Some sort of new drug out there. It isn't solely just the shoes, something else is aiding all of these performances.
-
62
-
Fffffff wrote:
I just scanned the thread. wrote:
Easy answer is not necessarily an accurate answer. When track /Marathon athletes, indoor 60 yards to Marathon went from leather shoes to nylon shoes, around 1959 or 1960, times dropped for everyone. That is the biggest technology change in T&F and distance running, leather to nylon. By the way, with fast shoes, no one has raced sub-3:27 1500m in awhile. When we went from leather to nylon, all times dropped in all events. Re-think super shoes as a theory since the evidence is selective.
Nobody has run Sub 3:27 because of EPO testing. I notice how you ignore how many more people are running sub 3:28,3:29,3:30,and 3:31. Just coincidence that the elite time dropped about 2s shortly after the shoes come out? The 5/10 numbers are even more blatant.
Nylon shoes and syntenthic tracks helped. Super shoes are just the next step.
Believers in modern shoe types don't offer any science. In my initial post I asked: Which shoes? Track shoes? Training shoes? Offer a reason or reasons why shoes don't produce fast times 100m to 1000m.
There were changes in U.S. high school training from circa-1990 when Peter Coe & David Martin began writing books. Supposedly, according to posts on here, bad days for U.S. distance running. Peter Coe & David Martin-type training produced in 00s & 10s the most sub-1:44 800m runners in U.S. ever.
Training now has gone away from Coe-type training in U.S., greater mileage now. We are seeing better 3200m performances and even many fast 1600m performances but the goal seems today to develop fast U.S. 5000m kids. Any theory for performances which leaves out 800m performances is a weak theory.
13 -
khchck wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
The same reasons everyone else is running faster.
Another original post from you. You will get to 28,000 soon.
keep that little head buried and ignorant.
10 -
Fffffff wrote:
4:20 is not that fast wrote:
No, they can’t. There’s a huge difference in top-end speed between 8:4x and 9:1x. PEDs are not going to make a 3.75 seconds per lap difference. Doping does not replace genetics.
Tell that to cathal Lombard. Tons of kids have the 54s speed needed to run in the 8:40s. Very few have the aerobic strength.
That being said I don’t know remotely how easy it would be to dope with EPO. There is that gym bro culture to help you with your steroid cycle. Not sure if how easy it is to take epo without turning your blood to sludge..
The easier answer of the shoes making everyone 1s/lap faster seems a lot more likely.
That’s exactly true. Most kids that have 54 speed don’t have strength to run in the 8:40’s and most that have exceptional endurance can’t run a 54. Runners with both talents are extremely rare and shoes or PEDs are not going to change that.
02 -
better training is key wrote:
Sucks but true wrote:
Yes, I certainly believe more HS and college kids are doping now. What else has changed in the last 20-30 years besides the shoes, social media, and internet?
The answer: easier access to better PEDs and how to use them, e.g. microdosing, TUE, TRT, EPO, etc. I can get some delivered online anonymously by this weekend.
So many of you have blinders on. I guess ignorance is bliss.
I disagree with this. I have a son who's in this elite 3200 category and I happen to coach and doping is against our values. I highly believe that most if not ALL of his competitors are clean They likely just train harder and smarter.
Against your values? C'mon with that. Everyone who dopes says it's against their values and they would never do such a thing. Wake up to the reality that doping is more widespread than you want to believe.
32 -
4:20 is not that fast wrote:
Sucks but truer wrote:
I did not claim *all* of them are doping, but certainly more than before. In the 80s and 90s, all we knew was steroids would turn you into a yellow-eyed, muscle-bound sprinter. Now we know there are many “safer” alternatives for distance runners.
PEDs can take a kid from 9:1x territory (little to zero scholarship) to 8:4x territory (full scholarship) and below (see Arcadia). And since this is effectively the only way/time to earn tangible money in running as a male athlete, there is more incentive (motive) to use them.
No, they can’t. There’s a huge difference in top-end speed between 8:4x and 9:1x. PEDs are not going to make a 3.75 seconds per lap difference. Doping does not replace genetics.
So you really have no idea how PED's work, do you? You probably think EPO doesn't work on Kenyans.
21 -
Katir promoted a substance called "EPO boost". Especially if stuff like this is 'contaminated' with small amounts of steroids that aid recovery, people can take it and run very good times. Just under half of good football players at my HS back in the late 2000s used steroids. A few sprinters did too but it's far easier to get it now.
I'm not typically that suspicious but a couple of athletes look too good to be true, especially since their (relative)endurance is basically at the same level of top female east Africans. I'm not saying he's doping as I have no proof, but (as just one example) Drew Griffith seems somewhat suspicious - in 11th grade he ran 1:59 / 4:08 (1600) / 8:52 (2 mile) according to milesplit.
31 -
better training is key wrote:
Ragnar D wrote:
Shoes help, but it's drugs. Duh. When there is no testing whatsoever, kids and parents conspire to maximize their potential for a D1 scholarship and NIL $. Didn't some parents just go to prison for scamming their kid's test scores or for paying off colleges to get them in? Same thing here.
We are living in crazy times.
Paying off colleges and cheating on test scores is not comparable to messing around with a kids health. I highly doubt parents will play with their own kids health. Get help.
You might want to wipe that egg off your face. Many parents will do anything to see their kids succeed/live out their own failed dreams
42 -
huwang wrote:
Some sort of new drug out there. It isn't solely just the shoes, something else is aiding all of these performances.
Yes, all the non varsity high school runners going faster are on some new drug. It is wide spread across the entire country. Everyone is keeping it secret.
That seems like a logical conclusion.
42 -
Mask off wrote:
Here's an off the wall theory, there are other reasons too. Covid. What? There was nothing to do other than train and stay inside, mostly. Running was an excuse to get outside.
This is a big part of it, despite what anyone thinks. The other part is the shoes, which were just becoming a mainstream thing around the time the lockdowns started. You then couple it with 1-2 years of straight training and this is what you end up with. I think many people have stuck with training like this and made it habit. We now have a bunch of people that are 3-4 years in on training all the time instead of weekend warrior types. Covid changed alot of things and one of them was peoples running habits.
02 -
huwang wrote:
better training is key wrote:
I disagree with this. I have a son who's in this elite 3200 category and I happen to coach and doping is against our values. I highly believe that most if not ALL of his competitors are clean They likely just train harder and smarter.
Against your values? C'mon with that. Everyone who dopes says it's against their values and they would never do such a thing. Wake up to the reality that doping is more widespread than you want to believe.
We're talking about high school athletes not grown man who can make their own decisions. Those athletes that been popped doping are not kids. Is there doping? absolutely. Parents having their kids dope is far fetch but keep thinking that.
40 -
I have science for you. I have coached for 20 years and kept data on every workout and every race. My guys race about 10 seconds faster today doing the same workouts that my previous athletes did.
102 -
Rival is $75 and equivalent to spikes from 20 years ago. It is a nice shoe for the money but will sacrifice a few seconds in 1600.
00 -
I just scanned the thread. wrote:
Fffffff wrote:
Nobody has run Sub 3:27 because of EPO testing. I notice how you ignore how many more people are running sub 3:28,3:29,3:30,and 3:31. Just coincidence that the elite time dropped about 2s shortly after the shoes come out? The 5/10 numbers are even more blatant.
Nylon shoes and syntenthic tracks helped. Super shoes are just the next step.
Believers in modern shoe types don't offer any science. In my initial post I asked: Which shoes? Track shoes? Training shoes? Offer a reason or reasons why shoes don't produce fast times 100m to 1000m.
There were changes in U.S. high school training from circa-1990 when Peter Coe & David Martin began writing books. Supposedly, according to posts on here, bad days for U.S. distance running. Peter Coe & David Martin-type training produced in 00s & 10s the most sub-1:44 800m runners in U.S. ever.
Training now has gone away from Coe-type training in U.S., greater mileage now. We are seeing better 3200m performances and even many fast 1600m performances but the goal seems today to develop fast U.S. 5000m kids. Any theory for performances which leaves out 800m performances is a weak theory.
Shoes don’t offer an advantage for 100 through 800 because the advantage of the shoes is that they reduce fatigue over time. 100 is over way too fast. Same with the 400 and 800. You’re in oxygen debt for pretty much the whole thing. Nothing is helping once you hit oxygen debt. You need a distance where you can run economically for a period of time. This is where the shoes help because they return energy and delay fatigue. I would argue that they start to offer an advantage for 1000m but not enough races. If you don’t believe shoes are the main reason for the time improvements over the last four years go to iaaf (or whatever it’s called now) and average top 100 US times for 1500m through marathon and then compare those averages with years 2010-2019. The difference is night and day. It is so unbelievably ridiculous. What changed in 2019-2020? SHOES! You really think training changed in one year? Or nutrition? Or whatever else. I would argue that ped use could have increased over Covid, but ped use existed before Covid as well. My college alma matter, 2019 they were pretty bad (as far as times). Even the years leading up were bleak. Now they’re all superstars - relatively speaking of course because everyone is a superstar now. If the shoes don’t work why is everyone wearing them?
21 -
Gvjjjj wrote:
I just scanned the thread. wrote:
Believers in modern shoe types don't offer any science. In my initial post I asked: Which shoes? Track shoes? Training shoes? Offer a reason or reasons why shoes don't produce fast times 100m to 1000m.
There were changes in U.S. high school training from circa-1990 when Peter Coe & David Martin began writing books. Supposedly, according to posts on here, bad days for U.S. distance running. Peter Coe & David Martin-type training produced in 00s & 10s the most sub-1:44 800m runners in U.S. ever.
Training now has gone away from Coe-type training in U.S., greater mileage now. We are seeing better 3200m performances and even many fast 1600m performances but the goal seems today to develop fast U.S. 5000m kids. Any theory for performances which leaves out 800m performances is a weak theory.
Shoes don’t offer an advantage for 100 through 800 because the advantage of the shoes is that they reduce fatigue over time. 100 is over way too fast. Same with the 400 and 800. You’re in oxygen debt for pretty much the whole thing. Nothing is helping once you hit oxygen debt. You need a distance where you can run economically for a period of time. This is where the shoes help because they return energy and delay fatigue. I would argue that they start to offer an advantage for 1000m but not enough races. If you don’t believe shoes are the main reason for the time improvements over the last four years go to iaaf (or whatever it’s called now) and average top 100 US times for 1500m through marathon and then compare those averages with years 2010-2019. The difference is night and day. It is so unbelievably ridiculous. What changed in 2019-2020? SHOES! You really think training changed in one year? Or nutrition? Or whatever else. I would argue that ped use could have increased over Covid, but ped use existed before Covid as well. My college alma matter, 2019 they were pretty bad (as far as times). Even the years leading up were bleak. Now they’re all superstars - relatively speaking of course because everyone is a superstar now. If the shoes don’t work why is everyone wearing them?
Yep, most of the college and high school events have been pretty stagnant over the last 10 years, the bump we've seen recently has been almost exclusively in the longer distance events, the 1500 and up. I do think more distance coaches are focused on aerobic development now instead of hammering intervals and that helps some too, but the shoes are probably the single biggest factor.
The people talking about PEDs are clearly not looking across the gamut of track events. If drug use is rampant in high school track why are we not seeing slews of boys throwing the shot put over 70' (there's one so far this year) and boys regularly running the 100m in 10.0 or 9.9 (10.22 is the fastest so far this year)? There probably isn't an easier PED for a high schooler to get ahold of than various anabolic steroids and yet I don't think we are seeing a lot of evidence they are being abused by high school track and field athletes. For high school track the 3200 and to a lesser extent the 1600/mile have been outliers in recent years with sudden and dramatic improvements in performances nationwide, going back through the results of the Arcadia meet over the last 20 years is incredibly informative. These improvements correspond almost perfectly with the development of the new shoe tech that is now widely available.
21 -
CO Coach wrote:
Gvjjjj wrote:
Shoes don’t offer an advantage for 100 through 800 because the advantage of the shoes is that they reduce fatigue over time. 100 is over way too fast. Same with the 400 and 800. You’re in oxygen debt for pretty much the whole thing. Nothing is helping once you hit oxygen debt. You need a distance where you can run economically for a period of time. This is where the shoes help because they return energy and delay fatigue. I would argue that they start to offer an advantage for 1000m but not enough races. If you don’t believe shoes are the main reason for the time improvements over the last four years go to iaaf (or whatever it’s called now) and average top 100 US times for 1500m through marathon and then compare those averages with years 2010-2019. The difference is night and day. It is so unbelievably ridiculous. What changed in 2019-2020? SHOES! You really think training changed in one year? Or nutrition? Or whatever else. I would argue that ped use could have increased over Covid, but ped use existed before Covid as well. My college alma matter, 2019 they were pretty bad (as far as times). Even the years leading up were bleak. Now they’re all superstars - relatively speaking of course because everyone is a superstar now. If the shoes don’t work why is everyone wearing them?
Yep, most of the college and high school events have been pretty stagnant over the last 10 years, the bump we've seen recently has been almost exclusively in the longer distance events, the 1500 and up. I do think more distance coaches are focused on aerobic development now instead of hammering intervals and that helps some too, but the shoes are probably the single biggest factor.
The people talking about PEDs are clearly not looking across the gamut of track events. If drug use is rampant in high school track why are we not seeing slews of boys throwing the shot put over 70' (there's one so far this year) and boys regularly running the 100m in 10.0 or 9.9 (10.22 is the fastest so far this year)? There probably isn't an easier PED for a high schooler to get ahold of than various anabolic steroids and yet I don't think we are seeing a lot of evidence they are being abused by high school track and field athletes. For high school track the 3200 and to a lesser extent the 1600/mile have been outliers in recent years with sudden and dramatic improvements in performances nationwide, going back through the results of the Arcadia meet over the last 20 years is incredibly informative. These improvements correspond almost perfectly with the development of the new shoe tech that is now widely available.
As for Arcadia results, if you're taking 99% of the best high school 3200 meter runners you're going to have fireworks. And that's exactly what happened. There has never been a field that strong and yet the national record remains in place.
31 -
better training is key wrote:
CO Coach wrote:
Yep, most of the college and high school events have been pretty stagnant over the last 10 years, the bump we've seen recently has been almost exclusively in the longer distance events, the 1500 and up. I do think more distance coaches are focused on aerobic development now instead of hammering intervals and that helps some too, but the shoes are probably the single biggest factor.
The people talking about PEDs are clearly not looking across the gamut of track events. If drug use is rampant in high school track why are we not seeing slews of boys throwing the shot put over 70' (there's one so far this year) and boys regularly running the 100m in 10.0 or 9.9 (10.22 is the fastest so far this year)? There probably isn't an easier PED for a high schooler to get ahold of than various anabolic steroids and yet I don't think we are seeing a lot of evidence they are being abused by high school track and field athletes. For high school track the 3200 and to a lesser extent the 1600/mile have been outliers in recent years with sudden and dramatic improvements in performances nationwide, going back through the results of the Arcadia meet over the last 20 years is incredibly informative. These improvements correspond almost perfectly with the development of the new shoe tech that is now widely available.
As for Arcadia results, if you're taking 99% of the best high school 3200 meter runners you're going to have fireworks. And that's exactly what happened. There has never been a field that strong and yet the national record remains in place.
Watching it, my read is that at the front they raced it rather than going for time. Wonder what would have happened if you took out the slowest 25 and added 3-4 8:28ish guys to the field.
00 -
Shsjsjdj wrote:
better training is key wrote:
As for Arcadia results, if you're taking 99% of the best high school 3200 meter runners you're going to have fireworks. And that's exactly what happened. There has never been a field that strong and yet the national record remains in place.
Watching it, my read is that at the front they raced it rather than going for time. Wonder what would have happened if you took out the slowest 25 and added 3-4 8:28ish guys to the field.
I agree. Last year they had Aaron to pace the first mile. This year no one wanted to take the lead so the first 1600 was slow for these guys.
00 -
coach Joe wrote:
I have science for you. I have coached for 20 years and kept data on every workout and every race. My guys race about 10 seconds faster today doing the same workouts that my previous athletes did.
That’s not science. Is the talent level at your school a constant? Last year the fastest Jesuit Sacramento runner didn’t break 9:20. I doubt that Lange changed his workouts so by your logic, the new shoes make people run slower.
11
1 post was removed from this page.
What People Are Talking About On LetsRun
No top threads at the moment. Check back soon.