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.
How do you know, when he wasn't running his fastest?
You are absolutely right. I made a mistake. I thought that R. Cheruiyot turned 20 this year. For the time being may be he will be Jakobs strongest contender in the years to come.
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.
Horse apples arguments.
Along the lines of the absence of evidence is the evidence of absence.
False cause. Correlation here does not necessarily imply causation.
Horse apples arguments.
Along the lines of the absence of evidence is the evidence of absence.
Correlation does not imply causation.
Nonsense 99.9% of the time
The correlation is spikes with times, to "prove" that spikes lead to faster times. It doesn't. You could use the same argument for new shorts or singlets leading to faster times. However, we already know that doping leads to faster times and it is everywhere in the sport so it can be argued as likely causative of faster times when this can only be assumed with the spikes.
This post was edited 1 minute after it was posted.
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.
Intended by whom? And why?
Seriously? My quote comes from a Nike ad for the super spikes.
Intended by whom? Nike designers and engineers who designed and engineered a line of shoes with innovative new compounds that increase efficiency -- allowing athletes to run faster for longer without expending more energy.
Why? To sell shoes that promise to make athlete run faster.
The middle distance (MD) spikes "typically (feature) slightly lower stack heights than their long-distance counterparts", and therefore benefit much less from the lightweight compound that increases efficiency -- for MD events that rely more on short term aerobic power than efficiency.
Along the lines of the absence of evidence is the evidence of absence.
Correlation does not imply causation.
Nonsense 99.9% of the time
The correlation is spikes with times, to "prove" that spikes lead to faster times. It doesn't. You could use the same argument for new shorts or singlets leading to faster times. However, we already know that doping leads to faster times and it is everywhere in the sport so it can be argued as likely causative of faster times when this can only be assumed with the spikes.
We don't know that doping leads to faster times. Doping may help improve workouts. Howver, it's essential to recognize that excessive training, even with PED gains, can increase the risk of injuries and overtraining syndrome. That doesn't lead to faster times.
Along the lines of the absence of evidence is the evidence of absence.
Correlation does not imply causation.
Nonsense 99.9% of the time
The correlation is spikes with times, to "prove" that spikes lead to faster times. It doesn't. You could use the same argument for new shorts or singlets leading to faster times. However, we already know that doping leads to faster times and it is everywhere in the sport so it can be argued as likely causative of faster times when this can only be assumed with the spikes.
Sorry -- you wanted to argue (but cannot, or pretend to choose not to) "that doping that enhances stamina".
No such correlation has been established for stamina enhancing drugs connected to these elite distance running performances in the last three decades, let alone for the recent improvements observed across the board, worldwide, in the last few years.
On the contrary, there is a visible correlation with these recent improvements and the introduction of "new" Nike shoes.
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.
Just like WADA, I have never denied and have acknowledged that some drugs can be performancing enhancing in some cases for some sports and events and athletes, especially when they are trained below their potential. For example, I do not question that male hormones can make women perform unnaturally in events that require increased muscular strength.
But my statement doesn't consider any of that -- it is an assessment of your capability to raise such a persuavive argument on its own merits with evidence and observations, when you have no proven track record of possessing the necessary and minimum knowledge to raise such arguments.
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.
People underlooked how amazing Laros was last year.
He was injured for much of the early season and only able to crosstrain.
He came back and ran a sub 3:50 mile in London in his 3rd race of the season despite tripping over and falling onto the track in the first lap.
Then he finishes 6th in the Olympic final running 3:29.5.
I said last year that it was possible he could start dominating this year. It wouldn't surprise me greatly if he ends this season unbeaten in the 1500 and mile.
PS: the mods should ban for life any poster who re-starts the mindnumbing thread wrecking Rekrunner/Armstrong debate.
People underlooked how amazing Laros was last year.
He was injured for much of the early season and only able to crosstrain.
He came back and ran a sub 3:50 mile in London in his 3rd race of the season despite tripping over and falling onto the track in the first lap.
Then he finishes 6th in the Olympic final running 3:29.5.
I said last year that it was possible he could start dominating this year. It wouldn't surprise me greatly if he ends this season unbeaten in the 1500 and mile.
PS: the mods should ban for life any poster who re-starts the mindnumbing thread wrecking Rekrunner/Armstrong debate.
I dont see him dominating,and i dont agree he's a talent the size of jakob. neils is great,but not that great. He's run 1.44 in the 800,3.29 in the 1500,and 13.10 in the 5000,which shows range,but not jakob range,steve ovett range or said aouita range.Do i believe he could win medals,or even gold? sure. But so could lots of other guys. I think he'll occasionally win some races,and get injured soon after. I dont see him having a long career. I also dont see him outkicking some of the americans in a championship 1500,and he doesnt have the stamina to go with the 12.30 something 5000 guys.
People underlooked how amazing Laros was last year.
He was injured for much of the early season and only able to crosstrain.
He came back and ran a sub 3:50 mile in London in his 3rd race of the season despite tripping over and falling onto the track in the first lap.
Then he finishes 6th in the Olympic final running 3:29.5.
I said last year that it was possible he could start dominating this year. It wouldn't surprise me greatly if he ends this season unbeaten in the 1500 and mile.
PS: the mods should ban for life any poster who re-starts the mindnumbing thread wrecking Rekrunner/Armstrong debate.
I dont see him dominating,and i dont agree he's a talent the size of jakob. neils is great,but not that great. He's run 1.44 in the 800,3.29 in the 1500,and 13.10 in the 5000,which shows range,but not jakob range,steve ovett range or said aouita range.Do i believe he could win medals,or even gold? sure. But so could lots of other guys. I think he'll occasionally win some races,and get injured soon after. I dont see him having a long career. I also dont see him outkicking some of the americans in a championship 1500,and he doesnt have the stamina to go with the 12.30 something 5000 guys.
He’s no doubt better in the 800 than back when he set his PR. As for his 5k let’s see him actually get into some fast races. He’s no doubt much better now than his old PR of 3:29 in the 1500 (coming off injury) would indicate, considering the speed of his finish to nip Yared in Saturday’s mile. You come off as possibly worried that Laros is the real deal and will soon be one of the dominant forces in the 1500, pushing Jakob and Duck Duck Kerr out of the way.
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.
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.