What point are trying to make? You don't believe that she could run faster at a younger age which is ridiculous. Are you trying to say that she peaked physically at a later age than 99% of the population?
What point are trying to make? You don't believe that she could run faster at a younger age which is ridiculous. Are you trying to say that she peaked physically at a later age than 99% of the population?
I think the shoes help a ton is true but not ways for the reason people think. Not only do they help people run faster they have way more cushion than old flats. This helps people train and race harder wheil getting banged up less. This is an even bigger advantage to older already fit runners than the younger ones.
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?
Sarah Hall wasn't doing it at the same volume before. If she wasn't, I'm sure many other elites aren't. Athletes also respond to it differently. Rupp appeared to be a great responder to an increased volume in explosive strength training several years back.
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?
If they are already doing it, then they won't see the same improvement by continuing to do it, as compared to Hall that wasn't doing it as much and increased her volume of it significantly.
Hutchins Is the All-Time Greatest wrote:
What point are trying to make? You don't believe that she could run faster at a younger age which is ridiculous. Are you trying to say that she peaked physically at a later age than 99% of the population?
The point is that late bloomers wouldn't have been much faster if at all at younger ages.
Using Lopes an example, he was not even faster over shorter distances when he was a decade younger.
The shoes work well for her. She would have run faster at a younger age with the same training and same shoes. But it really doesn't matter at this point. I hope she gets the American record at age 40. That would be quite a feat.
hog wild man wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
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?
If they are already doing it, then they won't see the same improvement by continuing to do it, as compared to Hall that wasn't doing it as much and increased her volume of it significantly.
So in addition to running a far higher mileage - apparently 130/140mpw - she's been doubling her weight training. So easy to do that at 37. Really? But the obvious question is - given the benefits, why wasn't she doing this 10-15 years ago?
Armstronglivs here wrote:
The shoes work well for her. She would have run faster at a younger age with the same training and same shoes. But it really doesn't matter at this point. I hope she gets the American record at age 40. That would be quite a feat.
Since you've borrowed my user name, I'll add to your comment. Why stop at 40? Let's also see the American record broken at 45, since she seems to have found an answer to the aging that affects all other natural athletes.
Why isn't everyone doing it? Why isn't her husband doing it? Why isn't Ritz doing it? Why isn't Solinsky doing it? We all have our own answer. We have life commitments. We have minor or major injuries. It doesn't matter why she wasn't doing it then, she is doing it now. Be happy for her instead of being angry that she didn't run 2:15 in her prime.
It never occurs to you that "late-bloomers" are just as likely to be dopers.
Ridiculous answer. Ambitious driven athletes will do whatever they can to succeed. If they see the formula for success they will adopt it. Hall's formula works miracles, so other athletes would be doing the same. But we aren't seeing the same results. It only seems to work for her. It also appears she has only discovered ambition in her 30's, despite competing for years. Nonsense.
hog wild man wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
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?
Sarah Hall wasn't doing it at the same volume before. If she wasn't, I'm sure many other elites aren't. Athletes also respond to it differently. Rupp appeared to be a great responder to an increased volume in explosive strength training several years back.
How can you be so sure other athletes weren't training the same? "Responder" is also a term applied to something other than training. If someone responds much more to training than other athletes they either have much more natural talent - does she? - or they are likely juicing.
Many people are doing it but they are less talented. You are nuts to think that everyone performs the same on the same training. 99% of 25 year old women could do the same training and never come close to 3 hours.
I ran 14 flat on the same training as teammates who ran 13:30 and others who ran 15 minutes because we had different levels of talent. You act almost as if she did not actually race. Was it a movie that I watched?
Yo Sara ian wrote:
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.
No, it isnt. 10 years difference, between 25 and 35, is not the same as estimating the difference over half a century - in Whitlock's case.
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.[/quote]
You mistake aging for simply getting older. A 10 year old is not "aging" - they are gaining in physical capacity with each year. "Aging" is the term applied to the time when we begin to physically decline because of the stage of life we have arrived at. The physiologists tell us we peak physically in our late 20's. From that point we decline by degrees each year, some of us faster than others, but it is a process that affects us all. That is "aging". It can be slowed but not deferred indefinitely by training. Or drugs.
Faster than ever wrote:
Many people are doing it but they are less talented. You are nuts to think that everyone performs the same on the same training. 99% of 25 year old women could do the same training and never come close to 3 hours.
I ran 14 flat on the same training as teammates who ran 13:30 and others who ran 15 minutes because we had different levels of talent. You act almost as if she did not actually race. Was it a movie that I watched?
The comparison to be made in respect of the effects of training is between athletes of a similar level. In this case we are talking about elites and professionals. For some to make a far greater improvement than their peers they were either previously undertrained, or they have much more natural talent. Or they are doping.
Hutchins Is the All-Time Greatest wrote:
What point are trying to make? You don't believe that she could run faster at a younger age which is ridiculous. Are you trying to say that she peaked physically at a later age than 99% of the population?
Do you believe that all those runners could have run 5 mins faster if they ran a marathon before 37? I am pointing out how absurd that number is. Maybe with a different training plan she could have arrived (ignore the shoes that let this training be done) at this fitness point at like 29 instead of 37 and been faster. But evidence suggests we are talking about less than 60s not 5 mins.
It is easy to just make up stuff and post it. Doesn't make it remotely true.
Yo Sara ian wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
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.
I am drawing comparisons between athletes of similar levels - not just anybody. I am interested to see how someone suddenly becomes an outlier at the elite level (and at 37, when we would expect to see some normal age-related decline) when for years they were in the middle of the pack at that level.
JimSchwing wrote:
I think the shoes help a ton is true but not ways for the reason people think. Not only do they help people run faster they have way more cushion than old flats. This helps people train and race harder wheil getting banged up less. This is an even bigger advantage to older already fit runners than the younger ones.
I think this applies to more than just the super shoes. Even your 2010 shoes had better cushioning than your 1990s ones. Not huge but maybe enough to let you get in another 5% more training.
It isn't just Sara that is running fast. 48 american woman have run sub 2:30. 20 of them have done it in the last 2 years. And that is with the weird 2020.
Armstronglivs wrote:
It never occurs to you that "late-bloomers" are just as likely to be dopers.
Sure it does, it just isn't my first thought.