He's got a lot of the best athletes all training together
He's got a lot of the best athletes all training together
saturdays at hayward wrote:
If the claim isn't falsifiable, don't make it, because it's pointless and intellectually vapid.
Well, I don't agree with that. But perhaps more to the point, what claims are you asserting aren't falsifiable?
I have no problem with anyone claiming, for example, that Lance Armstrong has a long history of doping. (In fact, I tend to think that anyone who believes otherwise is a bit of a dope.) I have a different view about those who claim that Al's runners are dopers, but that's not because of a difference in "falsifiability." It's because I'm not persuaded by the evidence that I've seen, and I don't trust the people who are claiming inside information.
As I said earlier, however, I'd like to know more about who is doing what. I'd just rather root for athletes who achieve performances through low-tech training instead of high-tech assistance. It's not a matter of ethics. If I were still competing, I'm pretty sure that I'd have my own "altitude tent," "hypoxic chamber," or nitrogen-doping system, because I'm confident that it would enhance my performance and it's not currently a banned practice. But as a fan of the sport, I don't really want to see that kind of conduct succeed. Others may feel otherwise.
Avocados Number wrote:
I'd just rather root for athletes who achieve performances through low-tech training instead of high-tech assistance. It's not a matter of ethics. If I were still competing, I'm pretty sure that I'd have my own "altitude tent," "hypoxic chamber," or nitrogen-doping system, because I'm confident that it would enhance my performance and it's not currently a banned practice. But as a fan of the sport, I don't really want to see that kind of conduct succeed. Others may feel otherwise.
That sounds like hypocracy.
Stolen Bikes Ride Faster wrote:
King Maker wrote:Why does every athlete seem to be making such remarkable strides under Alberto that they were never able to make under their previous coaches? Not implying anything(seriously), what does he do so differently?
Alberto has his athletes run, other coaches have them do cross fit.
Seriously though, from what I understand he has his athletes do everything to the edge of the law/rules. Constant blood work. Thyroid levels a little low/high...bam, thyroid meds (all registered with WADA, IAAF, USATF, etc). Testosterone levels a bit below what the rules allow...bam, testosterone meds (all registered with WADA).
Testosterone is not registered as acceptable with WADA. Are you saying they supplement to the point where their epi/t ratio is under the limit?
Same thing Arturo Barios' coach figured out in the 80's.
What has Alberto figured out?
1. Continuous training yields gains. Injuries interrupt continuity.
2. Science works. If we can use it to put a man on the moon, we can use it for injury prevention.
3. Quality>volume
4. If you want footspeed, you must run fast to be fast. No amount of overdistance will make you sprint faster. A little maintenance of your top speed goes a long way.
5. Lydiard is overrated.
6. Peter Coe is underrated.
7. Hook 'em while they're young
Exactly!!! The unfortunate part is so few distance coaches actually understand the above points!
the dude with the funny hat wrote:
I will say that salazar seems to really consider the training of each individual athlete carefully. And he makes sure every session counts.
For instance he was saying how Ritz was doing 85 mpw this spring and he thinks that's excellent base for NYC Marathon.
Can you imagine hearing something like that at the Hansons? (not to pick on the Hansons, I'm sure other pro groups are like this too). These other groups just figure more training is better training; 120-160 mpw, crazy-long interval sessions, everyone runs as a group and does their best to keep up.
And I mean that Hansons approach 'works' for 1 out of every 10 guys (Sell 2:10, Arcianaga 2:11 although he doesn't train with them any more). But Salazar can't afford low success rates like that. He's got many of our best guys and girls in his hands. He's got to make sure they all achieve their potential.
I know that 85 mpw seems low, but I would be shocked if that includes time spent on the alter-G. There could be another 40-80 miles ran on the alter-G at a lower body weight percentage a wasn't included in that 85mpw mentioned.
Ruppster wrote:
Maybe the odds are not as wild as we think. Maybe you really CAN take the fittest kid on the soccer field or the fastest kid in the gym class mile, give him world class training, and in 4 years produce a 13:37 guy and in 8 years have him down to 27:10. Maybe people with world class potential are more common than we think.
We are a nation with a population of over 300 million people... just from a numerical standpoint, I believe that this must be the case.
Live Low
Train High
= american records
But you have to notice, "LOW" mileage and focusing on quality is 85 mpw. I can see HS runners doing 20 mpw now because these pros are focusing on "quality."
I agree that in the effort and push back from the no mileage & all quality philosophy of the 90's left something back there: speed! You need both to run fast distance races. 8 x 400 at 60 seconds isn't going to get you a fast 5k either.
But you also have to ask yourself, great coach or just great athletes. Easy to be a good coach when you get all the best athletes. How would he do with less talented runners. Could he turn a 31 min 10k runner to sub 29?
There are some great points being made. I particularly like the "hook them while they're young" someone wrote. It is a fact that basically every distance coach in the US has no long term plan for his athletes. That is a recipe for failure!
Am I remembering right that Ritzenhein included a sports psychologist in his credits when he began improving? Also that Salazar employs psychologists as a rule? From my experience inside the sport and also observing from the outside, psychological health is another aspect of training programs that is almost totally overlooked. In colleges where the resources are freely available there is no excuse for that.
Obviously a lot of people are jealous of Salazar. He is a great trendsetter who is succeeding.
Avocados Number wrote:
saturdays at hayward wrote:If the claim isn't falsifiable, don't make it, because it's pointless and intellectually vapid.
Well, I don't agree with that. But perhaps more to the point, what claims are you asserting aren't falsifiable?
I have no problem with anyone claiming, for example, that Lance Armstrong has a long history of doping. (In fact, I tend to think that anyone who believes otherwise is a bit of a dope.) I have a different view about those who claim that Al's runners are dopers, but that's not because of a difference in "falsifiability." It's because I'm not persuaded by the evidence that I've seen, and I don't trust the people who are claiming inside information.
As I said earlier, however, I'd like to know more about who is doing what. I'd just rather root for athletes who achieve performances through low-tech training instead of high-tech assistance. It's not a matter of ethics. If I were still competing, I'm pretty sure that I'd have my own "altitude tent," "hypoxic chamber," or nitrogen-doping system, because I'm confident that it would enhance my performance and it's not currently a banned practice. But as a fan of the sport, I don't really want to see that kind of conduct succeed. Others may feel otherwise.
I have absolutely no problem with altitude tents and A LOT of top runners use them, not just the ones who make our world and olympic teams but the second tier guys too.
They are really only effective if you know how to use them right however and they should be used religiously. Otherwise it's a lot like taking a multi-vitamin 1-3 days a week with no regularity and pissing away your money.
Altitidude tents take discipline and are not convenient, especially if you have a love life. I can't see any reason they should be banned since in order to be effective you have to sacrifice quite a bit. You don't want to go out drinking and come home with that thing set at 12,000 feet or you may wind up in the hospital. Anyone using them to the effect where they are seeing the benefits deserve it in my mind.
It's a lot different then a quick injection of a PED.
RICH KAY wrote:
What has Alberto figured out?
1. Continuous training yields gains. Injuries interrupt continuity.
2. Science works. If we can use it to put a man on the moon, we can use it for injury prevention.
3. Quality>volume
4. If you want footspeed, you must run fast to be fast. No amount of overdistance will make you sprint faster. A little maintenance of your top speed goes a long way.
5. Lydiard is overrated.
6. Peter Coe is underrated.
7. Hook 'em while they're young
Exactly!!! The unfortunate part is so few distance coaches actually understand the above points!
Totally agree with everything except "Lydiard is overrated", he was often misunderstood but never overrated!!!
critical thought needed wrote:
Altitidude tents take discipline and are not convenient, especially if you have a love life. I can't see any reason they should be banned since in order to be effective you have to sacrifice quite a bit. You don't want to go out drinking and come home with that thing set at 12,000 feet or you may wind up in the hospital. Anyone using them to the effect where they are seeing the benefits deserve it in my mind.
It's a lot different then a quick injection of a PED.
Actually, there's a very good argument (based on economic, game-theoretic, collective-action principles) that inconvenient, risky, expensive procedures are precisely the kinds of things that should be banned.
The best reason I know of for NOT banning so-called "altitude tents" is that such a ban would be difficult to enforce. When you have unenforceable proscriptions of competitively advantageous practices, you tend to get what Akerlof famously referred to as a "market for lemons," where the bad actors displace the good actors.
The people who are saying, "Salazar's success comes from coaching talented athletes, so this shows he isn't that great of a coach," are not using their brains.
Take Mark Wetmore for example. He has shown the ability to turn mediocre high school runners into All-Americans and turn very good high school runners into national champions. He does this through sheer hard work. But has he shown the ability to coach a world class runner? No, because that involves a different, more intricate, individualized coaching philosophy. This is what Salazar is proving to be effective at.
It's like the difference between Larry Brown and Phil Jackson. Both are great coaches, but in different ways. Larry Brown takes mediocre teams and makes them competitive. Jackson takes competitive teams, with ultra-talent, and makes them champions. Larry Brown would not be successful coaching the teams Jackson coaches and Jackson would not have the same success coaching Brown's teams. Brown's coaching is more about hard, physical work. Jackson's approach is more about the psychological melding of egos.
Different levels require different mindsets with coaches. Pretty simple.
Avocados Number wrote:
critical thought needed wrote:Altitidude tents take discipline and are not convenient, especially if you have a love life. I can't see any reason they should be banned since in order to be effective you have to sacrifice quite a bit. You don't want to go out drinking and come home with that thing set at 12,000 feet or you may wind up in the hospital. Anyone using them to the effect where they are seeing the benefits deserve it in my mind.
It's a lot different then a quick injection of a PED.
Actually, there's a very good argument (based on economic, game-theoretic, collective-action principles) that inconvenient, risky, expensive procedures are precisely the kinds of things that should be banned.
The best reason I know of for NOT banning so-called "altitude tents" is that such a ban would be difficult to enforce. When you have unenforceable proscriptions of competitively advantageous practices, you tend to get what Akerlof famously referred to as a "market for lemons," where the bad actors displace the good actors.
Then we need to require all humans to mix into one race, be born at the same elevation and train on the same facilities with the same coaches and nutrition, else certain people will be given advantages.
Is he still heavily involved with leading EPO expert Dr Stray-Gunderson?
trollism wrote:
Is he still heavily involved with leading EPO expert Dr Stray-Gunderson?
Probably, why wouldn't he want the best advice on alititude and the live high - train low model and it's affects on EPO? Ohh, wait, you are prolly assuming synthetic EPO is their angle rather than maximizing the natural EPO produced in the body the way Kenyans and Ethiopians do.
Hehe. I guess you're right.
White americans don't do that sort of naughty thing. It's just not in their genetics.
Salazar knew a thing about the old autologous blood transfusion back in the day. Oh, and guess what? It's still as effective and it's still impossible to detect.
trollism wrote:
Hehe. I guess you're right.
White americans don't do that sort of naughty thing. It's just not in their genetics.
Salazar knew a thing about the old autologous blood transfusion back in the day. Oh, and guess what? It's still as effective and it's still impossible to detect.
Excuse my ignorance please, but does that mean that Salazar would consider blood doping acceptable if it enabled one of his athletes to raise their hemoglobin or hematocrit by a few points??...because he perceived it to be on the "low end"
That is what the so-called gray area is all about.