I believe that all Lindsay is saying is that base alone is not a good predictor of performance. More variables are needed.
This echoes the oft-heard argument that weekly yardage alone is not a sufficiently nuanced metric for training quality. That's why I hate it when these discussions get reduced to "but how many yards a week should I train?" The brief dust-up over Maglischo's numbers is a good example.
Saying that "sprinters should train X per week" (no matter value you assign X) is silly, IMO. Just because you train 15k per week doesn't mean you'll have results like Lezak, for example (and that is certainly not ALL he did). What you do matters as much as (maybe more than) how much you do.
I believe that all Lindsay is saying is that base alone is not a good predictor of performance. More variables are needed.
This echoes the oft-heard argument that weekly yardage alone is not a sufficiently nuanced metric for training quality. That's why I hate it when these discussions get reduced to "but how many yards a week should I train?" The brief dust-up over Maglischo's numbers is a good example.
Saying that "sprinters should train X per week" (no matter value you assign X) is silly, IMO. Just because you train 15k per week doesn't mean you'll have results like Lezak, for example (and that is certainly not ALL he did). What you do matters as much as (maybe more than) how much you do.
