My own interweb discussion, on conditioningresearch.blogspot.com...
rappstar said...
Hi Chris,
I love your blog, but you realize that when it comes to true endurance racing, Brian has zero credibility. An 11:33 Ironman is an average time, but not even close to the top of what folks that train a similar amount (say 10-14) hours per week do. Not pros, regular age group athletes. Same with his ultras - a couple of HOURS behind Dean Karnazes, who generally finishes a couple of hours of behind Scott Jurek, FYI. 26:48 for the Western States is impressive only as much as it is a finishing time, but it certainly does not belie any great insight into training methodology for that sort of event.
I don't think any endurance athlete would say that posture, core engagement, etc. are not critical to racing well. But deadlifts, squats, etc. are not the only way to do it. Nor are they necessarily the best way. They will never replace swimming, biking, and running. Look at Michael Phelps as a prime example - the man cannot bench press his own body weight even once. But he has plenty of specifically applicable strength. He also does relevant dryland training (medicine balls, etc.), so it's not like it's only swim, swim, swim.
The common misconception about endurance training is that it is all "LSD." A good endurance program has a focus on all intensities levels, from very low to very high. That's what periodization is. Periodization is the fundamental basis of endurance training, and it seems to be something Brian has absolutely no concept of. Tell him to go read Tudor Bompa, Arthur Lydiard, or any of the other folks who actually have done research on the subject. It might actually improve his own training, both in the weight room and out of it.
Sincerely,
Jordan Rapp
April 10, 2009 9:01 AM 
[/url]
Ken said...
I have to disagree with some of your comments. Brian MacKenzie does have a great deal of credibility among a growing number of endurance athletes. You should not judge his methods by his times, you should judge his methods by the improvement in the times of the people he trains. By that standard, he has been very successful. Also, it probably only a matter of time before he get to train someone with exception talent.
I think your comments about what he does and does not have a concept of are very presumptuous. Perhaps you should do something like read the full article, look at his web sit, or try to contact him. Because it is clear you have no concept of what Brian MacKenzie actually does and does not understand.
April 10, 2009 6:24 PM [/url]
rappstar said...
Hi Ken,
I did read the entire interview. I think Brian himself shows what he does and doesn't understand through his implication that LSD is how endurance athletes train.
"How do you overcome the status quo and endless volumes of data that virtually mandate a long, slow distance regimen vs. short term, high intensity program?
Uh, which studies are you referring to? If you could show me any study that proves LSD is in any way, shape or form, better than anaerobic training I’d love to see it! This is the problem with most endurance athletes... They believe for some reason that there is evidence that “neurotic and obsessed” is a study or form of training. It isn’t, nor has it ever been proven. It is still theory, and “folk lore”! Meaning a bunch of neurotic out of shape fat people believed because professional athletes can train long hours they can. Unfortunately it doesn’t work, which is why they are fat, and slow!"
I don't see that as being presumptuous in the least. I was responding to what it is that was written in the article, which was limited to his comments on training in general and his performances. There was no mention of the performances or improvements of his athletes. The article held up Brian's achievements as "proof," and I was challenging that. I based my replies on the available information in the article, both the introduction and the interview itself. The fact that Brian only addresses LSD, which is not at all representative of the way endurance athletes train - especially at the elite level - shows a clear lack of understanding of proper endurance training and periodization. The word "periodization" was never mentioned in the entire interview, which is shocking. The whole debate, as presented in that article, is as if it is "either/or" between CFE and LSD, which is not even close to an accurate portrayal.
It's not about 100% of either one. Brian's approach of 100% focus on CFE is just as bad a someone with a 100% focus on LSD. Neither one is optimal for endurance training. But this sort of black and white thinking is pervasive on both sides, but it certainly isn't the standard among folks that actually excel.
I doubt Brian has any idea how Chris McCormack trains. I know this because I actually do, and I know that Chris values very high intensity work as part of his Ironman program. Chris's program is certainly not "LSD," nor is any athlete who has actually won the Ironman Champs. So I would say that I am not the one who needs to "read more" in this particular case.
April 10, 2009 10:44 PM [/url]
Ken said...
Hi Jordan,
I'm sorry but you comments give away your ignorance of his methods. Brian doesn't talk about periodization because the CrossFit method makes it irrelevant. CrossFit people "periodize" everyday.
The bottom line is that he is well aware of how everyone else is training, and he disagrees with this methodology based on years of personal experimentation and research with various methods. But most importantly, he is getting results. Just because he is getting these results, when everyone thinks he shouldn't doesn't make them invalid. It probably indicates that he has found something new, and that his methods need to be looked at more closely by the scientific community rather than dismissed because the current research doesn't support them.
His methods are too new to have been investigated scientifically, but the science is always behind the most cutting edge training methods. And as someone who has a degree in Exercise Science, I'm well aware that there is still a lot that is not well understood in field of Exercise Physiology and anyone who thinks that your can rely purely on scientific research for training methodology is sadly deluded.
April 11, 2009 8:24 AM [/url]
rappstar said...
Hi Ken,
I'm not sure how you can "periodize" within a single day? Maybe you can enlighten me. As someone with a degree in ExSci, I will assume that you have read Bompa's work. When I discuss periodization, I am talking about a transition from what we can call "general" preparation to "specific" preparation. So I certainly think CFE could have a place, especially in the "general" period of training. It's the "either/or" tone of that article that I disagree with. LSD is NOT how Chris McCormack, Chrissie Wellington, Craig Alexander, etc. train. Equating endurance training with LSD by default is what is truly delusional. I do not disagree that biomechanics, hip movement, etc. is all very important. But to imply that someone of Chris McCormack's ability is capable of doing what he is doing without sound biomechanics is foolish. You don't run a 2:42 marathon off the bike (or a sub-30min 10k) without good biomechanics. LSD will certainly not get you there.
April 11, 2009 8:41 AM
"Non est ad astra mollis e terris via." - Seneca | rappstar.com | FB - Rappstar Racing | IG - @jordanrapp