[Todd Lane]

Todd Lane on May 28, 2003 at 2:38 am #8408

I enjoyed reading the dialogue on Mann studies and triple extension.

Here's the biggest thing i take from your dialogue, actually just confirms.

Scientiest put out studies with results and conlusions. As coaches, the ones actually out on the track doing the work, we know that the conclusions are wrong for the real world. We filter through their work and translate it into applied work with out athletes. Scientist are "text book", coaches are "street smart".

There is a physiology professor here on campus who constantly quotes me studies on there being no physiological improvement for runners beyond 60 miles per week. My response is always with something about why do elite marathoners running 150 miles a week. He may be right, but I've yet to read of a 2:10 marathoner only running 60 miles a week.

Coaches already know the answers, scientists, just have to prove it.

just my two cents on something.

[Mike Young]

Mike Young on May 28, 2003 at 3:17 am #20570

[i]Originally posted by todd[/i]
Scientiest put out studies with results and conlusions. As coaches, the ones actually out on the track doing the work, we know that the conclusions are wrong for the real world. We filter through their work and translate it into applied work with out athletes. Scientist are "text book", coaches are "street smart".

Very true. I think the big reasons for this is that many scientists lack an ability for application; most coaches and scientists have a communication barrier due to their different langauges; and many scientists fail to realize that what is 'not statistcially significant' in the lab can be HIGHLY significant on the playing field. Your marathon example is a perfect example of this final point. 60 mile / week runners might run a marathon in 140 minutes (2:20) while 120 mile / week runners might run a marathon in 128 minutes (2:08). To a coach, athlete and sporting observer, there is a huge difference. Statistically however, there may be no observable difference.

On the flip side however, there are just as many coaches who are regimented and dogmatic about previous beliefs in spite of overwhelming evidence (supplied by the scientists) to the contrary.

ELITETRACK Founder

[Kebba Tolbert]

Kebba Tolbert on May 28, 2003 at 7:04 am #20571

yeah.. i'm no science genious but i try to use it to understand better what i do, what i've been taught by my mentors, how i might appropiately change and adapt for various individuals and special situations.

we all have favorite things that work for us even though they might not be scientifically sound…. but it's obviously better if most of what you do is grounded in something besides "it just felt right"…. although for us science/technical people "intutiion can be a lost art".

btw, I started a book _Awakening Intuition_ by Mona Schulz… it's interesting.

[Carl Valle]

Carl Valle on May 29, 2003 at 3:24 am #20572

Coaching is charisma, science, and common sense.

[Todd Lane]

Todd Lane on May 29, 2003 at 6:38 am #20573

Coaching is charisma, science, and common sense.

thank goodness good looks isn't part of it, i never several on this board along with myself who would fall very short.
😀

mike- what are doing these days to pretty yourself up for the big day, only 5 weeks away?? tanning bed? extra weight on the curls to swell up a little more?? extra aerobics class after work??
😀

[Todd Lane]

Todd Lane on May 29, 2003 at 6:45 am #20574

but it's obviously better if most of what you do is grounded in something besides "it just felt right"…. although for us science/technical people "intutiion can be a lost art".

makes sense, science is black and white. doesn't allow for individuality or external influences.

a slight bend from topic at hand–
when i go to clinics where coaches get 45min to 1 hour to present, i feel a great injustice is done to both presenter and listener. presenter describe what is probably one of the best weeks of training that they've ever done with athletes. listeners are writing it all down thinking they're not doing enough with their athletes and going to cookie cut what they just heard.

this is where boo is so good, he describes concepts and you build on that.

[Mike Young]

Mike Young on June 2, 2003 at 10:22 pm #20575

Todd-
I'm hitting the curls pretty hard…….she's pretty ripped and I don't want her to show me up too much.

ELITETRACK Founder

[dma1973]

dma1973 on June 3, 2003 at 7:08 am #20576

I think Charlie Francis said

"Scientists are only comfirming what I already know"

Coaching is charisma, science, and common sense

I better give coaching than I don't have charisma. 🙁