I wonder if i would get better reception if i softened my criticism of conventional wisdom and focused on taking a more pragmatic approach.
For example, here, is a typical-dime-a-dozen-conventional wisdom-based article that showed up in the 'someone you might want to follow on twitter' section of my inbox this morning. If you read it, you will find a regurgitation of the base1-3, build 1, build 2, etc hierarchy that is currently enjoying its day in the sun at the top of the endurance training pyramid.
I wonder if the push back is because the instinctual reaction to my ideas for many is to assume i'm suggesting that this model is wrong - that it wouldn't yield good results - that all the coaches that were pushing it and all the 'science' (don't get me started here though) behind them is all just a bunch of garbage. And if i was suggesting that, i guess it would be pretty offensive (and a defensive reaction might even be called for).
What i'm really suggesting though is that for the vast majority of athletes, even some pretty ambitious ones, there's often a pretty big gap between training theory and training reality. And in the context of that reality (in my experience anyway), the strict adherence to my super-low-volume-high-intensity routine seems to allow for results and capabilities comparable to those enjoyed by the vast majority of that vast majority that are training based off of the conventional wisdom approach.
So i wonder if folks would find it as hard to swallow if i changed my tune and rather than arguing that my crazy approach to this whole endurance game was as sound as the conventional approach, instead argued that a consistent application of my crazy approach was as good as an inconsistent application of the tried and true program that most endurance athletes think is the only program out there - and that in reality, an inconsistent application of the latter is probably all they could ever hope for?
Ok, so as I wrote it i realized that, as true as it may be, the last sentence still sounds a bit offensive. It also begs at least two questions - 1) what percentage of folks who can inconsistently follow a conventional program would even care to save themselves hours a week by consistently doing less (but harder) work if they could still have the same results, and then, 2) of this group, what percentage even could? Hmmm.....
*P.S. Tammy, I wrote this three days ago (;