A bunch of people have talked about being “born and raised at elevation”, or commented on how Ryan Hall lived at elevation. Do you realize how different these are from people that have lived at elevation since the dawn of humanity? They are thin, they are short, and they are adapted to lower levels of oxygen.
We all go train at elevation for an advantage but can’t recognize that a million years of this would be better? Don’t be stupid.
Now, living in East Africa AND doping could be a killer combo, but you’re dumb if you don’t acknowledge millions of years of adaptation.
East Africans are recent migrants to elevation. They're adapted to hot climates which is the real key. That's why there are so many fast runners of Somali or Sudanese descent in the west.
The natives in Machu Picchu with short stubby legs or the Nepalese sherpas don't produce a lot of great runners
So thousands of years of evolution have only just started to produce results in the marathon? The more likely answer is a modern innovation from the local general store.
So thousands of years of evolution have only just started to produce results in the marathon? The more likely answer is a modern innovation from the local general store.
How do you know the athletes busted for doping are always “Uber talented?” There are thousands of aspiring athletes in Kenya. The ones subject to the most testing and scrutiny are the most accomplished. Kipserem and Abraham Kiptum are two athletes who you could argue were not Uber talented based on their early results in their mid-20s and then with EPO entered the ranks of the Uber talented and got busted once they got tested accordingly.
PEDs are far more effective than any training or genetic advantages. You can sit on a couch and do nothing on anabolics and you will gain more muscle than someone who is going to the gym, eating, and recovering at 100%. It is not possible for a natural athlete to compete with an athlete that is doping. That's why it is especially suspicious to me when junior athletes have such incredible times and placements. It's just not feasible for an athletes like Faith Kipyegon or Rhonex Kipruto to be beating athletes that are doped to the gills without years of training to reach their genetic potential.
So thousands of years of evolution have only just started to produce results in the marathon? The more likely answer is a modern innovation from the local general store.
Shoes?
Shoes are not contraptions. They are a sole with an upper, so they give cushioning and support. That's all they've done. Modernization increases comfort and durability. They aren't a significant boost to performance. That comes from training - and doping.
Shoes are not contraptions. They are a sole with an upper, so they give cushioning and support. That's all they've done. Modernization increases comfort and durability. They aren't a significant boost to performance. That comes from training - and doping.
You are dumbing it down too much.
Running is a very inefficient way of moving, and runners consume a lot of energy fueling inefficiency, rather than moving the athlete forward.
The shoes benefit performance by using advanced lightweight materials to reduce this energy loss better than previous models. While improved efficiency can help in all events, this is particularly important in the marathon, where energy management becomes the limiting factor.
Shoes are not contraptions. They are a sole with an upper, so they give cushioning and support. That's all they've done. Modernization increases comfort and durability. They aren't a significant boost to performance. That comes from training - and doping.
So yiu do know that drugs don’t actually make a person directly faster, right? They let you train harder than you otherwise would and not buckle. My thought is something like what we’re also seeing in cycling right now (super young superstars) - a revelation that:
1) You can absolutely NUKE the body with training in late teens, early 20s. It’s also easier to live like a monk in early 20’s before demands of wife, kids, family, business show up. Runners are professionals at 16 now.
2) shoes that allow for high training load to the heart/lungs without damaging the connective tissue.
3) Almost certainly drugs, administered by euro ‘Dr.s’ to young, desperate Africans looking to make a lifetime of wealth.
If you look at all of the HS phenoms in the USA (who go on to do d*ck in college), it’s the same thing. Difference is that the opportunity cost for a rich white kid to just train for the thin for 4 years is massive.
Shoes are not contraptions. They are a sole with an upper, so they give cushioning and support. That's all they've done. Modernization increases comfort and durability. They aren't a significant boost to performance. That comes from training - and doping.
You are dumbing it down too much.
Running is a very inefficient way of moving, and runners consume a lot of energy fueling inefficiency, rather than moving the athlete forward.
The shoes benefit performance by using advanced lightweight materials to reduce this energy loss better than previous models. While improved efficiency can help in all events, this is particularly important in the marathon, where energy management becomes the limiting factor.
What a load of pseudo-scientific bs. Several million years of evolution created a bipedal hominid who could run. And run for longer than any four-legged animal. But this is an "inefficient way of moving" without the latest Nike brand, according to the man who never leaves his basement.
So tell us how adding weight to the feet of a runner - as all shoes do, no matter how "lightweight" - corrects the inherent "inefficiency" in the human form? Apparently you confuse a shoe with another contraption that doesn't move us from A to B, which is a trampoline. If a shoe could do that it would have been invented long ago. It hasn't. The claim it does is hype, that you completely fall for, because you have yet to see the established connection between drugs that enhance physiological capacity and performance. It is drugs that underlie the gains we see today, that far exceed what talent and training - and shoes - can achieve.
I said in an earlier thread that there is a far superior athlete that has not made any significant progress in over half a century, despite intensive breeding and the most scientific training. It is the race horse. Clearly, they don't manage to dope like we do. And their shoes don't seem to correct their "inherent inefficiency" - because despite their superior speed they can't run for as long as we can. There's another opportunity for Nike.
This post was edited 1 minute after it was posted.
So yiu do know that drugs don’t actually make a person directly faster, right? They let you train harder than you otherwise would and not buckle. My thought is something like what we’re also seeing in cycling right now (super young superstars) - a revelation that:
1) You can absolutely NUKE the body with training in late teens, early 20s. It’s also easier to live like a monk in early 20’s before demands of wife, kids, family, business show up. Runners are professionals at 16 now.
2) shoes that allow for high training load to the heart/lungs without damaging the connective tissue.
3) Almost certainly drugs, administered by euro ‘Dr.s’ to young, desperate Africans looking to make a lifetime of wealth.
If you look at all of the HS phenoms in the USA (who go on to do d*ck in college), it’s the same thing. Difference is that the opportunity cost for a rich white kid to just train for the thin for 4 years is massive.
If drugs don't actually make a person faster then why was Ben Johnson using them - and if course Flojo and Marion Jones - and virtually every world-class sprinter since?
Drugs also make a md and distance runner faster over a given distance by enabling them to resist the onset of fatigue for longer - just as they did for cyclists. You haven't followed what has been happening to the sport for over half a century.
This post was edited 4 minutes after it was posted.
Shoes are not contraptions. They are a sole with an upper, so they give cushioning and support. That's all they've done. Modernization increases comfort and durability. They aren't a significant boost to performance. That comes from training - and doping.
dumb - dumber - dumbstrong
So you have no counter-argument. Of course you don't. But you can grunt.
Running is a very inefficient way of moving, and runners consume a lot of energy fueling inefficiency, rather than moving the athlete forward.
The shoes benefit performance by using advanced lightweight materials to reduce this energy loss better than previous models. While improved efficiency can help in all events, this is particularly important in the marathon, where energy management becomes the limiting factor.
What a load of pseudo-scientific bs. Several million years of evolution created a bipedal hominid who could run. And run for longer than any four-legged animal. But this is an "inefficient way of moving" without the latest Nike brand, according to the man who never leaves his basement.
So tell us how adding weight to the feet of a runner - as all shoes do, no matter how "lightweight" - corrects the inherent "inefficiency" in the human form? Apparently you confuse a shoe with another contraption that doesn't move us from A to B, which is a trampoline. If a shoe could do that it would have been invented long ago. It hasn't. The claim it does is hype, that you completely fall for, because you have yet to see the established connection between drugs that enhance physiological capacity and performance. It is drugs that underlie the gains we see today, that far exceed what talent and training - and shoes - can achieve.
I said in an earlier thread that there is a far superior athlete that has not made any significant progress in over half a century, despite intensive breeding and the most scientific training. It is the race horse. Clearly, they don't manage to dope like we do. And their shoes don't seem to correct their "inherent inefficiency" - because despite their superior speed they can't run for as long as we can. There's another opportunity for Nike.
Would would guess? You are a science denier, like those flat-earthers you constantly talk about!
What a load of pseudo-scientific bs. Several million years of evolution created a bipedal hominid who could run. And run for longer than any four-legged animal. But this is an "inefficient way of moving" without the latest Nike brand, according to the man who never leaves his basement.
So tell us how adding weight to the feet of a runner - as all shoes do, no matter how "lightweight" - corrects the inherent "inefficiency" in the human form? Apparently you confuse a shoe with another contraption that doesn't move us from A to B, which is a trampoline. If a shoe could do that it would have been invented long ago. It hasn't. The claim it does is hype, that you completely fall for, because you have yet to see the established connection between drugs that enhance physiological capacity and performance. It is drugs that underlie the gains we see today, that far exceed what talent and training - and shoes - can achieve.
I said in an earlier thread that there is a far superior athlete that has not made any significant progress in over half a century, despite intensive breeding and the most scientific training. It is the race horse. Clearly, they don't manage to dope like we do. And their shoes don't seem to correct their "inherent inefficiency" - because despite their superior speed they can't run for as long as we can. There's another opportunity for Nike.
Would would guess? You are a science denier, like those flat-earthers you constantly talk about!
A science-denier is one who denies the effects of modern drugs. Like you. There are plenty of you here.
I had the privilege to watch him and his training partner in late August this year at the annex track in Eldoret and I can tell you his track session on that particular day was phenomenal. Offcourse the coach has also revealed that he does very high mileage. His program is quite similar to that of Geofrey Mutai but has more weekly miliage in it.There is also no doubt that he has alot of natural talent.If you watch a replay of Valencia marathon 2022 which he won on his marathon debut you can get to see his raw sum-total potential in display.