ukathleticscoach wrote:
Federosa
Always informed to the max, the "coach".
-
10
-
San Diego Hobby Jogger wrote:
What we saw is equivalent of breaking 2 for women. Carbon spring shoes, tall male rabbit pacers breaking the wind. The women's only WR was just set in berliyat 2:16. Would be interesting to see these 2 go head to head. Have to question why they didn't run Olympics this year
No, as I have argued earlier this is equivalent to (flat-low) 1h58 for a male runner.
00 -
UKValues wrote:
Steve The Addict OFFICIAL -----^^^^^ wrote:
Here's a telling stat. Chepngetich ran exactly 2:22 in 3 out of 4 consecutive marathons. Then she's eventually popping a 209? HAHA. Disgusting.
She already holds the HM world record ... did you miss that?
If Kiptum got World Athlete of the years last year (despite LRC usual suspicions) I don't see why she wouldn't get it.
And they are experts that vote at the World Athletics no some poor journalists or user haters at LRC.
What are you tlking about?
Maybe go to her profile at worldathletics.
I don't see 3 out of consecutive 4 marathons there. I also don't see a 2:09 for her 4th marathon
11 -
Sorry UKValue, didn't mean to answer to your pot but to the other one reacting to Steve's
01 -
Hmmmmm as if I want to win Tour de France I Will listen to Lance Armstrong ......sure he has One or Two advice to give me. Coach Is not a doctor so his opinion Is irrilevant. He s innocent?? Yes sure !!! Doping he s not his business !!! He Just knows and care about training !!! So he cant speak about doping !!! The kenyan guy won Milan marathon Titus Ekiru with race record , some months ago has been suspended for 10 years. He was taking peds from an hospital and a doctor was teach him everything .So I Will never believe any performance by these kind of people . They are stealing up and down the world of Road races . Time to put them out.
00 -
Renato Canova wrote:
Of course the new WR can seem unbilievable, but one of the reasons is that the most part of runners (and coaches...) don't have a real idea about which percentage of speed of the PB of 10000m is possible to maintain in a full marathon when the athlete is specifically prepared for the full distance (I mean REALLY prepared, not to THINK that is prepared.....).
I want to give PB of European athletes (after this we can speak of African, but I prefer to stay in the field of western runners) for 10000m, HM and Marathon, with the percentage of speed athletes are able to run comparing with the speed for the marathon.
Sondre Moen - 27'55" (road) (2'47"5/km) - 59'48" (2'50"/km) - 2:05:48 (2:58.8/km)
Percentage HM / 10000m : 98.5% - Mar / 10000m : 93.7% - Mar / HM : 95.1%
Amanal Petros - 27'32" (2'45"2) - 60:09 (2'54"8) - 2:04:58 (2'57"6)
HM / 10000m : 94.5% - Mar / 10000m : 93% - Mar / HM : 98.4%
Tadesse Abraham - 28'28" (road) (2'50"8 / km) - 59'53" (2'50"3) - 2:05:01 (2'57"7)
HM / 10000m : 99.8% - Mar / 10000m : 96.1% - Mar / HM : 95.8%
Migidio Bourifa - 29'24" (2'56"4) - 62'43" (2'58"3) - 2:09:07 (3'03"5)
HM / 10000m : 98.9 % - Mar / 10000m : 96.1% - Mar / HM : 97.1%
Kenenisa Bekele - 26'17" (2'37"7) - 2:01:41 (2'53")
Mar / 10000m : 91.2%
Eliud Kipchoge - 26'49" (2'40"9) - 58'20" (estimated - 2'45"8) - 2:01:09 (2'52"2)
HM / 10000m : 97% - Mar / 10000m : 93.4% - Mar / HM : 96.3 %
We can see that the average of speed specialized marathon runners can develop (compared with their PB in 10000m) can be about 93%, while the percentage of speed used for running HM (from 10000m) is around 97%, and HM-Marathon is 96%.
This means that athletes preparing marathon, comparing their PB in 10000m and the possible PB in marathon, can run with proper training in the following times :
28'00" (94% = 2'58"1) in 2:05 - 2:06
28'20" (94% = 3'00"2) in 2:06:30 - 2:07
28'40" (94% = 3'02"3) in 2:08 - 2:08:30
29'00" (94% = 3'04"5) in 2:09 - 2:09:30
29'20" (94% = 3'06"6) in 2:10:30 - 2:11
29'40" (94% = 3'08"7) in 2:12:30 - 2:13:0
30'00" (94% = 3'10"8) in 2:14 - 2:15
This means that in many Countries (particularly in US and UK) at the moment there is not a correct idea of the performances athletes can achieve, according their PB in 10 km, if start to do proper training, without thinking that workouts like 3 times 3 miles at Marathon Pace with 1 mile recovery at 80% of MP are something specific : if there is specific speed, the volume of training and the length of the workout is not enough ; if on the contrary length and volume are enough, the speed is too slow and it's not possible to have metabolic adaptation to the distance at given pace.
What if you take drugs to run a 10k PB? Does it still extrapolate?
20 -
Here is another angle.
Ruth ran 2:14:18 back in 2022
Is it possible that she ran that time clean? If so, that may be the fastest clean time in history.
…or is it simply a new super drug/shoe, but why is SHE the only woman who has access to it?I’m still trying to wrap my head around her running 2:24:36 in April and 65:58 as recently as Aug 25th
It would be good if she could explain the timeline to us
20 -
rekrunner wrote:
Khamis wrote:
Look Mr PD, consider taking a leaf out of our highly esteemed antidoping luminary Armstrong below!!!! Look at how he reasons and persuades holistically:
"It isn't incredibly more difficult to use drugs than in former decades. Drug use is more sophisticated than antidoping, it is always ahead - and this from the former head of WADA. Doping is like the shoes, but advancing more continuously and is way more scientifically advanced. There are few variations in the supershoes but the estimated illicit drugs available are over hundred at any one time and most are undetectable. If it were not so sports doping wouldn't be the billion dollar black market it has been reliably estimated to be.
Valerie Adams may well have been one of the few top athletes that chose not to go down that path - or she would have likely been the world record holder, like Crouser, who I wouldn't put money on being clean."I was unimpressed with the high density of opinion and low factual content. You seem highly persuadable by such posts and posters.
That's ironic. He isn't impressed by you, with your "high density of opinion and low factual content". In your case, it's called confirmation bias.
11 -
rekrunner wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
To "further elucidate" is to add clarifying details, not to alter the general picture let alone contradict its message. It would be helpful if you had a clearer grasp of the English language and what the writers are in fact saying.
I'm wondering, did you read what the "writers are in fact saying"? Can you summarize what has been elucidated so far?
I don't attempt to "alter the general picture", but on the contrary find myself largely, if not completely, in agreement with the writers, and their detailed assessment of the low-to-moderate quality evidence, and the need for higher quality evidence, and especially the discussion of the many limitations that still exist with the remarkably few studies that met their inclusion criteria.
With respect to endurance performance, the writers concluded: "Athletic performance mostly appears similar between placebo and intervention groups during submaximal exercise conditions, which may be more relevant to performance in sporting competitions, especially in endurance sports."
In all that waffle, if the writers agreed with you they would say that no conclusions can be drawn about the effects of doping, and indeed it may have no effect. They didn't say that. They simply said we don't have enough data to be precise or certain about the exact effect of doping, while the general indicators are of a range of likely performance gains. You can't even understand what your own cherry-picking says.
00 -
Well played wrote:
Doping is actually super smart financially for an elite east African runner if you strip away the ethics. As an athlete the rewards are huge. The downside is shame and public loathing. Upside glory, money. In East Africa if you win a major marathon you’re probably set for life, multiple wins or podiums now you’re luxuriously comfortable. With exchange rate call it equivalent of million or multi million dollar win by American. Upside is huge if you have the potential to win by doping. Contrast that with American runners. We all saw Lance. Prize money is weak, u could make more money in so many occupations. So calculus for American is huge public shaming and not that much money.
Public loathing? Check Kiprop FB account even when he was banned they claim he was innocent
Even if a Kenyan woman broke 2 hours none of them would think it suspicious or at least admit to it
30 -
This "end of civilization" stems from the evil genius of Nike in creating the "cheating" super shoes, and it's co-conspirators among race promoters, agents, et al, to seek superficial glory and big bucks at the expense of the integrity of the sport. Does anyone really care about the phony marathon any more?
11 -
end of the sport wrote:
I don't know what she's on but combined with faster shoes this time is just too much to take.
The professional endurance sport is rigged and broken since decades!
Athletes all around the globe, especially in endurance sports, dope. Its not only Kenya.
However, Kenya makes it so obvious that even the most careless person gets aware of it. And that is very bad ...
50 -
Armstronglivs wrote:
rekrunner wrote:
I was unimpressed with the high density of opinion and low factual content. You seem highly persuadable by such posts and posters.
That's ironic. He isn't impressed by you, with your "high density of opinion and low factual content". In your case, it's called confirmation bias.
Chalk up another one for reading comprehension.
I was unimpressed by your post, as it contained mostly baseless opinions. This is something Khamis finds persuasive.
01 -
Bluesky wrote:
Hmmmmm as if I want to win Tour de France I Will listen to Lance Armstrong ......sure he has One or Two advice to give me. Coach Is not a doctor so his opinion Is irrilevant. He s innocent?? Yes sure !!! Doping he s not his business !!! He Just knows and care about training !!! So he cant speak about doping !!! The kenyan guy won Milan marathon Titus Ekiru with race record , some months ago has been suspended for 10 years. He was taking peds from an hospital and a doctor was teach him everything .So I Will never believe any performance by these kind of people . They are stealing up and down the world of Road races . Time to put them out.
I would ask Michele Ferrari, and not Lance Armstrong. Lance is neither coach nor doctor, but rather a known pathological liar with a charismatic ability to craft his own narrative, and a huge disincentive to admit that doping was much more risk than reward. At best, he would just repeat what he was told by Ferrari.
But the question no one seems willing to ponder is why anyone should listen to "Primero Numero Uno" over Renato.
00 -
The_Real_Bullet_Proof1 wrote:
Steve The Addict OFFICIAL -----^^^^^ wrote:
Here's a telling stat. Chepngetich ran exactly 2:22 in 3 out of 4 consecutive marathons. Then she's eventually popping a 209? HAHA. Disgusting.
Great point. ^ 3 marathons at 2:22…..then, the 4th marathon is 2:09. That massive and sudden improvement of 13 minutes - considering a cluster of marathon PRs were around 2:22 - is suspicious.
I'm not sure where you're getting these stats from, but she ran 2:14:18 at Chicago in 2022.
Let's at least use correct info.
This post was edited 1 minute after it was posted.00 -
Armstronglivs wrote:
In all that waffle, if the writers agreed with you they would say that no conclusions can be drawn about the effects of doping, and indeed it may have no effect. They didn't say that. They simply said we don't have enough data to be precise or certain about the exact effect of doping, while the general indicators are of a range of likely performance gains. You can't even understand what your own cherry-picking says.
Did you not read the paper? If you did, why not pick out some better cherries for us, rather than your own revisionist accounts?
I didn't say that they agreed with me, but that I agreed with them, finding no need for "altering the general picture" or "contradicting its message".
They didn't say "not enough data to be precise", but drew their own conclusion that EPO performance and placebo performance were similar, at submaximal efforts, e.g. the marathon, especially in endurance sports. I agree with the "writers".
They also say, and I agree, that there quality assessment of the top-10 studies (out of 2851 unique studies) that met their inclusion criteria, that "there is low-to-moderate quality evidence". Notably two of these were considered "high risk of bias". This doesn't seem like an overwhelming infomercial for "EPO works".
00 -
Steve The Addict OFFICIAL -----^^^^^ wrote:
Here's a telling stat. Chepngetich ran exactly 2:22 in 3 out of 4 consecutive marathons. Then she's eventually popping a 209? HAHA. Disgusting.
Are you including the World Championships in Qatar? The one with the temps in the 80s and humidity over 70%.
That one seems like an outlier.
00 -
All this talk and nobody says what all the records should be. Anyone wants to start?
00 -
I had to go to the vocabulary for knowing what "manure" is.
Now that I know, I can say that I can be full of manure, but you ARE MANURE, and we can appreciate your status from your smell
55 -
henrik wrote:
All this talk and nobody says what all the records should be. Anyone wants to start?
Only mid distance and distance and I left out the steeple.
Men:
1:43
3:33/3:50
7:32/8:12
13:10ish
27:15ish
59:45
2:06ish
Women:
1:57
3:58/4:15
8:25/9:10
14:35
30:10
65ish
Maybe 2:18
01
What People Are Talking About On LetsRun
No top threads at the moment. Check back soon.