I thought this was an interesting post on Crossfit Endurance the other day. It links to a discussion in a Slowtwitch forum about the value of long, slow distance (LSD) running. The Slowtwitch people think the Crossfit Endurance stuff is nonsense, while the Crossfit Endurance people think the Slowtwitch people are all stuck in the past.
More than anything, I think this type of pseudo-argument shows the massive amount of bias that people have. Everyone gets accustomed to looking at things through their own lens, and then easily rejects other people's views.
Here's an idea: isn't it possible that elements of both philosophies are correct? I thought of this when I read a recommendation from the Diet Evolution book:
"If you run or walk long, go slow; if you run or walk short, go fast."
In other words, maybe a balanced program of high-intensity and low-intensity runs is best. For example, all of Crossfit Endurance's long runs are done at a high intensity. This strikes me as incorrect. A long, hard run signals to your genes that the food procurement situation is getting desparate. Of course, you can also look at the top marathoners and see what all their high-intensity long runs have done to their bodies.
A more balanced program is what has been suggested by top coaches such as Arthur Lydiard and others for decades. Of course, "balanced" really doesn't sell too well. You need something new and controversial to generate attention and sales. It also helps if you polarize people into two opposing groups (Atkins vs Ornish, etc.).
It's too bad none of this posturing helps anyone live a healthier life.
