He is a typical LetsRun poster, but he does put his name on his opinions.
He is a typical LetsRun poster, but he does put his name on his opinions.
I interviewed the scientist who first discovered the 4% difference in the Nike 4%. That's how they came to name it.
Two things came out of the interview:
1. 4% was the average. The range was 2 to 6% +/- and that means different people seem to benefit more than others.
2. Didn't see a correlation between the 2 to 6% range, but wasn't looking for them. That is in a future study.
Anecdotally, I think a shuffler will likely get much less out of the carbon plate than the person who bounces on the forefoot.
So, as we get accustomed to the shoes and perhaps apathetic there isn't an even playing field here. At least not with the plated shoes.
In your estimation does D'Amato have a bouncier stride or a forefoot landing with good kick or is she closer to a shuffler?
6% is ridiculously off the charts. Imagine if Kastor had a 6% advantage? Perhaps that would never happen in a marathon.....perhaps the 6% was the outside best in a 5K road race or something...but still.....
In 1985, when the women's marathon was still in its infancy, Ingrid Kristiansen ran a 2:21:06 and Joan Benoit ran 2:21:21.
Despite being an American record, it shouldn't be surprising that, nearly 37 years later, an American women runs 2 minutes faster, benefitting from the latest shoe technology.
What is surprising is how few women ran faster than these 1985 times. Before the impact of the new shoes, the 1985 Ingrid Kristiansen would have ranked 43rd all time, with the 71st fastest performance. Since 2018, this performance has dropped to 143rd.
There was obviously far less depth in the 1980s women's running. But that does not mean that there were some extraordinary runners like Benoit and Kristiansen. Kristiansen was also more than two minutes faster in the 10k than d'Amato... so she should have run at least 2:16, I guess... go figure..
Wetcoast wrote:
I interviewed the scientist who first discovered the 4% difference in the Nike 4%. That's how they came to name it.
Two things came out of the interview:
1. 4% was the average. The range was 2 to 6% +/- and that means different people seem to benefit more than others.
2. Didn't see a correlation between the 2 to 6% range, but wasn't looking for them. That is in a future study.
Anecdotally, I think a shuffler will likely get much less out of the carbon plate than the person who bounces on the forefoot.
So, as we get accustomed to the shoes and perhaps apathetic there isn't an even playing field here. At least not with the plated shoes.
In your estimation does D'Amato have a bouncier stride or a forefoot landing with good kick or is she closer to a shuffler?
6% is ridiculously off the charts. Imagine if Kastor had a 6% advantage? Perhaps that would never happen in a marathon.....perhaps the 6% was the outside best in a 5K road race or something...but still.....
If her Strava data is accurate, her stride rate was like 190+ average for the marathon. That is some turnover. More steps = more benefit? Gotta image taking 2,500-3,000 extra steps more than other runners averaging 170 steps/minute would net a bigger bounce from the shoes.
made bed wrote:
*stipe wrote:
Just facts from Kevin Beck
https://kevinbeck.substack.com/p/the-real-keira-damato-story-gainingDon’t know what’s worse, this guy’s writing ability, or his understanding of training methodology. What a goon.
Well, right now, his argument is stronger than yours…
Care to educate us on this training methodology we’re missing?
the macdaddy og yoo wrote:
made bed wrote:
Don’t know what’s worse, this guy’s writing ability, or his understanding of training methodology. What a goon.
Well, right now, his argument is stronger than yours…
Care to educate us on this training methodology we’re missing?
Well, the crux of his argument is that yearly mileage is in any way a good measurement of someone’s preparedness for a marathon.
It’s not. That’s dumb. The day he extrapolates from that: “8.1 miles/day” is also ridiculously faulty.
The fact that he is flabbergasted enough to write this article shows he has no idea what kind of training is appropriate for the race.
made bed wrote:
the macdaddy og yoo wrote:
Well, right now, his argument is stronger than yours…
Care to educate us on this training methodology we’re missing?
Well, the crux of his argument is that yearly mileage is in any way a good measurement of someone’s preparedness for a marathon.
It’s not. That’s dumb. The day he extrapolates from that: “8.1 miles/day” is also ridiculously faulty.
The fact that he is flabbergasted enough to write this article shows he has no idea what kind of training is appropriate for the race.
I think KB is reading too much into Strava.
Dude, she's a realtor. Have you ever met a dishonest realtor?
Look at Google Images for "Keira Calstrom" (maiden name) and you'll see her NCAA American U pictures come up.
It's like her body at 35-37 and early 20's is reversed.
Originally I was going to draw a comparison between these two extremes (late 30's, early 20s) but I think the only fair conclusion is to actually say she has had a radical body transformation since her kids (as other posters have noted) and it went further than her natural baseline from her 20's. That shouldn't be news as we see that everywhere in women's track but she would have needed "help" to go below her baseline.
Just another point. I've seen the evidence and unbelievable transformations to career-best times like this from athletes that are barely tested in prior years just don't occur from "hard work" at 36-37.
quickdrwaya wrote:
I think KB is reading too much into Strava.
didnt she miss like 6 weeks of running last year? Or basically enough to get her back up to the prior yeat average. And Strava needs to add an AR badge🤣
And if she was doping, wouldnt she be able to train 120mpw instead of 80ish?
I can't believe people are only getting suspicious now. She ran that 10 mile record on a super lame course with zero crowds and no one batted an eye. I also can't believe some people are fallling for this. This whole situation is screaming with red flags. Time will tell and I'll definitely be watching for the eventual fallout.
Jogger Hobby wrote:
I can't believe people are only getting suspicious now. She ran that 10 mile record on a super lame course with zero crowds and no one batted an eye. I also can't believe some people are fallling for this. This whole situation is screaming with red flags. Time will tell and I'll definitely be watching for the eventual fallout.
I’m only suspicious now because I didn’t care enough about her to think she would have an impact on the American marathon scene. 15th at the US Olympic trials is pretty irrelevant and far enough back in the pack for me not to ask any questions. An American record, at any age, gets questioned, and especially at 37.
strava is the truth wrote:
its sooo degrading to people with real full time when runners proclaim themselves as full time workers. for ex yuri kawaguchi also claims he is workin but in reality he has an easy job (assistant type of job at school w little responsibility) with workin hours adjusted to his running (from 8 or 9 to 3 pm with a long lunch break like 45-60 min).
all the runners i have known who get real full time jobs like docs or somethin in that capacity and work like a regular worker has to turn down their running aspirations a few notches.
i particularly remember one runner (age 30+ , 3.39 at 1500) who just finished his doc degree. in the beginning (like the first and maybe second year) he was able to compete ok (thnx to his solid background) but then he had to quit.
simply, its not possible to work a REAL job full time and still be able to compete at the top.
Kawauchi's hours when he worked were usually 1 PM to 8 PM. Runners in Japan's corporate system do have hours shortened to allow them to train but Kawauchi was not part of that system. I don't know how hard or easy his job was but an easy job is a real job. Maybe he is smart enough to find an easy one.
Obvious doper. Mediocre runner suddenly best in the usa when old
CanadianTrackFan wrote:
Look at Google Images for "Keira Calstrom" (maiden name) and you'll see her NCAA American U pictures come up.
It's like her body at 35-37 and early 20's is reversed.
Originally I was going to draw a comparison between these two extremes (late 30's, early 20s) but I think the only fair conclusion is to actually say she has had a radical body transformation since her kids (as other posters have noted) and it went further than her natural baseline from her 20's. That shouldn't be news as we see that everywhere in women's track but she would have needed "help" to go below her baseline.
Just another point. I've seen the evidence and unbelievable transformations to career-best times like this from athletes that are barely tested in prior years just don't occur from "hard work" at 36-37.
She actually looks pretty muscular through high school and college, but now she looks like a stick figure with still a significant amount of muscle.
amen...
JBaller33 wrote:
She actually looks pretty muscular through high school and college, but now she looks like a stick figure with still a significant amount of muscle.
she looks like someone who lost 5-10lbs. It happens. Go look at a lot of pros and they are leaner than HS
slaaa wrote:
JBaller33 wrote:
She actually looks pretty muscular through high school and college, but now she looks like a stick figure with still a significant amount of muscle.
she looks like someone who lost 5-10lbs. It happens. Go look at a lot of pros and they are leaner than HS
Because they are juicing. That's what pro's do.
hi!
thnx 4 takin time 2 reply.
no, thats not i recall form an article i read.
he has (or had) a job at a school. on the admin side. he was like an assist. to others with more power/responsi.
the impression from the article was that it was not too complicated or stressful. of cos any job is a job but there are def degrees. for ex. a nurse or a doc working (full time) shifts at a hospital maybe 9 or even 12 hour shift compared to a crypto invester day trader....with much more flex hours....i am just saying that runners often portray themsleves as "workers" when in fact they might have a part time job (2-3 days a week) at a runnng shoe store or something lika that.