Richard_ wrote:
I appreciate you trying to speak for me, but would appreciate it if you could be more accurate as to what I would say or what I mean, etc.
Quit your crying, you would-be authority. I checked out your home page and was almost hypnotized by the lack of thought that went into most of your "articles." Your site and your posts together constitute one huge misinformation streak, and your presence here is nothing but a time sink because people who know better feel driven to rebut you even though your ignorance is self-evident.
Richard_ wrote:To clarify for Speed, here is what I recommend. Training frequency should be based on recovery. Some people recover really fast. Others recover really slowly. Most fall somewhere in the middle.
You and your recovery distribution curve "model." I don't suppose you've considered the fact that recoverability is not static but modifiable - dependent, like so much else in running, on gradually increasing one's training load over time?
The rest of your post doesn't bear repeating but I'll quote one more illustrative sentence:
Richard_ wrote:For those exceptional few who recover really fast, the elites of the world, they can train 6-7 days per week.
If you really think these people are statistically "exceptional," you should return your exercise science degree and go into a related field, such as interior decorating or waste management.
Richard_ wrote:It seems that some people see the "2-3" days per week of running and miss everything else. Perhaps their brains stop working at that point? Who knows?
Let's cool it with the personal attacks, name calling, flaming and other crap, m'kay? These discussions always deteriorate into this sort of ugliness, which is why I hesitate to chime in.