ESPN wrote:
Mark admitted that Jerry wrecks runners. He pushes them too hard. Why then praise Jerry as a coach, Mark?
He gave a balanced viewpoint. Same with the altitude/sea level adaption debate.
We have merged two threads on the topic into 1. Please see our Q&A with Mark Scott here.
-
41
-
rojo wrote:
I'm amazed by comments like this. THe US just hasn't 'figured out' the marathon (except when an African-born runner like Khannouchi sets a WR for us). The Japanese just haven't figured out mid-d or anyting on the track (except when they are coaching Kenyans on the track).
It's GENETICS people. If I had to guess, I'd say Americans are too big for the marathon. Wikipedia says Kipchoge is 5'6 and Bekele is 5'5". Most American men distance runnners are much bigger than that. Much.
The people who hadn't figure out the marathon were the Kenyans up until the mid 1990s. Now they dominate it.
Someone wisely brought up Ryan Hall. You could bring up Bill Rodgers or Frank Shorter too. There’re a lot of short, small American distance runners if that were truly the issue. Tamirat Tola isn’t a Smurf, he’s pretty good. Paul Tergat pretty tall. What sub-28 Americans moved up before they were 32 or consistently injured?
71 -
Did someone on page 1 actually say Scott had more speed than Farah? They should lose their posting privileges.
It is not even close, forget the huge gap in 1500M bests, Farah was an all time kicker in Championships comps. OMG, such a stupid and poorly thought out post.
60 -
king999 wrote:
Did someone on page 1 actually say Scott had more speed than Farah? They should lose their posting privileges.
It is not even close, forget the huge gap in 1500M bests, Farah was an all time kicker in Championships comps. OMG, such a stupid and poorly thought out post.
Are you serious or trolling me?
Either way put up 20 data points for Mo Farah at his peak in a 200m race, 10 meter splits.
Put yer money where yer mouth is.
08 -
High hopes wrote:
rojo wrote:
I'm amazed by comments like this. THe US just hasn't 'figured out' the marathon (except when an African-born runner like Khannouchi sets a WR for us). The Japanese just haven't figured out mid-d or anyting on the track (except when they are coaching Kenyans on the track).
It's GENETICS people. If I had to guess, I'd say Americans are too big for the marathon. Wikipedia says Kipchoge is 5'6 and Bekele is 5'5". Most American men distance runnners are much bigger than that. Much.
The people who hadn't figure out the marathon were the Kenyans up until the mid 1990s. Now they dominate it.
And I'm amazed by how you completely refuse to update your priors on this and so confidently shout about genetics. The weight of scientific evidence shows that genetics is NOT the reason East Africans do so well at distance running. The best you can say is that we can't completely rule out genetics but almost all the evidence suggests otherwise. Some summaries and a paper here:
I get why people might think it's about genes, it's a logical hypothesis to test. But this it the point of science: you devise a hypothesis built on a logical theory and test it. The genetics hypothesis has been tested over and over and has been found wanting. So, science moves on to find a better hypothesis. You don't just cling to a belief because it's comforting.
This.
The lack of rigorous thinking is mind boggling. Here’s another that found elite cyclists and runners at the international level tend to have certain genotypes more frequently than a control group, regardless of ethnicity.
Obvious methodological flaws aside, it furthers High hopes point that the weight of scientific evidence suggests that East African runners are not faster due to genetics.
20 -
realistic wrote:
king999 wrote:
Did someone on page 1 actually say Scott had more speed than Farah? They should lose their posting privileges.
It is not even close, forget the huge gap in 1500M bests, Farah was an all time kicker in Championships comps. OMG, such a stupid and poorly thought out post.
Are you serious or trolling me?
Either way put up 20 data points for Mo Farah at his peak in a 200m race, 10 meter splits.
Put yer money where yer mouth is.
So 10m is now your arbitrary measurement distance for determining 5k/10k potential?
00 -
logically wrote:
realistic wrote:
Are you serious or trolling me?
Either way put up 20 data points for Mo Farah at his peak in a 200m race, 10 meter splits.
Put yer money where yer mouth is.
So 10m is now your arbitrary measurement distance for determining 5k/10k potential?
Work on your reading comprehension.
02 -
And here's another just for Rojo: it actually identifies potential candidate genes to test for future studies since no one has been able to identify an "East African" gene that makes them better at distance running.
But note this conclusion:
"Finally, we argue that a deterministic relationship between genetics and sports must be avoided, as it is both scientifically incorrect and prone to reinforcing population (racial) stereotyping."
This post was edited 19 seconds after it was posted.00 -
logically wrote:
High hopes wrote:
And I'm amazed by how you completely refuse to update your priors on this and so confidently shout about genetics. The weight of scientific evidence shows that genetics is NOT the reason East Africans do so well at distance running. The best you can say is that we can't completely rule out genetics but almost all the evidence suggests otherwise. Some summaries and a paper here:
I get why people might think it's about genes, it's a logical hypothesis to test. But this it the point of science: you devise a hypothesis built on a logical theory and test it. The genetics hypothesis has been tested over and over and has been found wanting. So, science moves on to find a better hypothesis. You don't just cling to a belief because it's comforting.
This.
The lack of rigorous thinking is mind boggling. Here’s another that found elite cyclists and runners at the international level tend to have certain genotypes more frequently than a control group, regardless of ethnicity.
Obvious methodological flaws aside, it furthers High hopes point that the weight of scientific evidence suggests that East African runners are not faster due to genetics.
Contradict yourself much?
01 -
realistic wrote:
logically wrote:
So 10m is now your arbitrary measurement distance for determining 5k/10k potential?
Work on your reading comprehension.
Let’s make sure I’m comprehending: you made an objective claim on comparative raw speed between two runners. Then, when it’s pointed out you can’t do that because you don’t have data for each runner, you resort to appeals to authority, a logical fallacy. Then, when someone else challenges your argument you ask them to provide the quantitative data you yourself don’t have, or their challenge is meaningless.
All of this on top of the truly ridiculous argument that raw speed measured over an arbitrary distance is a good predictor of 5k/10k potential. Does DK Metcalf have greater potential at the 5k than Mo because he can cover 10m quicker?
Can you comprehend that?
10 -
More likely hypotheses for East African dominance:
1. Born, living and training at altitude - a 2-3 month altitude camp is not the same as living there and working out there your whole life.
2. The All Black effect - you think New Zealanders are genetically predisposed to being great Rugby Union players? No. Kiwi kids look at the TV and who are the best and most famous athletes around? The All Blacks. Kenyan kids look at the TV and who are the best and most famous athletes? Distance runners.
3. Desire/need - running is possibly the best opportunity available for young Kenyans to make a lot of money. US and Europeans have so many other opportunities. Plus, Kenyans need to win to get paid. No six-figure sponsorship deals to sit in Flagstaff and run 2:10 for those guys.
I don't know if any of these would work out, but they're better prospects than genetics based on current evidence
40 -
High hopes wrote:
And here's another just for Rojo: it actually identifies potential candidate genes to test for future studies since no one has been able to identify an "East African" gene that makes them better at distance running.
But note this conclusion:
"Finally, we argue that a deterministic relationship between genetics and sports must be avoided, as it is both scientifically incorrect and prone to reinforcing population (racial) stereotyping."
Good, so back to the old standard measurements that have been used for the past 50+ years. But they still have obvious genetic components, so rojo's point is still valid
00 -
High hopes wrote:
More likely hypotheses for East African dominance:
1. Born, living and training at altitude - a 2-3 month altitude camp is not the same as living there and working out there your whole life.
2. The All Black effect - you think New Zealanders are genetically predisposed to being great Rugby Union players? No. Kiwi kids look at the TV and who are the best and most famous athletes around? The All Blacks. Kenyan kids look at the TV and who are the best and most famous athletes? Distance runners.
3. Desire/need - running is possibly the best opportunity available for young Kenyans to make a lot of money. US and Europeans have so many other opportunities. Plus, Kenyans need to win to get paid. No six-figure sponsorship deals to sit in Flagstaff and run 2:10 for those guys.
I don't know if any of these would work out, but they're better prospects than genetics based on current evidence
All of these plus make way more sense! To add on to your second and third point, there are likely far more sub-elite (though I can’t prove it) runners training extremely hard as a result. At some point it could be a numbers game. Huge attrition rates, but with higher sample size comes higher observed success.
10 -
High hopes wrote:
More likely hypotheses for East African dominance:
1. Born, living and training at altitude - a 2-3 month altitude camp is not the same as living there and working out there your whole life.
2. The All Black effect - you think New Zealanders are genetically predisposed to being great Rugby Union players? No. Kiwi kids look at the TV and who are the best and most famous athletes around? The All Blacks. Kenyan kids look at the TV and who are the best and most famous athletes? Distance runners.
3. Desire/need - running is possibly the best opportunity available for young Kenyans to make a lot of money. US and Europeans have so many other opportunities. Plus, Kenyans need to win to get paid. No six-figure sponsorship deals to sit in Flagstaff and run 2:10 for those guys.
I don't know if any of these would work out, but they're better prospects than genetics based on current evidence
If baby Mantz was adopted by a single mom in Nandi county and grew up poor, running to and from school 2-3 mi each way since he was 5, he’d be able to break 2:07.
00 -
realistic wrote:
logically wrote:
This.
The lack of rigorous thinking is mind boggling. Here’s another that found elite cyclists and runners at the international level tend to have certain genotypes more frequently than a control group, regardless of ethnicity.
Obvious methodological flaws aside, it furthers High hopes point that the weight of scientific evidence suggests that East African runners are not faster due to genetics.
Contradict yourself much?
Doesn’t contradict. Elite athletes- regardless of ethnicity- tend to have certain genes/alleles present. The studies found statistically similar prevalence in Caucasian athletes as in East African athletes.
This suggests that East Africans are not faster due to genetics.
00 -
logically wrote:
realistic wrote:
Contradict yourself much?
Doesn’t contradict. Elite athletes- regardless of ethnicity- tend to have certain genes/alleles present. The studies found statistically similar prevalence in Caucasian athletes as in East African athletes.
This suggests that East Africans are not faster due to genetics.
Logical fallacy. Think before you post.
rojo's point is valid. Do you really think that body mass (regardless of ethnicity) doesn't have a genetic component?
00 -
Wise Old Man wrote:
High hopes wrote:
More likely hypotheses for East African dominance:
1. Born, living and training at altitude - a 2-3 month altitude camp is not the same as living there and working out there your whole life.
2. The All Black effect - you think New Zealanders are genetically predisposed to being great Rugby Union players? No. Kiwi kids look at the TV and who are the best and most famous athletes around? The All Blacks. Kenyan kids look at the TV and who are the best and most famous athletes? Distance runners.
3. Desire/need - running is possibly the best opportunity available for young Kenyans to make a lot of money. US and Europeans have so many other opportunities. Plus, Kenyans need to win to get paid. No six-figure sponsorship deals to sit in Flagstaff and run 2:10 for those guys.
I don't know if any of these would work out, but they're better prospects than genetics based on current evidence
If baby Mantz was adopted by a single mom in Nandi county and grew up poor, running to and from school 2-3 mi each way since he was 5, he’d be able to break 2:07.
Well, that's the entirely unethical but ideal experiment we'd need to do to test that! But you'd do it with an entire cohort rather than just one kid.
10 -
realistic wrote:
logically wrote:
Doesn’t contradict. Elite athletes- regardless of ethnicity- tend to have certain genes/alleles present. The studies found statistically similar prevalence in Caucasian athletes as in East African athletes.
This suggests that East Africans are not faster due to genetics.
Logical fallacy. Think before you post.
rojo's point is valid. Do you really think that body mass (regardless of ethnicity) doesn't have a genetic component?
Genuinely curious what's so difficult to understand. Or are you upset?
I have a rock. You have the same rock. I can throw it farther. All else equal, we then can conclude that the difference in results is not due to the rock.
Body mass is a fair point, but numerous studies attempting to link BMI and race/ethnicity find a weak to moderate correlation. A more likely explanation is environment and diet.
This post was edited 4 minutes after it was posted.00 -
logically wrote:
realistic wrote:
Work on your reading comprehension.
Let’s make sure I’m comprehending: you made an objective claim on comparative raw speed between two runners. Then, when it’s pointed out you can’t do that because you don’t have data for each runner, you resort to appeals to authority, a logical fallacy. Then, when someone else challenges your argument you ask them to provide the quantitative data you yourself don’t have, or their challenge is meaningless.
All of this on top of the truly ridiculous argument that raw speed measured over an arbitrary distance is a good predictor of 5k/10k potential. Does DK Metcalf have greater potential at the 5k than Mo because he can cover 10m quicker?
Can you comprehend that?
I'm asking you or anyone else to put up your hypothetical splits for Mo Farah running a 200m race.
Just do some critical thinking, put some numbers up to back up your claims.
04 -
logically wrote:
realistic wrote:
Logical fallacy. Think before you post.
rojo's point is valid. Do you really think that body mass (regardless of ethnicity) doesn't have a genetic component?
Genuinely curious what's so difficult to understand. Or are you upset?
I have a rock. You have the same rock. I can throw it farther. All else equal, we then can conclude that the difference in results is not due to the rock.
You proposed a logical fallacy. Read carefully.
00
What People Are Talking About On LetsRun
No top threads at the moment. Check back soon.