|
Sep 2015
10:10am, 13 Sep 2015
1,695 posts
|
Canute
I agree Lee Saxby's post is interesting. I would expand on his conclusion, and suggest that it is selective use of science and over-simplistic interpretation leads to bad coaching.
All of the examples of ‘bad coaching’ based on science given Lee Saxby are examples of selective use of science or over-simplistic interpretation. In all these examples, the ‘bad coach’ assumes that an observed characteristic of some fast runners is what caused them to be fast. ‘Good scientists’ do not assume cause without performing experiments to test whether or not an assumption of cause is justified.
Of the quoted examples of scientific observations, there are indeed some grounds for claiming a causal influence, but it is necessary to look far beyond the scientific evidence quoted by Saxby. For example, both strong push and moderately high cadence are likely to cause faster running, when applied in an appropriate manner. These two observations fit into a much larger body of evidence that does support the conclusion of a causal effect. But even where there are grounds for assuming a causal effect, the conclusion is not as simplistic as that made by Lee Saxby’s ‘bad coach’
|
|
Sep 2015
11:18am, 14 Sep 2015
31,203 posts
|
Hills of Death (HOD)
It's interesting how certain phrases can be misinterpted I've done it myself when trying to get POSe in my head
|
|
Sep 2015
12:28pm, 14 Sep 2015
6,493 posts
|
100forRNIB
If all you've got is a hammer, everything is treated like a nail.
People alter their perceptions to fit.
|
|
Dec 2015
8:18pm, 28 Dec 2015
7,328 posts
|
FenlandRunner
Just a thought, is efficiency linked to injury prevention?
|
|
Dec 2015
12:03pm, 30 Dec 2015
1,708 posts
|
Canute
FR
Efficiency and reduction of injury are linked insofar as there are several things that can promote both:
Consistent training based on gradual build-up of training volume promotes efficiency by virtue of increased metabolic efficiency, while also reducing injury by gradual strengthening body tissues.
For most recreational runners, an increase in cadence by around 10-15% above self-selected cadence increases efficiency by cutting costs of getting airborne and also reduced braking costs; while also reducing risk of injury by virtue of lower impact forces.
|
|
Dec 2015
9:14pm, 30 Dec 2015
16,561 posts
|
GlennR
That final paragraph of Canute's is one of the truest things ever written on this thread.
|
|
Jan 2016
4:35pm, 15 Jan 2016
4,505 posts
|
jonp
The biggest way to reduce and eliminate most of the nasty running injuries is to reduce leverage around your joints. You can get most of the way there by making sure you keep your lead knee bent (aka don't stretch it out forwards).... it'll give you a higher cadence too because you will have reduce overstriding
|
|
Jan 2016
5:03pm, 15 Jan 2016
20,029 posts
|
eL Bee!
hi Jon  [waves]
|
|
Jan 2016
5:17pm, 15 Jan 2016
4,506 posts
|
jonp
Hey Bee!
Been a while, hope you are well.
|
|
Jan 2016
5:44pm, 15 Jan 2016
31,692 posts
|
Hills of Death (HOD)
Hi everyone
|
