Joshua Cheptegei is SUSPICIOUS

"Modern training describes training in terms of speed, relative to the racing speed of your desired event, and time spent at speed, relative to the time required for that event, using terms like specific, special, general, and regenerative to develop a spectrum of qualities richer than what Lydiard described simply as "aerobic" and "anaerobic". You don't spend much training time outside of general interest, unless you need regeneration (recovery). A non-linear periodization will combine speed and endurance together in all phases, in a way that works toward running your desired race pace for the desired race time, from general to specific, by developing the intensity, then extending that intensity to last for the desired time".(quote)

The fun part of your answer is that Cheptegei obviously has no clue what you are talking about, as he cannot run the 1500 faster than the equivalent of 3.55 in the Lydiard era. He clearly doesn't apply your "formula".

But no one has a clue what you are talking about. It is so much meaningless pabulum.

"No Correlation:

I didn't say "no correlation between doping and training", but "no obvious correlation between nations who dope, and nations now producing superior performances". This is not a hypothetical prediction of the future that denies other hypothetical predictions, but an affirmation of the current state of what is historically known about both doping and performance. To give just one example, when the Sunday Times broke down the leaked 2001-2012 data, the top 4 "suspicious" countries were Russia, Ukraine, Turkey, Greece. These are not countries producing superior performances in large numbers in distance events (some women but virtually no men). Looking further down the list, Kenyan (ranked 13th) and Ethiopian (ranked 20th) "suspicion" was below the global average. If the correlation was a strong one, countries with superior doping suspicion would also be the same countries producing superior performances. If the correlation was weak or non-existent, you would have the best performing countries with a below average "suspicion".(quote)

---

You didnt say "no correlation between doping and training"? So there is a correlation then? Baby steps.

As for your list of "most suspicious countries", they are notable for not focusing in distance events. But we see that in countries that do, like Kenya, the incidence of doping amongst its runners leads the pack. In other African countries, like Ethiopia, antidoping is risible. African distance running would not be what it is without doping.

However the more fundamental point, that you are unable to address, is that your position requires either minimizing or denying the effect drugs will have on human physiology. Since you have no idea about any of that it shores up your Pollyannarish belief that drugs play no real role in modern distance running - and amongst the Africans in particular, who blithely disregard your wisdom.

Wow -- six responses containing non-substantive opinion and ad hominem, all avoiding any concrete supporting facts, or any contradictory facts.

Is it? Allow me to repeat some of the words where the ink is still drying.

"Jim Ryun was also 3 seconds faster in the mile."

I repeat: in the mile

Similarly Ron Clarke was 20 seconds faster than Murray Halberg over 3 miles.

Some more history:

By the end of the decade of the 1960s, Snell's mile record was beaten 10x by 5 runners.

Who could have predicted the childish comeback to failing to "grasp" the differences of modern training would be that I fail to "grasp" Lydiard?

Is it? It looks like an affirmation of the value of training. Lydiard's training was the best, in its day, 55 years ago. 50 years ago, by the end of the decade, it was already relegated to second best, and Snell and Halberg were no longer the world masters of 1500m/mile/3 miles/5000m. Today, fifty years later, we have modern training.

Nice parry.

I have compiled lists of superior non-African performances -- indeed they were very short -- and found no obvious correlation with doping.

Regarding having a clue, you can only speak for yourself.

The "formula" includes "specificity", which means some events, like 5000m and 10000m are specifically included, and some events, like 1500m, are not. The 1500m is not of "specific" interest.

If you want to argue that correlation with training, feel free to provide supporting facts.

I see now you'd like to make the distinction of "focusing on events" that you failed to do with Cheptegei, who does not focus on 1500m.

You are suggesting, again without facts, that all of the top-12 and 18 of the top-20 countries "suspected" of blood doping -- allegedly a powerful method for improving endurance -- did not focus on any endurance events, and that the below global average "suspicion" of Kenya and Ethiopia "leads the pack"? Oh what a tangled web you weave.

And it appears you are arguing/conceding that the correlation between doping and superior distance running performance is weak to non-existent.

What is sure is that those nations truly leading the doping pack, failed to produce "superior performances".

Regarding your fundamental point, here is how I have already addressed it many times in the past -- I confirm that drugs have physiological effects, like producing more red blood cells, and stronger muscles. I confirm the prevalence estimates that suggests that drugs have a role in modern distance running, but the real unanswered questions in all these threads are:

- what role, if any, does drugs play in producing superior "extra-legal" performances?

- reversing the flow of cause and effect, if someone produces a superior performance, is this indicative of doping?

Your knowledge of the history of this sport is abysmal. Neither Ryun nor Clarke featured in the Snell and Halberg era, when the New Zealanders were the world's best in their respective events. That Ryun and Clarke succeeded them after their retirement as the world leaders doesn't necessarily make them better or better-trained runners. Ryun and Clarke were superseded by another generation of Kiwis in Walker, Quax and Dixon - and Walker and Quax beat their predecessors' world records, and handsomely. They, too, trained according to Lydiard methods. By your argument they must have been better athletes or simply better-trained - and, as I said, they trained along Lydiard lines. How could such an "outdated" system still be producing the world's best and when Ryun and Clarke had supposedly demonstrated the irrelevance of Lydiard's methods?

Your argument about "specificity" simply attempts to justify inferior performances on the basis they are not targeted by the runner. Yet you have no idea whether or not the distances were targeted by that runner - in this case Cheptegei. But, either way, a 12.30 runner over 5k should have been capable of far better than 3.37 for the 1500 in the basis of his 5k endurance alone. I would however agree that Cheptegei was employing targeting of some of his events - in this case the 5k and 10k records, but it wasn't through his training. Event "specificity" through boosting is also a feature of doping. Its hallmark is exactly the yawning disparity of levels we see in Cheptegei's performances.

You further use your ignorance of the kinds of drugs employed in sports doping to avoid seeing any connection between doping and training. There are many more methods available than blood doping or EPO. WADA and other antidoping experts estimate there are at least 100 performance enhancing substances out there that enable the athlete to avoid detection. Because you choose not to know anything about this you ask for data showing a correlation between drugs and training. What do you think those drugs are used for? You are like an inhabitant of the 15th century still convinced that the horizon is the end of the world.

You held up Snell and Halberg as the examples to compare against today's runners, and as masters of their event.

Ryun and Clarke took significant chunks off of these great "masters" in the short span of a few years.

The point is to show that, as great as Lydiard's athletes were, there was a lot of margin for improvement in the training.

Regarding the '70s, once again, to explain the differences, you need to look at what has changed, not what is the same.

The training of Walker, Quax, and Dixon was influenced by the same Lydiard principles, but not completely the same:

- there was a second generation of coaches which would naturally bring in new interpretations and implementations of Lydiard principles

- and there were other changes, like synthetic tracks, and improvements in shoes

Since this second generation of athletes, where are the third, and fourth, and later generations? Where are the Lydiard athletes today? Lydiard athletes have evolved, or gone extinct. Thinking in terms aerobic and anaerobic can only take you so far.

You shouldn't really discuss "specificity" before you understand it. One of the concepts of specificity is to train at your desired race pace, and not faster. The "specific" range is usually delimited as 95% to 105% of race pace (or speed). If our desired race pace over 5K is 12:35, and we increase the speed by 105%, for 1500m, this works out to 3:36. So running a 3:37 in a 1500m in April in a no-name meet in his home country, is no coincidence. It is not an indication of his maximum capability, but in fact, is a controlled "specific" target pace. Now that he has established the desired race specific intensity, the next phases will work on extending that "specific" intensity.

I don't know what you mean by "use your ignorance of the kinds of drugs employed in sports doping to avoid seeing any connection between doping and training". I cut out all these middle-man uncertainties and looked at all-time end results, which includes training and racing and doping and the effects of any and all 100 performance enhancing substances. For most of the population outside of Africans, men's distance running results plateaued, or nearly so, by the end of the 1980s.

You speak of hallmark disparity of levels caused by doping. I guess you have some concrete examples in mind, showing what non-drugged disparities look like versus drugged disparities? Without real facts and examples, I will just once again dismiss this as one of many claims as fantasy.

Your arguments are too discursive and purely fanciful to interest me. But one point above shows that you don't understand Lydiard or even running. He didn't divide running into 2 categories of aerobic and anaerobic. But he did recognise that without a strong aerobic base an an athlete would not reach their potential. This phase was incidentally 3 months of their calendar. What do you think they were doing for the rest of the year.? He also included hill training and fartlek in his method, and interval training on the track run at varying paces, including race pace. Just like you say runners do in modern training. Snell showed this method at Tokyo when he time-trialled a solo 800m in training that was just off his then Olympic record. What Lydiard did recognize however was that the method of his predecessors, like Stampfl, did not establish enough of an endurance base. Every top middle and long distance athlete since Lydiard has incorporated that into their training. Your inflated characterization of "specificity" is little more than recycled Stampfl interval-training.

As Snell - who held a doctorate in exercise physiology - recognized, the principles of training are not complex. Indeed, if they were the typical athlete wouldn't understand them; running is a physical activity, not an intellectual pursuit. Your treating it as though it is based on arcane mathematical formulae shows that you have never run to any level. You are a mere fantasist, shored up by the delusions you obtain from your "data". No top runner cares anything about data; they run. Fast. Especially when they are doping.

'You shouldn't really discuss "specificity" before you understand it. One of the concepts of specificity is to train at your desired race pace, and not faster. The "specific" range is usually delimited as 95% to 105% of race pace (or speed). If our desired race pace over 5K is 12:35, and we increase the speed by 105%, for 1500m, this works out to 3:36. So running a 3:37 in a 1500m in April in a no-name meet in his home country, is no coincidence. It is not an indication of his maximum capability, but in fact, is a controlled "specific" target pace. Now that he has established the desired race specific intensity, the next phases will work on extending that "specific" intensity'.(quote)

So Cheptegei wasn't really running a 1500 race, he was practicing his race pace for the 5k? Makes sense, because in his case they are about the same. I assume you know he was doing that - that that was his intention? It is curious though that we don't seem to see other runners doing that - of choosing to compete over a shorter distance and only running it at a speed commensurate to a longer event. It would be like a 3.30 runner over 1500 who never ran faster than 1.51 for the 800. Or a 1.42 runner over the 800 whose best 400 remained no better than 50secs. I see that reality never intrudes into your thinking.

For someone who is not interested, you seem much more interested in my arguments -- even when I don't make them -- than in supporting your own beliefs with real facts and real examples.

You are covering up your own misunderstanding of how modern training is different today, by pretending I don't understand Lydiard or running. It's true that "aerobic" and "anaerobic" don't appear in his 1962 book -- these terms were introduced later, and appear throughout his 1978 book. Given the late '70s date of his second book, you may be completely oblivious to these "modern" updates. But these terms definitely guide the permitted paces -- e.g. avoid anaerobic training during the aerobic phase. The difference, once again, between Lydiard training and modern training, is that, with modern training, both pace and volume are guided by "specificity". With Lydiard, the three month "aerobic" phase, the "hill" phase, the "anaerobic" phase, fartleks, interval training, etc., are not "specific". If "specific" race pace is included, it is not by Lydiard guidance or principle, but by chance, or by modification with additional principles. Volume also needs to be guided by "specificity". The evolution of pace and volume are managed targets over the course of the different phases of training. Race pace is not just something that is "included", but something that is managed on-purpose to achieve a higher volume of intensity. In a Lydiard training, nothing is "specific", on-purpose, until you start doing time trials in the "coordination" phase.

Once again, I advise you to refrain from talking about "specificity" without understanding it. It's not that hard to understand. Quite simply, it is running defined relative to +/- race pace, for +/- race time. Continuous running is more specific than interval training. This is nothing like "recycled Stampfl interval-training", and to suggest that only shows your failure to understand what you dismiss.

It makes perfect sense, when you actually understand the phrases you discarded as "empty jargon", rather than mistaking modern concepts for recycled Stampfl intervals. In a specific training, 105% speed is still something of primary "specific" interest, and in the course of training, the goal is to extend the volume of that speed.

Running a 1500m faster than 3:36 starts has less value for someone who wants to run 5000m/10000m at the Olympics in 3 months, and who doesn't need that extra speed. It will bring greater recovery requirements and greater opportunity cost. So modern training tends to avoid what is perceived as less value, at greater cost.

What do we see from other 5000m/10000m runners? Do you have any concrete examples in mind that demonstrate the value of an all-out 1500m at this point in training? Show us what you know. We have seen that many of them never even race 1500m at all for time. In order to see what they do, we would have to analyze what they are doing in practice, three months before the big event. This is not something always visible to the public. I wonder how fast do Lydiard trained 5000m runners run a 1500m, three months before the main goal? Does an all-out 1500m race fit in a Lydiard plan, 3 months before the big event?

It's curious to see you suggest top-runners don't care about data, and just run fast. Maybe the runners don't, but their top-coaches are greatly concerned by the details of both volume and pace, and how that evolves over the course of training.

More words. As we see, running is finally one foot in front of another; no one has a degree in it. Your windy descriptions of the training process doesn't disguise that fact. On training, I'll take the word of a triple Olympic champion over a keyboard jockey and doping denier any day.

As I said earlier, choosing whose words to take is the only strategy of the uninformed, non-independent thinking follower. Whether you are right are wrong is left to chance, and you will be unable to determine and never know for sure whether you made the right choice.

On training, why not take the words of Renato?

Meanwhile you have written many words about the alleged properties of doping and training and superior performances, without ever resorting to facts or concrete examples.

rekrunner wrote:

As I said earlier, choosing whose words to take is the only strategy of the uninformed, non-independent thinking follower. Whether you are right are wrong is left to chance, and you will be unable to determine and never know for sure whether you made the right choice.

On training, why not take the words of Renato?

Meanwhile you have written many words about the alleged properties of doping and training and superior performances, without ever resorting to facts or concrete examples.

I'll take Dr. Peter Snell's assessment over anyone who coaches Kenyan athletes today. There are no facts down your rabbit hole - merely delusions.

Armstronglivs wrote:

I'll take Dr. Peter Snell's assessment over anyone who coaches Kenyan athletes today. There are no facts down your rabbit hole - merely delusions.

That is consistent with your tendency to cling to the past.

Rabbit hole -- that's cute. I am satisfied that there are no facts behind your stated beliefs, and there are no real world examples demonstrating your stated ideas about the hallmark effects of doping.

But now I'm wondering. Is this an an either-or situation? Can't we take the words of both Snell and Canova? Is there any contradiction?

This thread wasn't really about training though. Did Snell say anything about the effect of drugs on training? On racing? About Cheptegei? About Cheptegei's slow 1500m in contrast with his world records?

rekrunner wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

I'll take Dr. Peter Snell's assessment over anyone who coaches Kenyan athletes today. There are no facts down your rabbit hole - merely delusions.

That is consistent with your tendency to cling to the past.

Rabbit hole -- that's cute. I am satisfied that there are no facts behind your stated beliefs, and there are no real world examples demonstrating your stated ideas about the hallmark effects of doping.

But now I'm wondering. Is this an an either-or situation? Can't we take the words of both Snell and Canova? Is there any contradiction?

This thread wasn't really about training though. Did Snell say anything about the effect of drugs on training? On racing? About Cheptegei? About Cheptegei's slow 1500m in contrast with his world records?

Since you failed to understand what was said the first time, Snell expressed the view that training is quite simple - it is about putting in the necessary work to build endurance and maximize speed. Those principles were understood by Lydiard, whose methods Snell endorsed as an exercise physiologist in his subsequent academic career. It is contrary to your attempts and those of Canova to depict training as having become utterly different from what Snell talks about - as though it is almost a variety of quantum physics. As we see with most athletes and coaches, running is not an intellectual pursuit.

Because training has not been revolutionized in the last half century it is an inadequate explanation for the extent of the improvements in world record performances - such as Cheptegei's. "Specificity" has long been part of elite training; but it does not rule out drug cycling. It is not possible to remove the likelihood of doping from the equation once its prevalence is recognized and the nature of the drugs used is understood. But you will never come to the latter understanding. It would end your world.

Oh -- I understood what you said the first time. But these are not Snell's exact words, verbatim.

This is your take on something Snell may or may not have actually said.

I'm not going to take the words of a keyboard jockey.

"utterly different", "quantum physics", "revolutionized" -- these are also all your words -- a keyboard jockey's take on something that I never said, nor saw Canova say.

When you say "training is quite simple" and "putting in the necessary work to build endurance and maximize speed" -- you are describing modern training too.

I read one Snell interview where he said he would make changes to Lydiard training.

What? Does he endorse Lydiard completely, or would he change some things?

He said he would introduce quarter mile repeats during the distance training phase. This looks like a step towards modern training non-linearity.

In fact, when you look at Lydiard influenced athletes and coaches, like Arch Jelly, Ron Daws, Rob de Castella, Nic Bideau, and finally Lydiard Foundation endorsed Keith Livingstone, you find they are doing Lydiard, but not exactly. They have updated, adapted, refined, tweaked the training. Modern training has done the same. Looks like everyone has started with Lydiard, and moved on -- except you.

Do Snell's exact words rule in drug cycling and the nature of drugs used? Or is this just your take on somebody else's words?

Specificity does not rule out drug cycling, but does not rule it in either. If we do understand the nature of the drugs used, why do you struggle to come up with real facts for, and real examples of, elite athletes that best demonstrate this nature of drugs on their elite performances? Scientists who have studied the short term effects generally disclaim that this understanding applies in the context of the real world performances of elite athletes. And, from known prevalences by country, we are unable to show a strong correlation between doping and superior performances. This failure to show a correlation forms part of our understanding of the nature of the drugs used.

I know what Snell said - I heard it in an interview. He said training is quite simple and shouldn't be overcomplicated. But it wouldn't matter what his words were verbatim - you still wouldn't accept or understand the implications of what he was saying. He has never renounced Lydiard training principles or suggested it was outdated. The refinement or adaptation of Lydiard's methods by other coaches does not change the fact that his methods are fundamental to distance running success. Your take on training is merely verbal masturbation. No successful athlete is afflicted with a mind like yours. They run.

As far as "understanding" what drugs can do for athletic performance - the word is misapplied in your case. What you can't see doesn't exist. No doped elite athletes have presented themselves as willing subjects for laboratory study - thankfully. Why? Because it enables you to preserve your ignorance of a massive and indelible feature in elite and professional sport.

Do you suppose I should take your word for it -- the word of a keyboard jockey and doping worshipper?

Of course running is always to put one foot in front of the other. Also writing is to put one letter in fron of another for forming one word, and to put one word in front of another for forming one phrase, and to put one phrase in fronnt of another for forming a talk. Me and you are able to put one foot in front of another, but we are not runners. Me and you are able to write, but not able to write the "Divina Commedia",

The history of methodology shows a lot of different systems, meaning "innovation" during the years.

You can know all the ingredients of a special dish, but using the same ingredients one top chef makes something different than a housewife, cooking every day but not in professional way.

What you say shows a high level of "obscurantism", a total ignorance of physiology and training methodology, the incapacity for analyzing historical changes in the specific contest, and to understand the relation between cause and effect.

Physiology is a science that can only study phenomen when they happen. This means that can study variations in the body only AFTER the training was able to produce them. There si no doubt that training can change physiological parameters and values, the matter is to see HOW and WHEN (not IF).

So, coaches organized the training systems according to the athletic requirements of their era : before 1983 (first edition of WCh) the odd years were practically empty, since the only big Championships were Olympics (every 4 years) and Commonwealth or European CH in the even years in the middle.

For example, Peter Snell improved the WR of 800m, 1000m, Mile in 1962 and 1964, while during 1961 and 1963 he reduced his training, because there were not specific targets.

The same for Herbert Elliot : he destroyed the WR of 1500m and Mile in the year 1958, with a percentage of improvement that, if you use the same approach used with athletes of today, you MUST believe was aided by some doping (from 3'38"1 of Jungwirth to 3'36", the greatest improvement ever, and from 3'57"2 of Ibbotson to 3'54"5). During 1959, without any specific goal, he married his wife, for coming back in 1960, winning Olympics with the new WR of 3'35"6 that was also the "real" last race of his career.

Do you think that the same situation was in the current era some athlete stop running when 22 years old, immediately after a WR, or do you think he can try to run other 10 years, earning not less than 500,000 USD per year ?

In that period, the only real stimulus and motivation for the athletes was "the Glory". No big Championships, no meetings, no official prizes (don't forget athletics was the kingdom of British rich people like Avery Brundage, supporters of a total "amateurism, like also showed by the full meaning of IAAF (International Amateur Athletic Federation).

This was the reason for the long "base period" of Lydiard. If Lydiard had to coach today, absolutely he shouldn't allow the athletes to have very long periods losing the level of intensive ability already built : it was not a smart solution to destroy the level of Aerobic Power that already you reached in the past.

So, a lot of changes in the methodology, also if running is always to put one foot in front of the other...

Lydiard's base period was only 3 months. How is that too long?

Running is a sport, not science. If it were otherwise there would be very few runners - and certainly not many from the Kenyan highlands. You don't need a degree in exercise physiology to run fast. That is effectively what Snell said when he made the observation that training is quite simple. Physiology merely tells us how it works. But the proof is always on the track - and is easily seen.

On the other hand, science plays a major role in doping. When it is possible to land a satellite on a comet I have no doubt that science (doping) can make a human run faster.

You already have the answer. Three months is more than enough to "lose the level of intensive ability already built" and to "destroy the level of Aerobic Power that you already reached in the past".

It's 3 steps forward and 2 steps back.

If you want to build a bigger house, you can chose 1) raze the old house and build a bigger one; or 2) add another story.

You've constructed all these false "if it were otherwise" relations that act as barriers to rational thought.

Running is a sport. Bravo. But it was the wrong goalpost. We were talking about differences in methods of training.

Training to be your best is a science. Even simple trial and error with feedback, is a valid, effective, scientific method. Have you never seen a coach at a track with a stop-watch? Have you never seen runners with heart rate monitors?

Every athlete knows from their own personal experience, what kind of training they respond to best, because of feedback. This is true regardless if the feedback is a stopwatch, heart rate monitor, or just listening to your body.

Modern training is as simple as Lydiard training, once you understand the concepts (tell me, who really understands "fractional efforts"?) -- why are you fooling yourself into thinking that there is any notable difference in complexity?

Modern training involves running, putting one foot in front of the other, hard work, to build endurance and speed.

The way you worship doping is a religion. As you say "the proof is always on the track" -- yet you are consistently unable to connect this "proof on the track" to doping.

Another failed analogy to add to the collection: satellites. Satellites, by definition, are in orbit. If you land it, then it is no longer a satellite. Science can use rocket technology in shoes to make humans faster. Ironman uses it to fly.