Michael Boyle wrote an entire rejoinder column to my brief post, without properly linking back to my blog by way of proper attribution.
He cites his credentials as his source of authority. He claims to have "coached some of the best female athletes in the world." Should I cite my Olympic credentials, too? No, that doesn't prove a thing to substantiate my point, as it does nothing to substantiate his. It's a red herring.
He asserts: "I think most endurance training is questionable also. I don't allow my athletes to run distances. I think it produces primarily a negative response. Conditioning is developed far better by interval training than by steady-state work."
A patronizing attitude seems fairly evident to me here. "Allowing" "his" athletes to do something. Indeed! Is he coaching elementary school kids?
I don't have any issues with interval training for specific roles. But primarily "a negative response" from running distances? Evidence for that claim? Citations?
"Conditioning"? What type of conditioning? Aerobic capacity? Cardiac output? Muscular strength? Neuromuscular integration? A gross generalization that is also unsubstantiated.
He also claims: "Actually I think I'm very popular with the female athletes I coach."
I'm sure. I won't ask for evidence of that.
What do you think, readers?