It's just as easy to say no one performs at the highest level without doping. So you think a few lab tests for non-elites tell you how much elite athletes gain from training? If that is so then, equally, a few lab tests for doped non-elite athletes will tell us about the effects of doping on elites.
So what are the exact gains the Kipchoge made from training? Or Kiptum? Or Viren, or Snell? Or - more interestingly - Ramzi, or Kiprop? If you can't quantify those gains you are only speculating about what training can do - just like you say we do about doping. And in the case of many top athletes now, who will be doping, you won't be able to distinguish whether their gains come from training or doping. All your reservations about doping can apply just as much to training, for the same apparent lack of specific, comprehensive and unequivocal data.
You have almost realized that it's easy to say whatever you can imagine. There is no barrier to the one who knows how to type, with the vocabulary to express his imagination.
I may sound like a broken record, but what you still fail to understand is that the only thing that give the words value and real world meaning are facts, evidence, and empirical observations. That's how intelligent conversation is supposed to work, without all the irrational fallacies and rhetoric.
You still think the answer is to quantify the positive gains, when the question is establishing whether the gains are neutral, positive, or negative (and under what conditions and pre-conditions) beyond mere theoretical speculation and hope and belief and rumors.
On the topic of training, it is not a few lab tests on amateurs, but the empirical observation and 100% correlation of training with predictable and immediate empirical observation of performance improvements for both amateurs and elites alike, applyling the rudimentary but proven scientific method of trial and error. No elite athlete has ever succeeded without training, and the physiological mechanism of overcompensation is well understood, and measurable -- with a stopwatch -- by both scientists and coaches alike.
Even then, past a certain level of fitness, just like doping, additional training can be neutral, and even detrimental, depending on the training. For example, with altitude training, we saw that a high-high group regressed (insignificantly), while a high-low group improved significantly, after 4 weeks at altitude, despite both making significant improvements in VO2max. (Note, that in this case, as we have already discussed elsewhere, the scientific "proxy" of VO2max failed to predict the corresponding performance improvements, underscoring the scientific need to measure time trial performance at racing speed, rather than proxies that loosely correlate with race performance.) Other common examples are over-training leading to burnout, or worse, overuse injuries.
It is a tragic choice to wed yourself to an illusion, as you - and he - do about Kenyan doping.
So I'm also champion, right?
You've missed out that in this case the term is facetious. But you have yet to be seen to have taken over these boards as he has on the subject of doping. You merely happen to agree with him.
No - they don't say that, you do and try to pass it off as their views.
Of course they do. Their quotes and the reports are publicly available.
No, they don't. They haven't minimised Kenyan doping as you do, to suggest it is really no worse than anywhere else. They aren't in denial of the obvious.
It's just as easy to say no one performs at the highest level without doping. So you think a few lab tests for non-elites tell you how much elite athletes gain from training? If that is so then, equally, a few lab tests for doped non-elite athletes will tell us about the effects of doping on elites.
So what are the exact gains the Kipchoge made from training? Or Kiptum? Or Viren, or Snell? Or - more interestingly - Ramzi, or Kiprop? If you can't quantify those gains you are only speculating about what training can do - just like you say we do about doping. And in the case of many top athletes now, who will be doping, you won't be able to distinguish whether their gains come from training or doping. All your reservations about doping can apply just as much to training, for the same apparent lack of specific, comprehensive and unequivocal data.
You have almost realized that it's easy to say whatever you can imagine. There is no barrier to the one who knows how to type, with the vocabulary to express his imagination.
I may sound like a broken record, but what you still fail to understand is that the only thing that give the words value and real world meaning are facts, evidence, and empirical observations. That's how intelligent conversation is supposed to work, without all the irrational fallacies and rhetoric.
You still think the answer is to quantify the positive gains, when the question is establishing whether the gains are neutral, positive, or negative (and under what conditions and pre-conditions) beyond mere theoretical speculation and hope and belief and rumors.
On the topic of training, it is not a few lab tests on amateurs, but the empirical observation and 100% correlation of training with predictable and immediate empirical observation of performance improvements for both amateurs and elites alike, applyling the rudimentary but proven scientific method of trial and error. No elite athlete has ever succeeded without training, and the physiological mechanism of overcompensation is well understood, and measurable -- with a stopwatch -- by both scientists and coaches alike.
Even then, past a certain level of fitness, just like doping, additional training can be neutral, and even detrimental, depending on the training. For example, with altitude training, we saw that a high-high group regressed (insignificantly), while a high-low group improved significantly, after 4 weeks at altitude, despite both making significant improvements in VO2max. (Note, that in this case, as we have already discussed elsewhere, the scientific "proxy" of VO2max failed to predict the corresponding performance improvements, underscoring the scientific need to measure time trial performance at racing speed, rather than proxies that loosely correlate with race performance.) Other common examples are over-training leading to burnout, or worse, overuse injuries.
So you fail to answer my question of what are the gains that Kipchoge, or any other runner, has made from training. You can't answer it. You don't know. Since that is the argument by which you seek to deny the effects of doping, saying these are only "speculative", then the beneficial effects of training are also only "speculation" if you can't quantify them. If you seek to deny that position for training then you also have to deny the same point in relation to doping - that data on exact gains for any individual athlete is not necessary in order to conclude there will be gains.
So you fail to answer my question of what are the gains that Kipchoge, or any other runner, has made from training. You can't answer it. You don't know.
Maybe you don't know. People who know the sport do know. You should read a book on training and physiology some day.
So you fail to answer my question of what are the gains that Kipchoge, or any other runner, has made from training. You can't answer it. You don't know.
Maybe you don't know. People who know the sport do know. You should read a book on training and physiology some day.
You missed my point. Of course. Where do they say what are the gains Kipchoge has made from training? Or Ingebrigtsen, Kiptum or Kipyegon - or any other top athlete? Interestingly, the experts all assert training produces gains without saying what exactly those gains are. If they were rekrunner they would have to say talk of gains - such as in doping also - is only "speculative" in the absence of exact confirmed data.
This post was edited 37 seconds after it was posted.
Maybe you don't know. People who know the sport do know. You should read a book on training and physiology some day.
You missed my point. Of course. Where do they say what are the gains Kipchoge has made from training? Or Ingebrigtsen, Kiptum or Kipyegon - or any other top athlete? Interestingly, the experts all assert training produces gains without saying what exactly those gains are. If they were rekrunner they would have to say talk of gains - such as in doping also - is only "speculative" in the absence of exact confirmed data.
Always on the bad side of discussions.
Several factors in the complex interaction between genotype and phenotype have been proposed to explain the particular success of African runners, or the “African runners phenomenon”, including: genetic predisposition; high maximum oxygen uptake (O2max) values; highest concentration of hemoglobin; relatively high hematocrit; the development of good metabolic efficiency (based on somatotype characteristics); favorable muscle fiber composition; profile of oxidative enzymes; the traditional Kenyan/Ethiopian diet; constant altitude training; and motivation to achieve economic success and social mobility. However, evidence for a genetic component in physical performance is mounting, and more than 200 identified genetic variants may contribute to the observed variations in physical fitness. Based on this, the purpose of this brief review was to show the potential importance of genetic factors in relation to the intriguing phenomenon of the athletic performance observed in African runners.
You missed my point. Of course. Where do they say what are the gains Kipchoge has made from training? Or Ingebrigtsen, Kiptum or Kipyegon - or any other top athlete? Interestingly, the experts all assert training produces gains without saying what exactly those gains are. If they were rekrunner they would have to say talk of gains - such as in doping also - is only "speculative" in the absence of exact confirmed data.
Always on the bad side of discussions.
Several factors in the complex interaction between genotype and phenotype have been proposed to explain the particular success of African runners, or the “African runners phenomenon”, including: genetic predisposition; high maximum oxygen uptake (O2max) values; highest concentration of hemoglobin; relatively high hematocrit; the development of good metabolic efficiency (based on somatotype characteristics); favorable muscle fiber composition; profile of oxidative enzymes; the traditional Kenyan/Ethiopian diet; constant altitude training; and motivation to achieve economic success and social mobility. However, evidence for a genetic component in physical performance is mounting, and more than 200 identified genetic variants may contribute to the observed variations in physical fitness. Based on this, the purpose of this brief review was to show the potential importance of genetic factors in relation to the intriguing phenomenon of the athletic performance observed in African runners.
Always on the bad side in discussions? That coming from the leading antiSemite on these boards.
None of that waffle above explains what the gains from training will be. It merely says Africans are suited to running - which isn't the point at issue. As you say - you are "always on the bad side in discussions".
Of course they do. Their quotes and the reports are publicly available.
No, they don't. They haven't minimised Kenyan doping as you do, to suggest it is really no worse than anywhere else. They aren't in denial of the obvious.
Of course they do -- they are the direct source of my statements about Kenyans deep talent pool of "hundreds or even thousands", as well as the various negligent, accidental, and intentional causes and factors of Kenya's doping problem. If you interpret that as "minizing Kenyan doping" (?), then indeed they are the ones who minimized it.
So you fail to answer my question of what are the gains that Kipchoge, or any other runner, has made from training. You can't answer it. You don't know. Since that is the argument by which you seek to deny the effects of doping, saying these are only "speculative", then the beneficial effects of training are also only "speculation" if you can't quantify them. If you seek to deny that position for training then you also have to deny the same point in relation to doping - that data on exact gains for any individual athlete is not necessary in order to conclude there will be gains.
I did answer it. The gain is positive: "100% correlation of training with ... performance improvements for both amateurs and elites alike", based on "empirical observation" and the "proven scientific method of trial and error".
We don't have such an established positive, significant correlation with doping and elite distance running performance.
I also said you are having a different discussion by yourself, focusing on establishing the extent of gains, before establishing whether the gains are positive, zero, or negative.
But sure, if you are sceptical of the role of training in performance, by all means ask for facts, evidence, and observations. If you go down that path, and want to learn about the history of training, you will find plenty of facts, data and reliable observations. Personally I don't doubt the role of training in elite performance, but also don't feel any special obligation to convince you that training plays a necessary role.
But training is a confounder in any perceived effects due to other causes.
I do not use any argument to deny the effects of doping, but accept the effects of doping to the fullest extent that they have been reliably shown and established by facts, evidence, and observations according to accepted scientific best practice.
No, they don't. They haven't minimised Kenyan doping as you do, to suggest it is really no worse than anywhere else. They aren't in denial of the obvious.
Of course they do -- they are the direct source of my statements about Kenyans deep talent pool of "hundreds or even thousands", as well as the various negligent, accidental, and intentional causes and factors of Kenya's doping problem. If you interpret that as "minizing Kenyan doping" (?), then indeed they are the ones who minimized it.
Saying Kenya has a deep pool of talent has no bearing on the fact acknowledged by the experts that it also has a serious doping issue.
This post was edited 8 minutes after it was posted.
So you fail to answer my question of what are the gains that Kipchoge, or any other runner, has made from training. You can't answer it. You don't know. Since that is the argument by which you seek to deny the effects of doping, saying these are only "speculative", then the beneficial effects of training are also only "speculation" if you can't quantify them. If you seek to deny that position for training then you also have to deny the same point in relation to doping - that data on exact gains for any individual athlete is not necessary in order to conclude there will be gains.
I did answer it. The gain is positive: "100% correlation of training with ... performance improvements for both amateurs and elites alike", based on "empirical observation" and the "proven scientific method of trial and error".
We don't have such an established positive, significant correlation with doping and elite distance running performance.
I also said you are having a different discussion by yourself, focusing on establishing the extent of gains, before establishing whether the gains are positive, zero, or negative.
But sure, if you are sceptical of the role of training in performance, by all means ask for facts, evidence, and observations. If you go down that path, and want to learn about the history of training, you will find plenty of facts, data and reliable observations. Personally I don't doubt the role of training in elite performance, but also don't feel any special obligation to convince you that training plays a necessary role.
But training is a confounder in any perceived effects due to other causes.
I do not use any argument to deny the effects of doping, but accept the effects of doping to the fullest extent that they have been reliably shown and established by facts, evidence, and observations according to accepted scientific best practice.
You have simply said there is a correlation between training and performance improvements, which is the same as has been observed and experienced with doping. Your "correlation" also cannot tell us just how much an athlete will improve with training - hence you cannot say how much it has aided Kipchoge, Kipyegon etc - no one can. (That is especially so when you cannot discount the possible contribution of doping in their performances - and that would apply to any top athlete). That is the same issue with doping. Yet you assert without doubt the benefits of training while denying the same with doping, while employing essentially the same test for both. You are nothing if not contradictory.
Of course they do -- they are the direct source of my statements about Kenyans deep talent pool of "hundreds or even thousands", as well as the various negligent, accidental, and intentional causes and factors of Kenya's doping problem. If you interpret that as "minizing Kenyan doping" (?), then indeed they are the ones who minimized it.
Saying Kenya has a deep pool of talent has no bearing on the fact acknowledged by the experts that it also has a serious doping issue.
I think you have lost sight of Thoughtleader's post and my reply to his post. No one debates or disputes Kenya has a doping problem. If you want to ignore degrees, the whole world has a doping problem.
Not only do experts acknowledge Kenya has a doping problem, they have investigated and listed various factors that describe the doping problem with more insight. The same experts acknowledge that contributing factors are depth of talent, lack of anti-doping education, negligence, exploitation, desire to escape from poverty, among others, that makes the reasons for Kenyan doping different than the reasons for other nations.
You have simply said there is a correlation between training and performance improvements, which is the same as has been observed and experienced with doping. Your "correlation" also cannot tell us just how much an athlete will improve with training - hence you cannot say how much it has aided Kipchoge, Kipyegon etc - no one can. (That is especially so when you cannot discount the possible contribution of doping in their performances - and that would apply to any top athlete). That is the same issue with doping. Yet you assert without doubt the benefits of training while denying the same with doping, while employing essentially the same test for both. You are nothing if not contradictory.
Now we might be getting somewhere. First, do you really understand what "correlation" means? Correlation goes beyond a few cherry-picked exceptions, by measuring two variables collected over a large sample of a whole population. The result can range from -1 to 1. When has "the same" correlation (recall training is 100%) been observed and experienced between doping and elite male distance running? I do not deny the "effects of doping" generally, for unspecified dope and unspecified events and unspecified athletes in an unspecified state of training, but doubt that "the same has been observed and experienced" for elite male distance runners' best performances.
You keep asking "how much", which is not relevant to the discussion. Training allows athletes to realize their potential talent. It is innate talent which will determine the upper limit of "how much" can be realized with training. An untalented 12-min/mile couch potato may gain 1 minute/mile with optimal training, while a talented one may gain 8 minutes/mile.
You've missed out that in this case the term is facetious. But you have yet to be seen to have taken over these boards as he has on the subject of doping. You merely happen to agree with him.
I'm same sort of champion on this subject than rek.
You've missed out that in this case the term is facetious. But you have yet to be seen to have taken over these boards as he has on the subject of doping. You merely happen to agree with him.
I'm same sort of champion on this subject than rek.
You have simply said there is a correlation between training and performance improvements, which is the same as has been observed and experienced with doping. Your "correlation" also cannot tell us just how much an athlete will improve with training - hence you cannot say how much it has aided Kipchoge, Kipyegon etc - no one can. (That is especially so when you cannot discount the possible contribution of doping in their performances - and that would apply to any top athlete). That is the same issue with doping. Yet you assert without doubt the benefits of training while denying the same with doping, while employing essentially the same test for both. You are nothing if not contradictory.
Now we might be getting somewhere. First, do you really understand what "correlation" means? Correlation goes beyond a few cherry-picked exceptions, by measuring two variables collected over a large sample of a whole population. The result can range from -1 to 1. When has "the same" correlation (recall training is 100%) been observed and experienced between doping and elite male distance running? I do not deny the "effects of doping" generally, for unspecified dope and unspecified events and unspecified athletes in an unspecified state of training, but doubt that "the same has been observed and experienced" for elite male distance runners' best performances.
You keep asking "how much", which is not relevant to the discussion. Training allows athletes to realize their potential talent. It is innate talent which will determine the upper limit of "how much" can be realized with training. An untalented 12-min/mile couch potato may gain 1 minute/mile with optimal training, while a talented one may gain 8 minutes/mile.
You have yet to realise the argument you employ about the benefits of training - which cannot be measured precisely, as you have shown - applies also to doping. Therefore they both aid performance, if you are to be consistent.
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.