument.

If you will bear this in mind while evaluating anyone's arguments, ideas, and theories I believe you will more often than not be able to properly determine which argument is true and accurate and which is false and inaccurate.

Hi Kevin, thanks for the response. I appreciate you taking the time.

"I can't see anything in either Rich Gibbens' or Marshall Burt's work that amounts to a short cut."

In fact, the "article" of Gibbens I discussed doesn't include any training advice, period. What it does include is a number of demonstrably erroneous claims about human physiology and performance. Elsewhere, though Gibbens (and I haven't followed him or online forums in general much in the past couple of years) has staunchly recommended running startlingly few miles in order to get better.

Peter Coe said: "The quality of what you do is much more important than the quantity". There are plenty of training suggestions from both Gibbens and Burt on their websites. Gibbens suggests a low-volume high-intensity approach; Burt is about goal race pace, with mileage varying depending on the runner, but, again as far as I can see, with no top-end restriction, as long as enough rest is taken.

I've trained at high-intensity and comparatively low volume; let me tell you, high intensity is no picnic and certainly no short-cut. It's not just mileage that hurts, you know :) I don't recall anyone taking Seb Coe aside, waiting for him to finish retching after asries of sub 2:00 800s, and then telling him he was taking short-cuts!

As far as my being overly insulting toward him, well, Richard Gibbens, such as he even matters, long ago exhausted his right to gentle treatment with his unwaveringly mendacious style and evasiveness upon being grilled about the facts. And while I admit to having some fun with it, the only people who believe the presentation detracts from the package are those inclined to defend his goofball ideas anyway. The facts are what they are no matter how impolitic I and others may be about examining them.

OK, point taken. You're fed up with him. But don't start on me: "the only people who believe the presentation detracts from the package are those inclined to defend his goofball ideas anyway". You're heading into "I'm right, you're wrong and too stupid to see it" territory. We don't do that here. All I'm interested in is finding a way to run faster. I am not looking for quick, easy, or short-cuts. I don't care who these guys are coaching or not coaching, I am looking at the principles they present and, to the best of my ability, investigating them.

I can look at research papers myself; I can also cross-check for some sense of validity with the history of great runners and great coaches; and I can try this stuff out by adapting some of my own training. It's not a question of picking sides and then defending , regardless of the "truth".

As far as research goes, I think you'll find Rich believes that the recent Furman Institute of Running and Scientific Training (FIRST) study (as seen in "Runner's World") proves some of his ideas. As he puts it: "Exercise physiologists at Furman University had subjects run 3 days per week and cross train 1-2 days per week and then race in a marathon. The result was that 25 of the 30 experienced marathoners in the program either set a PR (personal record) or beat their most recent marathon performance by an average of 20 minutes." This is by getting runners to run less, as Richard proposes.

The researchers themselves report that in their preliminary test "The postprogram lab tests showed that subjects had improved their running economy by two percent, their maximal oxygen uptake by 4.8 percent and their lactate-threshold running pace by 4.4 percent". ("The less is more marathon plan, by Amby Burfoot, Runners World online here.)

Who are these experts who aren't doing their jobs, and what is the evidence that the training they recommend isn't working? More to the point, who are the "we" in need of fresh thinking?

Did you miss the round-table discussion published by Running Stats, starting in July 2006 and still rumbling round forums at the end of the year, with Steve Jones, Mark Plaatjes and Greg Meyer?

Its premise: "They say that those who fail to pay attention to history are doomed to repeat it. Many look back upon the late 70s and early 80s as the halcyon era of distance running in the United States as well as in Great Britain, particularly for men. Names such as Bill Rodgers, Frank Shorter, Craig Virgin, Alberto Salazar, Eamonn Martin, Charly Spedding, Ron Hill, Dick Beardsley, Geoff Smith, Jon Sinclair, Tony Sandoval, Steve Binns, Hugh Jones, Paul Davies-Hale, David Moorcroft, Benji Durden, Herb Lindsay, Mike O’Reilly, Ken Martin, Carl Thackery, Garry Bjorklund, Tony Simmons, Dave Long, Kirk Pfeffer, and Bill and Gerard Donakowski are just a few names who come to mind that won races regularly. Some say the reason was that the numbers of Africans competing internationally then were more limited; others say that nations ruling distance running are cyclical. Still, there can be no doubt that in current times certain African nations and Japan proliferate many of the male top performance lists or medal-earning placings. Whatever the case, it is easy to see that winning at distances of 3000m through the marathon has become more limited in scope for Americans and Brits. What are the reasons? The difference today, compared to what brought about such great Anglo-American success back in the 70s and 80s?..."

The only American of the 3, Meyer's claim to fame was that in 1983 he won Boston, the last American to do so; Meyer, Ron Tabb and Benji Durden were 1-2-3 at Boston; all three broke 2:10. Where are the US 2:10 marathoners now?

Don't stop at Boston -- you can check the falling standards by looking at winners and winning times and entry standardsa across a range of races. You can also look at world records, world championship titles and Olympic medallists to see how badly the US has been doing for a number of years at distance running.

Steve Jones, I think it was, said these things were cyclical, and to an extent he is right. And I would agree with you that there are promising signs that things are improving. But looking at it objectively, there is almost a "lost generation" of US runners who have apparently trained the way they have always trained but have been left in the dust by athletes from other countries who have done things differently. A good example is the Moroccans, who changed their training style under the influence Peter Coe. It is ironic that the current fastest American marathoner -- and first man under 2:06 in the world -- comes from Morocco.

"...the raw-speed-fastest distance guys are the ones who win medals and Olympic titles and set world records. See what Gebreselassie can do from 1500m to marathon for a "live" example; Seb Coe for a slightly less "live" example (no offence, Seb)"

Did these guys ever train in accordance with what Gibbens would reccommend?

As I said, "...my own reading throws up many similarities between what they [GIbbens and Burt] are saying and what some of the undisputed greats have done (and in some cases are still doing). I'm referring to people like Zatopek, Coe, El Guerrouj and the Moroccans, plus the Kenyans and the Ethiopians. (Those are MY connections -- don't blame Gibbens and Marshall.)"

On the slow-twitch topic, you said: You're missing both the extent to which this is feasible and, more importantly, the mechanism by which it can be achieved by runners. The answer is not but doing what Gibbens suggests and precisely by undertaking the sort of long, slow distance he consistently decries.

Are you saying that you can convert slow twitch to fast twitch by doing long, slow distance? The article doesn't talk about that at all. It's talking about conversion to slow twitch. But more importantly, it establishes the fact that the "twitch" can be changed.

Not only does Gibbens' model fail, he doesn't try to substantiate it to begin with. He just POSITS it and says "resreach has shown" or something, without a single example, yet you evidently just swallow it.

There you go again. No I'm not Just swallowing it. It's not Gibbens who's come up with this: it's in research papers, some of whose authors I quoted. And it's not a nice neat curve, agreed. But iike the twitch thing, it can be seen as a useful principle.

My suspicion is that you have found your own running stagnant at times and have grown weary of the standard fare as a result. Fair enough; but if you genuinely feel the running world at large is missing some piece of the training puzzle, be very careful where you go looking for fresh ideas.

I haven't been training and racing long enough at altitude and in this current comeback phase to have got stagnant yet. Yes of course the running world is missing some part of the training puzzle! You've got your system for training runners, the Moroccans have theirs, the Kenyans have theirs, Lydiard got amazing results with his system, Bowerman with his, Cerutty with his, Stampfl, Igloi, Van Aaken -- the list is endless. If the running world, or even just the coaches, really had all the puzzle pieces in place, we wouldn't have so many diverse methods, and we wouldn't be having these conversations. We'd know by now EXACTLY what to do. If you reckon you have got a foolproof system for turning out world and Olympic champions and world record-holders -- no, make that guaranteed age-group world records --- let's have it. I'll give it a go.

Thanks Kevin.

Simon et al.,

A few final things that bear review:

• You mention Seb Coe numerous times. Coe was an 800- and 1500-meter specialist who trained up to 90 miles a week in the off-season. Gibbens claims that running three times a week is sufficient -- even optimal -- for aspiring marathoners. I don't see the connection. Also, did indeed Coe train intensely - he was a track runner! -- but I'm not buying the insinuation that he did this at the expense of base training of the kind Gibbens likes to dismiss. I'm aware of how most world-class runners from milers to marathoners train.

  Know that when I use the term "short cut," I'm doing so in the purest sense: implying something not (necessarily) subjectively easier, but less-time consuming. It's not a denigration of the mindset of low-mileage runners. Were short-cuts valid I'd be as much for them as the misguided advocates of low-mileage training are; it's about performance, not self-imposed suffering.

• I'm familiar with FIRST and that the results do not support Gibbens' misrepresentation of the study at all. I'm tempted to ask for your source that "25 of the 30 experienced marathoners in the program either set a PR (personal record) or beat their most recent marathon performance by an average of 20 minutes," as this isn't mentioned in either the article or on the FIRST Web page, but it doesn't matter because the Runner's World article is grossly misleading in any case.

  Consider that out of a pool of 25 entrants, 17 were "experienced" (meaning that they had merely entered at least one marathon) and 8 were first-timers. When everything was said and done, 15 of 21 runners completing the program set PRs. Since, according to the study Web site (see page 14), all 8 who had never even toed the line for a marathon before were among the 15 credited with "personal bests," only 7 of 13 "experienced" runners set PRs. And to be generous, these were not fast runners; to say that they improved tels us nothing about whether they improved to the extent a more rigorous program would have allowed, and the study leaders themselves (who, I'm sure, like all of these low-mileage purveyors mysteriously trained well above their own recommendations) are careful not to describe their program as optimal. Suited for a busy life, yes. A good buffer against injury, sure. But what of it?

  Not only that, but the average finish times of "experienced" runners were slower than the novices for both men and women; how "experienced" do you suppose they really were?

  But here's your clincher:

  "This is by getting runners to run less, as Richard proposes."

  We don't even know what these runners did previous to first because we are not even told. Sure, we're supposed to think they dropped their mileage or overall volume of training, yet we are given no numbers. Do you understand my reasons for intense skepticism here? There is no research rigor at all at work, just a bunch of typical RW-style smiling and "trust me, this is the ticket." Call me stringent, but I dislike it when people lie to a paying public.

• You bring up the good old days of American marathoning and their dissolution, evidently in support of the idea that change in the direction of "less volume, more intensity" is needed. I find this curious, most of all because, as luminaries in this era are quick to remind us, this period was marked by a lot of men (and women) putting in a heck of a lot of training miles. Moreover, while the rise to prominence of other nations is beyond America's control (we'll omit a discussion of innate average talent overseas), do you genuinely think your 2:05 ex-Moroccan Khannouchi and other foreign stars are thriving on some sort of "less is more" credo? I assure you they are not -- they're doing the same tried-and-true stuff as the Americans were eons ago, only with more success. The Japanese in particular are known for taking LSD-type training to an extreme. The best Americans of today, who are as fast as the best marathoners of yesteryear, are not running less than their forebears.

  I again assure you there is a role for intensity, but an aliquot of intense running, while necessary, is not sufficient.

  I also point out that on the whole, you are overestimating the difference in training "methodologies" among runners from different nations. I've talked to quite a few of them and their coaches, more than enough to be able to spot more similarities than differences. And those similarities,to be gentle, do not lie within the realm of "Power Running's" core recommendations.

As for Gibbens' own words, he seems to have developed a sudden fixation for hard data despite the fact that the Web posting I discussed this weekend includes this:

"That’s what this article is about – the essence of performance. No research study dissections, no in-depth discussion of intricate physiological factors, no pH or lactate charts; just a straight forward explanation of how endurance performance is physiologically determined, all without including a lot of physiological jargon."

He states that I used examples at the far end of the bell curve when exploding his prediction table, yet he himself, as I have noted, supplies no examples himself of why his prediction chart is valid. He just throws them out there as if he doesn't need to back them up (SEE: my reference to the glaring lack of background training data in the FIRST study). And as I noted before (and I'm not calling you an idiot, Simon, I know that you are not), a few people do seem to just trust them at face value -- and continue believing them even when given painfully clear counterexamples and the assurance that these are far from "exceptions" to any rule.

I offered several examples of non-world-class runners whose bodies do not obey his chart. Do I need to give names and phone numbers of the people I know who are avid distance runners with 12-second 100m speed who have been unable to run anywhere close to his predicted times? Just providing the numbers I have is a far cry above what Gibbens himself as done.

Finally, if we're to mutually discuss runners such as Coe and Khannouchi and Meyer et al. when it is convenient for Gibbens supporters, we can't just toss them when it's inconvenient and call them "extreme outliers."

As far as my claim that he misrepresents or misinterpreting study concepts and numbers, I recall an old discussion on run-insight.com where I tried to explain to him the difference between a cross-sectional and a longitudial study after he insisted on posting something on his site labeling the Y-axis of a graph "% change in 10-mile time" despite the fact that the study, overwhelmingly consisting of low-mileage runners (fitness runners), could not havemeasured "improvement" because it only looked at one race. (See here.) This was almost ywo years ago, and he hasn't revised his page to reflect an honest rendering.

At other times he has attempted to import data involving non-running sports from studies of extremely low numbers of people, and when called on this has simply shuffled his feet and said "prove it." I'm not going to hotlink to every example on his site; you're the wouldbe endorser, so all I say is caveat emptor and all that.

In a nutshell, Gibbens doesn't even try to defend himself here. He says nothing about physiology, just tells you not to trust me because he (going data-free and even anecdote-free) says I haven't offered anything but anecdotes. This is classic Gibbens, and as much as it may pain you to here it, it is classic crank behavior. But make no mistake -- he likes the attention and I emphasize that he is basically harmless. He is also probably a good guy.

Therefore, my contention about the inaccuracy of his chart -- and the glocal misconstruing of the value of muscle power and a "central governor" in maximizing muscle performance -- stands until Gibbens can overturn it with some numbers, or simply provide some. That he has not implies either laziness or chicanery. This is basic science, Simon, and just consider me a "peer reviewer." And I believe it's fair to ask why, at this stage of Gibbens' would-be career, no one seems to have embraced what he has to say. Same goes for Mr. Burt.

I appreciate the forum, and I apologize for any typos, as it is early and I as sure these are legion.

Simon,

Kevin claims my responses are "classic Gibbens", all while he continues to repeat the same mistakes, errors, and exaggerations he has made many times in our past discussions. For example, he claims I misrepresent FIRST but his comments about FIRST reveal ignorance. He suggests he is a "peer reviewer" but the truth is one can't be a "peer reviewer" unless they are a peer - meaning he is completely familiar with the data.

I wrote that 25 of 30 experienced marathoners set PRs or beat their most recent marathon performance. In support of this I cited data from the 2004 and 2005 FIRST studies published in Runners World. (2004, 2nd FIRST study: 11 of 13 experienced marathoners set PRs or beat their most recent performance. 2005, 3rd FIRST study: 14 of 17 experienced marathoners set PRs or beat their most recent times.)

He claims I misrepresent the info while he simultaneously either ignores or is completely unaware of half of the available data. Who is the more likely to be correct - me, who is familiar with the data and cites my sources, or him, who is either ignorant of half the published data or who makes an undeniably dishonest omission of half of that data?

This is just one example. In our interactions over the past few years he has consistently exhibited similar behavior. You've seen glimpses of it here in his posts - the mistakes, misrepresentations, and errors - some of which you've called him on. He may be a talented writer, but fine writing skills are no substitute for adequate knowledge or honesty. And, in all candor, I don't see a need to debate someone who claims to be a peer when their posts clearly reveal them to be either ignorant of all the facts or dishonest. I will certainly give Kevin the benefit of the doubt and attribute his mistakes to ignorance and not dishonesty, but in either case it's not worth my time to engage in debate with him.

Hilarious, and too predictable. Gibbens squirms, wiggles, blusters and ignores the criticism leveled directly at him by focusing on a sidebar issue.

Let's get that sidebar out of the way. I wrote to Simon:

"I'm tempted to ask for your source that '25 of the 30 experienced marathoners in the program either set a PR (personal record) or beat their most recent marathon performance by an average of 20 minutes,' as this isn't mentioned in either the article or on the FIRST Web page, but it doesn't matter because the Runner's World article is grossly misleading in any case."

So Gibbens, doing Simon a favor, has given a source: a different issue, or issue, of Runner's World Magazine. This is all well and good (although a link to the actual data or even a RW article would be nice), but notice what I said: It doesn't matter, because this magazine has a proven propensity for misleading its readers, as I clearly showed. And it further doesn't matter because the FIRST study authors don't tell us what their runners do for training before taking part, unless they've amended this in FIRST-II and FIRST-III; you are aware, Richard, of the indispensable nature of baseline measurements in an intervention-style study, correct?

But most of all it doesn't matter because I was criticizing not Richard Gibbens in this case (I know nothing of his endorsement of the FIRST programor lack thereof), but an entirely different set of claims -- the "Performance Explained" bit of mishmash I blogged about over the weekend. Gibbens here has conspicuously avoided answering any and all of my direct criticisms about his assertions in that "article." These include the lack of a statistical basis for his numbers, the lack of support for the contention that they apply with strong validity to virtually everyone (because pretty much everyone is average, Gibbens says), and the non-explanation of how his chart -- even were it valid -- would support his "muscle power first" idea. Then there is his shoddy interpretation of the Bern Mileage study, which stands as incontrovertible evidence that Gibbens either does not know how to crunch basic numbers or is happy to lie about them.

You ask, Richard, for evidence of your lying or misrepresentaton. That linked graph is one, unless you propose somehow to explain how "% improvement in 10 mile time" applies to the examination of a single race. We may have to wait a while on this one.

You claim, Richard, that I cannot be a "peer reviewer" because I am not apprised of "the data." I remind you that the FIRST program (any of them) is not what I have reviewed, at least in relation to you. What I have "reviewed" of you I am acutely aware of, as it is on your site and I have quoted it verbatim. I also remind you (and whoever may be reading) that you have made numerous claims without backing them up with numbers, all while yelling about the necessity for data.

Finaslly, you claim I am not worth debating -- in fact, that is what the bulk of your comment was about -- yet you go to great pains to argue on behalf of something I did not even criticize you for in the first place. (My criticism of how RW treated what was evidently FIRST-I, which I notice you ignored, stands.) This we call "hand-waving," and though you're quite practiced in this area, it does not work.

I'll check back in a few days to see if you have dealt with any of the bolded, colored criticisms I have made above. I do not expect this to happen. If it does, I am happy to continue, as I have a wealth of things to say about performance-prediction charts in general and their applications to training in particular. Otherwise, you are certainly free to go on talking to yourself and the very few who appear to listen. In the meantime, I may have to shoot the fellow who pointed me toward "Performance Explained" in the first place.

Simon,

Note that Kevin's response to his gross error being pointed out to him is "it doesn't matter". Facts don't matter? No correction, retraction, restatement? Nope. Just "it doesn't matter". And then he quickly tries to change the subject. Perhaps facts don't matter to him, but they are important to me.

Let's review:

Kevin claims, "I'm familiar with FIRST and that the results do not support Gibbens' misrepresentation of the study at all." He reviews the data from one FIRST study and concludes "only 7 of 13 "experienced" runners set PRs. And claims "the Runner's World article is grossly misleading..."

Yet published data for 2 of the FIRST studies support that 25 of 30 set PRS or beat their most recent performance. Clearly Kevin is NOT even close to being familiar enough with FIRST to claim any authority on it at all.

When Kevin's error and ignorance is pointed out he replies with "it doesn't matter" and "this magazine has a proven propensity for misleading its readers, as I clearly showed."

Where did he "show" or prove that Runners World has a "proven" propensity for misleading its readers? What valid evidence did he cite? A review will show he cites NO evidence proving his claim. He doesn't even cite evidence supporting his claim. His single source of "proof" seems to be his own prior statement that "just a bunch of typical RW-style smiling and "trust me, this is the ticket." Call me stringent, but I dislike it when people lie to a paying public."

He also claims "But most of all it doesn't matter because I was criticizing not Richard Gibbens in this case..." Accusing me of misrepresenting the study is not criticism of me?

No better example exists of exactly what I'm talking about. Kevin doesn't know the facts but claims to be an authority. He dismissed his own gross errors with an "it doesn't matter". He makes serious, destructive claims against Runners World but provides no supporting evidence. He makes serious claims against me, accusing me of misrepresenting" studies, though it is clear he doesn't know half the information about the topic of discussion (FIRST in this case).

No one need wonder why I don't spend time debating him. And to add an exclamation point, when I point these things out as my reason for declining to engage in debate with him he claims I'm the one squirming, wiggling, and ignoring.

Kevin...

Just a few points of clarification. First and most important... I am not arguing for a switch to low volume, to running 3 days a week, to running only intervals, nor to running underwater come to that...I haven't decided to get behind ANY particular belief system about training; I am just exploring whether there might be a better way of training to run fast.

To emphasise this point, when you say:

You bring up the good old days of American marathoning and their dissolution, evidently in support of the idea that change in the direction of "less volume, more intensity" is needed. I find this curious, most of all because, as luminaries in this era are quick to remind us, this period was marked by a lot of men (and women) putting in a heck of a lot of training miles....

this shows where we are missing each other. I am not arguing for a change in direction towards "less volume, more intensity", but just towards something different. You're saying here what I'm saying -- these runners are stil cranking out the miles -- and not producing the performances. Where we differ, I think, is that I believe this shows there is something "wrong", whereas -- I think -- you believe that everything is OK with the training, but there are external factors -- like the appearance of the Africans -- that are out of our control. Is that fair?

And no, I am not saying that Khannouchi and co are on some sort of "less is more" kick, but I do believe that do not worship at the altar of mileage. They're first thought is "quality". Quantity follows in the amount of quality work they can cope with. It is a different emphasis.

And some of them got this from Coe. The "Coe factor" is actually pretty funny, as I have argued convincingly in the past that Coe was actually a high-mileage runner with a tremendous endurance background. (I can even make the same case for Bannister.) However, as I'm sure you are aware from the endless debate on letsrun, it is almost impossible to establish what Coe did. He is alleged to have put his hand up to "never more than 60 miles a week"; at the same time, it seems he and his father didn't count miles done under a certain pace. So no logging of warm-up miles, cool-downs, easy runs, recovery runs and so on. What we DO know is that Peter Coe emphasised quality over quantity. And we know that his entire multi-tier system (imported to such good effect by the Moroccans) simply has too many "extra-curricular" activities in it to allow for the energy to pursue the 100-mile plus weeks that dog more "traditional" training methods. We also know that Coe was a proponent of multi-pace training; again, not the "traditional" mile-chasing prescription.

The schedules given in Peter Coe's book (written with Dr David Martin) peak at 95 miles a week for a 5k - marathon distance runner, and at 80 for a 800-3k runner. (Better Training for Distance Runners, 2nd ed,Human Kinetics 1997). I don't call these low-mileage, but I they're not 100-150 miles a week slogs either, which is the basic principle I am trying to establish.

I also point out that on the whole, you are overestimating the difference in training "methodologies" among runners from different nations. I've talked to quite a few of them and their coaches, more than enough to be able to spot more similarities than differences. And those similarities,to be gentle, do not lie within the realm of "Power Running's" core recommendations.

It's interesting that you see more similarities and I see more differences :) My "data" comes from reading far more than is healthy and semi-obsessive trawling of the WWW. Plus personal experience, of course. I was trained by Lydiard in the '70s, then in the last two years adopted a lower-mileage (33m, a week) higher intensity routine. Last night I was reading about Igloi's massive interval-based routine; recently, too, I have read Percy Cerutty's biography; Gerry Lindgren's autobiography; learned what Peter Snell now believes and Herb Elliott did; seen the videos and blogs about the elite Kenyans of ChasingKimba; and Gary has introduced me to what Mark Nenow did. And of course I have frequent dips into Noakes and other sources to find out what Nurmi and Zatopek and other all-time greats did, AND I check in regularly with Frank Horwill's writings, AND I've recently been corresponding with a Dutch coach who uses the interval-based Verheul Method...

.. I know guys, this is very sad, but that's why they call me Enthusiast-in-c! ...

Anyway, when I look at all that, and then at what athletes from different countries are doing -- heck, athletes who are friends of mine training with other coaches -- I see a STACK of differences!

Hey, and guess what? As far as I know, NONE of them are doing what Rich Gibbens recommends, nor what Marshall Burt is experimenting with... but here's the funny thing -- I see a lot of similarities between what they are saying and some of the most successful training methods of the past (not to mention current systems). It's not strange; we find what we're looking for, and I guess my brain is set up differently.

Like I said, I don't believe there is one single answer to running faster. We haven't got there yet. But, also like I said, if you know different (!), and have that foolproof system down... then let's hear it!! I WILL sign up you know :)

Richard, you do a poor job of pretending to ignore me, especially when it's obvious from your own frustrated tone that you knows you've been cornered.

Richard, your "review" is just as dovrced from planet Earth as your attempts to discuss exercise science. It's tiresome to deal with the equivalent of a petulant child, but you have asked for it.

You claim to have not misrepresented FIRST. Let's explore this. On your site, you write, among other, equally absurd things:

"The FIRST results directly contradict the belief held by many that high mileage, base building type programs are superior."

They do no such thing. The study includes runners whose training background we are not even given. I think we can agree that if they had previously run a "high-mileage, base-building" program, the Furmanists would have included this information, as it would have greatly bolstered their (and Runner's World's) case. Regardless, as things stand, the results do not "contradict" anything, as they are not compared to anything. Get it? For all we know, these runners could, as a group, do better on 150 miles a week, or perhaps on 5 miles a week. The bottom line: There is no basis for comparing FIRST training to other training the entrants mught have done, yet you go ahead and talk about the FIRST results "directly contradict[ing]" something. This means that you have in fact engaged in a willful misrepresentation -- one eerily similar to your error/fib in the Bern "article."

You also claim that I have made unsubstantiated characterizations about Runner's World. Let's put that entity back on the hook for a moment. It is clear that RW article Simon linked to is, in fact, grossly misleading. Its very title, "THE LESS-IS-MORE MARATHON PLAN," implies that runners can get faster by doing less training than they are accustomed to doing (unless you think "less" simply means "less than Tergat" or something similar). Even if this is the case, FIRST does not demonstrate it, for reasons explained in the preceding paragraph. Its subtitle, "Tired of the daily mileage slog? Here's how to run your best marathon ever on just 3 days a week," is misleading in the same way.

Now, "misleading" may be a subjective judgment, but my correct statement that only 7 of 13 "experienced" marathoners (and I'd like to see that characterization given some numerical meaning) set PRs at Kiawah is not. This finding hardly hearkens toward some kind of training breakthrough -- certainly not the kind that honest editors go trumpeting on about using terms like "best ever."

Again, though, when I wrote "it doesn't matter," I wasn't referring to my (nonexistent) mistakes; I meant the entire topic of FIRST, period. This is why I "quickly changed the subject" -- back to where this all started. You can only milk a non-issue for so long, you know.

But just for fun, let's pretend you didn't misrepresent the FIRST study, and that the study itself actually demonstrated something besides the fact that a bunch of people training aerobically six times a week for 4 months can finish a marathon, with "only" 16% of them (1 in 6, for you too-cool-for-school kids) not even making it to the finish line. Yes; let's assume I was wrong and you were right. Dizzy yet? Shake it off, and let's proceed.

The topic of discussion here is your "Performace Explained" piece, and you have yet to address my criticisms thereof. As you are desperate to find some sort of avenue of escape here and prove me wrong, we both know that if you could offer a reasoned response to these challenged, you would have done so by now. You see, "Kevin doesn't know enoughto argue" holds little weight when I'm hanging valid challenges and damning facts in your face. Your insistence on perseverating about FIRST has not only reinforced your own understandable reluctance to address the problems with your "Performance Explained" outburst, but opened the door for me to show how you have lied about FIRST as well.

At this point I believe I have responded to every one of your most recent gripes and accusations. I'm no longer certain you're even capable of, or at all interested in, telling the truth; plainly you have nothing to say on your own behalf regarding the "article" I examined over the weekend. But the chief problems with the "article" I blogged about are still up there in bright red, so have a go at them, any old time. It won't surprise me when you don't do this, but perhaps Simon will have learned a thing or two about your reliability and integrity here.

Simon,

As can be clearly seen, Kevin has used his demonstrated a lack of knowledge, misrepresentation of facts, and failure to provide supporting evidence to claim that I am a liar who lacks integrity and reliability.

That's as perfect as it gets so I rest my case.

"I rest my case."

Just a reminder, Richard: You're supposed to say that after you present your evidence and arguments, not before.

Now that I've derailed your earlier lunacy in line-item fashion, you are no longer even attempting to be specific in the ways I have allegedly messed up; you are just parroting yourself. Soon you'll be down to the single word "no," and sadly, this won't represent much of a loss of content.

You've conceded the debate -- that is clear. But should you reconsider, please add to your list of tasks in red the provision of the following items:

• Support for the claim "The FIRST results directly contradict the belief held by many that high mileage, base building type programs are superior."
• An example of evidence I have not offered in support of my statements.
• An example of knowledge areas I am deficient in.
• Support for the claim that I have made unfounded statements about Runner's World.

You embarrass yourself and, by extension, Simon with every insubstatial post you make. I'm giving you a genuine opportunity here to give some weight to any of your claims; eve if you're wrong, it would be instructive to see where you get them.

Never mind; because you cannot resist responding to me and want nothing more than to shut me up, your failure to support your statements once again implies that you cannot. You have nothing, and you lose.

Simon -- saw your additional points after I was done dealing with Richard. You make some good ones and we're not far apart at all; I have a few things to add but I'm pressed for time and besides, it takes some doing to go from my previous sort of modified monologue to anactual exchange, not unlike going from Quiet Riot to the Indigo Girls or something.

Thanks guys...

Rich, you've rested your case; Kevin, you've made some compelling points.

Folks, if you want more info on what Richard's views are -- they're out there for all to see on his website at www.powerrunning.com, which also includes introductory pieces about Marshall Burt's experiments.

Kevin, I appreciate you getting involved and hope we can continue the debate. I'm not embarrassed by anything Richard has written, but thanks for the thought. :) It's up to him how he chooses to put his case, and I'm not here to promote or champion him. What he's done for me is provoked some thoughts and encouraged me to critically examine the dogma of long runs, easy runs and recovery runs that leads to an inevitably (for me) slow-paced high mileage.

That doesn't mean I think Rich is "right", nor that I think you are... I'm really into exploring alternatives. And I do appreciate your concern that in a fit of boredom with my current training I will take on an as yet unproven system that might set me back.

When you get time, let's reconvene and work through the differences/similarities thing.

For entertainment, have a look at the Chasing Kimbia video here: http://www.chasingkimbia.com/media#header - select "You Ready?" You will need to like U2 (not quite Indigo Girls, but still...). As the film gets underway, there's a shot from inside the chase car as coach Dieter Hogen gives the cruising Kenyans a split. It blows me away every time I hear it: "That was 13k...the last kilometer was 3:01...."

More on Seb's training -- in case you miss it on my blog. Asked about his father's coaching...

Seb Coe: "He told me 'nothing good in track in field happens quickly'. He was conscious that you have to be specific about training, that you shouldn't do things that did not add value. He could never see the value, if you were running 800m with two laps close to 51 seconds each, that you should do otherwise. Long, slow, steady, distance was never going to get you there."

(From the Daily Telegraph, Feb 20, 2007.)

How many miles per week does a guy who specialises in races of more than 100 miles do?

Answer: 110-120 miles. Plus tempo runs at 5:50-5:45 per mile pace. plus four-mile hill repeat, plus 200s, 400s, 800s and 1200 repeats on the track.

What's the program for the elite Kenyan marathoners featured at ChasingKinbia.com?

"Dieter’s program is definitely not a high volume one with lots of long easy running."

More details in my blog.

Well, that was interesting. Yes, Beck and Gibbens have butted heads many times in the past. This is my last entry here, but I wanted to show this. In this example, I (okruner) pulled the graphs that Kevin eluded to above (the % change in running time), took a good look at how the graphs were created and realized that the second graph, the one that is key to his mileage argument, isn't even a valid analysis.

http://powerrunning.proboards29.com/index.cgi?board=general&action=displ...

You can do the calculations, sure, but it has no relevence. I equated it to taking temperature readings for Buffalo, New York, but discarding readings above 75 and under 65, then looking at the averages month by month. This wouldn't have any meaning at all because it tells you nothing of what temperatures are like in Buffalo and certainly tells you nothing of how they change month to month.

Richard refused to engage me on the analysis. He simply scoffed it away saying if I had a problem with it I should take it up with 'them' (the researchers). That's how it usually goes. People reading his site, looking at the related page where he uses the Bern study info, and reading his conclusions would be presuaded to think a similar conclusion. But they may not delve into the forums to find my thread on it and hopefully understand the graph presented is unusable. He won't change the site though, he knows the thread will eventually drift off the board and he won't have to worry about it again. I just don't see why a runner of your calibre endorses (intentionally or not) his site. I know you want to argue towards the info he's brought to the table, but the info is heavily biased towards his objectives and not many can or will sort out the useful bits from the his misleading interpretations.

Thanks for persevering to find the main thread. Yes, it's quite a read, isn't it?

Thanks for the link to your analysis. I don't understand the graphs either. I'm also puzzled by the fact that in their abstract the researchers said "there were significant associations between 16-km running time and weekly training distance", yet the actual conclusions seem to be that quantity of weekly mileage was not sufficient to predict speed.

I know you are frustrated that Richard hasn't answered you in depth but has referred you to the researchers; I can sort of see his point as (according to Richard's analysis) they were the ones who arbitrarily divided up the data. The problem we are all having with this study is that it was published in 1988, doesn't exist on the Net, and none of us who are commentating on it have seen the original.

I've pointed people at Richard's site as a place to find some challenging idea about quality versus quantity; I'm not endorsing everything he says, nor the way he says it. But, as you'll have got from the rest of the thread, I hope, what's important is that we are having a serious look at whether high mileage is the most productive way to go -- for everyone.

Richard's main argument, I think, is that "different athletes respond differently to increases in weekly mileage". He has then tried to substantiate the argument that runners who are not genetically-gifted elites-to-be might be better served by much lower weekly mileages. This makes a lot of sense to me -- and also explains why many outstanding runners (such as Bannister and Coe) have gone the (comparatively) low-mileage, higher-intensity route. But I am still exploring.

Richard quotes no less an authority than Prof Tim Noakes in support of his conclusions on the Bern study. If this is accurately reported, then it is one hell of an endorsement for Richard's ideas from the man who wrote The Book: "I entirely concur with your interpretation as it seems the only logical one to make. I certainly like your interpretation because it does fit with your hypothesis that only elite athletes can afford to train at high intensity or high volume and that less good athletes who attempt the same are likely to be disappointed with the outcomes. I think that is such an obvious conclusion that it has to be correct. The only problem is none of us had thought about it beforehand."

Can you share your own experiences of training and racing and the quality/quantity issue?

Just in : this great quote from exercise physiologist Dr Owen Anderson, PhD, author and publisher of Running Research News:

"An enduring myth of running is that the most potent way to advance aerobic capacity is to increase weekly training mileage. While the strategy can work well in novice runners and in individuals who have been carrying out low-volume training, scientific research suggests that enhancements of high-quality training -- not mileage -- are best for boosting aerobic capacity.

"Conducting workouts at Vmax seems to be an especially effective technique".

* Owen Anderson: Best training for maximising aerobic capacity, Running Rersearch News 2007, Vol 23: 2 (March). www.runningresearchnews.com

And let's balance that with the perspective of legendary coach Billy Squires, who writes a poetic and inspirational piece on "running enough" in his book Speed with Endurance, co-authored by Bruce Lehane.

Enjoy:

"Some people never run enough to get their aerobic house in ordet.

"They run four or five times a week and assume that the fitness derived from their program takes them to a level of running commensurate with their talent levels. What they don't know is that is a much more satisfying level of running just waiting for them if they would only work harder to break through to it.

"In running, there is a paradoxical principle that, within limits peculiar to each individual, the more you run -- after a period of adaptation -- the easier it gets. There is a point of fitness when you suddenly feel a flow, a ready current of energy that buouys you up when you are running and has you feeling like a kite on the wind.

"The feeling of being like a kite on the wind is achieved after you have reached the beginning stages of true fitness. Your strengthened heart will pump more oxygenated blood to muscles with greater energy-producing capacity.

"But if you don't run enough to cause the requisite changes within, you won't reach that point of fitness. Instead you will stay earthbound: sluggish, partially fit, plodding. And you can stay there for years and years if your running does not reach the critical level of work that will cause you to breakthrough to basic fitness.

"What is the breakthrough point for fitness? It's a minimum of running six days a week, totalling a minimum of 35 miles of running for "lower" levels of performance. (It would be 60 to 80 miles for 'higher' levels of performance, but those more experienced athletes know that well.) If you are running less than that, your running is harder than it needs to be. If you run more, you will feel better."

* From "Speed with Endurance" by Bill Squires and Bruce Lehane. (Self-published: available online here.)