There are foreign nutritionists, coaches and all other sorts of professionals working with some Kenyan groups in Kenya. Others do their research in their own countries but then the athletes benefit from it. Read about Maurten's "Bicarb System", for example.
So Kenyan athletes don't know much about what they are doing, it is all foreign coaches telling them how to do it? Yet Kenyan athletes have been successful since the mid-60's. It is surely insulting to suggest it is all due to foreign coaches.
Some runners may be intellectuals but running is not an intellectual activity. Most sports aren't, or they would require degrees to participate in them and succeed. They don't. The fact that anything can be analysed intellectually does not make it an intellectual activity that requires either high intelligence or education to succeed at it. Most runners show this is the case. Running requires physical talent, training and determination. That's it. (Of course I have left out doping but that's now a given at the top.)
I didn't say "it is all foreign coaches". It was you who brought up, more than once, the Kenyans' "limited educational background".
Good nutrition is not about being intellectual. Great advances, like the Maurten product I mentioned, those yes, are due to scientific research.
And in your last post you said that "The rate of doping variations shows is something else." First of all, this thread is about Steve Ovett, not Kenyans. Second, it is possible to benefit from doping and/or better nutrition.
Kenyans eat more or less the same today as they did when Keino was running, so we are not talking about the diet, but of (legal) supplements that aid recovery, hydration/carb intake during long runs, and in-race nutrition.
Nutrition is better nowadays, period. In the 1970s I would have trouble just finding yoghurt. Just that. Yoghurt. And I am from a western European country. Vitamins? Maybe with a prescription. Runners would finish a half marathon and head to the nearest pub for greasy food and a few pints. Elite athletes don't do that anymore. It wouldn't be better nutrition that would make Ovett run 3:20 but maybe if his ceiling was 3:29, better nutrition might help him enough in training to allow him to go 3:28 Add the shoes, the wavelight that allows for perfect pacing, he would definitely have benefitted a lot from racing nowadays.
Not “higher” as in body building. Rather, “increased” would have been a better word. Increased protein for repair and recovery. Anyway, it’s just one of many factors.
Keith Kelly quoted recently is highly applicable to the thread:
Athletes didn't know about proteins in the 70's and 80's. Yet somehow they did know about drugs.
Come on. People would buy big cans of protein powder, even in the 70s. Most HS runners have consumed enough protein without even thinking about it. The U.S. has always consumed the most meat on a per capita basis.
So Kenyan athletes don't know much about what they are doing, it is all foreign coaches telling them how to do it? Yet Kenyan athletes have been successful since the mid-60's. It is surely insulting to suggest it is all due to foreign coaches.
Some runners may be intellectuals but running is not an intellectual activity. Most sports aren't, or they would require degrees to participate in them and succeed. They don't. The fact that anything can be analysed intellectually does not make it an intellectual activity that requires either high intelligence or education to succeed at it. Most runners show this is the case. Running requires physical talent, training and determination. That's it. (Of course I have left out doping but that's now a given at the top.)
I didn't say "it is all foreign coaches". It was you who brought up, more than once, the Kenyans' "limited educational background".
Good nutrition is not about being intellectual. Great advances, like the Maurten product I mentioned, those yes, are due to scientific research.
And in your last post you said that "The rate of doping variations shows is something else." First of all, this thread is about Steve Ovett, not Kenyans. Second, it is possible to benefit from doping and/or better nutrition.
Kenyans eat more or less the same today as they did when Keino was running, so we are not talking about the diet, but of (legal) supplements that aid recovery, hydration/carb intake during long runs, and in-race nutrition.
Nutrition is better nowadays, period. In the 1970s I would have trouble just finding yoghurt. Just that. Yoghurt. And I am from a western European country. Vitamins? Maybe with a prescription. Runners would finish a half marathon and head to the nearest pub for greasy food and a few pints. Elite athletes don't do that anymore. It wouldn't be better nutrition that would make Ovett run 3:20 but maybe if his ceiling was 3:29, better nutrition might help him enough in training to allow him to go 3:28 Add the shoes, the wavelight that allows for perfect pacing, he would definitely have benefitted a lot from racing nowadays.
This thread made the assertion that one of the reasons athletes like Ovett were not as fast as athletes today is "nutrition", as though athletes in his era didn't have a clue about what to eat, or that there have been magical scientific advances in what is put on your plate. There haven't been. Unless it has been in pharmaceuticals.
This nonsense was iterated with the claim that there had been significant scientific advances generally in the sport since Ovett's era. If there have been then most Kenyan athletes, many of whom don't have a secondary school education, wouldn't know about it. Yet they dominate the sport. So much for "science" making them run faster. I'll go with EPO. That's something their foreign coaches know something about.
The reason so many posters bandy this rubbish about is to try to justify what otherwise cannot be explained, unless one acknowledges the obvious: it is doping which has made the biggest difference between Ovett's era and today. Today's athletes have all the benefits of the most dubious part of modern science.
This post was edited 3 minutes after it was posted.
Athletes didn't know about proteins in the 70's and 80's. Yet somehow they did know about drugs.
Come on. People would buy big cans of protein powder, even in the 70s. Most HS runners have consumed enough protein without even thinking about it. The U.S. has always consumed the most meat on a per capita basis.
I was being facetious. That is beyond the literalism of some here.
The New Zealanders of that period were famous for liking a few beers after races. I can't imagine that Jakob and Nguse regularly get smashed after a DL meet.
Cram has stated that he didn't pay much attention to 'nutrition' at all. it was likely different for somebody like Coe.
It's also the diet when they are children, which has improved especially for working class children (too much perhaps). Vitamins are added to so many foods these days. Why do you think this generation is an inch taller than the 70's and 80's generations?
Track was one of the top sports back then, and every schoolkid wanted to be the 1500m Olympic champion. Nowadays I doubt if more than 1 in 20 could name the Olympic champion.
Nzer's didn't "train" on beer. But it wasn't necessary to live like a monk, either. "Nutrition" is basically a fancy term for a healthy diet. Athletes have long known what that was. It largely meant not smoking and only having alcohol occasionally.
Runners aren't getting bigger and taller. Cram was over 6'. El G was much smaller, as was Farah. Kipchoge is 5'7". Few runners are 6'. A big physique is not conducive to running success.
The biggest change to what athletes consume today is not what they eat but what they put in their veins. It makes all the difference. Modern sport depends on it.
My point was that childhood nutrition must have improved to account for increased height. It doesn't just mean increased height, it will lead to stronger bones, stronger immune systems and so on.
We're getting off topic here, but Herb Elliott, Cram, John Walker, Steve Scott were all 6 ft or above, as is Jakob today. The examples you gave are all EPO driven African long distance runners.
Shoes, nutrition, tracks all made huge differences each generation. It's silly to suppose that suddenly stopped in1985 or whenever.
So Kenyan athletes don't know much about what they are doing, it is all foreign coaches telling them how to do it? Yet Kenyan athletes have been successful since the mid-60's. It is surely insulting to suggest it is all due to foreign coaches.
Some runners may be intellectuals but running is not an intellectual activity. Most sports aren't, or they would require degrees to participate in them and succeed. They don't. The fact that anything can be analysed intellectually does not make it an intellectual activity that requires either high intelligence or education to succeed at it. Most runners show this is the case. Running requires physical talent, training and determination. That's it. (Of course I have left out doping but that's now a given at the top.)
I didn't say "it is all foreign coaches". It was you who brought up, more than once, the Kenyans' "limited educational background".
Good nutrition is not about being intellectual. Great advances, like the Maurten product I mentioned, those yes, are due to scientific research.
And in your last post you said that "The rate of doping variations shows is something else." First of all, this thread is about Steve Ovett, not Kenyans. Second, it is possible to benefit from doping and/or better nutrition.
Kenyans eat more or less the same today as they did when Keino was running, so we are not talking about the diet, but of (legal) supplements that aid recovery, hydration/carb intake during long runs, and in-race nutrition.
Nutrition is better nowadays, period. In the 1970s I would have trouble just finding yoghurt. Just that. Yoghurt. And I am from a western European country. Vitamins? Maybe with a prescription. Runners would finish a half marathon and head to the nearest pub for greasy food and a few pints. Elite athletes don't do that anymore. It wouldn't be better nutrition that would make Ovett run 3:20 but maybe if his ceiling was 3:29, better nutrition might help him enough in training to allow him to go 3:28 Add the shoes, the wavelight that allows for perfect pacing, he would definitely have benefitted a lot from racing nowadays.
Ovett never ran under 3:30 because he was never in a race where he needed to do it to win.
I didn't say "it is all foreign coaches". It was you who brought up, more than once, the Kenyans' "limited educational background".
Good nutrition is not about being intellectual. Great advances, like the Maurten product I mentioned, those yes, are due to scientific research.
And in your last post you said that "The rate of doping variations shows is something else." First of all, this thread is about Steve Ovett, not Kenyans. Second, it is possible to benefit from doping and/or better nutrition.
Kenyans eat more or less the same today as they did when Keino was running, so we are not talking about the diet, but of (legal) supplements that aid recovery, hydration/carb intake during long runs, and in-race nutrition.
Nutrition is better nowadays, period. In the 1970s I would have trouble just finding yoghurt. Just that. Yoghurt. And I am from a western European country. Vitamins? Maybe with a prescription. Runners would finish a half marathon and head to the nearest pub for greasy food and a few pints. Elite athletes don't do that anymore. It wouldn't be better nutrition that would make Ovett run 3:20 but maybe if his ceiling was 3:29, better nutrition might help him enough in training to allow him to go 3:28 Add the shoes, the wavelight that allows for perfect pacing, he would definitely have benefitted a lot from racing nowadays.
Ovett never ran under 3:30 because he was never in a race where he needed to do it to win.
Nzer's didn't "train" on beer. But it wasn't necessary to live like a monk, either. "Nutrition" is basically a fancy term for a healthy diet. Athletes have long known what that was. It largely meant not smoking and only having alcohol occasionally.
Runners aren't getting bigger and taller. Cram was over 6'. El G was much smaller, as was Farah. Kipchoge is 5'7". Few runners are 6'. A big physique is not conducive to running success.
The biggest change to what athletes consume today is not what they eat but what they put in their veins. It makes all the difference. Modern sport depends on it.
My point was that childhood nutrition must have improved to account for increased height. It doesn't just mean increased height, it will lead to stronger bones, stronger immune systems and so on.
We're getting off topic here, but Herb Elliott, Cram, John Walker, Steve Scott were all 6 ft or above, as is Jakob today. The examples you gave are all EPO driven African long distance runners.
Shoes, nutrition, tracks all made huge differences each generation. It's silly to suppose that suddenly stopped in1985 or whenever.
Nutrition may have improved for the general population but it hasn't made the best athletes better or bigger or stronger. MD and distance runners are typically under 6', as a smaller lighter physique is generally an advantage. Cram was an exception, at 6'1", as is Rudisha. Elliott was 5'11", as was Snell. Coe is 5'9". But nutrition hasn't made today's athletes better. A healthy meal is the same as it was decades ago. There have been improvements in tracks and shoes, and refinements in training with professionalism but the biggest boost in performance has come from doping. If Ovett were to succeed in this era he would have to dope like the best do.
My point was that childhood nutrition must have improved to account for increased height. It doesn't just mean increased height, it will lead to stronger bones, stronger immune systems and so on.
We're getting off topic here, but Herb Elliott, Cram, John Walker, Steve Scott were all 6 ft or above, as is Jakob today. The examples you gave are all EPO driven African long distance runners.
Shoes, nutrition, tracks all made huge differences each generation. It's silly to suppose that suddenly stopped in1985 or whenever.
Nutrition may have improved for the general population but it hasn't made the best athletes better or bigger or stronger. MD and distance runners are typically under 6', as a smaller lighter physique is generally an advantage. Cram was an exception, at 6'1", as is Rudisha. Elliott was 5'11", as was Snell. Coe is 5'9". But nutrition hasn't made today's athletes better. A healthy meal is the same as it was decades ago. There have been improvements in tracks and shoes, and refinements in training with professionalism but the biggest boost in performance has come from doping. If Ovett were to succeed in this era he would have to dope like the best do.
To you it's always doping. Thank God you don't coach or you would tell your athletes, "Right, guys, nothing has changed since Lydiard, so if you want to be great, you all have to dope."
Nutrition may have improved for the general population but it hasn't made the best athletes better or bigger or stronger. MD and distance runners are typically under 6', as a smaller lighter physique is generally an advantage. Cram was an exception, at 6'1", as is Rudisha. Elliott was 5'11", as was Snell. Coe is 5'9". But nutrition hasn't made today's athletes better. A healthy meal is the same as it was decades ago. There have been improvements in tracks and shoes, and refinements in training with professionalism but the biggest boost in performance has come from doping. If Ovett were to succeed in this era he would have to dope like the best do.
To you it's always doping. Thank God you don't coach or you would tell your athletes, "Right, guys, nothing has changed since Lydiard, so if you want to be great, you all have to dope."
There are coaches who say just that. Aouita was allegedly one.
It isn't always or only doping. You still need talent and to train. But you won't beat the best most talented highly-trained athletes who dope unless you also dope. That is the top of the sport today.
This post was edited 2 minutes after it was posted.
Increased protein, nutrition shakes, better things for the body. I suspect Ovett was on a diet of fish and chips with an occasional pint thrown in. Think of all the changes in warmup dynamics, activation, prehab, etc since the early 80’s. At the end of the day, he was a ferocious competitor.
High protein diets are not meant for the world's best distance runners.
Moderate protein is.
The best guys in the world are skinnier than they look.
do you think guys running 3:30 are taking fiiing 100g protein after a session? kerr leaned down.
I am old enough to remember what athletes/runners were like since the early 60's. They haven't changed. Elliott, Clarke, Ryun and Keino would look no different from any other elite runner on the track today. The same goes for the top runners in the 70's and 80's. The diet they followed would be little different. Runners need fuel. And liquid replacement. (This was known in the Tokyo '64 marathon). They aren't packing in the protein to build big muscle, like bodybuilders.
Tracks have improved, and to some extent so have shoes. Professionalism has allowed for a greater time commitment to the sport, although training methods have changed little. It's still largely about mileage and effort. There have also been improvements in injury prevention and management, and recovery. But all these are not enough of themselves to explain the differences between a top runner of the late 70's like Ovett and today's best.
This post was edited 2 minutes after it was posted.
I didn't say "it is all foreign coaches". It was you who brought up, more than once, the Kenyans' "limited educational background".
Good nutrition is not about being intellectual. Great advances, like the Maurten product I mentioned, those yes, are due to scientific research.
And in your last post you said that "The rate of doping variations shows is something else." First of all, this thread is about Steve Ovett, not Kenyans. Second, it is possible to benefit from doping and/or better nutrition.
Kenyans eat more or less the same today as they did when Keino was running, so we are not talking about the diet, but of (legal) supplements that aid recovery, hydration/carb intake during long runs, and in-race nutrition.
Nutrition is better nowadays, period. In the 1970s I would have trouble just finding yoghurt. Just that. Yoghurt. And I am from a western European country. Vitamins? Maybe with a prescription. Runners would finish a half marathon and head to the nearest pub for greasy food and a few pints. Elite athletes don't do that anymore. It wouldn't be better nutrition that would make Ovett run 3:20 but maybe if his ceiling was 3:29, better nutrition might help him enough in training to allow him to go 3:28 Add the shoes, the wavelight that allows for perfect pacing, he would definitely have benefitted a lot from racing nowadays.
Ovett never ran under 3:30 because he was never in a race where he needed to do it to win.
Ovett never has showed to be capable to run sub 3:30, never.
There are coaches who say just that. Aouita was allegedly one.
It isn't always or only doping. You still need talent and to train. But you won't beat the best most talented highly-trained athletes who dope unless you also dope. That is the top of the sport today.
Aouita made those alleged comments when guys like Ramzi were still winning, and before the ABP. He was probably correct at the time, which is why athletics almost died a death.
Now blatant fullthrottle doping is much harder to do and times have slowed, until supershoes and the latest tracks, plus wavelights.
With all due respect, you don't know what you are talking about when it comes to shoes or tracks. You've admitted you've never even worn a pair of super shoes. Even a hobby jogger like me can feel the crazy difference. Your belief that shoes make little or no difference is as absurd and as much an act of faith as rekrunner's belief that EPO doesn't work.
Your point is valid when it comes to guys like El G and Lagat running a second per lap faster than Coe and Aouita just 15 years after them, with no big improvements in shoes or tracks, and exactly the same training (only curiously the same workouts harder and faster with never any injuries). But it's nearly 50 years now since Coe.
With all due respect, you don't know what you are talking about when it comes to shoes or tracks. You've admitted you've never even worn a pair of super shoes. Even a hobby jogger like me can feel the crazy difference. Your belief that shoes make little or no difference is as absurd and as much an act of faith as rekrunner's belief that EPO doesn't work.
That's not completely accurate. I'm a big believer in hi-lo altitude training, which naturally stimulates EPO and RBC production, and is WADA legal. But more importantly, I will adapt my beliefs in light of any new data.
Staying on topic, I agree with "you already knew the answer was yes" -- "how does a thread go four pages asking if a 3:30 runner from 40 years ago would still be competitive now, when 3:30 can still win?"
And I agree with you about times today and "supershoes and the latest tracks, plus wavelights".
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.