well,, wrote:
Sdddd ddds wrote:
So they only run 47.5 400ms instead of 46 low??
110mph is high for a high schooler but not crazy high. Before you start talking drugs and the like remember what Ryun and Lindgren were doing in HS. Eventually more talent like them is going to show up.
There are tons of XC skiers who are doing that kind of volume when they are teenagers.
NO, just no. Not true. What do you mean by tons?
NnNnNnNnNn wrote:
well,, wrote:
There are tons of XC skiers who are doing that kind of volume when they are teenagers.
NO, just no. Not true. What do you mean by tons?
People who aren't pansies.
In general, most junior XC skiers can tolerate a considerably higher volume of training than junior runners. They can do this because most of their yearly training is in the form of non-impact aerobic activity (XC skiing and roller-skiing). Also, many XC skiers train more intelligently than most runners, performing a large portion of their total training volume at efforts that would be considered unacceptably easy by many runners.
The typical training breakdown for an elite XC skier is:
80-85% of total volume at easy aerobic effort (55-75% Max HR)
15-20% of total volume at threshold effort or harder (85-100% Max HR)
Very little training at "medium" effort (76-84% max HR)
And it's not uncommon for a junior XC skier to train 500-600 hours/year.
Well, you have counted each individual tree but the wood still eludes you. Pedantry is apparently your guiding principle in any discussion of the larger issues. However, none of your obfuscations changes the general picture, that around 1 in 2 elites is estimated to dope. As Casual Observer explained more thoroughly than I, the figures obtained from the surveys are likely to have under-estimated the incidence of doping, not over-estimated it, so even 43% is a conservative conclusion. All of that, however, is rather pointless to discuss in your presence, as a general observation made in passing descends down a rabbit hole of such convolutions that the subject raised becomes as unrecognisable as a reflection in a fairground mirror. There is truth; and there is statistics. You clearly abide by the latter.
rekrunner wrote:
In fact, I expressed my objection from the start with commensurate economy and simplicity:
Recall you said "The IAAF has estimated that 1 in 2 championship athletes is doping."
When we see the real source of this claim, it is clear you got two basic things wrong:
- This was not an "IAAF" estimate
- 1 in 2 was not the estimate for "championship" athletes
There are several easy ways to fix your claim, to match the real source. Shooting the messenger is not one of them.
Regarding your summary:
- I did not object to "survey" because you did not say "survey"; you said "estimate"
- I did not talk about authorship, but if you want to know who authored "1 in 2", it was Roger Pielke Jr.
- The "survey" was not 1 survey, but 2 surveys, appearing in 1 study
- One survey was conducted at an IAAF event, with championship athletes. The raw survey result was 43.6%.
- The other survey was conducted at a non-IAAF event, making it irrelevant in an IAAF discussion
- 57% is the result of the non-IAAF event, making it irrelevant in an IAAF discussion
- "1 in 2" is the round average of the IAAF event, and the non-IAAF event, making it irrelevant in an IAAF discussion
- I know about the higher prevalence of Arab athletes in 28 sports, versus championship athletes in track and field, because of the published results of the 2 different surveys in the study
- I have no insight in doping prevalence of Kenyans
Armstronglivs wrote:
@rekrunner
So, if one can summarise the little that is apparently meaningful out of all of your posts, you object to the survey being described as an IAAF survey, though it included IAAF athletes, and you reject the finding of 57% doping because it included Arab wrestlers, among others, and you happen to know (without even the benefit of anecdote, it appears) that Arabs dope more than anyone else (especially the much-maligned Kenyans) and none more than Arab wrestlers and weight lifters.
Well, you have counted each individual tree but the wood still eludes you. Pedantry is apparently your guiding principle in any discussion of the larger issues. However, none of your obfuscations changes the general picture, that around 1 in 2 elites is estimated to dope. As Casual Observer explained more thoroughly than I, the figures obtained from the surveys are likely to have under-estimated the incidence of doping, not over-estimated it, so even 43% is a conservative conclusion. All of that, however, is rather pointless to discuss in your presence, as a general observation made in passing descends down a rabbit hole of such convolutions that the subject raised becomes as unrecognisable as a reflection in a fairground mirror. There is truth; and there is statistics. You clearly abide by the latter.
Good to hear!
Gary, the expression" I'm" out " means one is leaving, not ramping up the trolling etc.
coachrc wrote:
In general, most junior XC skiers can tolerate a considerably higher volume of training than junior runners. They can do this because most of their yearly training is in the form of non-impact aerobic activity (XC skiing and roller-skiing). Also, many XC skiers train more intelligently than most runners, performing a large portion of their total training volume at efforts that would be considered unacceptably easy by many runners.
The typical training breakdown for an elite XC skier is:
80-85% of total volume at easy aerobic effort (55-75% Max HR)
15-20% of total volume at threshold effort or harder (85-100% Max HR)
Very little training at "medium" effort (76-84% max HR)
And it's not uncommon for a junior XC skier to train 500-600 hours/year.
It's also not unusual for them to consume asthma drugs, blood dope and use EPO.
I think that Filip may have been in that Stanford 5000m in which Henrik ran an early world leader, but Filip had plantar fasciitis or achilles issues and dropped out, turning to pool workouts and coming back with a 3:30 in Monaco or a world medal that year (2017 or 2018). So, that might have been Filip's most recent chance to run a good 5 time. His xc race shows that he can do it.
They play it up for tv, no doubt, but the fact is that Gjert is the only thing Norwegian distance running has had going for it since Bakken.
As much as I've enjoyed our exchange, I'm afraid this thread, including my comments, was never about your wood, and we've already dwelled too much off topic. I can perfectly see your IAAF woods, and I also see it's not an Arabian Orchard.
Armstronglivs wrote:
Well, you have counted each individual tree but the wood still eludes you. Pedantry is apparently your guiding principle in any discussion of the larger issues. However, none of your obfuscations changes the general picture, that around 1 in 2 elites is estimated to dope. As Casual Observer explained more thoroughly than I, the figures obtained from the surveys are likely to have under-estimated the incidence of doping, not over-estimated it, so even 43% is a conservative conclusion. All of that, however, is rather pointless to discuss in your presence, as a general observation made in passing descends down a rabbit hole of such convolutions that the subject raised becomes as unrecognisable as a reflection in a fairground mirror. There is truth; and there is statistics. You clearly abide by the latter.
zxcvzxcv wrote:
They play it up for tv, no doubt, but the fact is that Gjert is the only thing Norwegian distance running has had going for it since Bakken.
They got some young runners coming up with great potential. Eilén Brenne ran a 600m in 1:30 at age 15. Running in Norway is much better than in other EU countries of similar size.
rekrunner wrote:
As much as I've enjoyed our exchange, I'm afraid this thread, including my comments, was never about your wood, and we've already dwelled too much off topic. I can perfectly see your IAAF woods, and I also see it's not an Arabian Orchard.
Armstronglivs wrote:
Well, you have counted each individual tree but the wood still eludes you. Pedantry is apparently your guiding principle in any discussion of the larger issues. However, none of your obfuscations changes the general picture, that around 1 in 2 elites is estimated to dope. As Casual Observer explained more thoroughly than I, the figures obtained from the surveys are likely to have under-estimated the incidence of doping, not over-estimated it, so even 43% is a conservative conclusion. All of that, however, is rather pointless to discuss in your presence, as a general observation made in passing descends down a rabbit hole of such convolutions that the subject raised becomes as unrecognisable as a reflection in a fairground mirror. There is truth; and there is statistics. You clearly abide by the latter.
I am not interested in statistics for their own sake, as you are, but your insistence on discrediting the higher-level finding of the research while accepting the lower 43% response still leaves you in the same territory that I suggested at the outset: the proportion of doping amongst elites in that survey is closer to 1 in 2 than any other ratio. That is on-topic in considering whether the feats of any of the Ingebrigtsens are genuine because they easily fall within that ratio: they could be doping based on the figures obtained from the 2011 surveys. What isn't on topic is your continuing to disappear up your own backside with a fixation on source attribution and statistical interpretation. The surveys are bad news for the sport no matter how you seek to depict or minimise them. I'll add Asbergers to my previous observation.
Anyone who reads a rectumrunner post is a dumas, much less responding to one.
(I'll try to be brief, and try to bring this back to "Gjert Ingebrigtsen shares the secret to his sons' success - high mileage") I guess accuracy and attribution doesn't matter for the bigger issues. Keeping with your wood analogy, I'm just saying don't mix the "IAAF woods" with "Arabian orchards". It UNNECESSARILY hurts the sport under the IAAF, not to mention your credibility. I wasn't discrediting the study findings, but your interpretation of the findings and applicability to Ingebrigtsens' success. For another example of interpretation, with respect to "1 in 2" still being the best ratio (ignoring better ratios like 2 in 5, or 11 in 25, or 109 in 250), despite your misquotes and misstatements -- the study authors, in closing, in the appendix (see 4.10), led us to a lower bound of less than "1 in 3", before writing the famous "unlikely that we overestimated", in that context, three paragraphs later. With respect to applicability, whether starting with "1 in 2", or "2 in 5", or "1 in 3", we should eliminate unrelated prevalence we know is high, like Russian athletes, and the WOMEN's 1500m (see 2012 Olympics), and race-walking. 122 of the 1202 (9.5%) WCH respondents answered the WCH survey in Russian. Only 8 respondents answered the survey in Norwegian. Adjusting remaining prevalence for these known factors, it becomes statistically MORE LIKELY that Ingrebrigtsen is CLEAN than DIRTY. Bringing it back to mileage, we know, historically, in the 1990s, after Coe's international success assumed to be due to LOW MILEAGE with HIGH INTENSITY, the Western world performances started to stagnate. So it is worth discussing how HIGH MILEAGE might really be the secret to the Ingebrigtsens' success.
Armstronglivs wrote:
I am not interested in statistics for their own sake, as you are, but your insistence on discrediting the higher-level finding of the research while accepting the lower 43% response still leaves you in the same territory that I suggested at the outset: the proportion of doping amongst elites in that survey is closer to 1 in 2 than any other ratio. That is on-topic in considering whether the feats of any of the Ingebrigtsens are genuine because they easily fall within that ratio: they could be doping based on the figures obtained from the 2011 surveys. What isn't on topic is your continuing to disappear up your own backside with a fixation on source attribution and statistical interpretation. The surveys are bad news for the sport no matter how you seek to depict or minimise them. I'll add Asbergers to my previous observation.
rekrunner wrote:
(I'll try to be brief,
You also said you were 'out" and now you are back with a War and Peace sequel.
rekrunner wrote:
(I'll try to be brief, and try to bring this back to "Gjert Ingebrigtsen shares the secret to his sons' success - high mileage")
I guess accuracy and attribution doesn't matter for the bigger issues. Keeping with your wood analogy, I'm just saying don't mix the "IAAF woods" with "Arabian orchards". It UNNECESSARILY hurts the sport under the IAAF, not to mention your credibility.
I wasn't discrediting the study findings, but your interpretation of the findings and applicability to Ingebrigtsens' success.
For another example of interpretation, with respect to "1 in 2" still being the best ratio (ignoring better ratios like 2 in 5, or 11 in 25, or 109 in 250), despite your misquotes and misstatements -- the study authors, in closing, in the appendix (see 4.10), led us to a lower bound of less than "1 in 3", before writing the famous "unlikely that we overestimated", in that context, three paragraphs later.
With respect to applicability, whether starting with "1 in 2", or "2 in 5", or "1 in 3", we should eliminate unrelated prevalence we know is high, like Russian athletes, and the WOMEN's 1500m (see 2012 Olympics), and race-walking. 122 of the 1202 (9.5%) WCH respondents answered the WCH survey in Russian. Only 8 respondents answered the survey in Norwegian. Adjusting remaining prevalence for these known factors, it becomes statistically MORE LIKELY that Ingrebrigtsen is CLEAN than DIRTY.
Bringing it back to mileage, we know, historically, in the 1990s, after Coe's international success assumed to be due to LOW MILEAGE with HIGH INTENSITY, the Western world performances started to stagnate.
So it is worth discussing how HIGH MILEAGE might really be the secret to the Ingebrigtsens' success.
Armstronglivs wrote:
I am not interested in statistics for their own sake, as you are, but your insistence on discrediting the higher-level finding of the research while accepting the lower 43% response still leaves you in the same territory that I suggested at the outset: the proportion of doping amongst elites in that survey is closer to 1 in 2 than any other ratio. That is on-topic in considering whether the feats of any of the Ingebrigtsens are genuine because they easily fall within that ratio: they could be doping based on the figures obtained from the 2011 surveys. What isn't on topic is your continuing to disappear up your own backside with a fixation on source attribution and statistical interpretation. The surveys are bad news for the sport no matter how you seek to depict or minimise them. I'll add Asbergers to my previous observation.
All that just to conclude that the Ingebrigtsens won't be doping, because, to your analysis, the trees in the forest are really just a few blades of grass. I'm sure you could argue that, statistically, the earth is flat.
try to FO, Gary wrote:
rekrunner wrote:
(I'll try to be brief,
You also said you were 'out" and now you are back with a War and Peace sequel.
At least War and Peace made some kind of sense.
Your "blades of grass" analogy is a strawman.
Armstronglivs wrote:
All that just to conclude that the Ingebrigtsens won't be doping, because, to your analysis, the trees in the forest are really just a few blades of grass. I'm sure you could argue that, statistically, the earth is flat.
Bringing it back to mileage, we know, historically, in the 1990s, after Coe's international success assumed to be due to LOW MILEAGE with HIGH INTENSITY, the Western world performances started to stagnate. So it is worth discussing how HIGH MILEAGE might really be the secret to the Ingebrigtsens' success.
rekrunner wrote:
Your "blades of grass" analogy is a strawman.
Armstronglivs wrote:
All that just to conclude that the Ingebrigtsens won't be doping, because, to your analysis, the trees in the forest are really just a few blades of grass. I'm sure you could argue that, statistically, the earth is flat.