Depends what u mean by Golden Era. I lived in Europe in the 70's and '80's, and I can assure you that few cared a hoot about US distance runners except Shorter. Pre was a curiosity but never did anything over the pond. Middle distances were dominated by UK(after 77), and no oly track medals were won by US distance runners in that period. Moscow we could speculate but the fact remains that, on the world stage, if you take out Shorter, we have not really been a distance force ever.
a hack wrote:
Depends what u mean by Golden Era. I lived in Europe in the 70's and '80's, and I can assure you that few cared a hoot about US distance runners except Shorter. Pre was a curiosity but never did anything over the pond. Middle distances were dominated by UK(after 77), and no oly track medals were won by US distance runners in that period. Moscow we could speculate but the fact remains that, on the world stage, if you take out Shorter, we have not really been a distance force ever.
Craig Virgin won two World Cross Country Champs (80 and 81) which were a big deal in Europe at the time. Salazar came in third in 82. Bill Rodgers came in third in 1975 (arguably his real breakthrough race).
Rodgers was the dominant marathoner of the late 70s. Salazar set a World Record in 1981 (as much a world record as Clayton's record that he broke).
Steve Scott and Don Paige were also pretty good runners that might have medaled in Moscow.
But, back to the OP's question, less numbers running less mileage.
I got one word:
Runners World
Seriously- the RW of the 80's in to the 90's had all these hobby jogger "experts" thinking that less was more.
I wasn't coaching but I remember a mother going to the AD of the school I now coach at with RW's in hand complaining that the coach made her daughter run too much- she was running about 20-25 mpw.
She said they should be playing soccer and ultimate frisbie more.
Discuss Pre wrote:
Your God was PRE.
But seriously- this was after Pre's death but before the mania.
If he WAS the God we would be much better. In fact you could match the rise of US Distance running with kids wanting to be like Pre.
runn wrote:
In fact you could match the rise of US Distance running with kids wanting to be like Pre.
So now the can be athletic runners like Jenny and Coburn!
It is nothing more than a reflection of the talent pool in the sport now vs. then. In another 10 years we may well be back to sucking. It has nothing to do with mileage.
One of you guys who said "the rise of the East Africans" needs to explain something. How did Africans running faster cause Americans to run slower? Is there a limited amount of running potential doled out each year and the Africans started hogging all of it?
ugly boats wrote:
It is nothing more than a reflection of the talent pool in the sport now vs. then. In another 10 years we may well be back to sucking. It has nothing to do with mileage.
I beg to deffer. The talent pool, if anything, is higher now. I read in a book by Matt Fitzgerald, that there are 23 gene mutations (one for each chromosome) that favor success in distance running ability(these specific genes do not determine recovery rate, injury proneness, etc just running ability and potential).
1 in 10,000 people have all 23 gene mutations. If you have all 23 you're a world class talent. There are more factors to success than just raw talent; such as training environment, coaching, work ethic, additional gene mutations that favor faster recovery and higher responsiveness to training.
But if 1 in 10,000 people have the genes for world class running, then as the population goes up the talent pool goes up. With 313.9 million people in the USA, that means 31,390 have world class running genes. About 30% of Americans are between the ages of 19-39(ideal age range for endurance sports). So about 9400 people have the world class running genes and the appropriate age range to be competitive, or about 4700 people per gender. If you want to limit it to people 19-29, then cut the numbers in half.
Now the question, is if we have the potential for such masses, why don't we have 2000+ elite distance runners per gender?
I think its cultural. Maybe the next Jim Ryun eats chips and plays video games all day and weighs 250 pounds by the time he starts high school. We have a lot of potential talent fall through the cracks. As a result, we have many people with imperfect genes running as elites. If you have say 20-22 of the 23 gene mutations, that's probably enough to get a shoe sponsor if you're in the right environment, work hard, well coached, and a little lucky. But without the perfect genes, you won't be competitive for gold medals, just the way it is.
In Kenya, they have the masses because talent is identified better. Kids without perfect genes still train very hard and are in a good athletic/running environment and reach all of their potential which can still get them quite good. This is why Kenya is above and beyond the most deep country in running talent. Just look at how many sub 210 marathoners they have any given year vs the USA. It's a world of difference. We have a larger population, we have a larger talent pool, but our environment and culture and inability to spot and prosper talent holds us back.
umm, anyone heard of Lynn Jennings?
Quote:
" I read in a book by Matt Fitzgerald ..."
_______________________________________
From my 40 plus years of running, I can say quite frankly that I disagree with almost everything Matt Fitzgerald has ever written about running and about training to be a runner and about nutrition.
Daleks rule the universe wrote:
Quote:
" I read in a book by Matt Fitzgerald ..."
_______________________________________
From my 40 plus years of running, I can say quite frankly that I disagree with almost everything Matt Fitzgerald has ever written about running and about training to be a runner and about nutrition.
I don't know much about Matt. My friend gave me a book written by him that I enjoyed and remember the thing about genes which made a lot of sense to me. But, its possible Matt isn't a trust worthy source. In the event that he isn't, could you please share why that might be?
agc5k wrote:
[quote]ugly boats wrote:
I read in a book by Matt Fitzgerald, that there are 23 gene mutations (one for each chromosome) that favor success in distance running ability(these specific genes do not determine recovery rate, injury proneness, etc just running ability and potential).
1 in 10,000 people have all 23 gene mutations.
There's a math problem in your post. I haven't read Fitzgerald's book, so I'm not sure if you made the mistake or Fitzgerald.
According to your post distance running success depends on a gene "mutation" (I think what you really mean is allele, mutations are rare events) on each of 23 chromosomes. Assuming you have a 50% chance of having the favorable allele on any one chromosome, then the chance of getting the favorable allele on all 23 chromosomes is 2^23, or 1 in 8,388,608.
Now some of the favorable alleles may be dominant which would increase their frequency, but others are probably recessive thus decreasing their frequency. Assuming dominant and recessive cancel out that leaves the frequency of the successful runner genotype at roughly 1 in 8 million.
Thus only about 40 Americans have the right genes, not 31,390, and only about a dozen of those are in their prime competitive years. Unlike East Africans, most American athletes aren't interested in distance running, further whittling down the pool of potential stars. In the end we have Galen Rupp, Evan Jager, Matt Centrowitz, and Ryan Hall. But for every one of those guys the East Africans produce 5-10 guys who are as good or better because their population is all in.
Blowing Rock Master! wrote:
agc5k wrote:[quote]ugly boats wrote:
I read in a book by Matt Fitzgerald, that there are 23 gene mutations (one for each chromosome) that favor success in distance running ability(these specific genes do not determine recovery rate, injury proneness, etc just running ability and potential).
1 in 10,000 people have all 23 gene mutations.
There's a math problem in your post. I haven't read Fitzgerald's book, so I'm not sure if you made the mistake or Fitzgerald.
According to your post distance running success depends on a gene "mutation" (I think what you really mean is allele, mutations are rare events) on each of 23 chromosomes. Assuming you have a 50% chance of having the favorable allele on any one chromosome, then the chance of getting the favorable allele on all 23 chromosomes is 2^23, or 1 in 8,388,608.
Now some of the favorable alleles may be dominant which would increase their frequency, but others are probably recessive thus decreasing their frequency. Assuming dominant and recessive cancel out that leaves the frequency of the successful runner genotype at roughly 1 in 8 million.
Thus only about 40 Americans have the right genes, not 31,390, and only about a dozen of those are in their prime competitive years. Unlike East Africans, most American athletes aren't interested in distance running, further whittling down the pool of potential stars. In the end we have Galen Rupp, Evan Jager, Matt Centrowitz, and Ryan Hall. But for every one of those guys the East Africans produce 5-10 guys who are as good or better because their population is all in.
Matt Fitzgerald said 1 in 10,000 and he also used the word "mutations" not "alleles". Starting to see how as another poster stated that he's not the best source.
1 in 8 million seems more like how it plays out in practice. But I think that at the off chance that the 1 in 10,000 stat is partially correct, Fitzgerald was only talking about gene alleles that affect running ability. There are other genes that affect other things.
There are certain genes, like the "Michael Phelps gene" (again according to Fitzgerald so questionable accuracy). The MP gene is a gene mutation or allele(not sure now lol) that is extremely rare and according to Fitzgerald only happens in 1 in 10,000 individuals. It allows for extremely fast recovery. This is why Phelps was able to train harder and more frequently than most of his competitors.
Then there are other genes that affect things like responsiveness to training, again not one of the 23 ones that explicitly have an effect on ability, like the MP one is more of an implicit gene that affects running success.
Then there is also your subconscious mind. Not too sure on how this one worked (Matt Fitzgerald seemed less informed on this part, using more Lehman's terms). According to Fitzgerald, as you run more and more your body finds more and more pathways to fire between the brain and the muscle fibers and what not. So, it seems that runners with naturally good/efficient form are smarter at a subconscious level as they find more efficient stride patterns.
So I think that it is possible that the 1 in 10,000 stat could potentially be correct, but when you factor in the implicit genes and even the human brain, those with what it takes becomes drastically more rare than 1 in 10,000. Thoughts on that? Or is Fitzgerald totally full of rubbish and his sources (a few research studies conducted by scientists) are likely invalid/misleading(as is often possible in research)?
As you throw in more factors the frequency of genetically (physiologically?) successful distance runners should decrease, not increase - the more factors that must be right, the less likely all of them will be right.
I can't really comment on Fitzgerald or the research he references because I haven't seen it. I was just trying to point out that the math as he presented it didn't work. My guess is that the factors needed to be a world class runner are fewer than he thinks. But that's a guess.
There is an important factor that has been overlooked on this thread and I think it's the most important. Every winter the Ethiopians and Kenyans hold training camps where anyone is invited to show up and train. The guys that show up live in tents,receive incredibly simple cheap meals, and nothing else. Across the 2 countries you literally get 1,000 guys showing up to take a shot at training with the big boys. This isn't like Americans going out for Cross Country in high school or even college. It's more like 1,000 guys showing up to run with NOP, Bowerman, Hansons, ZAP, the Mammoth Group, etc. Most of them get crushed right away, but every year a few dozen survive to become the new stars in the Diamond League and the Major Marathons.
When Americans start doing this (it'll never happen) we'll become the top distance nation. The East Africans treat this as a numbers game, Americans don't. Until that changes I don't see us overtaking them.
agc5k wrote:
So I think that it is possible that the 1 in 10,000 stat could potentially be correct, but when you factor in the implicit genes and even the human brain, those with what it takes becomes drastically more rare than 1 in 10,000. Thoughts on that?
Ever heard the phrase "Champions are everywhere."
The source of that quote was/is a highly respected coach. Valid?
Once the dopers (salazar, decker) got involved, it all went downhill.
Also, tons of scholarships went to foreigners. I remember when UT gave scholarships to a 21 ft long jumper and a 15 second hurdler, both from africa. So two 4:12/9:10 type American kids never had the chance to develop.
Blowing Rock Master! wrote:
Every winter the Ethiopians and Kenyans hold training camps where anyone is invited to show up and train. The guys that show up live in tents,receive incredibly simple cheap meals, and nothing else. Across the 2 countries you literally get 1,000 guys showing up to take a shot at training with the big boys. This isn't like Americans going out for Cross Country in high school or even college. It's more like 1,000 guys showing up to run with NOP, Bowerman, Hansons, ZAP, the Mammoth Group, etc. Most of them get crushed right away, but every year a few dozen survive to become the new stars in the Diamond League and the Major Marathons.
When Americans start doing this (it'll never happen) we'll become the top distance nation. The East Africans treat this as a numbers game, Americans don't. Until that changes I don't see us overtaking them.
Interesting. Thanks for sharing this. Yeah too bad we don't do that. In the 1970s, we had stuff like that happen to a lesser degree. Like serious runners joining the GBTC for Tuesday night workouts so see if they could hang. I read a story once of a kid who went to Bill's running shop and asked to go for a run, and Bill told him to just run with him for the whole week. Bill didn't do any workouts that week, but he and the kid did 154 miles that week around 7:00 pace. Just imagine asking Galen to tag along for a week of training? lol
agc5k wrote:
I read a story once of a kid who went to Bill's running shop and asked to go for a run, and Bill told him to just run with him for the whole week. Bill didn't do any workouts that week, but he and the kid did 154 miles that week around 7:00 pace.
Kid's name was Alberto Salazar. And now you know...the rest of the story.
Good Day!
^^^No, I apologize; I don't know if any of that, including about Salazar is true. I just wanted to bring some humor.
Good night!
Killing Prefontaine on here is one of THE stupidest things young folks can do.On here it looks even dumber.
He ran 13:23 almost 40 friggin years ago.
You know how many U.S. guys ran faster this year? In 40 years?
It is 40 years later, of course some guys should.