I think we need to make a meme out of this. Instead of actually responding to haters with arguments, just insist "Starting Strength is right about everything."
I think we need to make a meme out of this. Instead of actually responding to haters with arguments, just insist "Starting Strength is right about everything."
I think the problem from a communication point of view is this: let's say our skinny marathoner can squat 100, and each stride requires 80lbs of force, so running requires 80% of his 1rpm effort. If he takes his squat to 200, running becomes a 40% 1rpm effort. It's easy to see how this would improve his running/running endurance.
But suppose he takes his squat to 400. Running is now a 20% max effort. Why isn't it easier yet? If it is good to take his squat to 200, why isn't it better to take his squat to 400?
You are very clear that the runner should improve his squat, and why. You are also very clear that he shouldn't take his squat to 400. But I've never heard you clearly express why the logic works for a 200lb squat but not for a 400lb squat. Yes, there's general statements about not wanting his bodyweight to go up too much, or tradeoffs between different adaptations. But why shouldn't he get his bodyweight up to 260 and his squat to 450? All that muscle isn't just riding along on his back is it?
It's an optimization problem. Force production is not the only variable. Can you think of other variables in the 26.2 problem?
Looks like it is still going. I guess it is not so easy to understand.
Prong Horn Antelope are interesting, muscular creatures.