How does Wetmore do it?

idiot alert wrote:

]

Either you´re trolling, or you´re a complete retard.

Actually I was employing a literary device known as sarcasm, which is extremely common in everyday discourse but eludes the majority of the breathless and reactive visitors to this intellectually barren waste of server space. So in a sense I was trolling for "complete retards," and have therefore covered all of the bases in your proposal above.

I know I shouldn't waste my time arguing the finer points of any of this with ttc. If he were correct, a disproportionate number of successful distance runners would be natives of Albuquerque, the Denver-Boulder metro area, Colorado Springs, and other U.S. cities located at high altitude. This is plainly not the case. And as Sagarin and others have pointed out, Wetmore has done a lot more than others with the same purported advantage altitude yields, so that one would be a wash even if ttc were correct. (I don't doubt that over many generations, adaptations of high-altitude dwellers play a significant role in engendering distance-running talent, but that's not what's at issue here.)

ttc at least knows that he's trolling, but apparently you favor ADD punch-and-run over considered thought.

I covered the part about other schools @ altitude too, in my first thread post. But I've already won this, since the only replies are going against long acceptance, that altitude isn't a proven big deal.

Troll means not sticking with the subject, to create other rift raft. I've stuck with the subject, while you guys haven't. Wetmore, as I said in my first post, is good but has huge advantages. Reread my first post.

So why was Mark Wetmore's coaching so thoroughly dominant at Bernard's High School in sea-level New Jersey?

Ask Wetmore himself how he feels about altitude. You will probably be surprised to find out he is not a fan.

"Nike has outfitted the bedrooms of its athletes to make them altitude chambers, Salazar said, adding that about 40 percent of the athletes increase their red-blood-cell count as a result."

"Altitude training is absolutely essential. Any athlete who wants to be competitive in the world scene would have to move to altitude."

-Alberto Salazar.

Training at elevation is a disadvantage, but living at elevation, the other 22 hours a day, is an advantage

-Mark Wetmore.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/26/sports/othersports/26altitude.html?pagewanted=print

http://www.tips4running.com/Mark-Wetmore-Interview.html

I was under the impression Ritz ran about 80mpw his senior year of high school. At least that's what he has said in multiple interviews. I think that is a good amount... I wouldn't want to recruit a kid who ran more then that, probably.

And to everyone arguing semantics... of course Wetmore would take a footlocker finalist if they wanted to come to CU. And of course he is also trying to find the diamonds in the rough... the 30-40 mpw guys who still run really well. That doesn't mean he wants every footlocker finalist, or that he aggressively pursues them or seeks then out. I'm sure he looks at some, dismisses others, based on what he thinks he can get out of them. Some of that may be based on nothing more then just a feeling.

Anyway, I would take a 30-40 mpw guy who ran 4:14 over a Kenny Comier any day of the week and twice on Sunday. I'm sure Wetmore would as well.

I'm sure each case is different. Wetmore is comfortable and confident with developing talent. But he has proven he can take a top flight guy and make them even better.

Dude is a one of the best distance coaches in the country, that's for sure. But like any other coach, you're going to have your success and your failures. Much of that, though, has to do with the athlete.

yeah dude exactly this is what ppl are trying to tell you. live high train low. it isn't "long accepted" that training at altitude is the best. this is still a topic of debate, with just living high and training low winning. Wetmore did say that living at elevation is great, but training there is not great. salazar is talking about artificially replicating the effects of EPO without taking it, of course that is good. at altitude It takes longer to recover, you can't hit the anaerobic system, etc etc. None of your links or quotes negate what people are trying to tell you, but prove them. so thank you for this, but if you tried for one second to understand you wouldn't be fighting everyone.

mamayneman wrote:

yeah dude exactly this is what ppl are trying to tell you. live high train low. it isn't "long accepted" that training at altitude is the best. this is still a topic of debate, with just living high and training low winning. Wetmore did say that living at elevation is great, but training there is not great. salazar is talking about artificially replicating the effects of EPO without taking it, of course that is good. at altitude It takes longer to recover, you can't hit the anaerobic system, etc etc. None of your links or quotes negate what people are trying to tell you, but prove them. so thank you for this, but if you tried for one second to understand you wouldn't be fighting everyone.

I agree with all of this except for your last sentence -- ttc's sole purpose is to fight everyone. A more artful quote-miner would not have blasted his own foot off by making his opponents' point for them so clearly.

Anyway, here's a study offering evidence of the superiority of live high-train low to live high-train high in relatively fast runners:

"Both altitude groups significantly increased V˙O 2 max(5%) in direct proportion to an increase in red cell mass volume (9%; r = 0.37,P < 0.05), neither of which changed in the control. Five-kilometer time was improved by the field training camp only in the high-low group"

You guys are the ones fighting. I made a training-only post, and you guys started fighting and trolling. I didn't troll. When I said Stember's executive career is to be admired, you guys fought and trolled. I didn't. You guys suddenly 'un' believe in altitude & an exec. career to be trolls and fight. Guaranteed you guys will have zero substance for replies here. Guaranteed. Trolls lack substance.

I'd like to point out that you don't get the same effects training at altitude that you get from taking EPO.

Altitude will take your hemocrit from 41% to 42%

EPO will take it from 41% to 49%

ttc wrote:

"Nike has outfitted the bedrooms of its athletes to make them altitude chambers, Salazar said, adding that about 40 percent of the athletes increase their red-blood-cell count as a result."

"Altitude training is absolutely essential. Any athlete who wants to be competitive in the world scene would have to move to altitude."

-Alberto Salazar.

Training at elevation is a disadvantage, but living at elevation, the other 22 hours a day, is an advantage

-Mark Wetmore.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/26/sports/othersports/26altitude.html?pagewanted=printhttp://www.tips4running.com/Mark-Wetmore-Interview.html

I like how you excluded the 40% of athletes show increased red blood cell count. Meaning 60% are wasting their time and making their training unnecessarily hard.

With Wetmore's comment, living at altitude is an advantage but you can't train as hard or recover as well. Isn't that kind of a wash?

I also know you won't acknowledge it, but I've heard the phrase "altitude is overrated" come out of Wetmore's mouth first-hand.

ttc wrote:

When I said Stember's executive career is to be admired, you guys fought and trolled. I didn't. You guys suddenly 'un' believe in altitude & an exec. career

The last refuge of the idiot and unrepentant troll: change the subject and hope no one notices or cares. You fail on the first point but you're correct on the second.