JK- what’s the most rational explanation for how Sara Hall runs significantly faster at age 37

[/quote]

LMAO 1-3 minutes. I bet Sara Hall gets 4 minutes PLUS from the shoes. It's ALL the shoes. Kipchoge's improvements were all shoes. That woman who ran 2:14:xx?? 2:14 man! It's shoes. All shoes. Those half marathon times?? Some athletes are getting 2 minutes in the half. Very simple answer. Sara Hall has the right shoes. Not everyone responds the same. Easy way to check. Send her out in flats next time. I bet she doesn't crack 2:25:00. This is exactly like when Rupp ran 3:50 at BU. In that case it's the track, but it's the exact same principle. The roads have just been turned in to the BU track. BOUNCY

Hehir is not that fast when compared to 2:09 guys in the recent past. But he's a good shoe responder.

I'm not really against the shoes, apart from the prices. Maybe they will decrease running injuries and make more consistently healthy runners. That would be a huge boon to the sport. But it's a new thing. I like the idea of shoe-specific races. Open category for major marathons. Flats for championships. Basic spikes only for XC. And the occasional barefoot beach dash, which might pull in crossfitters and maybe a few hipster and crystal gazers.[/quote]

This sounds about right to me. The thread title asks for the "most rational explanation". So far I've heard:

- doping

- the shoes

- 37 is a good age for marathoning

- she's training better now

Any of those might possibly be the correct explanation, but I would say that for a long-time competitive runner (and let's pretend we have no idea who they are) who drops their marathon time by significant amounts twice in a short time span at age 37, to the point that their marathon times are relatively far superior to their shorter-distance times in their 20's, the first 2 explanations (doping and shoes) seem the most likely.

If any random 37-year-old female had improved from 2:27 to 2:20 at age 37 prior to the bouncy-shoe revolution, I would say PED's with probably 95% confidence. But with the bouncy shoes, I can at least see a pathway to that level of improvement that doesn't involve PED's: she's a super-responder to the shoe tech, and she had a good race in good conditions for racing. If Ross Tucker is right about super-responders, and if Sara Hall is one of them, then I could easily see her getting a good 5 minutes of benefit (still less than 4%) from the shoes, and possibly even more.

Of course, this doesn't rule out doping, but I figure, why go there, when there is a perfectly legal route? If there are indeed super-responders, then it has to be SOMEBODY - so why not Hall?

astro wrote:

Most logical answer: doping.. You can either fight fire with fire or go home.

The correct answer to the OP's question.

Cork-filled legs wrote:

LMAO 1-3 minutes. I bet Sara Hall gets 4 minutes PLUS from the shoes. It's ALL the shoes. Kipchoge's improvements were all shoes. That woman who ran 2:14:xx?? 2:14 man! It's shoes. All shoes. Those half marathon times?? Some athletes are getting 2 minutes in the half. Very simple answer. Sara Hall has the right shoes. Not everyone responds the same. Easy way to check. Send her out in flats next time. I bet she doesn't crack 2:25:00. This is exactly like when Rupp ran 3:50 at BU. In that case it's the track, but it's the exact same principle. The roads have just been turned in to the BU track. BOUNCY

Hehir is not that fast when compared to 2:09 guys in the recent past. But he's a good shoe responder.

I'm not really against the shoes, apart from the prices. Maybe they will decrease running injuries and make more consistently healthy runners. That would be a huge boon to the sport. But it's a new thing. I like the idea of shoe-specific races. Open category for major marathons. Flats for championships. Basic spikes only for XC. And the occasional barefoot beach dash, which might pull in crossfitters and maybe a few hipster and crystal gazers.[/quote]

This sounds about right to me. The thread title asks for the "most rational explanation". So far I've heard:

- doping

- the shoes

- 37 is a good age for marathoning

- she's training better now

Any of those might possibly be the correct explanation, but I would say that for a long-time competitive runner (and let's pretend we have no idea who they are) who drops their marathon time by significant amounts twice in a short time span at age 37, to the point that their marathon times are relatively far superior to their shorter-distance times in their 20's, the first 2 explanations (doping and shoes) seem the most likely.

If any random 37-year-old female had improved from 2:27 to 2:20 at age 37 prior to the bouncy-shoe revolution, I would say PED's with probably 95% confidence. But with the bouncy shoes, I can at least see a pathway to that level of improvement that doesn't involve PED's: she's a super-responder to the shoe tech, and she had a good race in good conditions for racing. If Ross Tucker is right about super-responders, and if Sara Hall is one of them, then I could easily see her getting a good 5 minutes of benefit (still less than 4%) from the shoes, and possibly even more.

Of course, this doesn't rule out doping, but I figure, why go there, when there is a perfectly legal route? If there are indeed super-responders, then it has to be SOMEBODY - so why not Hall?[/quote]

How do shoes give some athletes a huge advantage over other runners that are using the same shoes? What data supports that? How does using a shoe with the same sole produce widely varying results amongst athletes - by virtue of the sole construction alone? This is not the same as the complex kind of chemicals that influence human physiology as ped's do.

So what do the shoes actually do and how is this changing the sport?

https://sportsmedicine-open.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/s40798-020-00250-1

"The use of the Nike Vaporfly/Alphafly running shoes does not generate a historically unusual level of performance improvement when evaluating the world record improvements and when using a performance improvement index."

In other words, the benefits of the shoe may be exaggerated.

Hall and Kipchoge could have a legit lawsuit going.

Osteoporosis changes bone density making her lighter. As the disease progresses her brittle bones will make her more prone to injuries, but right now she is in the sweet spot of lighter bones but not too brittle to fracture.

Oh please. The sport is a laughingstock and "athletes" like Kipchoge made it that way. If Hall is taking the Armstrong route and has decided to play the game in a dope infested sport rather than disappear, good for her. Because if the Kenyans et al are going to thumb their noses at the sport so blatantly, there is no other choice. By the early 1990s every professional cyclist faced the same choice, and almost all of them chose to do what they had to do to win. Just like virtually every baseball player roided in the steroid era. Frankly it is well past the time that Americans and other athletes turn the tables on running. The sport will never be clean. So do what needs to be done to compete. The sprinters already do it. Beat the dopers at their own game.

jhfgdhh wrote:

Carloslopes wrote:

Carlos Lopes

Age 37 Olympic marathon gold.

1985 world xcountry champ

Age 38 1985 world record 2:07:12

Carlos Lopes was a world class distance runner in his late 20s. He didn't suddenly break-out at age 37. This isn't a question about whether a 37 year old can be competitive. The question is how can someone who's been competing at a relatively high level for 20 years suddenly improve so much.

Maybe because she was training for a distance (1500m) she wasn't suited for, running moderate mileage in her 20s. She moved up to the marathon, husband no longer racing, consistent training at higher mileage over a number of years, takes a few attempts to get the marathon right re nutrition, pacing, runs at the perfect course, flat, perfect weather.

I think she uses UCAN for fueling. No insulin spike, can still burn fat and not have bad stomach eating too much carbs.

We all know a ton of credit yo her hard work and training ethics. But it's surely her sheer determination when she is on the wall. You can see the difference when she's feeling good during a race and when she's running up against a wall later in the race. She doesn't fall apart. She continues to press on rather than succumb to how she feels. She's more determined right now than ever.

askdjhfadf wrote:

I think she uses UCAN for fueling. No insulin spike, can still burn fat and not have bad stomach eating too much carbs.

Not UCAN but DANCAN! Influenced by a magic wizard.

Yo Sara ian wrote:

Hall and Kipchoge could have a legit lawsuit going.

Like "voter fraud"?

Another giver of +1 wrote:

jhfgdhh wrote:

Carlos Lopes was a world class distance runner in his late 20s. He didn't suddenly break-out at age 37. This isn't a question about whether a 37 year old can be competitive. The question is how can someone who's been competing at a relatively high level for 20 years suddenly improve so much.

Maybe because she was training for a distance (1500m) she wasn't suited for, running moderate mileage in her 20s. She moved up to the marathon, husband no longer racing, consistent training at higher mileage over a number of years, takes a few attempts to get the marathon right re nutrition, pacing, runs at the perfect course, flat, perfect weather.

Or maybe something else more directly advantageous to boosting performance.

bryan evans wrote:

Osteoporosis changes bone density making her lighter. As the disease progresses her brittle bones will make her more prone to injuries, but right now she is in the sweet spot of lighter bones but not too brittle to fracture.

That's the first time I've read that disease can be the pathway to exceptional athletic performance. You left out what she might be doing with her blood, doctor.

1hobbyjogger1 wrote:

We all know a ton of credit yo her hard work and training ethics. But it's surely her sheer determination when she is on the wall. You can see the difference when she's feeling good during a race and when she's running up against a wall later in the race. She doesn't fall apart. She continues to press on rather than succumb to how she feels. She's more determined right now than ever.

So slower runners aren't determined enough? Or when she was slower she was less determined? If it was all in the mind no one would need dope. But they do.

Good topic, get her on the pod cast

Didn' t Mary Slaney dope later in life?

realTalkin wrote:

Good topic, get her on the pod cast

Robert Johnson: "Regina, Robert Johnson here with LetsRun.com. You're 38 old. You have accomplished an awful lot in the sport but you have to be thinking about the end, although you are running great these days. Do you feel that somewhat perhaps the legacy of Sydney and this year at the Worlds that could sort of overshadow (the rest of your career) and end up being your legacy?-the pullouts, I know Tim Layden (of Sports Illustrated) wrote something in 2000, that fair or not, when you pull out in this day and age, and don't do well on the world scene, people, now that the EPO testing is out, think of that (as being the reason)?"

Armstronglivs wrote:

Yo Sara ian wrote:

Hall and Kipchoge could have a legit lawsuit going.

Like "voter fraud"?

Yes. But not likely in the way you are thinking.