"The dopers have ruined training theory"

i have nothing to add to this conversation, other than it is my perception too, that doping particularly aids in recovery and ability to maintain high intensity workouts. the dope in and of itself doesn't make one better. just like weightlifters, if they take roids it won't make them automatically stronger or able to hit new PRs. they already have to be AT or NEAR their maximal state for roids to work. if they don't work out at all, it just turns to fat.

Andromeda strain wrote:

As you can see, he in fact reduced his training volume and increased its intensity with sprint work and drills having also spent some time training at Font Roumeu with Gabriella Szabo (the athlete who was stopped by French border police with her car chock-full of EPO:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/athletics/3031535.stm

) .

I can only find mentions of progesterone and Actovegin (for instance:

). Did I miss anything?

Ho Hum wrote:

insider42195 wrote:

Lagat can run low mileage because he ran a lot in the past and he constructed a huge aerobic base when young which, contrary to what Lydiard thought, doesn’t need to be rebuilt every year. Of course, IMHO, also EPO plays a role here.

Thinking that the same recipe works with young athletes is foolish and it’s a sure way to have fast kids which have already stopped running by 25. Sorry but high mileage is still needed, and could be avoided only when the athlete is really mature.

When did Lagat ever run high mileage?

Never. But what should be noted, is that Lagat started training seriously after finishing HS, so if he takes 1-2 weeks off after indoor and 5 off after 5th Avenue Mile, he runs 45-46 weeks a year. In base he tops off at 70, spends a good chunk of time at 50-60.

So lets say he runs 2500 miles a year since turning 30, and when he was younger he did a little less mileage so lets say 2000 miles a year then. So 11 times 2000 equal 22,000 miles, plus the 10 times 2500 equals 25,000 miles. Plus some running as a kid when he wasn't serious, and he's anywhere from 50-60 thousand lifetime miles. That is a lot of miles. And they're quality miles. Not slow. So that's how he has a huge aerobic base without high mileage.

ataglance wrote:

People on here hate Lagat's training because it just destroys their "more mileage all the time" mantra.

They can't accept that some athletes are supremely talented and "just doing more" is a colossal waste of time and effort.

I read the HS prs vs Mileage thread and I was amazed. Kids running 70mpw and running 16 min or slower 5ks. What a waste of time.

Wouldn't you feel like a complete sucker if you were running 70 or 80 mile weeks and some joker was running 30 and totally kicking your @ss?

People on here don't hate Lagat's training. They hate Lagat because he is a fraud, just like El Guerrouj, who by the way ran over 100m per weeks in the winter.

bro science wrote:

i have nothing to add to this conversation, other than it is my perception too, that doping particularly aids in recovery and ability to maintain high intensity workouts. the dope in and of itself doesn't make one better. just like weightlifters, if they take roids it won't make them automatically stronger or able to hit new PRs. they already have to be AT or NEAR their maximal state for roids to work. if they don't work out at all, it just turns to fat.

This is actually a misperception. If you take steroids and don't work out, you'll gain pounds of muscle; there are studies on this. You'll actually gain more muscle than people who work out clean. If you think about it, the idea that "it" will just turn to fat (what is it?) doesn't make any sense, since steroids are hormones, not food.

1991

1993

1995

1997

1999

2001

2003

2005

2007

morcelli guerrouj ramzi lagat

9 world titles in a row, everyone of them doped

who says doping doesn't work?

Renato Canova wrote:

...

About the first part of your post, I can agree with you that, for athletes not so mentally strong, EPO can give a different self confidence pushing them to do in training what never they tried to do before. But this is exactly the reason because ALL the WR holder in long distances are clean : because nobody IF NOT MENTAL STRONG can become a WR holder, or an Olympic Champion, or a winner of a Major, since the mental strength is the most important quality for this type of event.

Didn't Fernando Mamede hold the WR in the 10000m?

There is some contradictory information being posted here:

PEDs are only for recovery and for running that is not so important. BUT Training consistently at a high level is the requirement for being a World Class athlete. Hmmm.

There has never been a study proving efficacy of PEDs on top tier runners. But plenty of top tier runners have been caught. And none would ever publicly be a part of a study.

Using names of someone who is clean or dirty without proof either way is pointless. Remember how many tests Lance passed? Passing a test does not make a clean runner.

There are those who recover faster from workouts than others. Therefore they can stack up more high quality workouts and their body adapts faster and better. PEDs accomplish the same thing, even for those who are already outliers.

agc5k wrote:

Never. But what should be noted, is that Lagat started training seriously after finishing HS, so if he takes 1-2 weeks off after indoor and 5 off after 5th Avenue Mile, he runs 45-46 weeks a year. In base he tops off at 70, spends a good chunk of time at 50-60.

So lets say he runs 2500 miles a year since turning 30, and when he was younger he did a little less mileage so lets say 2000 miles a year then. So 11 times 2000 equal 22,000 miles, plus the 10 times 2500 equals 25,000 miles. Plus some running as a kid when he wasn't serious, and he's anywhere from 50-60 thousand lifetime miles. That is a lot of miles. And they're quality miles. Not slow. So that's how he has a huge aerobic base without high mileage.

Um, he ran 3:26 a long time before he accumulated all those fancy math problem #'s of "lifetime miles."

The lifetime miles thing is a myth. Webb ran 3:53 after a very small amount of "lifetime miles" (and was probably in 3:50 shape or better when he was still 18 during his frosh year at Michigan). Oh right, he swam as a youngster, therefore, he fits the theory too. My bad, *EVERY*one fits the "lifetime miles" mold/theory.

Is that you Trackhead?

Renato Canova wrote:

How I said before, the key of improvement is to raise the VOLUME OF INTENSITY, and this goes together with the need to open the recovery.

I think we are very far from the metabolic limits. I see athletes running, after 3 years of continuous and intense specific training, without too much fatigue, in training, 30 km in altitude in 1:33, and 40 in 2:08 or less. Only one year before, they fatigued very much more for running in 1:36 or 2:13.

This because, with the metabolic changes in their body, THEIR INTERNAL LOAD REMAINS THE SAME running faster, and this the real effect of training.

Not metabolic changes Renato, neural changes.

Why does everyone ignore neuroscience? It's basic physiology.

ContradictionsGalore wrote:

There is some contradictory information being posted here:

PEDs are only for recovery and for running that is not so important. BUT Training consistently at a high level is the requirement for being a World Class athlete. Hmmm.

There has never been a study proving efficacy of PEDs on top tier runners. But plenty of top tier runners have been caught. And none would ever publicly be a part of a study.

Using names of someone who is clean or dirty without proof either way is pointless. Remember how many tests Lance passed? Passing a test does not make a clean runner.

There are those who recover faster from workouts than others. Therefore they can stack up more high quality workouts and their body adapts faster and better. PEDs accomplish the same thing, even for those who are already outliers.

You just contradicted yourself.

Anyway, it's fitness that gives you recovery. The fitter you are, the harder you can train.

Runners have got to be the stupidest group of athletes on the planet. Runners ruined training theory by being too stupid.

Really? Tell us more?

say what???... wrote:

Really? Tell us more?

If, as is the case with most runners, the way you approach training theory is by studying the patterns of elite athletes, you\'re actually a complete and total IDIOT and you don\'t even know the first thing about running, which is that genetics is by far the greatest determinant of ability. Because you can neither measure the direct impact of a given training protocol on an athlete\'s overall progress nor compare that progress to what it would have been on a different program, observing how elites train tells you literally, absolutely, utterly nothing about the value of their methods. All that you idiots are doing in these stupid conversations is blindly assuming that elites must have it figured out, which is unjustified—they are just as clueless as the rest of you, the only difference being that they have ideal attributes for running and you don\'t.

Genetics eh? You're an expert aren't you?

You are the idiot here.

Blood doping works a lot according to people who have used it

Did you know that racing faster actually uses less total energy?

Where does that fit into the drug obsessives scheme of things?

yes it's obvious it works but on what level, is it mainly psychologically (i.e. the placebo effect). I've started to lean that way!

epo works wrote:

Blood doping works a lot according to people who have used it

It's not just runners.

People in other sports are equally clueless and stupid.