dude, good job, good work, you won the argument, drugs, genetics.
now shut the f*** up.
Yeah, I destroyed the myth of East African natural superiority that was hold8ng back Western kids for decades, but now I have to shut up?
No.
You did what? HAHAHAHAHA The only thing you do is post the same copy/paste ignorant crap year after year. Not an original thought, not an intelligent thing to say. But don't shut up, you provide great entertainment, a bit like a clown.
also funny how Jakob only improved 1 second from 2018 to 2019 when he recieved super spikes.
There is a reason for this:
-Jakob ran his SB in Lausanne July 5 with Tim going out extremely hard 54/1:50/2:46 leaving the field behind with Jakob passing a group of guys in the final 100 for a then-PB
-Monaco where everyone traditionally ran their fastest went slow/tactical a week later
-Worlds wasn’t until October and the circuit races went slow from there
Add to that Niels running 4:49, beating world medalist Narve Gilje Nordas and a lot of very good runners in the process, which is faster than what Jakob ran when he was almost 2 years older in 2020 (I know he probably could have run faster). T
When Jakob ran his previous 2k PR of 4:50, he won the race.
When Laros ran is 4:49 last week, he was six seconds behind the winner.
Funny how the "super-spikes" make such a difference over 1500 but none over the 800.
They’re more impactful at slower speeds. Many 800m runners don’t even wear superspikes.
Your conclusion begs its premise, that faster times at longer distances ("slower speeds") show this is the result of the spikes. I would say - and could argue more persuasively - that doping that enhances stamina will have a more pronounced effect in the aerobic (longer events), which is the real reason why times are faster in the 1500 and upwards.
also funny how Jakob only improved 1 second from 2018 to 2019 when he recieved super spikes.
There is a reason for this:
-Jakob ran his SB in Lausanne July 5 with Tim going out extremely hard 54/1:50/2:46 leaving the field behind with Jakob passing a group of guys in the final 100 for a then-PB
-Monaco where everyone traditionally ran their fastest went slow/tactical a week later
-Worlds wasn’t until October and the circuit races went slow from there
So it seems the spikes only work with the right tactics. What a convenient argument for what would otherwise show the spikes don't really do much at all.
They’re more impactful at slower speeds. Many 800m runners don’t even wear superspikes.
Your conclusion begs its premise, that faster times at longer distances ("slower speeds") show this is the result of the spikes. I would say - and could argue more persuasively - that doping that enhances stamina will have a more pronounced effect in the aerobic (longer events), which is the real reason why times are faster in the 1500 and upwards.
False cause. Correlation here does not necessarily imply causation.
Your conclusion begs its premise, that faster times at longer distances ("slower speeds") show this is the result of the spikes. I would say - and could argue more persuasively - that doping that enhances stamina will have a more pronounced effect in the aerobic (longer events), which is the real reason why times are faster in the 1500 and upwards.
False cause. Correlation here does not necessarily imply causation.
You've just identified with different terminology the problem with his argument. But the evidence surrounding the effects and likely prevalence of doping does imply causation.
So it seems the spikes only work with the right tactics. What a convenient argument for what would otherwise show the spikes don't really do much at all.
No. He didn’t run his fastest maximal race in the 2019 season. The spikes still worked.
The superspikes have to be a part of this, and even in the conservative end they might aid .75 in the 1500 let’s say? That is significant here when you’re talking about the similarity of all these guys’ time. 3:31 was a different thing in 2023 vs 2018.
Funny how the "super-spikes" make such a difference over 1500 but none over the 800.
Not all that funny, but that is by engineered design:
"Long Distance (LD) super spikes are designed ... and are specifically engineered to meet the demands of the 3000m, Two-mile, 5000m, and 10000m track events. Some of the highest-performing models can even be seen in the 1500m race as well."
The 800m is outside the intended range of track events.
dude, good job, good work, you won the argument, drugs, genetics.
now shut the f*** up.
Yeah, I destroyed the myth of East African natural superiority that was hold8ng back Western kids for decades, but now I have to shut up?
No.
You destroyed what? You helped create a natural superiority strawman which you claim you have destroyed (how?).
Selective genetics aside, western sea-level athletes would also benefit from an environment of extended training at altitude and keeping their healthy weight naturally low. We have seen this in athletes like Ryan Hall and Sondre Moens.
Athletes that weigh 90-110 pounds will have a signficant advantage over athletes weighing 130-160 pounds, as a matter of fundamental physics, as less energy is required to move less mass over a distance, and heat dissipation is more effective with a greater surface area to volume ratio.
If Western kids were being held back, as you allege (evidence?), they were doing it to themselves psychologically, by losing confidence in themselves and their training. Athletes with strong minds believe in themselves and set goals to be the best that they can be, regardless of their competition.
They’re more impactful at slower speeds. Many 800m runners don’t even wear superspikes.
Your conclusion begs its premise, that faster times at longer distances ("slower speeds") show this is the result of the spikes. I would say - and could argue more persuasively - that doping that enhances stamina will have a more pronounced effect in the aerobic (longer events), which is the real reason why times are faster in the 1500 and upwards.
I would disagree that you are potentially capable of making such a persuasive argument based on facts and correlated observations, should you ever choose to do so.
Yeah, I destroyed the myth of East African natural superiority that was hold8ng back Western kids for decades, but now I have to shut up?
No.
You destroyed what? You helped create a natural superiority strawman which you claim you have destroyed (how?).
Selective genetics aside, western sea-level athletes would also benefit from an environment of extended training at altitude and keeping their healthy weight naturally low. We have seen this in athletes like Ryan Hall and Sondre Moens.
Athletes that weigh 90-110 pounds will have a signficant advantage over athletes weighing 130-160 pounds, as a matter of fundamental physics, as less energy is required to move less mass over a distance, and heat dissipation is more effective with a greater surface area to volume ratio.
If Western kids were being held back, as you allege (evidence?), they were doing it to themselves psychologically, by losing confidence in themselves and their training. Athletes with strong minds believe in themselves and set goals to be the best that they can be, regardless of their competition.
The owner of this website literally claims (repeatedly) that anybody who thinks East Africans do not have a natural advantage is 'stupid'. There are constant threads here arguing it's 'obvious' Africans have a natural advantage. There have been best selling books claiming it. You yourself constantly flip flop. Whenever you are challenged you claim you don't believe the reason for East African success, yet you've argued on that basis here for years in countless posts.
Yeah, I destroyed the myth of East African natural superiority that was hold8ng back Western kids for decades, but now I have to shut up?
No.
You did what? HAHAHAHAHA The only thing you do is post the same copy/paste ignorant crap year after year. Not an original thought, not an intelligent thing to say. But don't shut up, you provide great entertainment, a bit like a clown.
Lol, the hubris of the clowns on this website astonishes me. This reminds me of the time when 600yd man claimed that Jakob changed his race tactics because of his posts. It's a looney town.
Nordas is wrong saying that Laros' main focus area is 800 and 1500. Solely 1500. Though he has the potential to be a great 5000 runner too. But tomorrow I think Nordas will beat him. But if Laros runs sub 3:49.29 he will be the record holder U 20. That might be possible.
Reynold Kipkorir Cheruiyot with the new U20 record 3:48.06. Niels Laros also under the old record in 3:38.93. Something tells me the Jakob Ingebrigtsen era won't last as long as El G's and Kiprop's.
The owner of this website literally claims (repeatedly) that anybody who thinks East Africans do not have a natural advantage is 'stupid'. There are constant threads here arguing it's 'obvious' Africans have a natural advantage. There have been best selling books claiming it. You yourself constantly flip flop. Whenever you are challenged you claim you don't believe the reason for East African success, yet you've argued on that basis here for years in countless posts.
Flip flop? About what?
If by nature, you now want to mean the natural environment of high altitude, in combination with the physical nature of low healthy adult bodyweight, I have never flip-flopped. These are two natural advantages that statistically favor East Africans, but do not have to be unique to East Africans.
These natural factors are not "myths" that you have "destroyed".
You often frame East African superiority strictly in terms of genetics, but genetics is also not something unique to East Africans -- Western sea-level athletes possess many of the same genes that will respond to the continuous stimulus of training naturally at a higher altitude.
Even then, "genetics" is also not a "myth" that you have"destroyed". Many generations of living at high altitude will certainly have a selective effect.
Funny how the "super-spikes" make such a difference over 1500 but none over the 800.
Not all that funny, but that is by engineered design:
"Long Distance (LD) super spikes are designed ... and are specifically engineered to meet the demands of the 3000m, Two-mile, 5000m, and 10000m track events. Some of the highest-performing models can even be seen in the 1500m race as well."
The 800m is outside the intended range of track events.
Your conclusion begs its premise, that faster times at longer distances ("slower speeds") show this is the result of the spikes. I would say - and could argue more persuasively - that doping that enhances stamina will have a more pronounced effect in the aerobic (longer events), which is the real reason why times are faster in the 1500 and upwards.
I would disagree that you are potentially capable of making such a persuasive argument based on facts and correlated observations, should you ever choose to do so.
Of course you would say that, because you continually deny that drugs are performance enhancing.
Help us build the best running shoe review site for a chance to win a LetsRun t-shirt.Help us build the best running shoe review site for a chance to win one of 10 LetsRun t-shirts.