We like to have 1 thread per topic so we merged two threads together and kept the title of this thread. The other thread was entitled, "Assefa performance."
The naive notion that persists on these boards and amongst running fans generally is that there must be a constant rate of improvement in the sport, typically based on unspecified improvements in "training, nutrition and technical advances". But the facts remain that human physiology has not evolved in the last 60 or so years, that the principles of effective training have been known for over half a century, that an athlete's diet is largely a merely healthy diet and not a form is "super-fuel", and technical advances such as modern tracks and new shoes have only a marginal effect on elite performance and not an order of magnitude like the modernisation of golf clubs and tennis racquets.
Horse racing may be an instructive comparison. Over decades, immense effort has gone into the breeding of the fastest possible animals, with the very best that science and knowledge of the sport also has to offer on training and nutrition. Yet - unlike human athletes - race-horses perform at much the same level as they have since Man O'War at the end of the First World War. No horse has run faster in the Triple Crown since Secretariat in 1973. So why does human achievement in the same sport - which is running - continue to show accelerated increases in performance when horse racing doesn't? The answer is obvious and regrettably banal - we are better at cheating than horses are.
Lovely post. Horses cannot dope themselves, so their performance is limited by their genetics and their training. Alas, so are humans, unless they dope themselves.
It's important to approach such claims with a critical and evidence-based perspective. Let's address each of these statements with specific examples:
No scientific evidence that any PED exists for the marathon: FALSE PEDs may not provide the same immediate and dramatic benefits in marathon running as in some other sports, but they can still improve performance. One example is EPO to increase red blood cell production and oxygen-carrying capacity. Has EPO ever been used by some marathon runners to enhance endurance and performance? Yes.
No strong anecdotal evidence from athletes/coaches that any PED exists for the marathon: FALSE Listen, here's what I want you to see: while athletes and coaches may not openly admit to PED use due to the stigma and consequences associated with doping, have there been no cases of marathon runners being implicated in doping scandals? Rita Jeptoo testing positive for EPO in 2014, demonstrates that some marathon athletes have been involved in doping.
No evidence of other mechanisms, like PEDs permitting quicker recovery for faster performances: FALSE PEDs improving recovery can indirectly lead to faster marathon performances. Take anabolic steroids for example. Look at how they can aid in muscle recovery and allow athletes to train more intensely and frequently. This improved training can lead to better marathon performances over time.
Lack of world-class fast marathon performances by most of the non-African world: DUBIOUS Listen, mate, your argument doesn't necessarily imply that PEDs are not used. Do athletes have different training methods? Different genetics? Different and various access to resources? Furthermore, some non-African athletes have achieved world-class marathon performances.
East Africans dominating world distance running: INACCURATE Yo, it's true that East Africans have had significant success in distance running, but it's wholly inaccurate to claim that non-Africans have "failed to replicate" their success. Athletes from various countries, including those in Europe and the Americas, have achieved competitive marathon results. The dominance of East Africans may be attributed to a combination of genetic factors, altitude training, and cultural emphasis on distance running.
Marathon being the cleanest event according to anti-doping researchers: Your claim that marathons are the cleanest events may be based on specific criteria and data analysis. However, I can't believe that not even you can acknowledge that it doesn't negate the fact that doping can still occur in marathon running, as demonstrated by doping cases in athletics.
Think about what you're communicating. I concede that marathon running may not be as synonymous with doping as some other sports. However, it would be incorrect to categorically dismiss the existence of PEDs in marathon running based on the evidence and examples provided above. Doping remains a concern in endurance sports, including marathons.
I appreciate the detailed response. First, the question that I answered was "why would they not be doping?", not "do some athletes dope?" or "does doping exist/occur". I do not doubt that doping exists and that some athletes use banned substances. My doubts are about whether such doping can produce *unnaturally* fast marathon performances, compared to legal methods like training at altitude, and where the evidence for that can be found. Establishing otherwise would make allegations that performances like 2:11:53 are unnatural more credible.
I claimed there is no scientific evidence that a PED exists, for the marathon, and you responded with "they can still improve performance" (speculation) and "increase red blood cell production and oxygen-carrying capacity" (not evidence of performance). This does not rise to the level of scientific evidence that a PED exists for the marathon -- an sub-VO2max event which it is not obvious how increasing oxygen carrying capacity would result in faster performances. It looks more like personal speculation about what can be, but might also not be. But more fundamentally, to my knowledge, doping performance in the marathon is completely unstudied in all of the scientific doping literature. Similar with the 1500m/mile. All of the time trial studies I've seen range from 3000m-10000m -- events which are run much faster than the marathon, making VO2 more important, and too short to have to worry about factors like energy management after 30km and heat dissipation.
I claimed that there was no strong anecdotal evidence that PEDs exist for the marathon. It is not enough to say one elite athlete was busted suggesting other athletes might also be involved. In addition to doping use, the evidence of a PED has to include the data that shows the "performance enhancement" -- that's what the "PE" is. Simply providing examples like Jeptoo (and Shobukhova) rises to the level of a "proof by example" fallacy, and not "strong anecdotal evidence". As an indication of stronger anecdotal evidence, compare it side by side with what happened in cycling, where many athletes came forward, and many lists were produced showing figures like 7 out of the top-10 were busted or otherwise linked to a dirty team, and the yellow jersey might rightfully belong to the guy who finished 8th. Better still would be enough examples to be representative of the whole group that can be used to establish a correlation between doping and faster performance (which still might be spurious).
I claimed no evidence (forgot to put "scientific") of other mechanisms like recovery. Compared to studies looking at red blood cells and oxygen and lactate, the connection to recovery and improved performance is relatively unstudied at all, let alone for the marathon. Again you respond with "can indirectly lead to faster marathon performances" -- this is speculation and not evidence.
I pointed to the lack of world-class fast marathon performances from non-Africans, and you responded that I cannot imply PEDs are not used. I am not implying that banned substances are not used, but that if they are used, they are not producing unnaturally fast marathon performances for non-Africans. When I looked at all-time performances in 2018, over the span of 33 years from 1985 to 2018, only 9 non-Africans worldwide ran faster than Steve Jones (2:07:13) and Carlos Lopes (2:07:12), the fastest being Ronaldo da Costa (2:06:05). None of them were implicated in doping, with the exception of Spaniard Julio Rey (2:06:52), who ran slower when busted for doping (2:07:37). That covers the entire EPO era up to 2018. Then we enter the era of new shoes.
I claimed that East Africans have been dominating endurance running since 1981 -- with a demonstrated depth of top quality. Think of this like cross-country scoring, where you need a team of 5. Sure the best non-African might beat the 5th best runner every once in a while. You respond again asking if PEDs are being used -- I don't question whether some athletes used banned substances. You also respond say "some non-African athletes have achieved world-class marathon performances" -- which is far short of "demonstrated depth of top quality". Recently, at the top of the non-African list are a few Japanese athletes -- a country not associated with doping. The fastest are just sub-2:05, not a big improvement from Ronaldo da Costa (1998) or Steve Jones (1985). I'm asking how powerful and how widespread can PEDs be if the best non-Africans have only improved 2 minutes in almost 40 years now (including all the other benefits from non-doping factors), and the best of those athletes (Japanese) are most likely clean?
I claimed researchers looking at 12 years of blood data showed the marathon to be cleaner than other events. You repeat again that doping can still occur in the marathon. Sure doping exists and occurs. With respect to blood doping and EPO, these scientists were only (indirectly) suspicious about 1 in 9 of the Olympic and World Championship medals won, meaning 8 out of 9 did not raise any red or yellow flags for these scientists.
We should consider "PEDs don't exist for the marathon" not as something I "categorically dismiss" but as the "null hypothesis" that has yet to be disproved. Establishing the existence of a PED not only requires a representive set of data that includes doping data and performance data strongly correlated, but also requires disproving the null hypothesis that all of the data collected thus far may have no statistical significance.
Camille has made some very good points in this x thread about % improvement, and the comparison with men's performances. My initial reaction to the result was somewhat sceptical, but maybe this is 'just' progress?
Tigist Assefa ran 8.138% off of the men’s marathon World Record by Kipchoge. Most World Records have a differential of 10-12%.
For comparison, my 48Hr World Record is only 8.05% off the men’s WR. I wasn’t wearing supershoes & definitely no drugs. I ate Teff, from Ethiopia 😄🥣.
Camille has made some very good points in this x thread about % improvement, and the comparison with men's performances. My initial reaction to the result was somewhat sceptical, but maybe this is 'just' progress?
Firstly, there’s a huge difference between a marathon and a 48-hour race. There’s also less people doing the ultra-long races, it might just be less talented men who go into ultra running than other distances. Secondly, it’s hilarious that she mentioned *Radcliffe* when it’s well-know that she had sus blood values. Finally, how do we know that Herron is clean? Drug testing in MUT running is even more lackluster than on the roads/track.
Camille has made some very good points in this x thread about % improvement, and the comparison with men's performances. My initial reaction to the result was somewhat sceptical, but maybe this is 'just' progress?
Camille has made some very good points in this x thread about % improvement, and the comparison with men's performances. My initial reaction to the result was somewhat sceptical, but maybe this is 'just' progress?
Radcliffe's 2:15:25 was only 7.8% slower than Khannouchi's 2:05:38, and she was 3:22 faster than the next lady at that time (Assefa currently: 2:11). Of course she could go all out on blood transfusions at that time, and the men normalized the gap again.
So, that wasn't progress....
E.g. ten years later, the men's WR was at 2:03:38, and the women's WR still at 2:15:25, so 9.5% slower. Just last week, the difference was between 2:14:04 and 2:01:09, a normal 10.7%.
Camille has made some very good points in this x thread about % improvement, and the comparison with men's performances. My initial reaction to the result was somewhat sceptical, but maybe this is 'just' progress?
The only sport you'd expect to see a lower margin than the usual 10-11% would be ultra swimming, mainly due to women's naturally higher body fat percentage and its distribution on the body.
And as others have pointed out, the pool of 48-hour racers is meager. The longer the race the more it shifts from cardiovascular performance towards mechanical prowess and refueling capabilities. Yeah, like great. Kudos for excellent preparations. You had a good plan, your clothes don't chafe, you don't get the sh*ts, your gut is trained to handle extreme amounts of carbs, your feet don't get blisters, your knees don't fail, etc.
But why stop at 48 hours? Make it 3 weeks longer, add a 120lb recon pack, move away from the road and into the forest with map & compass, remove most of the food, hold lessons for fatigued and undernourished candidates and test in a way that makes it hell for those who didn't retain the information, add more exposure to the elements for extra hate and you have the regular SOF pre-selection screening. Some women have tried and all have failed. I'm not saying it's impossible, just that few have tried, like with 48 hour races.
I appreciate the detailed response. First, the question that I answered was "why would they not be doping?", not "do some athletes dope?" or "does doping exist/occur". I do not doubt that doping exists and that some athletes use banned substances. My doubts are about whether such doping can produce *unnaturally* fast marathon performances, compared to legal methods like training at altitude, and where the evidence for that can be found. Establishing otherwise would make allegations that performances like 2:11:53 are unnatural more credible.
I claimed there is no scientific evidence that a PED exists, for the marathon, and you responded with "they can still improve performance" (speculation) and "increase red blood cell production and oxygen-carrying capacity" (not evidence of performance). This does not rise to the level of scientific evidence that a PED exists for the marathon -- an sub-VO2max event which it is not obvious how increasing oxygen carrying capacity would result in faster performances. It looks more like personal speculation about what can be, but might also not be. But more fundamentally, to my knowledge, doping performance in the marathon is completely unstudied in all of the scientific doping literature. Similar with the 1500m/mile. All of the time trial studies I've seen range from 3000m-10000m -- events which are run much faster than the marathon, making VO2 more important, and too short to have to worry about factors like energy management after 30km and heat dissipation.
I claimed that there was no strong anecdotal evidence that PEDs exist for the marathon. It is not enough to say one elite athlete was busted suggesting other athletes might also be involved. In addition to doping use, the evidence of a PED has to include the data that shows the "performance enhancement" -- that's what the "PE" is. Simply providing examples like Jeptoo (and Shobukhova) rises to the level of a "proof by example" fallacy, and not "strong anecdotal evidence". As an indication of stronger anecdotal evidence, compare it side by side with what happened in cycling, where many athletes came forward, and many lists were produced showing figures like 7 out of the top-10 were busted or otherwise linked to a dirty team, and the yellow jersey might rightfully belong to the guy who finished 8th. Better still would be enough examples to be representative of the whole group that can be used to establish a correlation between doping and faster performance (which still might be spurious).
I claimed no evidence (forgot to put "scientific") of other mechanisms like recovery. Compared to studies looking at red blood cells and oxygen and lactate, the connection to recovery and improved performance is relatively unstudied at all, let alone for the marathon. Again you respond with "can indirectly lead to faster marathon performances" -- this is speculation and not evidence.
I pointed to the lack of world-class fast marathon performances from non-Africans, and you responded that I cannot imply PEDs are not used. I am not implying that banned substances are not used, but that if they are used, they are not producing unnaturally fast marathon performances for non-Africans. When I looked at all-time performances in 2018, over the span of 33 years from 1985 to 2018, only 9 non-Africans worldwide ran faster than Steve Jones (2:07:13) and Carlos Lopes (2:07:12), the fastest being Ronaldo da Costa (2:06:05). None of them were implicated in doping, with the exception of Spaniard Julio Rey (2:06:52), who ran slower when busted for doping (2:07:37). That covers the entire EPO era up to 2018. Then we enter the era of new shoes.
I claimed that East Africans have been dominating endurance running since 1981 -- with a demonstrated depth of top quality. Think of this like cross-country scoring, where you need a team of 5. Sure the best non-African might beat the 5th best runner every once in a while. You respond again asking if PEDs are being used -- I don't question whether some athletes used banned substances. You also respond say "some non-African athletes have achieved world-class marathon performances" -- which is far short of "demonstrated depth of top quality". Recently, at the top of the non-African list are a few Japanese athletes -- a country not associated with doping. The fastest are just sub-2:05, not a big improvement from Ronaldo da Costa (1998) or Steve Jones (1985). I'm asking how powerful and how widespread can PEDs be if the best non-Africans have only improved 2 minutes in almost 40 years now (including all the other benefits from non-doping factors), and the best of those athletes (Japanese) are most likely clean?
I claimed researchers looking at 12 years of blood data showed the marathon to be cleaner than other events. You repeat again that doping can still occur in the marathon. Sure doping exists and occurs. With respect to blood doping and EPO, these scientists were only (indirectly) suspicious about 1 in 9 of the Olympic and World Championship medals won, meaning 8 out of 9 did not raise any red or yellow flags for these scientists.
We should consider "PEDs don't exist for the marathon" not as something I "categorically dismiss" but as the "null hypothesis" that has yet to be disproved. Establishing the existence of a PED not only requires a representive set of data that includes doping data and performance data strongly correlated, but also requires disproving the null hypothesis that all of the data collected thus far may have no statistical significance.
Nieman, D. C., & Nieman, K. S. (2018). The Prevalence of Doping in Marathon Running: A Review of the Evidence. Sports Medicine, 48(12), 2725-2735. Eichner, J. N., & Joyner, M. J. (2014). Doping in Marathon Running: A Systematic Review of the Literature. Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise, 46(12), 2289-2296. Tucker, R., & Bester, N. (2010). Doping in Marathon Running: A Review of the Evidence and Potential Solutions. Sports Medicine, 40(11), 911-927.
Eichner, J. N., & Joyner, M. J. (2014) provide strong evidence that doping can significantly improve performance in marathon running. This is a significant finding, as it suggests that doping is a serious problem in the sport. Other studies have also found that doping can lead to significant improvements in performance, such as the 2010 literature review by Tucker and Bester, which found that there is "strong evidence" that doping can improve performance in marathon runners. While the evidence for doping in marathons is not definitive, the evidence that does exist suggests that it is a problem. And, given the potential benefits of doping in marathon running, it is likely that it will continue to be a problem in the future. Therefore, given the evidence that doping is a problem in marathon running, and the potential benefits of doping, we should critically suspect outlier performances and records.
This post was edited 5 minutes after it was posted.
Reason provided:
Date
It's important to approach such claims with a critical and evidence-based perspective. Let's address each of these statements with specific examples:
No scientific evidence that any PED exists for the marathon: FALSE PEDs may not provide the same immediate and dramatic benefits in marathon running as in some other sports, but they can still improve performance. One example is EPO to increase red blood cell production and oxygen-carrying capacity. Has EPO ever been used by some marathon runners to enhance endurance and performance? Yes.
No strong anecdotal evidence from athletes/coaches that any PED exists for the marathon: FALSE Listen, here's what I want you to see: while athletes and coaches may not openly admit to PED use due to the stigma and consequences associated with doping, have there been no cases of marathon runners being implicated in doping scandals? Rita Jeptoo testing positive for EPO in 2014, demonstrates that some marathon athletes have been involved in doping.
No evidence of other mechanisms, like PEDs permitting quicker recovery for faster performances: FALSE PEDs improving recovery can indirectly lead to faster marathon performances. Take anabolic steroids for example. Look at how they can aid in muscle recovery and allow athletes to train more intensely and frequently. This improved training can lead to better marathon performances over time.
Lack of world-class fast marathon performances by most of the non-African world: DUBIOUS Listen, mate, your argument doesn't necessarily imply that PEDs are not used. Do athletes have different training methods? Different genetics? Different and various access to resources? Furthermore, some non-African athletes have achieved world-class marathon performances.
East Africans dominating world distance running: INACCURATE Yo, it's true that East Africans have had significant success in distance running, but it's wholly inaccurate to claim that non-Africans have "failed to replicate" their success. Athletes from various countries, including those in Europe and the Americas, have achieved competitive marathon results. The dominance of East Africans may be attributed to a combination of genetic factors, altitude training, and cultural emphasis on distance running.
Marathon being the cleanest event according to anti-doping researchers: Your claim that marathons are the cleanest events may be based on specific criteria and data analysis. However, I can't believe that not even you can acknowledge that it doesn't negate the fact that doping can still occur in marathon running, as demonstrated by doping cases in athletics.
Think about what you're communicating. I concede that marathon running may not be as synonymous with doping as some other sports. However, it would be incorrect to categorically dismiss the existence of PEDs in marathon running based on the evidence and examples provided above. Doping remains a concern in endurance sports, including marathons.
We should consider "PEDs don't exist for the marathon" not as something I "categorically dismiss" but as the "null hypothesis" that has yet to be disproved. Establishing the existence of a PED not only requires a representive set of data that includes doping data and performance data strongly correlated, but also requires disproving the null hypothesis that all of the data collected thus far may have no statistical significance.
eh?
Uh, yo, it absolutely IS possible to prove that a performance-enhancing drug (PED) exists even if the data we have is not statistically significant!
The null hypothesis, which is the assumption that there is no difference between athletes who dope and those who don't, is not the same as the alternative hypothesis, which is the assumption that there is a difference.
In other words, even if neither you nor I can't say for sure that the data we have is enough to prove that doping helps athletes perform better, we can still say that the data suggests that doping might help athletes perform better.
For example, if a study finds that athletes who dope are able to run faster marathons than athletes who don't, even if the difference in performance is not statistically significant, this would still be evidence that doping can improve marathon performance.
Try on this analogy to help elevate your comprehension:
You flip a coin 10 times and it lands on heads every single time. Is this statistically significant? No, but it does suggest that the coin is biased towards heads. In the same way, even if we don't have enough data to say for sure that doping helps athletes perform better, the data we do have suggests that doping might help athletes perform better.
THIS was the race that convinced me these shoes do matter. And I guess they matter a lot. Should probably be illegal.
If they mattered so much why did the first man wearing them finish in 7th? (The Adidas sponsored third place finisher was wearing regular Adios Pro 3s)?
If they mattered so much why did the first man wearing them finish in 7th? (The Adidas sponsored third place finisher was wearing regular Adios Pro 3s)?
If they mattered so much why did the first man wearing them finish in 7th? (The Adidas sponsored third place finisher was wearing regular Adios Pro 3s)?
The naive notion that persists on these boards and amongst running fans generally is that there must be a constant rate of improvement in the sport, typically based on unspecified improvements in "training, nutrition and technical advances". But the facts remain that human physiology has not evolved in the last 60 or so years, that the principles of effective training have been known for over half a century, that an athlete's diet is largely a merely healthy diet and not a form is "super-fuel", and technical advances such as modern tracks and new shoes have only a marginal effect on elite performance and not an order of magnitude like the modernisation of golf clubs and tennis racquets.
Horse racing may be an instructive comparison. Over decades, immense effort has gone into the breeding of the fastest possible animals, with the very best that science and knowledge of the sport also has to offer on training and nutrition. Yet - unlike human athletes - race-horses perform at much the same level as they have since Man O'War at the end of the First World War. No horse has run faster in the Triple Crown since Secretariat in 1973. So why does human achievement in the same sport - which is running - continue to show accelerated increases in performance when horse racing doesn't? The answer is obvious and regrettably banal - we are better at cheating than horses are.
Maybe took him longer to break in (and recover from) the shoes. London 2012, Usain Bolt was wearing a new pair of spikes that he hadn't had a chance to break in. Bolt later said that the new spikes caused him discomfort and that he was not able to run his best.
Lol. You said specifically that is she goes below 1:55 she is doping. Big surprise that a potty mouth like yourself would not stick to your word.
You are the moron that insists a given figure must be read to hundredths of a second. I never indicated that. Since you haven't understood a simple point of that nature it shows everything else being discussed here is also out of your reach.
You have stated, sub 1:55 is clearly doped territory. So your limit is somewhere above 1:55. 1:55.5 might be suspect or in some grey area. But 1:54.99 not anymore - there is not anymore any question, the athlete must have doped. According to you.
You are the moron, not the people who point on your obvious inconsistency.
Help us build the best running shoe review site for a chance to win a LetsRun t-shirt.Help us build the best running shoe review site for a chance to win one of 10 LetsRun t-shirts.