Is East African Distance Runnng Superiority a myth & actually fuelled by EPO

reagvb wrote:

Barrel of Laughs wrote:

+1

Too funny - those are dopey handles! ?

Subway and Coevett, read about ideal altitude for "altitude training" and then realize what a pair of imbecile, ignorant morons you are.

Thank you.⬅I live in my mother's basement and worship Karl Marx

So 13 minutes before you posted this I wrote, "That's the thing, all these people live at altitude near the equator. One theory is that Andean and Himalayan peoples live at too high of an altitude when the sweet spot is 1600m-2300m above sea level."

However, there are cities like Calama in Northern Chile that is 2,230m yet no known running greats, actually Addis Ababa is a higher altitude. It's all about running and epo helps you run all day.

rekrunner wrote:

I thought David Epstein did a thorough job in the Sports Gene explaining how altitude, along with several other factors combined to for beneficial conditions for Kenyan populations. There is a kind of "sweet spot" where too high is too high.

Another factor was that Kenyans were Nilotic tribes (tall and skinny) which migrated to altitude relatively recently.

Hope I didn't recall that wrong -- it's been a while since I read the book.

That's the thing, all these people live at altitude near the equator. One theory is that Andean and Himalayan peoples live at too high of an altitude when the sweet spot is 1600m-2300m above sea level.

[/quote]

If I can recall properly Epstein said the genetic markers for East African runners that separated them from the rest of their populations were no different for runners from Western countries, the same with West African/Caribbean sprinters.

I stopped taking Epstein overly seriously when claimed at a TEDx talk that Jesse Owens (almost certainly a clean athlete by modern standards) would nearly beat Usain Bolt in a 100m race and based this on a study saying 1.5% gain from cinders to synthetic but Bolt did 9.58 and Owens did 10.3ht which isn't even close.

Doesn't Epstein worship Paula?

Subway Surfers wrote:

rekrunner wrote:

I thought David Epstein did a thorough job in the Sports Gene explaining how altitude, along with several other factors combined to for beneficial conditions for Kenyan populations. There is a kind of "sweet spot" where too high is too high.

Another factor was that Kenyans were Nilotic tribes (tall and skinny) which migrated to altitude relatively recently.

Hope I didn't recall that wrong -- it's been a while since I read the book.

That's the thing, all these people live at altitude near the equator. One theory is that Andean and Himalayan peoples live at too high of an altitude when the sweet spot is 1600m-2300m above sea level.

If I can recall properly Epstein said the genetic markers for East African runners that separated them from the rest of their populations were no different for runners from Western countries, the same with West African/Caribbean sprinters.

I stopped taking Epstein overly seriously when claimed at a TEDx talk that Jesse Owens (almost certainly a clean athlete by modern standards) would nearly beat Usain Bolt in a 100m race and based this on a study saying 1.5% gain from cinders to synthetic but Bolt did 9.58 and Owens did 10.3ht which isn't even close.

Doesn't Epstein worship Paula?[/quote]

I cringe when thoughtful individuals on letsrun go back and forth quoting David Epstein. Why would anyone think Epstein has superior insight regarding anthropology, bio-chemistry or anything running related? Epstein majored in journalism, if I recall. He was never an elite athlete. He was never a coach of notable accomplishment. Epstein is just a guy with an opinion. Regarding Epstein's comments on Jesse Owens: Those comments seem to be based on personal admiration more than facts. The cinder tracks and weight of the heavy shoes changed very little from 1936 to 1960. Wearing heavy shoes and racing on cinder track, Bob Hayes raced FAT 10.03 100m. That's a better conversation: Hayes v. Bolt.

ironside wrote:

Subway Surfers wrote:

If I can recall properly Epstein said the genetic markers for East African runners that separated them from the rest of their populations were no different for runners from Western countries, the same with West African/Caribbean sprinters.

I stopped taking Epstein overly seriously when claimed at a TEDx talk that Jesse Owens (almost certainly a clean athlete by modern standards) would nearly beat Usain Bolt in a 100m race and based this on a study saying 1.5% gain from cinders to synthetic but Bolt did 9.58 and Owens did 10.3ht which isn't even close.

Doesn't Epstein worship Paula?

I cringe when thoughtful individuals on letsrun go back and forth quoting David Epstein. Why would anyone think Epstein has superior insight regarding anthropology, bio-chemistry or anything running related? Epstein majored in journalism, if I recall. He was never an elite athlete. He was never a coach of notable accomplishment. Epstein is just a guy with an opinion. Regarding Epstein's comments on Jesse Owens: Those comments seem to be based on personal admiration more than facts. The cinder tracks and weight of the heavy shoes changed very little from 1936 to 1960. Wearing heavy shoes and racing on cinder track, Bob Hayes raced FAT 10.03 100m. That's a better conversation: Hayes v. Bolt.[/quote]Perhaps rekrunner needs to understand that. He endorses that book; "The Sports Gene," and abruptly told me to read the book when I asked what he credits the big 3%+ improvement in the 3/5/10 & marathon seen with the E. Africans post-90s, reference his statistical analysis. If it was all genetics stimulated by some new revolutionary training (altitude or whatever rekrunner claims) that the Kenyans just developed in the post-90s era, then why are their times in the 3, 5 & 10 slowed down considerably over the past several years coinciding with better testing & the implementation of the ABP? For example, why hasn't some genetically-superior Kenyan beaten Komen's sizzling 3k WR set in the late 90s? ?

ironside wrote:

I cringe when thoughtful individuals on letsrun go back and forth quoting David Epstein. Why would anyone think Epstein has superior insight regarding anthropology, bio-chemistry or anything running related? Epstein majored in journalism, if I recall. He was never an elite athlete. He was never a coach of notable accomplishment. Epstein is just a guy with an opinion. Regarding Epstein's comments on Jesse Owens: Those comments seem to be based on personal admiration more than facts. The cinder tracks and weight of the heavy shoes changed very little from 1936 to 1960. Wearing heavy shoes and racing on cinder track, Bob Hayes raced FAT 10.03 100m. That's a better conversation: Hayes v. Bolt.

Reposted from previous:

Perhaps rekrunner needs to understand that. He endorses that book; "The Sports Gene," and abruptly told me to read the book when I asked what he credits the big 3%+ improvement in the 3/5/10 & marathon seen with the E. Africans post-90s, reference his statistical analysis. If it was all genetics stimulated by some new revolutionary training (altitude or whatever rekrunner claims) that the Kenyans just developed in the post-90s era, then why are their times in the 3, 5 & 10 slowed down considerably over the past several years coinciding with better testing & the implementation of the ABP? For example, why hasn't some genetically-superior Kenyan beaten Komen's sizzling 3k WR set in the late 90s? ?

ironside wrote:

Subway Surfers wrote:

If I can recall properly Epstein said the genetic markers for East African runners that separated them from the rest of their populations were no different for runners from Western countries, the same with West African/Caribbean sprinters.

I stopped taking Epstein overly seriously when claimed at a TEDx talk that Jesse Owens (almost certainly a clean athlete by modern standards) would nearly beat Usain Bolt in a 100m race and based this on a study saying 1.5% gain from cinders to synthetic but Bolt did 9.58 and Owens did 10.3ht which isn't even close.

Doesn't Epstein worship Paula?

I cringe when thoughtful individuals on letsrun go back and forth quoting David Epstein. Why would anyone think Epstein has superior insight regarding anthropology, bio-chemistry or anything running related? Epstein majored in journalism, if I recall. He was never an elite athlete. He was never a coach of notable accomplishment. Epstein is just a guy with an opinion. Regarding Epstein's comments on Jesse Owens: Those comments seem to be based on personal admiration more than facts. The cinder tracks and weight of the heavy shoes changed very little from 1936 to 1960. Wearing heavy shoes and racing on cinder track, Bob Hayes raced FAT 10.03 100m. That's a better conversation: Hayes v. Bolt.[/quote]

Well firstly I'm sceptical of the stuff he has published (that I've seen, I thought I conveyed that). I generally agree with you on Hayes but I would point out that times run on hard clay by Hines (10.03) are probably as good as the times on synthetic tracks at altitude in 1968, it seems synthetic tracks help for events from 200m up. Owens actually compares very well with modern athletes, not for the sprints but long jump (as does Boston).

Do you have criticisms of what he wrote about Kenyans in the Sports Gene? I don't expect journalists to be experts in other fields. I expect a journalist major to seek and publish information from those with "superior insight regarding anthropology, bio-chemistry or anything running related". "The Sports Gene" wasn't an opinion piece, and is surely more researched than most people here offering their opinions.

ironside wrote:

I cringe when thoughtful individuals on letsrun go back and forth quoting David Epstein. Why would anyone think Epstein has superior insight regarding anthropology, bio-chemistry or anything running related? Epstein majored in journalism, if I recall. He was never an elite athlete. He was never a coach of notable accomplishment. Epstein is just a guy with an opinion.

Understood. I'm pretty sure it's not the first time I've said that the money dried up on the track, so much of the talent skips the track and goes straight to the roads, eliminating rivalries, reducing competition, reducing the incentive, and the need to run faster to win. I'm usually pretty careful not to say superior genetics, because it's a combination of many factors: genetics, environment, training, and opportunity.

Let's Get To The Bottom Of This wrote:

Perhaps rekrunner needs to understand that. He endorses that book; "The Sports Gene," and abruptly told me to read the book when I asked what he credits the big 3%+ improvement in the 3/5/10 & marathon seen with the E. Africans post-90s, reference his statistical analysis. If it was all genetics stimulated by some new revolutionary training (altitude or whatever rekrunner claims) that the Kenyans just developed in the post-90s era, then why are their times in the 3, 5 & 10 slowed down considerably over the past several years coinciding with better testing & the implementation of the ABP? For example, why hasn't some genetically-superior Kenyan beaten Komen's sizzling 3k WR set in the late 90s? ?

rekrunner wrote:

Do you have criticisms of what he wrote about Kenyans in the Sports Gene? I don't expect journalists to be experts in other fields. I expect a journalist major to seek and publish information from those with "superior insight regarding anthropology, bio-chemistry or anything running related". "The Sports Gene" wasn't an opinion piece, and is surely more researched than most people here offering their opinions.

ironside wrote:

I cringe when thoughtful individuals on letsrun go back and forth quoting David Epstein. Why would anyone think Epstein has superior insight regarding anthropology, bio-chemistry or anything running related? Epstein majored in journalism, if I recall. He was never an elite athlete. He was never a coach of notable accomplishment. Epstein is just a guy with an opinion.

Epstein's book was an opinion piece. There are numerous books written by physiologists and coaches. It makes sense when those books are debated. Epstein's book were his opinions.

Latent Sickle Cell Anemia for why US blacks do not win Olympic medals in 1500m. A bunch of nonsense. Many or most US blacks do not historically feel comfortable logging mileage in rural US for reasons which have nothing to do with latent Sickle Cell Anemia.

Epstein's statements on "African body build" were nonsense. Epstein stated Maasai Tribe body build. Shorter Kenyans also do well.

I see no value quoting Epstein. I find it intellectually lazy quoting Epstein. Quoting experts makes sense. Epstein has no running and no fitness expertise.

You look like you are shooting the messenger -- do you have any substantial criticisms? I didn't actually quote Epstein, but referred you to a chapter in his book where he covers the topic extensively. Epstein is just relaying the ideas of other experts -- I attribute the value of what Epstein writes, not to Epstein, but to these experts. Do you think there is something he overlooked? Did he misquote or misrepresent the experts? Of course other body builds (e.g. Ethiopians) also do well, but this doesn't mean that "Nilotic tribes" body build is nonsense, just that it is a partial answer.

ironside wrote:

Epstein's book was an opinion piece. There are numerous books written by physiologists and coaches. It makes sense when those books are debated. Epstein's book were his opinions.

Latent Sickle Cell Anemia for why US blacks do not win Olympic medals in 1500m. A bunch of nonsense. Many or most US blacks do not historically feel comfortable logging mileage in rural US for reasons which have nothing to do with latent Sickle Cell Anemia.

Epstein's statements on "African body build" were nonsense. Epstein stated Maasai Tribe body build. Shorter Kenyans also do well.

I see no value quoting Epstein. I find it intellectually lazy quoting Epstein. Quoting experts makes sense. Epstein has no running and no fitness expertise.

How come the original post by UkAthleticsCoach has been deleted???

Anyway, I was reading an interesting article from Sports Illustrated in the 1990s the other day. Includes Salazar voicing his opinion that the sudden improvement in (African) times was down to EPO. Also that Komen was bragging that he would be able to run the 5000 in 12:24.

i wish i had the news paper article on lance, right when he was coming back from his cancer and missing ball treatment...he specifically said that it was EPO that helped him get back into good health.....often times i have wondered if he used his testicular cancer as a masking of his doping....but what would that matter EPO doesnt work

"Is East African Distance Runnng Superiority a myth & actually fuelled by EPO "

No, it's definitely not a myth. Nobody questions that EPO and other PEDs also are important for the enormous domination of East African distance running - but doping by far is not the only reason for the thousands of great runners coming from East Africa over the decades.

The first Kenyans came to Europe to run internationally in the late 1950s.

Kenya became independent in 1963.

Already in 1965 the NR in the mens 5000m was down to 13:24.2:

http://thegreatdistancerunners.de/kenya.html

Today only 58 nations have a better NR than that:

https://arrs.run/NR_O5K.htm

(some of these better records actually were set by Kenyans or Ethiopians).

All other nations today have weaker NRs than Kenya has had two years after becoming independent.

Countries with weaker NRs today than the Kenyan NR in 1965 include: China, Denmark, Greece, Georgia, Hungary or India. The current Ghanaen NR is 14:02.22 (for comparison, their 100m NR is 9.98)

We know that almost all of the Kenyan world class distance runners are from the highland around the Rift Valley and not from the regions closer to the coast. It's just so obvious that those "highlanders" must have some advantage (genetics, environment, food, more natural lifestyle…) for distance running compared to most other people around the world. This is so obvious that just to start those provocative thread is an impudence. The "highlanders" from Kenya (as well as from Ethiopia, Eritrea...) are suited very well for distance running - that's so obvious that it's hard to understand for me that someone actually may question this.

Which Kenyan national records do you think are clean Said?

Why has Tanzania not produced a single great runner since Filbert Bayi, when he and thousands of other Tanzanians share some of the Rift Valley with Kenya?

Kenyan's started 'arriving in the 1950s' as the occasional pacemaker. A Dutch sports scientist who observed them at a London track meet, either developed some kind of fetish or saw dollar bills in his eyes, travelled to Kenya and quickly got the job of national coach, and suddenly Kenyans started developing elite distance runners (and the very same coach was constantly telling the media as to why Kenyan runners were naturally superior). According to Charlie Francis, the entire Kenyan team was found by the IAAF to be doping at the 1968 Olympics.

Kenya started winning gold medals from 87. There was a lot of luck in this first stage of 'take over', as a lot the performances were from athletes who were highly erratic (such as Ereng, and above all Peter Rono) who managed to perform on the day. It was also just the period when the British dominance ended due to injury and old age of the three greats Coe, Cram, and Ovett (not to mention Aouita). It also happens to have begun just when the new mass market HGH became available in the USA (and the majority of Kenyan stars were at this time based in America). One of the stars of this period, Billy Konchellah, was later convicted of drugging and raping kids in Finland.

The outright domination by East Africans did begin at almost the exact moment EPO became widely available (although I agree with MindWeak, that it was finding its way on the doping market, including in distance running, much earlier than is widely accepted here). The domination of East Africans has lessened almost exactly in parallel with efforts at curbing the use of EPO.

David Moorcroft ran faster solo running on a crappy track over 30 years ago than the fastest Kenyan ran last year. A Norwegian schoolboy could probably run sub 13 right now, something which no Kenyan did last year or this year.

I'm confident we'll see Kenyan performances fall off a cliff over the next couple of years, although even that likely wont convince some of the hardcore doping apologists/racists here.

Mens Pole Vault:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Kenyan_records_in_athletics

From the mens distance records maybe none. But what I BELIEVE is of absolutely no importance for the subject.

Why are you lying over and over again? Why are you listing completely wrong "facts" even after you were informed numerous times about the truth? Why are you not able to admit to be wrong when doing some weird statement (no Kenyan will run under 3:33 again…and next day someone runs 3:29)? At 47 years of age! Why are you acting like an completely obsessed insane madman? Why can't you just bring your points about doping in distance running - and accept that your "theories" are just that: theories. Not facts. Why have you brought such an enormous amount of pure hate into this forum, that even good old Ventolin looks gracious in comparison?

Are you never ashamed of yourself?

Coevett wrote:

Anyway, I was reading an interesting article from Sports Illustrated in the 1990s the other day. Includes Salazar voicing his opinion that the sudden improvement in (African) times was down to EPO. Also that Komen was bragging that he would be able to run the 5000 in 12:24.

https://www.si.com/vault/1998/07/20/246257/distance-thunder-in-races-of-3000-meters-or-more-no-record-is-safe-from-the-otherworldly-onslaught-of-ethiopias-haile-gebrselassie-and-kenyas-daniel-komen

Our esteemed statiscian rekrunner needs to pay attention to this. I believe he has the upmost respect for Salazar, unless of course he wants to pull that "logical fallacies" BS with the legendary coach.

Coevett wrote:

Why has Tanzania not produced a single great runner since Filbert Bayi, when he and thousands of other Tanzanians share some of the Rift Valley with Kenya?

That's an very interesting question (which myself and definitely many more have asked for a long time). Would be great to hear your answer (I'm sure you know exactly why) and especially your conclusions.

"Not a single great runner since Bayi" for sure is nonsense (John Yuda, Yuma Ikangaa).

Tanzanian records in all are very weak in comparison to Kenya.

Tanzania is not as high as Kenya.

Tanzania might be even poorer than Kenya.

Tradition, motivation and encouragement are very important.

I don't have the full answer to this remarkable fact. But your explanation (I could be wrong here, but I think that's what you wanted to tell) (Kenyans dope, Tanzanians are too ethical to do so) is not completely convincing for me...

Not only EPO wrote:

Add in the legit advantage from running so much from a young age, and absurd numbers of people training professionally, and it'd be amazing if they weren't dominating.

This just isn't true. Western countries have many young runners and ways of identifying and developing them.

For whatever reason, there are no brakes on EPO-like doping in Kenya/Epiopia. Maybe it's because Kenyan athletics is bribing the IAAF the way Russia was.

Here's an example: $150,000 first, $75,000 second, $40,000 third. Let's say Kenyans take home $190,000 4x a year, $380,000.

My general point being, hundreds of thousands of dollars in bribes are available every year and at the bare minimum in distance running, and the IAAF's primary function seems to be accepting bribes. More wins for Kenya means more money from bribes.