But factually correct. And all on threads posted by others and populated by posters like you.
It usually takes 3 or 4 pages and many many posts which correct you until you finally get one of your very few Ingebrigtsen-points (which you therefore repeat dozens and dozens of time) correct.
"Factually correct" - yeah.
You don't correct anyone. You merely confirm your biases.
Food is laced woth steroids these days. Cows, pigs, chickens on steroids. Transfers to humans. Also why cancer has become so prevalent too, unfortunately, through the factory farming industry.
It usually takes 3 or 4 pages and many many posts which correct you until you finally get one of your very few Ingebrigtsen-points (which you therefore repeat dozens and dozens of time) correct.
"Factually correct" - yeah.
You don't correct anyone. You merely confirm your biases.
Yes he does. And I do. Many people correct you because you are so often wrong.
Works of art today have not surpassed the great works of art in the past. You won't know that in your supreme ignorance. So as an analogy for advances in training it fails - as do all your contrived arguments.
The American runners referenced in this thread have not surpassed the greatest performances of athletes in the past.
The analogy was to show the irrelevance of "Threshold training isn't new." You won't know that in your supreme ignorance.
I asked you before, but you failed to respond. Surpassed by which metrics? Judging works of art is ultimately in the biased and conditioned opinions of the beholders.
But even trapped within your own supreme ignorance, you have concluded that Bach, Mozart, and Beethoven surpassed all others before them, using the same notes and chords that weren't new.
Just like "threshold training", the end result is a product of how all the training, as well as many non-training factors (e.g. food and environment and rest), is combined and spaced, over weeks, months, and years.
There are many ways the analogy fits. You just haven't found the expert you want to follow and believe to explain it to you in terms you probably still wouldn't understand.
Food is laced woth steroids these days. Cows, pigs, chickens on steroids. Transfers to humans. Also why cancer has become so prevalent too, unfortunately, through the factory farming industry.
3:31/3:30 high guy from 2021 to May 2024 (including mile equivalents), then cracks the sub 3:30/3:29/3:28 barriers in one single race (never been done before), and goes back to being a 3:31 guy afterwards.
Threshold training, Marius Bakken was the first two realize how much more threshold training the east Africans were doing compared to the vo2 max based training American and European runners were doing back in the 90s. He reformed it to make it more measurable and scientific so to speak. Since Jakob success, more western runners have adopted it.
Bob Larsen. Bill Dellinger.
Trust me. The training is not new.
Old wine in new bottles: probably not exactly the same, but what is? We didn’t use the same vocabulary or talk it into mass acceptance, but there are very few of the methods and training techniques going on that haven’t been used before.
That doesn’t make the methods any worse—good training is good training! Just don’t think it hasn’t been done before. We just called it something else, or just called it…training.
My guess is that heavier boned European men get more benefits from the super shoes than wafer thin Africans.
I've been trying to come up with a good explanation. Hadn't thought of that. Love it.
I didn't want to say it was a) either because we have cracked down on their doping or b) the farther we get away from colonialism the more their societies fall into disarray
MACA? Make America colonial again! A more precise slogan.
Works of art today have not surpassed the great works of art in the past. You won't know that in your supreme ignorance. So as an analogy for advances in training it fails - as do all your contrived arguments.
The American runners referenced in this thread have not surpassed the greatest performances of athletes in the past.
The analogy was to show the irrelevance of "Threshold training isn't new." You won't know that in your supreme ignorance.
I asked you before, but you failed to respond. Surpassed by which metrics? Judging works of art is ultimately in the biased and conditioned opinions of the beholders.
But even trapped within your own supreme ignorance, you have concluded that Bach, Mozart, and Beethoven surpassed all others before them, using the same notes and chords that weren't new.
Just like "threshold training", the end result is a product of how all the training, as well as many non-training factors (e.g. food and environment and rest), is combined and spaced, over weeks, months, and years.
There are many ways the analogy fits. You just haven't found the expert you want to follow and believe to explain it to you in terms you probably still wouldn't understand.
You have no idea about how great art or music is evaluated, just as you have none about sports. You're a noise coming out of a dementia ward.
So you're all just a bunch of fanatics? Thanks for clarifying.
So you didn't know that "fan" comes from "fanatic". Thanks for clarifying.
Words evolve in their meaning - except to the illiterate. A "fan" now means an enthusiast not a fanatic. But the latter term still accurately describes such as yourself and rekrunner - but not most fans, fortunately.