Getting a lot more training time at altitude is not that big of deal? If that is the case, how do you explain Monson’s and Nuguse’s big jumps? Or did you and the other guy previously rant about those cases being “suspicious” as well?
So the “going pro”, “changing training”, and other changes are reasons for Fischer’s huge jump, but are inexplicable excuses in Houlihan’s case.
Houlihans improvements were after 2 full years with Jerry where she improved but there was no big jump from 2016 to 2017. Fisher didn’t do a ton on year 1 saying he got his butt kicked. Year 2 he was a different guy and took off.
Houlihan (and Fischer, for that matter) are completely different cases, particularly in their circumstances and training approach, but you stretched to associate Nordas with Houlihan, while ignoring and discounting other factors and information (what the other guy refers to as “excuses”.)
So you think Nordas’ 13:05 might be legit (I.e., pre-doping, in your view) occurring at the time of stagnation? Well then, per Jack Daniels, a 13:05 athlete has a VDOT of 81.5, having aerobic power capacity of 3:28 equivalence.
Houlihan (and Fischer, for that matter) are completely different cases, particularly in their circumstances and training approach, but you stretched to associate Nordas with Houlihan, while ignoring and discounting other factors and information (what the other guy refers to as “excuses”.)
So you think Nordas’ 13:05 might be legit (I.e., pre-doping, in your view) occurring at the time of stagnation? Well then, per Jack Daniels, a 13:05 athlete has a VDOT of 81.5, having aerobic power capacity of 3:28 equivalence.
So that being the case, Nordas running a sub 3:30 is actually not that exceptional after previously demonstrating a 13:05, once he actually committed to specifically training to improve his 1500m.
If Nordas is doping, it is plausible to think that the NAU team is doping, along with Mike Smith's pro group. By no means am I accusing them of doping, but: If Nordas and Jakob are doping (and I do think that the two are), then it means they are using double threshold as an excuse. Gjert did not invent double threshold, but Jakab is by far the biggest name to use the training plan, and he is certainly one of the earliest top pro adopters. But, it is possible (highly likely) that Gjert knows a doctor who, simply put, has the best proprietary sauce on the market. because there is relatively little data on double threshold and the results it brings, it would not be apparent right now that jakob and nordas are outliers among double threshold users (which would essentially mean they are dopers). Mike Smith was the earliest collegiate adopter of double threshold, so he could be using the same strategy of doping and blaming good results on double threshold. I really hope that Smith's athletes are clean (Luis is my favorite 5k guy and pick for bronze in the Paris 5k), but if Gjert is running a doping ring (and he is), then NAU has to be questioned. I don't know of other pro or college groups using double threshold, but if they are, they warrant more suspicion. And again, it might turn out that double threshold really is the holy grail of training. but we can't rule out the sauce
Houlihan (and Fischer, for that matter) are completely different cases, particularly in their circumstances and training approach, but you stretched to associate Nordas with Houlihan, while ignoring and discounting other factors and information (what the other guy refers to as “excuses”.)
So you think Nordas’ 13:05 might be legit (I.e., pre-doping, in your view) occurring at the time of stagnation? Well then, per Jack Daniels, a 13:05 athlete has a VDOT of 81.5, having aerobic power capacity of 3:28 equivalence.
So that being the case, Nordas running a sub 3:30 is actually not that exceptional after previously demonstrating a 13:05, once he actually committed to specifically training to improve his 1500m.
WHAT? Are you people for real? Nordas ran 13:05 AFTER running 3:29, which to me is not that important but you were incorrect. Also there is no way you want to say a 13:05 is like a 3:28 (if you are saying that), so please don’t utter such nonsense.
So that being the case, Nordas running a sub 3:30 is actually not that exceptional after previously demonstrating a 13:05, once he actually committed to specifically training to improve his 1500m.
WHAT? Are you people for real? Nordas ran 13:05 AFTER running 3:29, which to me is not that important but you were incorrect. Also there is no way you want to say a 13:05 is like a 3:28 (if you are saying that), so please don’t utter such nonsense.
(1) I stand corrected on the 13:05 ‘stagnation’ (not sure if I mistook his 13:15 the previous year as 13:05, or what. (2) Do you prefer a different calculator than JD’s for 1500m equivalence? It seems to be fairly accurate in Nordas’ case.
As an aside (not detracting from your other points), from my initial investigation, I read at least one plausible take that NAU may be running their double threshold faster than the Norwegian system calls for.
As an aside (not detracting from your other points), from my initial investigation, I read at least one plausible take that NAU may be running their double threshold faster than the Norwegian system calls for.
I get a vibe that this ‘Norwegian double threshold’ has tenants of Lydiardism, but with a controlled (monitored) intensity. But it is primarily for base-building, and still requires unique finagling to get the competition prep right.
Thanks for the original post OP ;). Enjoyed the read.
My take on such seasons is frequently: Can such athlete replicate such success, or did they push themselves too hard in this one single season that they flame out after? Will overuse injuries come to bite them as they try to maintain their new training regime (especially if they believe they have reached a now level).
Sometimes, the stars align and you do really well for a while. But too often, this is not a long term maintainable equilibrium. that said, enjoy it while it lasts ;).
This post was edited 2 minutes after it was posted.
Houlihan (and Fischer, for that matter) are completely different cases, particularly in their circumstances and training approach, but you stretched to associate Nordas with Houlihan, while ignoring and discounting other factors and information (what the other guy refers to as “excuses”.)
So you think Nordas’ 13:05 might be legit (I.e., pre-doping, in your view) occurring at the time of stagnation? Well then, per Jack Daniels, a 13:05 athlete has a VDOT of 81.5, having aerobic power capacity of 3:28 equivalence.
So that being the case, Nordas running a sub 3:30 is actually not that exceptional after previously demonstrating a 13:05, once he actually committed to specifically training to improve his 1500m.
If specifically committing to an event saw jumps of his magnitude it would be the norm. But it isn't.
He wasn't "concentrating" on the 1500, but nor was he running world-class times in the longer distances. He was mediocre.
What he says he "felt" he could run is irrelevant. He ran no faster than 3.36. A year later he's running 3.29, a time fast enough to put him amongst the very best in the world. You would still probably find excuses for him if he was now running 3.27-26.
I suggest you don’t put words in my mouth. I just pointed out the error in the information you previously conveyed, and then presented what he said.
You don't find performance jumps of his level suspicious and you give no indication of what you think would be. If not 7 secs from 3.36 to 3.29 in a year, would 3.29, 3.27 etc cause you to doubt or would you still argue it is natural?
I believe it’s too simple to claim Nordås is doped based on his improvements from last year. It is more to it.
After the sons and Gjert Ingebrigtsen separated last year, Gjert’s main focus has shifted to Nordås. Gjert has made several adjustments to the training for it to suit Nordås. According to Nordås, he often ended up running too fast when training with Jakob. In a recent interview with Nordås’ father, he claimed Gjert had told him last year that Nordås’ training results were as good as Jakob’s best training results. However, he trained too hard and underperformed in competitions because of that.
1. It is known the sport is full of doping, while most aren't caught.
2. We have yet another athlete making spectacular performance improvements mid career. They are the kind of improvements we generally only see in athletes believed to be doping or who were actually busted - like Houlihan.
,3. Training methods don't explain it because they are methods that have been around for decades that many other athletes use. It doesn't explain the exceptions.
4. When an athlete is clearly leapfrogging other doped athletes you can guarantee he is one of them.
Some have invoked Mo Katir, but Shelby is the correct answer and the similarities are undeniable. Once you see it, you can not unsee it. To whit: Misplaced Early-Career Focus: Both started with an event far from their ultimate home. Shelby was an 800m runner, Narve was messing around with Half Marathons/10Ks early on.
Age: Shelby was age 25 in her breakthrough season, Narve is 24 but turning 25 in a month. These are late ages for such a breakthrough in the 1500.
Early Pro Career/Background: Both were mildly successful 5,000m runners at age 22-23 with a coach they'd had for years. Shelby ran ~15:00 in 2016 and 2017 and made two global finals but was not competitive in her races on the DL/World level. Narve ran 13:16, missing out on global finals, and was not competitive in his races on the DL/World level. They had improved to this level, but seemingly stagnated.
Coaches: Both Gjert and Jerry Schumacher are ferociously loyal to their system (my way or the highway), and believers in very high volume relative to their athlete's event. They're of course both Western coaches with a track record of success, and to the point of these breakthroughs not involved in any athlete ever busted. However, both had an athlete show up as "Likely Doping" in the Fancy Bears hack (Jager and Henrik).
"Found New Event in the 1500": Both broke through in the 1500 after semi-mediocrity in the 5000, flashing huge kicks that stood out vs. the competition while setting massive PBs. Narve 3:36 to 3:29 and a medal. Shelby 4:03 to 3:57 with a huge kick in multiple DLs. Both went from also-rans on the DL to contenders for the win.
The Myth of the New Event Thesis: Sure both had newfound success at 1500 in their breakthrough year, but it wasn't merely finding their event. Nordas just advanced in the gauntlet 5,000 prelim on less than one day's rest as numerous fresher sub-13 runners got bounced. Shelby set an American record and ran 14:33 for the 5K in 2018. Both athletes made gigantic strides and would have been factors in their old event of the 5,000 had they stuck with it as primary event. We can reject the new event notion.
Explanations Behind Their Success: Both credited the accumulation of hard work most of all. Otherwise, they'd talk about marginal improvements in diet, more altitude, slightly more mileage and making their coach's system work better for themselves. Narve has talked about not feeling pressured to run with Jakob, more Gjert focus. There was no talk of anything radically different being done from one season to the next or overcoming major injuries etc. This is unlike a Mo Katir (younger, got a new coach, finally had support, affected by pandemic etc.) or Ciara Mageean (injuries, new coach etc.) for a couple of examples.
Conclusion: There is probably more I am missing, and I want to be clear I don't 100% know/think Nordas is doping or anything like that. But I think if you examine every aspect of it, there is no more comparable situation out there. Pretty much every aspect of their rise and breakthroughs is identical. I like Nordas' personality and would like to believe his breakthrough is 100% clean. I felt the same with Shelby, but was always dubious of it at the time.
So you're basically accusing Nordas of doping?
I think Gjert should take legal action against you.
1. It is known the sport is full of doping, while most aren't caught.
2. We have yet another athlete making spectacular performance improvements mid career. They are the kind of improvements we generally only see in athletes believed to be doping or who were actually busted - like Houlihan.
,3. Training methods don't explain it because they are methods that have been around for decades that many other athletes use. It doesn't explain the exceptions.
4. When an athlete is clearly leapfrogging other doped athletes you can guarantee he is one of them.
You sound like John Kellogg. You are a rotten apple.
Funny again. Sure a an athlete can finish faster than naturally faster runners in a hard race. All things equal. Even when the faster runner is doped. A doped naturally faster runner with a PB 3:33 and a runner who is not doped PB 3:31. You fail all the time with your special kind of abstract reasoning. BTW your opinion is that all runner a bit under 3:30 are doped. So you do not have to argue. Though, you have never ever made solid arguments for your claim. Why not all sub 3:31 or sub 3:29???
You don't make a single coherent point. But you still somehow think that in the 1500 the "clean" Norwegian runner should be able to finish faster than his doped competitors who also have greater speed. You haven't a clue.
You can't read neither understand. I was not writing about a "clean" Norwegian runner. I can't judge who is doped or not. Neither can you BTW. I was making theortical point. And you failed to answer. It is fruitless though to discuss with a guy who has decided that approx. 3:30 is the limit for nonedopers. And a guy that never was able to make reasonable arguments for that or can give evidence from sports science.
I´m surprised that you THL as one of the serious posters here now begin to accuse specific athletes of doping. I´m also surprised that John Wesley Harding is doing the same.
I am never accusing named athletes of doping and this is for 2 reasons:
1. I can´t know with certainty that an athlete is doping. I think it is the same with you and all other posters here.
2. An athlete CAN´T PROVE THAT HE IS NOT DOPING SO IT IS UNFAIR TO ACCUSE HIM.
-------------------------
When this is said I will, however, try to put your accusations into context (AND REMEMBER I AM NOT ACCUSING ANYONE OF DOPING).
You compare Nordaas to Shelby Houlihan. BUT HAVE YOU EVER SCRUTINIZED HOULIHAN´S AMERICAN TEAM MATES´ IMPROVEMENTS (NEITHER THE TEAM MATES NOR THE TRAINER HAVE EVER BLAMED HOULIHAN FOR HER DOPING OFFENCE). Don´t you think that would be more relevant?
Houlihan´s close training partner Karissa Schweizer improved with 8.5 sec in the 1500m from 2019 to 2020 and with more than 17 seconds in the 5000m from 2018 to 2019 and with further almost 19 sec to 2020.. In 2021 and 2022 she ran much slower. (She was one of my favorites).
Mo Ahmed improved in his high twenties with almost 11 seconds in the 5000m from 2019 to 2020.
Grant Fisher improved in the 5000m with about 15.5 sec from 2021 to 2022. This year he has lost his good shape.
These 5000m improvements seems to be more dramatic than the 10 sec explosion Nordaas according to you have made in the 5000m from last year.
Disclaimer: As in every serious "scientific" investigation I will declare that I have no relation to any of the parties. I origin from a Nordic country other than Norway but have lived in the south of Europe for many years.
Karissa Schweizer’s progression occurred in 2019-20. First 2 years on a pro team along with the advent of super spikes. She also ran her 5,000 PBs in the ‘19 Worlds semis and finals. Her next jump was in a glorified time trial in 2020. Most would not call that initial PB run her utter maximum. Her 4:06->4:00 1500 improvement was pre to post super spikes and her PB was from July 2018 after a collegiate season that included a 5K/10K double at Nationals. She’s definitely not above suspicion but her progression is far more explainable than Nordas’.
Mo Ahmed I don’t want to delve too deep into but you know the super spikes effect plus clearly 2019 was a breakthrough year for him even if he didn’t hit a super fast race until 2020. That being said he ran 13:01 in 2016 so we are talking about maybe 5-7 seconds improvement in a 5k not 11.
You also are acting like injuries/off years are impossibilities. Or that Nordas has made only a 10 second improvement in the 5,000 when we all reasonably expect him to be in 12:50-55 shape.
So you have all kind of explanation for your countrymen´s M/K achievements but you don´t believe changes in Nordaas training and other factors can explain Nordaas improvement.
I stresses again that I am neutral on Nordaas and as such I can see the following
1. Change in training, including focusing on a new distance and more focusfrom the trainer
2. 1500m times from 2022 probably not representative for his real potential. He won both races. One was a local run the other a low key international race. If he had joined a DL 1500m race last year he could possibly have run 2-3 seconds faster.
-----------
Why do you think Nordass is a 12:50 to 12:55 man. He ran a 5000m recently (after the 3:29 1500m) and improved with 10 seconds from last year in a race where the best ran 13:00. Why didn´t he win the race then? He was beaten by Kemboi, Fay, Hugo Hay and McGorty!
I have on other threads predicted that Nordaas only stand a chance in the final tonight if it is a slow race. And that due to his finishing ability.
,3. Training methods don't explain it because they are methods that have been around for decades that many other athletes use. It doesn't explain the exceptions.
What “exceptions”? You contend they are all doping, and so nothing between differences in training application is sufficient to explain differences in performance that are evidently not apparent to you in the first place; in which case, you might as well follow a roulette wheel game.
But the results of Snell and Coe demonstrate the radically different training philosophies that can approach the same apex of human performance at mid-distance, and Ryun, Scott, etc. are somewhere between those two extremes in what was is physiologically being accomplished to produce similar results.
So although various training methods have “been around for decades”, I don’t think until recently such attention has been paid to precisely controlling lactate production over voluminous training blocks, and understanding how that affects performance at the very fine apex of mid-distance performance.
I do think there is something more here that needs further exploration and physiological explanation, rather than it just being a careful ruse to cover up for a doping program.