Run-Down Forums

[Dan]

There's no question there are good books and writings out there, but my feeling is there are far more bad ones than good. If you look just at numbers and averages, there's a solid chance coaches are being hurt more than helped as a result...

[Distance_Guru]

Leave it to Hammer to restart a dead debate, fine by me, this one could actually be rather productive.

My take on this is that books can be an aide if you get the right one and use your own good judgement along with it. As for trainers, I'd have to say that they do vary greatly in their quaility. The trainer that I had during my college running days was awsome. I had a couple of weird injuires that most trainer never would have figured out, I once bruised the caratilge under my knee cap that caused swelling and pain when I was running. She got it on the first diagnosis and we got it treated right away. Although I will admit that she was probably better than your normal trainer there are good ones out there. The same goes for books, there are good ones and there are less good ones. What I generally do is ask someone that knows more than me about what ever it is I'm trying to learn, which books to use. In other words I think reading is a good thing, but reading the best books is the best way to go.
_________________
Time is the fire in which we burn

[Hammer]

Dan- Well you covered the injury aspect of my post but what about periodization. How does one learn about periodization of workout without reading books on periodization and phisiology??

If a person learns this type of information from someone else, (another coach) are they really coaching or are they just copying someone elses system? And if a person does not fully understand periodization are they really setting up a training plan (that is going to benefit their athlets over a period of time) or are they just filling in workouts that they make up?

[Hammer]

Dan- Were you implying in you post that you know more about running injuries (diagnosis, treatment) than Doctors?

[Dan]

[Hammer]

Dan- I really have a problem with coaches that say that they won't read. I understand that a lot of what coaches do is trial and error but if they do not have a basic understanding of phisiology how can they make adjustments??

If a coach learns, only, by talking to other coaches are they really getting the full message? I think that most of the time they are not. They only get the 'cliff notes' version. I am very carefull about whom I take advise from. If they can't show me that they have an understanding of the running system then I really don't pay attention to them. I have seen a lot of SUCCESSFUL coaches who don't no much about running. Yes they have good teams but their runners never seem to improve (begining of season to the end of the season or season to season.)

So if a coach WILL NOT read who do they get their informantion from and is that infomation high in quality?

[Dan]

Why does a coach have to understand physiology in order to make adjustments? Why not intelligence, common sense, or the understanding of the difference between parsley and thyme in Italian cooking??? Unless you can make a convincing argument for how an understanding of physiology is essential to coaching, it simply does not follow that not having it would be a detriment.

[Conway]

I just can't watch any more ...

Most doctors know little about athletic injuries ... why do you think NBA, NFL, and other major sports athlets fly all over the country (and sometimes the world) to work with that handful of doctors that do !!!!! They don't go to the local HMO doctor ... They don't even go to the local Med Center doctor .... They seek out renowned specialists with a history of treatment and success with various specific injuries ... And getting a second or third opinon often involves mutliple flights between states and/or countries ...

The same goes for the elite in track and field ... Mo Greene, Marion Jones, ElG, Devers... They do the same thing ... Seek out those physicians who KNOW how to deal with their problems ... Heck when Ben Johnson had his hamstring injury prior to the 88 Olympics he left the country to find THE guy who knew how to handle hamstrings !!

What athletes do to their bodies is nothing like what the average person's body goes through ... And most doctors have no clue what theya re looking at with most athletic injuries ...

Same for reading ... I am an avid reader on a variety of topics many not sports related believe it or not ... And one thing is consistent ... Theory is very much different from practical application !!! Theory says I THINK this will happen IF ... Practicall application says "from ACTUAL EXPERIENCE I have OBSERVED the following to occur ... The key to reading (if you are looking to do so with the intent of duplicating what you read) is to try to duplicate that which is proven ... Otherwise you are trully entering the world of trial and error ...

Conway

[coachd]

[Dan]

Interesting scenarios, but I've yet to meet or talk to a person who considers the Stanford women's XC team to be successful... Most consider it the biggest failure in collegiate cross country, actually.

Dan

[coachd]

I agree...Stanford has not achieved on the level one might expect, but the average fan, athletic director, media person, etc. would certainly look at 5 top-five finishes in five years and say, "hey, that's a successful team"...have they achieved to the degree a knowlegeable fan, athlete or coach might expect--absolutely not.


Calling them the biggest failure in college cross-country might be pushing it a little, but then you must associate with a lot of anti-Stanford individuals up there in Oregon...I see a lot of material from camps, clinics and the like that extoll the virtues of Stanford, it's program and coaches--so there are certainly people who consider Stanford a successful program. Not that I would include myself among that group.

[Dan]

Are you talking about Stanford's men and women, or just the women? There really isn't all that much anti-Stanford sentiment around here. A number of top Oregonians have gone there in recent years... No question the men's team has been successful, not only recruiting talent but also developing it. The development on the women's side has been worse than non-existant -- most of them have gotten worse!

Dan

[coachd]

[

[coachd]

Well, it seems Vin Lananna is the coach...er, "director" of both programs. So is he "succesful" or not? I know he has fired (?) let go (?) or otherwise removed a couple of women's coaches in the last five years...is it because they have not implemented his plan or has his women's plan not worked. I really don't know.

[Dan]

I believe Lanana has only coached the women for a short time during that period, and from what I've heard, it was more in title than in presence. Straight out of high school, Stanford's top 5 freshmen women each year should, on paper, be capable of a top-3 finish at NCAAs...

The most compelling reason I've heard for the problems that program revolves around fragile personalities and egos. So many elite/competitive female endurance athletes have severe eating and image disorders coming out of high school that when you take the cream of the crop and lump them all together, you've got a mixture combustible enough to make Bob Whitsitt cringe.

As I've said before, I don't see any value in RW as a training resource, but I also don't believe they see themselves as that, either. I think it's pointless to blame them for not being what they don't pretend to be. The headlines they write are no different than anyone else trying to sell a somewhat mainstream magazine.

Dan