JK- what’s the most rational explanation for how Sara Hall runs significantly faster at age 37

Quite a few people actually need Marathon training to bring out their best at shorter distances. But you don't find that out unless you train for Marathons.

You disputed my statement that she could have run 2:15 ten years ago. Anyone familiar with the sport would agree that all else being equal, a runner would run 5 minutes faster at 27 than at 37. Had she done the identical training and had the same shoes 10 years ago, she would have run 2:15.

Talent beats training wrote:

You disputed my statement that she could have run 2:15 ten years ago. Anyone familiar with the sport would agree that all else being equal, a runner would run 5 minutes faster at 27 than at 37. Had she done the identical training and had the same shoes 10 years ago, she would have run 2:15.

I don't think so. That's like using age grading to say Ed Whitlock could have done 2:03.

Hiw fast do you think she could have run then?

Coach of besty wrote:

Hiw fast do you think she could have run then?

I don't necessarily think she would have. What age are you proposing that she first started marathoning to speculate on her capability at 27?

She clearly could have run 2:15 10 years ago. Saying she could not have defies the laws of aging.

Talent beats training wrote:

She clearly could have run 2:15 10 years ago. Saying she could not have defies the laws of aging.

At the present rate she is improving she will be running 2.15 at 47.

Sounds like she does more weights and training for explosive power than she did before, doubling volume of that portion of her training. Good be a high responder to strength work - reasons to think that the benefit could be at least as good as super shoes.

Armstronglivs wrote:

Talent beats training wrote:

She clearly could have run 2:15 10 years ago. Saying she could not have defies the laws of aging.

At the present rate she is improving she will be running 2.15 at 47.

You sir are a jealous fool with no life but this site and threads like this that own your life. Sara Hall is clean, period & you are just so jealous it's almost a sickness.

Armstronglivs wrote:

Talent beats training wrote:

She clearly could have run 2:15 10 years ago. Saying she could not have defies the laws of aging.

At the present rate she is improving she will be running 2.15 at 47.

2;10 or better if you want to take that logic.

Yo Sara ian wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

At the present rate she is improving she will be running 2.15 at 47.

2;10 or better if you want to take that logic.

The logic is that she is greatly improving as she is aging. So where is the logic that says she won't continue to improve? There are no signs of aging yet.

Why does 2.20 get people excited these days?

That's like 2.09 for a man. Very good but not really world class.

Jealous Posters wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

At the present rate she is improving she will be running 2.15 at 47.

You sir are a jealous fool with no life but this site and threads like this that own your life. Sara Hall is clean, period & you are just so jealous it's almost a sickness.

It's hard to be jealous of what you aren't interested in doing - and I'm not interested in being a marathon runner. I am interested in sports doping - which is "almost a sickness" (to borrow your phrase). If you aren't Sara Hall's doctor then you don't know if she is clean.

so what? wrote:

Why does 2.20 get people excited these days?

That's like 2.09 for a man. Very good but not really world class.

At 2.20x she was the 8th fastest woman marathon runner in the world last year. The equivalent for men is 2.04x. To be inside the top-10 is not world class you say?

wolfzack wrote:

Sounds like she does more weights and training for explosive power than she did before, doubling volume of that portion of her training. Good be a high responder to strength work - reasons to think that the benefit could be at least as good as super shoes.

If it produces that kind of improvement why aren't we seeing that with other competitors? Aren't they doing it, too? Or are they too dumb to see the benefits of that kind of training?

Armstronglivs wrote:

Yo Sara ian wrote:

2;10 or better if you want to take that logic.

The logic is that she is greatly improving as she is aging. So where is the logic that says she won't continue to improve? There are no signs of aging yet.

The logic lies in knowing that everyone gets old but not at the same rate.

You are confusing getting older physically versus getting older in years.

Would you use your logic for the ages of 19-27? I mean we're aging from the day we are born.

Armstronglivs wrote:

wolfzack wrote:

Sounds like she does more weights and training for explosive power than she did before, doubling volume of that portion of her training. Good be a high responder to strength work - reasons to think that the benefit could be at least as good as super shoes.

If it produces that kind of improvement why aren't we seeing that with other competitors? Aren't they doing it, too? Or are they too dumb to see the benefits of that kind of training?

How do you know we're not? A person doesn't need to run a top time to show the benefits of this work.

Training does not show its worth by every person doing it running the same times. We know Lydiard type mileage was a huge training breakthrough but it doesn't mean you'll be world class just because you do it.

Do you think Malindi Elmore is doping? She was a Hall type runner as a younger woman.

Talent beats training wrote:

She clearly could have run 2:15 10 years ago. Saying she could not have defies the laws of aging.

Lopes ran 2:07:12 at 38. Clearly could have been sub 2:02 right? With the new shoes he runs 1:59 easily?

Meb ran a 2:09 at 37. Clearly in his prime he was 2:04 guy right? With new shoes he is down around 2:02 right?

John Campels 2:11 at 42 has to be worth like a 2:04 right?

Amazing how many people could have shattered the world record but none of them came close...

Yo Sara ian wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

At the present rate she is improving she will be running 2.15 at 47.

2;10 or better if you want to take that logic.

Nah she is dropping 2+ mins/year. At 47 she will be sub 2:00. Saying otherwise defiies the laws of mathematics...