This is a long article. If you're just interested in the workouts and not in going through all of this, scroll to the bottom... I'll understand. Really.
To read the article written by Mackenzie go here. You can download the PDF for free, and it's relatively short. If you don't see the many holes in his argument right away, it's ok. We'll go through it all.
Where do we begin?
Simplest first: He used the finals of the 100m sprint in the 2004 Olympics as his example of who peaked better. 1. Justin Gatlin doped (meaning he cheated), thus rendering the argument against Mo Green getting third worthless.
2. In 2004 Maurice Greene was 30 years old when he ran 9.85. In 1999 he was 25 and ran 9.80. Age is a serious factor, especially to a sprinter at that level. Maintaining that level of competition is impressive, but realistically, not many guys are going to run the same time at 30 that they ran at 25. That is, unless you were a lazy pile at 25 and then finally got yourself in shape at 30.
3. Olympic races are not simply the televised final races. There are several rounds to run in the Olympics, which is why there are often more SB and PB performances early on. A guy like Maurice Greene wasn't worried about making the finals, he was worried about not spending too much energy getting there. Olympic races are rarely the fastest of the season for exactly that reason, there are so many qualifying rounds that being at your very best is difficult. Exceptions to the rule: Michael Johnson, Usain Bolt, Carl Lewis.
4. Most of the men who ran PRs did so in the early rounds and finished last in their heats. Of course they finished dead last, they were slow. The fastest runners are not concerned with winning the heats, just the final. The guys who are just happy to be there are going to give it 100% in an attempt to make it to the next round. For the slowest guys who qualify for the games, the first round is like the finals, so conservation of energy is pointless since it will be their last race of the season anyway. So you can actually say that they peaked perfectly. Moreover, the men who did not make it past the first one or two rounds may have been even slower and peaked at their country's trials in order to just make it to the Olympics. So no, they are not going to run a PR at the Olympics because they had to give it everything they had to just get there.
So maybe he just forgot to think through all of this when he wrote his article. Understandable, there's a lot of thinking that has to go into things like this. He should have time to do all that thinking since he has the most time efficient training model ever conceived. But I digress.
Moving on...
The ironman argument: If Chris McCormack ran his second best time in the Ironman (8:13.07) he would have won every Ironman since 2006... No, seriously, he said this.
1. McCormack's several sub-8 hour ironmans are completely ignored, maybe they don't count here.
2. Here's a list of McCormack's finishes through his Kona Ironman (the world championships of ironman) career:
2002: DNF
2003: 576 minutes; 114th
2004: DNF
2005: 505 minutes; 6th
2006: 493 minutes; 2nd
2007: 495 minutes; 1st
2008: DNF
2009: 505 minutes; 4th
2010: 490 minutes; 1st
So, with that in mind... He pr'd (we're looking for pr's right?) in 2003, 2005, 2006, 2010.
His PR in 2010 would have gotten him 1st place in every single Ironman World Championship since he first qualified in 2003.
Just looking at the numbers his fastest finishing time was 86 minutes faster than his slowest finishing time. If we remove that one as an outlier and look at it from the perspective that he DNF'd his first year and was more than likely just looking to finish the race, rather than PR in it we can get a better look at the numbers.
Difference from fastest to slowest (minus the outlier): 15 minutes
Difference from highest finish to lowest (minus the outlier) in minutes: 15 minutes (1st to 6th)
Difference from fastest 1st place to slowest 1st place: 5 minutes
Now a deeper look...
Difference from fastest to slowest: 2.9%
Difference between fastest 1st place to slowest: 1.01%
15 minutes seems like a big difference, but when we look at it relatively it's actually a small percentage. Now consider this, being underhydrated 1% has been reported to result in a 10% decrease in performance in endurance events. That would mean he would only have to be dehydrated .1% to go from his fastest 1st place to his slowest. That is actually such a small amount of dehydration that it can be affected by anything from cloud cover, heat index, wind direction/speed, and precipitation to simply the locations of the hydration stations being a fraction of a mile further apart.
Also, if we look at the trends of McCormack's times relative to the rest of the field (minus the outlier) he is actually running better. So you could say, he peaks very well for the world championships. And I am sure if you ask him, he would LOVE to run 8:13 every single time he runs an Ironman. More than that, I bet he would want to run his 8:10. Maybe... and this is a crazy thought, even faster than his 8:10, but clearly everything has to be going in his favor as a <3% difference in performance means winning or getting 2nd.
So, in short, using an Ironman with the excessive variables and length of the race which allows for a larger margin of error than almost any other event on earth is not a great example when you are looking for consistency in times and finishing places.
So, what's next?
His NFL combine example: an NFL player in the combine pumps out 41 reps and the coach says "yeah, we've seen him do that in practice"... consistency is the key here.
Really? Pumping out 40 reps for the bench press consistently is the key to good performance in the NFL combine?
If you think they're doing that volume of training all the time, you have no business in the fitness industry.
It also reveals an ignorance of the types of training for endurance athletes. Ask the coaches of runners who turn in stellar performances, more often than not you'll hear something similar to "we knew he could do that". In fact, it doesn't even take a coach as the 30k world record breaking run was predicted by analysts almost a week before it happened http://www.letsrun.com/2011/eugenefriday-0602.php
Next please...
Prepared at all times: Military personnel don't need to peak because they have to be ready all the time.
... [deep sigh]...
Good for them. Line them up against any serious athlete who is NOT in peak form any time of the year, see how that theory works out for them.
I don't want to be so negative. I really don't. In that light, tomorrow we'll look at the other side of peaking and why it works, what it means, who can do it, when, how and how peaking will actually lend itself to better performances over broader domains and longer periods of time.
In the mean time, ask Brian Mackenzie how he's qualified to discuss any of this in the first place and post your answers to the comments.
Pre-run: Lunge Matrix
3k-10k: 4-8 miles easy
10k-21k: 5-10 miles easy
21k+: 2 miles easy + sets of 4 min hard/3 min easy (to the lesser of 8% of weekly mileage or 10k) + 2 miles easy
Post Run: Pick a previous MWOD and do it
Strength: 50 TGU slow and steady
No comments:
Post a Comment