Gjert Ingebrigtsen shares the secret to his sons' success - high mileage - and claims "they don’t have any natural speed."

jacob was right on the tail of this guy in a slow 1500 last week.

https://www.iaaf.org/athletes/poland/marcin-lewandowski-204111

and this guy has a 47 low 400m to his credit.

no-speed slow jacob, was 2 meters back after the sprint,

with that said, marcin is probably 48 mid high now,

contradicting a bit, jacob if you got him to run a 400 now it might be 51 flat plus or minus.

but if you got him doing 800 m training for a stint, you would see the 49 easy,

no doubt at all amigos.

fertig.

ThatAverageRunner wrote:

Are there some 3:52ish milers who can't break 50 in an open 400m? Probably, but they are few and far between. I agree with the other poster that most distance runners who claim they can't run faster than their kick at the end of the 5000m or 10000m just haven't given the 400m an honest try (and why would they?). But if given a million dollars and a couple weeks they'd probably run a 400m quicker than most people would think. But we are aruging about a few seconds. The fastest milers are ~46.X second guys for the most part (Coe, Mahk, etc) and the slowest are 49-50 and the bulk of the best probably fall somewhere in the 48 low to 49mid range.

nah, you don't count morocco and coe is a one off.

in practice, there really is that 99% glass ceiling at 48 flat for non mega drug users. in the 1500.

example of a guy that had the 48 low 400m

which came some five years before his peak.

the same guy could open in 49 mid and close in 52 high, which should tell you something.....

current-runner wrote:

Can't tell if ex-runner is trolling or not. If not I can only assume he is in high school. That would be the only explanation for accusing an elite runner of burnout while they are still setting PRs. Burnout is a word that should have gone away with the training of the 90s.

My guess, if exrunner is indeed British, he is a uni student because he was posting at about 3-4AM GMT.

Gjert has said that he believes there are many good runners at the XC-ski team that could become just as good professional runners, but that it is safer for them to do skiing abuse it is easier to get money and sponsors from it. He is also stating that he believes it takes people who are already okey runners to adapt to his training system

Recall you said "The IAAF has estimated that 1 in 2 championship athletes is doping." When we see the real source of this claim, it is clear you got two basic things wrong: - This was not an "IAAF" estimate - 1 in 2 was not the estimate for "championship" athletes In the spirit of "knowledge" and "interpretation", would you care to revise your statement?

Armstronglivs wrote:

AP Stats wrote:

That study looks sketchy and the interpretation is excrement.

Your knowledge of it is undoubtedly sketchy and your interpretation of it is as you so aptly describe.

longjack wrote:

guys that close fast in distance races at their so called best 400m speed, that's an illusion, completely.

these guys have no ability in the start of a sprint.

normally there is one second difference between out of the blocks and running start.

but for some guys, its more like 1 and a half or so seconds, as they have no ability the get in motion.

with practice these distance guys can take their 100m down from 12x to 11 x,

which is meaningless ability for their event, unless they want to get a quick jump off a slow pace,

which i suppose is not worthless.

but the fast 100m start is meaningless off a pace, say going at 58 sec quarter pace at the bell...

kapish?

No, you have no idea what you are talking about.

rekrunner wrote:

Recall you said "The IAAF has estimated that 1 in 2 championship athletes is doping."

When we see the real source of this claim, it is clear you got two basic things wrong:

- This was not an "IAAF" estimate

- 1 in 2 was not the estimate for "championship" athletes

In the spirit of "knowledge" and "interpretation", would you care to revise your statement?

Armstronglivs wrote:

Your knowledge of it is undoubtedly sketchy and your interpretation of it is as you so aptly describe.

The figure is actually slightly higher than 1 in 2 championship level athletes. From the Guardian in 2017:

"surveys carried out at two elite athletics competitions in 2011, found that up to 57% of competitors admitted doping in the previous 12 months, a figure far surpassing the 1-2% identified by blood and urine tests carried out by the World Anti-Doping Agency (Wada), and higher even than the 14% prevalence estimated from the athlete biological passport."

To clarify, the surveys were carried out at IAAF events. The key finding was that 57% of elite athletes admitted to doping (slightly more than 1 in 2), which was far and away in excess of the 1-2% caught by WADA. So - no - my claim is not wrong.

You can quibble about the procedures and authorship of the surveys - which no doubt you will - but the main points they revealed are unequivocal: doping is endemic in track at an elite level and yet very few athletes are caught. Running is a dirty sport. Only those in obdurate denial refuse to see that.

You have neglected to mention the possible substances used by all those “dopers”. How many of them were guilty of drinking coffee when caffeine was banned? A certain percentage of them may have been “abusing” fat loss substances. There is doping and then there is DOPING (steroids, HGH, EPO and the like).

The bottom line of this thread is some wussy nobodies have their panties all twisted because they are jealous of some Norwegian teenager who is a great athlete (which they were not and never will be). These are the people who do most of the posting on this website. Maybe one reason track and field is dying is because fans are tired of hearing all the jealous b*tches complain constantly. If you wussies really believe everyone performing at a high level is doping then you should stop following the sport and take up shuffleboard. What is really funny is how the self-proclaimed “experts” on this site decide who is doping and who is not doping as if they have a magic ability to discern this from just looking at someone.

Here is a thought - have you ever considered the people who run WADA may have hidden agendas and allegiances to certain counctries? The head of WADA not too long ago made a public statement that all US athletes are doping at all levels. That is a totally crazy and insane statement for someone in his position. Why didn’t WADA object when Coe and Bubka decided to destroy all samples 8 years old and older. Why did Coe and Bubka decide to destroy all those samples in the first place, which include their own samples from the 1980s?

I didn't actually question the figure, but: 1) your attribution of the "1 in 2" estimate to the "IAAF", which is clearly wrong, and 2) your use of the word "championship", and now "championship level athlete" (even the Guardian said "competitor") I thought this was obvious, by my use of double quotes highlighting the words I doubted. Your second attempt failed to correct these two points. Rather, you seem to have added third misinterpretation: 3) Only one of the events surveyed was an IAAF event. The other event surveyed, the one producing the higher 57% result, included athletes from 28 sports, only one of which was athletics. These basic errors leads me to doubt whether you are the right one to lecture about "knowledge" and "interpretation" of this study, and the two survey results.

2018 3:35.61 London (GBR) 22 JUL

2017 3:38.96 Eugene, OR (USA) 27 MAY

2016 3:34.57 Monaco (MON) 15 JUL

2015 3:32.85 Paris (FRA) 04 JUL

2014 3:31.46 Monaco (MON) 18 JUL

2013 3:33.95 Zürich (SUI) 29 AUG

2012 3:35.43 London (GBR) 07 AUG

2011 3:39.50 Nijmegen (NED) 25 MAY

2010 3:38.61 Kessel-Lo (BEL) 14 Aug

2009 3:44.53 Heusden-Zolder (BEL) 18 JUL

2008 3:50.63 Bergen (NOR) 17 AUG

HONOURS - OLYMPICS

5. 1500 Metres 3:35.43 London (GBR) 07 AUG 2012

HONOURS - WORLD CHAMPIONSHIPS

8. 1500 Metres 3:37.52 Moskva (RUS) 18 AUG 2013

Henrik Ingebrigtsen, born in 1991

Armstronglivs, why do you transfer the percentage of "supposed" doped athletes, following their "confession", to the endurance event ? The statistic includes athletes of all the events, and more than 90% of the athletes who filled the form with the specific questions belonged to other groups of events (sprints, jumps and throws).

I want to remind you that, among the top 100 athletes all-time in 100m, 48 had "official" problems with doping, and everybody knows that at that level sprinters have very much more support by medical teams than the specialists of endurance, why in top 100 all-time in Marathon only 2 were "officially" caught, Goumri from Maroc and Erupe from Kenya, who improved his PB after finishing the period of ban (and I explained several times he was caught for EPO during the worst competition of his life, HM in Houston, where he competed coming from a REAL malaria, that in all the Countries of Central Africa is cured (first step) giving EPO in order to help the patient to recover an acceptable level of Hct and Hb (during the peak of malaria, the level of Hb goes sometime under 6 and the Hct under 18, values reached by one my athlete in 2000, already 4 months after the beginning of the therapies without EPO, at that time still not used).

Jealous Wussy Alert wrote:

You have neglected to mention the possible substances used by all those “dopers”. How many of them were guilty of drinking coffee when caffeine was banned?

0.

They were only asked about the last 12 months. Caffeine was only banned until 2004.

Another question would be: how many stopped doping 13 months before the survey, or: how many didn't admit to their drug use because they didn't trust the procedure?

casual obsever wrote:

Jealous Wussy Alert wrote:

You have neglected to mention the possible substances used by all those “dopers”. How many of them were guilty of drinking coffee when caffeine was banned?

0.

They were only asked about the last 12 months. Caffeine was only banned until 2004.

Another question would be: how many stopped doping 13 months before the survey, or: how many didn't admit to their drug use because they didn't trust the procedure?

Caffeine itself wasn't banned, excess caffeine consumption was banned. There's a difference.

Dying of laughter wrote:

casual obsever wrote:

0.

They were only asked about the last 12 months. Caffeine was only banned until 2004.

Another question would be: how many stopped doping 13 months before the survey, or: how many didn't admit to their drug use because they didn't trust the procedure?

Caffeine itself wasn't banned, excess caffeine consumption was banned. There's a difference.

This is the level of discussion to be had on these boards. Posters who think that drinking coffee is illegal doping

Renato Canova wrote:

Armstronglivs, why do you transfer the percentage of "supposed" doped athletes, following their "confession", to the endurance event ? The statistic includes athletes of all the events, and more than 90% of the athletes who filled the form with the specific questions belonged to other groups of events (sprints, jumps and throws).

I doubt that there were less than 10% in the endurance events.

Events were in Daegu:

Sprinting: 7

100, 200, 400 m, 110 + 400 hurdles

4x 100, 4x 400

Field events: 9

Endurance: 8

800 , 1500, 5000, 10000 m, + marathon

3000 m steeple, 20 km + 50 km walk

And, would you argue that endurance athletes are dirtier or cleaner than the others?

Both cases from 2019 (yes, that's how few are caught!) are distance runners.

This was different in the past, yes, when steroids were detectable in contrast to blood doping.

If everyone's doping then why would it matter if Jakob is? Then they're all equal again.

gjjffhj wrote:

110-120 is a ton for an 18 year old. that’s very impressive stuff. Higher that ritz and solinsky types at that age

When I was 17 I was running almost that much and racing twice a week. I looked about 14 then. Jakob is an early bloomer, who looks way older than 18 -- at least 21-22.

Anyone who has run distance knows darn well, when you get this . I run this much or that.....it is always a lie. COME ON PEOPLE! Distance guys are the biggest liars on the globe. If you put undercover guys, on the Ingebrigtsens , with long range cameras around the clock, I'll bet they report back with how they seem to be looking for spiers. How they conceal training etc.