I still struggle with the Weyland study in whole for many reasons, perhaps in part because of my own short-commings. And your interpretation and defense of same continues to fall short from helping me on this. Yet as time passes I actually find myself rooting for you. I actually want to believe that "yours" is the better way. Being a self-styled interpretor of scientific findings into practical application as well as a historian, I have to believe that there always will be "a better way…"
I was interviewed for a book recently and one answer I gave was around the disconnect between scientific finding and practical application. It is the common ground I find with you and keeps me from "throwing the Bear out with the bathwater" along with what merit I do find in your arguments.
Perhaps a strategic retreat to consider your use of terminology as far as accuracy, relavelance, etc… This considering that you are speaking to many who are intelligent and well read in this area and yet we aren't "getting it". If you are genuinely motovated to win over the masses, I can tell you that regardless of individuals receptiveness, your approach and tone isn't getting the job done.
I think that a quick look at my earlier posts would show that I was doing nothing more than stating a case for the research. I think you will also see that I did not throw out snide remarks, nor did I misquote others. I've been told continually how much I don't know. There is a lot I don't know, but nothing coming from here falls into that category.
"Also, relative body strength (what Coach Ross calls MSF) is highest at low body weights,"
"I find Coach Ross???s use of the term ???mass specific force??? to be contrived, overly complicated and slightly confusing. Coach Ross uses this term to describe the amount of force produced by athlete relative to an athlete???s body weight. Why come up with a new term that doesn't fully describe what you are trying to say. How does it not fully describe what he???s trying to say? Well, his term MSF refers to the force produced by an athlete and this is not conveyed by just saying MSF. If he wanted the words to convey what he???s actually using the term for it would need to be changed to something like mass specific force producing ability. Wow???now that???s complicated. Why not just call it relative force. This is a term that exercise physiologists have used for the past 50 years. Or if that didn???t work for you, you could even use relative force producing abilities."
Show a lack of knowledge of the subject and the study. The term is Weyand's, not mine. I'm told that I don't use the right terminology, yet Mike's statement above says MSF is the amount of force produced by an athlete relative to the athletes bodyweight. Is the term mass the same as bodyweight?
Mike knows that and I know that, but I didn't jump all over him for that. If Mike wants precision, then he should be precise himself. He is not.
Why come up with a new term….Mass-specific force? Because it's not describing old concepts. It is a major breakthrough in understanding running. If one does not want to accept it, that's fine.
I'm not trying to defend the Weyand study, it stands on its own.
My approach on here may not get the job done here, but that's ok. The masses are hearing it, though it's tough for everybody to understand because it goes against so many common beliefs. Took me several years to have any grasp at all of the subject (I know, I know—many (most?) of you still think I don't have a clue).
There is some absolutely amazing studies going on right now. It will be very clear to all that it's not my world that's crumbling.
So to everyone, thanks for the responses, questions, interest and fun parts!