5000m World Record Splits: A Progression

Coevett wrote:

Kenya and Ethiopia don't have a relatively small population. Even back in 1980 their under 30 population was greater than any European country. Today, Ethiopia and Kenya have a combined population of 150 million, which is twice that of any European nation. The important thing though is the age demographics are completely different meaning that both those countries together probably have more 18 to 30 year olds than the USA or most of Europe combined.

Lets just take football as an example of a siphon of talent. Say even just 75% of talented middle-distance runners in Europe would likely go into football these days by the time they are into their mid-teens, and the corresponding figure for Kenya and Ethiopia is something like 10%. That alone would mean that Kenya/Ethiopia should end up producing over 7 times as many elite middle-distance runners as Western Europe combined. Impressive domination, but not much to do with natural superiority.

Your last point is absurd. No, the answer is to fight harder against dopers, and the first thing to do is admit that there is a problem, especially in Africa. Having said that, the African doping epidemic certainly played a big part in the decline of European running in the 90s. What the point is denying it though, especially when Africans are getting popped every week? Are you saying we should cover up African doping busts lest they discourage clean European runners? Wow, that's a new level of stupidity on this board.

rekrunner wrote:

East Africa had 4 of the top 6, in a race with 33 countries in total.

In a race with 293 finishers, all 12 scorers for Kenya and Ethiopia finished in the top 55.

Why not count the juniors too -- they took 8 of the first 8.

Out of 139 finishers, all 10 East African juniors participating finished in the top 18.

Let's not just look individual results. It's a team sport.

Ethiopia and Kenya took 1st and 2nd in both the senior mens and junior mens events.

How can you do any better than that?

How dominate do you have to be to call it domination?

That's an impressive display of depth of talent in 1985 -- before EPO, and before Gabriele Rosa.

Coevett wrote:

Well just looking at the top 10 results for the 1985 world cross country, I wouldn't say Africa dominated.

Ethiopia yes had 3 of the top 6, but Portugal had 2 of the top 11 and the winner (Carlos Lopes). Ethiopia had a young population of 40 million and Portugal an already aging population of 10 million. Carlos Lopes, btw, would have been football player, but his father forbid it and so he joined the local track team instead.

rekrunner wrote:

East Africa had 4 of the top 6, in a race with 33 countries in total.

In a race with 293 finishers, all 12 scorers for Kenya and Ethiopia finished in the top 55.

Why not count the juniors too -- they took 8 of the first 8.

Out of 139 finishers, all 10 East African juniors participating finished in the top 18.

Let's not just look individual results. It's a team sport.

Ethiopia and Kenya took 1st and 2nd in both the senior mens and junior mens events.

How can you do any better than that?

How dominate do you have to be to call it domination?

That's an impressive display of depth of talent in 1985 -- before EPO, and before Gabriele Rosa.

Coevett wrote:

Well just looking at the top 10 results for the 1985 world cross country, I wouldn't say Africa dominated.

Ethiopia yes had 3 of the top 6, but Portugal had 2 of the top 11 and the winner (Carlos Lopes). Ethiopia had a young population of 40 million and Portugal an already aging population of 10 million. Carlos Lopes, btw, would have been football player, but his father forbid it and so he joined the local track team instead.

On My Way Home From An All-Nighter wrote:

LM wrote:

Yes and no. Let's talk about where all of this is coming from.

The idea behind the concept is that once you know both aerobic threshold and FRC you know exactly how much power an athlete can put down for any given duration (ignoring longer durations where fatigue resistance becomes a factor, or short ones where pure force matters).

With one lap, we can't extrapolate an exact potential, but what we can do is say "the athlete could have run faster than this". How much faster, it's hard to say; but for a 52 it's a minimum of 10s. With more power data as that grows more popular we will be able to hone in on a much more exact figure for this. So with an athlete that runs 13:05 and closes in 52 we know he can run at least 12:55. That's all we can say. Whether he can run 12:05, 12:35, or 12:55 we don't know.

Now if we start to have other fast performances, then we can get an idea. The idea is that if you know two performances, they are going to decay, based on FRC. Take a hypothetical athlete with zero FRC. This doesn't exist but illustrates the concept well. I'll use power because it's easier to conceptualize, and running lap times require exponentially more power.

If this athlete could run 400 in 60s, that would have to come entirely from aerobic energy. Aerobic energy is 100% sustainable, so he could run 800 in 2:00, 5k in 12:30, and 10k in 25:00. This is why you see that athletes that are stronger decay less over time, because aerobic power is a constant supply. You can supply 300w/350w/450w/whatever it may be aerobically for a sustainable period.

FRC on the other hand is a limited reservoir. You have X amount of it, usually measured in kJ. If someone has a 24kJ FRC that means they can do 400w anaerobically for 1'.

Or 800w for 30s.

Or 200w for 2'.

Or 40w for 10'.

Etc.

This is why faster guys decay quickly. A guy with a small FRC, say 12kj, is losing a much smaller amount of power each time the duration increases. Let's take our two examples, big FRC guy and big aerobic engine.

Athlete A: Big aerobic engine might have a threshold of 450w, and an FRC of 6kj

Athlete B: Big FRC monster might have a threshold of 420w, and an FRC of 24kj.

Now how does this breakdown?

Well at all durations (longer than about 1') power is simply aerobic + anaerobic. So at 1':

Athlete A can do 820w (420w aerobic, 400w anaerobic) so that might be like 50s pace

Athlete B can do 550w (450w aerobic, 100w FRC) and gets obliterated running perhaps 54s pace

Now at 5' we can see the gap closing

Athlete A can do 500w (420w aerobic, 80w anaerobic)

Athlete B can do 470w (450w aerobic, 20w anaerobic)

Now out at 30' we have

Athlete A can do 433w (420w aerobic, 13w anaerobic)

Athlete B can do 453w (450w aerobic, 3w anaerobic)

At this point, athlete B, our 10k runner is faster. But of course he can still lose in a slow race. If he run at 420w, that would be at threshold for A, so both A and B would arrive at the the last lap with the full tank of FRC, but now it's A with 24kJ vs B with 6kJ. B gets blown out.

Now of B runs at 430w....then it's different. B is below threshold, and still arrives to finish with 6kj. Meanwhile, A has to run at 430w, 10w of which must come from FRC, so that's going to leave runner A with 6kJ as well, now it's a dead heat who wins. If B runs a bit faster than that, then A will arrive with even less, and likely lose. And of course if B can force A to run faster than 433w, then A will be unable to hang and be dropped.

+1

LM wrote:

Subway Surfers Addiction wrote:

Yet to extrapolate a potential time off one lap is erroneous, it was a very, very good time run by Gebremeskel that day but he never got close to that time again nor has Ndiku ever gotten close to 3:27. Consistency is the only guide we have to make predictions from. The rest is immature speculation.

Yes and no. Let's talk about where all of this is coming from.

The idea behind the concept is that once you know both aerobic threshold and FRC you know exactly how much power an athlete can put down for any given duration (ignoring longer durations where fatigue resistance becomes a factor, or short ones where pure force matters).

With one lap, we can't extrapolate an exact potential, but what we can do is say "the athlete could have run faster than this". How much faster, it's hard to say; but for a 52 it's a minimum of 10s. With more power data as that grows more popular we will be able to hone in on a much more exact figure for this. So with an athlete that runs 13:05 and closes in 52 we know he can run at least 12:55. That's all we can say. Whether he can run 12:05, 12:35, or 12:55 we don't know.

☞at the 2012 London Diamond league equivalent in the same event Mo ran 13:06 with a 56.3s last lap by your own analysis ⤴ Gebremeskel was in 20s better 5,000m shape before the 2012 Olympics.

☞ in 2006 Lagat ran a last lap 51.7s to do 12:59 but we never saw Lagat run near 12:48/49. Heck he did not run a faster time for 5000m four years despite being both world champion and runner up in the event. ↔what is more important is an ability to change stride length for a sprint.

☞ the truth is Gebremeskel probably has a large frc but when running for 11.5 laps @ 13:30 pace Mo and Lagat may have a larger reserve capacity.

Now if we start to have other fast performances, then we can get an idea. The idea is that if you know two performances, they are going to decay, based on FRC. Take a hypothetical athlete with zero FRC. This doesn't exist but illustrates the concept well. I'll use power because it's easier to conceptualize, and running lap times require exponentially more power.

If this athlete could run 400 in 60s, that would have to come entirely from aerobic energy. Aerobic energy is 100% sustainable, so he could run 800 in 2:00, 5k in 12:30, and 10k in 25:00. This is why you see that athletes that are stronger decay less over time, because aerobic power is a constant supply. You can supply 300w/350w/450w/whatever it may be aerobically for a sustainable period.

FRC on the other hand is a limited reservoir. You have X amount of it, usually measured in kJ. If someone has a 24kJ FRC that means they can do 400w anaerobically for 1'.

Or 800w for 30s.

Or 200w for 2'.

Or 40w for 10'.

Etc.

This is why faster guys decay quickly. A guy with a small FRC, say 12kj, is losing a much smaller amount of power each time the duration increases. Let's take our two examples, big FRC guy and big aerobic engine.

Athlete A: Big aerobic engine might have a threshold of 450w, and an FRC of 6kj

Athlete B: Big FRC monster might have a threshold of 420w, and an FRC of 24kj.

Now how does this breakdown?

Well at all durations (longer than about 1') power is simply aerobic + anaerobic. So at 1':

Athlete A can do 820w (420w aerobic, 400w anaerobic) so that might be like 50s pace

Athlete B can do 550w (450w aerobic, 100w FRC) and gets obliterated running perhaps 54s pace

Now at 5' we can see the gap closing

Athlete A can do 500w (420w aerobic, 80w anaerobic)

Athlete B can do 470w (450w aerobic, 20w anaerobic)

Now out at 30' we have

Athlete A can do 433w (420w aerobic, 13w anaerobic)

Athlete B can do 453w (450w aerobic, 3w anaerobic)

At this point, athlete B, our 10k runner is faster. But of course he can still lose in a slow race. If he run at 420w, that would be at threshold for A, so both A and B would arrive at the the last lap with the full tank of FRC, but now it's A with 24kJ vs B with 6kJ. B gets blown out.

Now of B runs at 430w....then it's different. B is below threshold, and still arrives to finish with 6kj. Meanwhile, A has to run at 430w, 10w of which must come from FRC, so that's going to leave runner A with 6kJ as well, now it's a dead heat who wins. If B runs a bit faster than that, then A will arrive with even less, and likely lose. And of course if B can force A to run faster than 433w, then A will be unable to hang and be dropped.

rekrunner wrote:

How small does it have to be, to be relatively small?

Population of Europe is 743 million.

Population of America is 579 million.

Population of Japan is 127 million.

Population of Brazil is 207.7 million.

Population of Russia, Australia, South America ...

Population of India, China ...

In 1990, Kenya's population was about half of today's population, at 23 million and Ethiopia was 48 million.

When we look at where Kenyan and Ethiopian elites come from, most of them can be narrowed down to specific smaller groups, like Kalenjin, Nandi, and Oromo, while large parts of Kenya and Ethiopia produce few, if any, elite athletes.

In one study, Kenyans were found to have 80x more elite athletes than other nations, per 20 million people.

The same study found, that corrected for population, that Kenyans outperformed the rest of the world by a factor of 1700 (in 1997 World Cross Country)

The fact is that relatively small populations largely outperform the rest of the world.

Coevett wrote:

O.K, so lets say Africa made a leap forward in the 80s, and then, you'd have to admit, another great leap forward in the 90s. I'm just curious to know why they haven't really gone any further forward, despite the fact that the populations of both Kenya and Ethiopia have doubled since 1994, when their domination in terms of times, was at its peak. I mean all the causal factors that explain why Africa went from 'producing superb athletes' (like Rono and Bayi etc) in the 70s to dominating in the 90's surely continued to be present, and with the population growth alone (and decline in European population) you would expect now at least twice as many elite African runners and complete and utter domination. Instead, you have slower times as well as white runners becoming more competitive again.

I detest political correctness and the idea that there are no differences between races, and I certainly agree with Deano that African athletes who were born at altitude have an advantage from that, and most East Africans obviously even if not born at altitude have an advantage from being geographically close to places where they can train at altitude. I'm open minded as to whether at 10K and the Marathon East Africans might have some small genetic advantage, but certainly at 800 the evidence would be that if anything white people have the genetic advantage, and any advantage Kenyans have at 1500m and even 5000m is marginal at best.

Coevett wrote:

I've made the point several times already that raw population numbers can be misleading. For example, Japan's population might be 127 million and Kenya's population might be 55 million, but there might be twice as many 18-35 year olds in Kenya than Japan.

New Zealand has a population of 3 million yet I'm pretty sure it outperforms the rest of the world in Rugby by many orders of magnitude. When you say 'Kenya has 80 x elite athletes compared to other countries' you mean distance runners, one area of one sport. There are many reasons why Kenya and even small areas of Kenya could be producing so many elite distance runners and genetics doesn't necessarily have to be one of them at all, and if it is, it could mean simply that Kenyan genetics is such that just about the only sport in the world they can excel at is distance running, so almost uniquely on Earth, an entire nation's elite athletes are funneled into one sport - distance running.

I remember back in my year at school the 'best distance runner' was also the best footballer. As far as I know, he never ran or jogged at all, just played football every day. There was never any question of his 'talent' at distance running leading him to become a distance runner or even competing even at an inter school level. He just played football, and ended up playing for a non league team. In Kenya, every schoolboy is marked out as a potential Olympic running champion. Every schoolboy dreams of becoming the next Bekele or Rushida. In fact, it seems every Kenyan schoolboy runs to school (in Europe/USA most parents drive their kids to school and wont even let them take the bus in case they are kidnapped by Muslim grooming gangs or psychopaths wearing clown masks). If you add in the fact that EPO and other drugs can be handed over by the local pharmacist as easily as aspirin, and 25 year olds can easily claim to be 14 to get into junior international competitions, there would be something deeply odd if Kenya didn't totally dominate distance running at this point, even if they had no genetic advantage whatsoever.

rekrunner wrote:

Indeed, saying Kenya and Ethiopia have a combined population of 150 million people is highly misleading, when the talent comes mainly from well identified limited subsets of the population. We should look at the population of individual tribes or groups producing the talented athletes. A Nandi is 23x more likely to be an elite runner than other Kenyans.

In Kenya, soccer is more popular than running.

There are many reasons why Kenya and even small areas of Kenya could be producing so many elite distance runners and doping doesn't necessarily have to be one of them at all.

Coevett wrote:

I've made the point several times already that raw population numbers can be misleading. For example, Japan's population might be 127 million and Kenya's population might be 55 million, but there might be twice as many 18-35 year olds in Kenya than Japan.

New Zealand has a population of 3 million yet I'm pretty sure it outperforms the rest of the world in Rugby by many orders of magnitude. When you say 'Kenya has 80 x elite athletes compared to other countries' you mean distance runners, one area of one sport. There are many reasons why Kenya and even small areas of Kenya could be producing so many elite distance runners and genetics doesn't necessarily have to be one of them at all, and if it is, it could mean simply that Kenyan genetics is such that just about the only sport in the world they can excel at is distance running, so almost uniquely on Earth, an entire nation's elite athletes are funneled into one sport - distance running.

I remember back in my year at school the 'best distance runner' was also the best footballer. As far as I know, he never ran or jogged at all, just played football every day. There was never any question of his 'talent' at distance running leading him to become a distance runner or even competing even at an inter school level. He just played football, and ended up playing for a non league team. In Kenya, every schoolboy is marked out as a potential Olympic running champion. Every schoolboy dreams of becoming the next Bekele or Rushida. In fact, it seems every Kenyan schoolboy runs to school (in Europe/USA most parents drive their kids to school and wont even let them take the bus in case they are kidnapped by Muslim grooming gangs or psychopaths wearing clown masks). If you add in the fact that EPO and other drugs can be handed over by the local pharmacist as easily as aspirin, and 25 year olds can easily claim to be 14 to get into junior international competitions, there would be something deeply odd if Kenya didn't totally dominate distance running at this point, even if they had no genetic advantage whatsoever.