You may be right, but I don't know where he states this. I have a feeling you just can't believe he'd recommend such a radical departure from convention training, but I think he is.
No not at all. Not a matter of not believe he'd recommend such a radical approach, but rather that if he had done it, it would be explicit obviously. Bare in mind that this paper was NOT published to be read and interpreted by swimmers themselves, as it wouldn't be fair to assume that they know what Phosphocreatine is.
Also, like I explained you earlier, *your* interpretation of this chart, I mean if you were a coach, what you're arguing about, would be the equivalent of putting an elite squad on severe volume diet, only made of HIT or UST, which obviously doesn't make any sense. It would, it if was the case, call for an explicit mention. The minimal session duration for a sprinter varsity level is 4.5k I'd say? So you'd be, if you were a head coach applying Rushall's theory shrinking this down by at least 30%, which calls for an explicit mention. 4.5 * 9 sessions = 40k, not excessive for a world class sprinter.
The other thing, like I also explained you, is that they train 2wice a day on a few days per week, whereas this paper suggests this approach for a daily basis. Again, if it was recommended to perform this 2wice a day, a mention would be explicit. And there he would have to demonstrate that it's good thing to book race pace work at 15 to 6 AM, and there (without having done any research), I think evidence must exist to suggest it wouldn't fit all your swimmers.
Bare in mind that in a squad of 40, you may have 1 or 2 contenders for Olympics selection, no more (well, sometimes more but you know what I mean). If these two aren't geared for hard work in AM, you'd be missing the boat. So these factors are far too important to be kept implicit.
Thanks for bringing this table to my attention.
By the way, Rushall is alive, and quite easy to reach I believe. Feel free to ask this question if you want. He's no evil. He pisses coaches off, but without crossing the line what would make him as a publisher, entirely irrelevant.
Here's anohter example of his works, again there. Not bad, not wrong, but it shakes things up for sure, and pisses coaches (at least those who swear on a Periodized approach) off.
www.roble.net/.../rushall7.html
You may be right, but I don't know where he states this. I have a feeling you just can't believe he'd recommend such a radical departure from convention training, but I think he is.
No not at all. Not a matter of not believe he'd recommend such a radical approach, but rather that if he had done it, it would be explicit obviously. Bare in mind that this paper was NOT published to be read and interpreted by swimmers themselves, as it wouldn't be fair to assume that they know what Phosphocreatine is.
Also, like I explained you earlier, *your* interpretation of this chart, I mean if you were a coach, what you're arguing about, would be the equivalent of putting an elite squad on severe volume diet, only made of HIT or UST, which obviously doesn't make any sense. It would, it if was the case, call for an explicit mention. The minimal session duration for a sprinter varsity level is 4.5k I'd say? So you'd be, if you were a head coach applying Rushall's theory shrinking this down by at least 30%, which calls for an explicit mention. 4.5 * 9 sessions = 40k, not excessive for a world class sprinter.
The other thing, like I also explained you, is that they train 2wice a day on a few days per week, whereas this paper suggests this approach for a daily basis. Again, if it was recommended to perform this 2wice a day, a mention would be explicit. And there he would have to demonstrate that it's good thing to book race pace work at 15 to 6 AM, and there (without having done any research), I think evidence must exist to suggest it wouldn't fit all your swimmers.
Bare in mind that in a squad of 40, you may have 1 or 2 contenders for Olympics selection, no more (well, sometimes more but you know what I mean). If these two aren't geared for hard work in AM, you'd be missing the boat. So these factors are far too important to be kept implicit.
Thanks for bringing this table to my attention.
By the way, Rushall is alive, and quite easy to reach I believe. Feel free to ask this question if you want. He's no evil. He pisses coaches off, but without crossing the line what would make him as a publisher, entirely irrelevant.
Here's anohter example of his works, again there. Not bad, not wrong, but it shakes things up for sure, and pisses coaches (at least those who swear on a Periodized approach) off.
www.roble.net/.../rushall7.html
