Who is this Armstronglivs character? where is he from? Is he angry because wherever he’s from has no runners of note right now? The way he makes post after post reveals a very obsessive personality. Strange.
You haven't noticed thread after thread that raises the subject of doping in the sport - like this one? So Letsrun is obviously obsessed with doping.
You didn't deny his post of you being the angry old man yelling at clouds.
Of course it is a question that interests many, but few have any real answers despite their attempts to offer them. These threads all follow a similar pattern. For example, this thread asking the question "What new drugs are all these American runners taking?" will eventually end with no definitive answer, but many of the same people repeating the same old things, such as microdosing nandrolone, EPO, peptides, and increased Kenyan testing, while ignoring the high correlation with developments in shoes, and a shift of emphasis with double-threshold training. This won't prevent jumping to baseless conclusions that secret unknowable developments and advancements in the pharmaceutical industry, which are also known by all athletes down to the high school level, are the only credible explanation, despite the lack of any credible scenario that would explain how a global phenomenon produces local results (e.g. American men and East African women, but not East African men nor American women).
You haven't noticed thread after thread that raises the subject of doping in the sport - like this one? So Letsrun is obviously obsessed with doping.
You didn't deny his post of you being the angry old man yelling at clouds.
Of course it is a question that interests many, but few have any real answers despite their attempts to offer them. These threads all follow a similar pattern. For example, this thread asking the question "What new drugs are all these American runners taking?" will eventually end with no definitive answer, but many of the same people repeating the same old things, such as microdosing nandrolone, EPO, peptides, and increased Kenyan testing, while ignoring the high correlation with developments in shoes, and a shift of emphasis with double-threshold training. This won't prevent jumping to baseless conclusions that secret unknowable developments and advancements in the pharmaceutical industry, which are also known by all athletes down to the high school level, are the only credible explanation, despite the lack of any credible scenario that would explain how a global phenomenon produces local results (e.g. American men and East African women, but not East African men nor American women).
You make fair points.
However, I come from a bodybuilding background where It’s a given that everyone is juiced to the gills. So, it seems silly to me to just dismiss the idea that no American runners use PEDs.
As far the claims being baseless, how exactly would you prove it, other than seeing it first hand? Lots of PED users have passed lots of tests.
It’s also possible that they’ve gotten better at drug taking the same way they’ve gotten better at training. There are people with expertise in this area who advise athletes on how to use PEDs to achieve maximum results while avoiding getting popped.
This post was edited 1 minute after it was posted.
The top Kenyan and Ethiopian talent seem to be going into the Marathon. So, the 5K is softer making it easier for Americans to gain ground.
One drug that could be useful to a distance runners is Test. Women could be less likely to mess with a male hormone. Also, the Shelby debacle might have had a chilling effect. It’s not worth risking going through that.
Lastly, Double Threshold didn’t help Jacob at the Half Marathon distance. He got wrecked.
This post was edited 2 minutes after it was posted.
You show you haven't a clue about music - as expected - but when it comes to training there isn't anything new and hasn't been so for years. But pharmacy is always developing.
You never tire of this tired refrain when finding yourself unable to compose a coherent, intelligent response, creating a segway to re-doubling down on your declared faith in pharma.
By clinging to composers from centuries ago, in one narrow genre, you reveal yourself again as someone who is hopelessly stuck in the past, out of place in the modern era -- an old man mad at and shouting at the world because of your own inability to keep up with the times. In classical music alone, there were many great composers in the subsequent centuries standing on the shoulders of these early giants -- e.g. Wagner, Brahms, DeBussy, Chopin, Tchaikovsky -- far too many to list to do all of them justice. Listing just these "big three" suggests to me that these are probably the only ones you know of.
You also reveal severe limitations in your own thinking, for suggesting that the one genre of classical music is the last word and pinnacle of evolution of all music. Putting aside my recent popular "rock" and "pop" examples, sticking with Western music, there was a lot of innovative developments in the last century in other genres like blues and jazz. I'm a particular fan of some ragtime pieces, but that may be just my own individual quirk appreciating the energy of a unique period of history. I wonder how Bach would fair in head-to-head battles against a Scott Joplin or Oscar Peterson, or if Mozart could invoke the same level of crowd excitement to match Queen's performance at Live Aid. How could we ignore greatness from legends ranging from Charlie Parker, to Jeff Beck, to Pat Methany to Chuck Berry to Barney Kessel to Pat Martino to Freddy Mercury -- just to name again too few to do them justice.
While what little I do know focuses on Western genres -- a quirk of my cultural upbringing -- my analogy did not limit itself to Western music. The institutional focus on classical music has been (controversially) called "racist" by some music scholars, and not completely without merit, since much of our Western culture of music and virtually all recent significant musical innovation has deep African roots -- blues, rock, jazz, disco, rap, .... But these western genres based on 12 discrete notes per octave ignores other cultures who base their music on systems of 17, 19, 31, 53, or 72 notes per octave, and use different kinds of variations such as gradual pitch transitions between notes rather than quantum jumps in beats.
But I digress. I'll leave you stuck in your closed little world where the music died centuries ago on Beethoven's deathbed.
You pompous moron. I didn't say there has been no great music since Bach, Beethoven and Mozart but that their music hasn't been surpassed by that which is regarded - by experts (not you) - as greater. Hence your use of music as an analogy for advances in training fails.
You haven't noticed thread after thread that raises the subject of doping in the sport - like this one? So Letsrun is obviously obsessed with doping.
You didn't deny his post of you being the angry old man yelling at clouds.
Of course it is a question that interests many, but few have any real answers despite their attempts to offer them. These threads all follow a similar pattern. For example, this thread asking the question "What new drugs are all these American runners taking?" will eventually end with no definitive answer, but many of the same people repeating the same old things, such as microdosing nandrolone, EPO, peptides, and increased Kenyan testing, while ignoring the high correlation with developments in shoes, and a shift of emphasis with double-threshold training. This won't prevent jumping to baseless conclusions that secret unknowable developments and advancements in the pharmaceutical industry, which are also known by all athletes down to the high school level, are the only credible explanation, despite the lack of any credible scenario that would explain how a global phenomenon produces local results (e.g. American men and East African women, but not East African men nor American women).
I don't have to deny what is irrelevant. You really are a total retard. Your obsession with doping actually exceeds any other posters because your endlessly prattling pompous tedious posts go on longer than anyone's - and only to deny what is in front of your face.
However, I come from a bodybuilding background where It’s a given that everyone is juiced to the gills. So, it seems silly to me to just dismiss the idea that no American runners use PEDs.
As far the claims being baseless, how exactly would you prove it, other than seeing it first hand? Lots of PED users have passed lots of tests.
It’s also possible that they’ve gotten better at drug taking the same way they’ve gotten better at training. There are people with expertise in this area who advise athletes on how to use PEDs to achieve maximum results while avoiding getting popped.
How was it done for cycling? Like bodybuilders, many cyclists came forward with personal confessions and testimonies saying what they took, what worked, and what didn't. In running, there are no such professional testimonies. The only ones talking as if they know something are armchair fans not speaking from personal experience, but saying things like "what about cycling, or bodybuilding? -- why would running be different?" How about looking at running instead?
How do we turn silly ideas into serious ones? In my opinion, we can stop using presumptuously vague terms like "PEDs", which never identify which drugs (D) are actually performance enhancing (PE) for these national class runners. I have no doubt many Americans are using drugs (D), but, as the question of the thread asks, my doubts are about which drugs can enhance the performance (PE) of any American runner to run 3:27, 7:22, and 12:45? Surely not the predictable candidates that have existed for decades, since the '90s, or even further back since the '50s. In order to start a serious doping conversation, there first has to be credible candidates that could potentially answer the question "which new drug?"
What could help is to paint a credible scenario of how something can be well known, yet at the same time, not known. How is it that so many "fans" of the sport believe a new drug must exist -- drugs that many athletes, including college and high school athletes breaking their respective national school records, surely must know about -- yet the smartest armchair pundits here don't seem to have a clue what it could be?
You pompous moron. I didn't say there has been no great music since Bach, Beethoven and Mozart but that their music hasn't been surpassed by that which is regarded - by experts (not you) - as greater. Hence your use of music as an analogy for advances in training fails.
Pure self-projection. Bach, Mozart, and Beethoven are like Lydiard and Newton. The greats of today are standing on the shoulders of these giants of their time, but progress did not stop with them.
Your pretending to speak on behalf of "experts" only shows all of us your limited knowledge in yet another domain.
I don't have to deny what is irrelevant. You really are a total retard. Your obsession with doping actually exceeds any other posters because your endlessly prattling pompous tedious posts go on longer than anyone's - and only to deny what is in front of your face.
It may not be relevant to you, but it helps others understand you are essentially Grandpa Simpson shouting at the sky.
Why do you feel a greater need to insult me, who simply asks, from the most devout doping worshippers like you, for something concrete and tangible, rather than answering the only question of the thread that you have already contributed so many posts to? Why not give me something I cannot deny, rather than something irrelevant?
The top Kenyan and Ethiopian talent seem to be going into the Marathon. So, the 5K is softer making it easier for Americans to gain ground.
One drug that could be useful to a distance runners is Test. Women could be less likely to mess with a male hormone. Also, the Shelby debacle might have had a chilling effect. It’s not worth risking going through that.
Lastly, Double Threshold didn’t help Jacob at the Half Marathon distance. He got wrecked.
East Africans have been skipping the track and going to the roads since the switch from Golden League to Diamond League in 2010. That's part of the reason (IMO) SloMo dominated 5,000m and 10,000m with such slow times -- his best competition could no longer afford to train for these events on the track.
You say 5K is softer now, but is it? Despite East Africans focusing on the road, they still have the 4 fastest times since 1/1/2024, with Gebrhewit close to the world record, ahead of Grant Fisher and Nico Young. Since 2020, the 5000m record was broken, and six East Africans have run faster than Nico Young fourteen times. Before 2020, only four athletes had done it, nine times (with three/eight of those before 2006). The 5K was soft between 2006 and 2018, but since then, according to these numbers, it is stronger than it ever was before.
Testosterone is not the reason Americans are running strong today. It might help women if they injected it, which would be detectable for longer, but it is unlikely to help anyone when orally ingested, due to first-pass filtering.
I wouldn't use Jakob's half-marathon -- a race he didn't train for, and jumped in at the last minute just after competing in the Olympics in 1500m/5000m -- as a metric to evaluate the effect of double-threshold training.
You never tire of this tired refrain when finding yourself unable to compose a coherent, intelligent response, creating a segway to re-doubling down on your declared faith in pharma.
By clinging to composers from centuries ago, in one narrow genre, you reveal yourself again as someone who is hopelessly stuck in the past, out of place in the modern era -- an old man mad at and shouting at the world because of your own inability to keep up with the times. In classical music alone, there were many great composers in the subsequent centuries standing on the shoulders of these early giants -- e.g. Wagner, Brahms, DeBussy, Chopin, Tchaikovsky -- far too many to list to do all of them justice. Listing just these "big three" suggests to me that these are probably the only ones you know of.
You also reveal severe limitations in your own thinking, for suggesting that the one genre of classical music is the last word and pinnacle of evolution of all music. Putting aside my recent popular "rock" and "pop" examples, sticking with Western music, there was a lot of innovative developments in the last century in other genres like blues and jazz. I'm a particular fan of some ragtime pieces, but that may be just my own individual quirk appreciating the energy of a unique period of history. I wonder how Bach would fair in head-to-head battles against a Scott Joplin or Oscar Peterson, or if Mozart could invoke the same level of crowd excitement to match Queen's performance at Live Aid. How could we ignore greatness from legends ranging from Charlie Parker, to Jeff Beck, to Pat Methany to Chuck Berry to Barney Kessel to Pat Martino to Freddy Mercury -- just to name again too few to do them justice.
While what little I do know focuses on Western genres -- a quirk of my cultural upbringing -- my analogy did not limit itself to Western music. The institutional focus on classical music has been (controversially) called "racist" by some music scholars, and not completely without merit, since much of our Western culture of music and virtually all recent significant musical innovation has deep African roots -- blues, rock, jazz, disco, rap, .... But these western genres based on 12 discrete notes per octave ignores other cultures who base their music on systems of 17, 19, 31, 53, or 72 notes per octave, and use different kinds of variations such as gradual pitch transitions between notes rather than quantum jumps in beats.
But I digress. I'll leave you stuck in your closed little world where the music died centuries ago on Beethoven's deathbed.
You pompous moron. I didn't say there has been no great music since Bach, Beethoven and Mozart but that their music hasn't been surpassed by that which is regarded - by experts (not you) - as greater. Hence your use of music as an analogy for advances in training fails.
Youre brilliantly funny! no wonder id love to meet you,someday. Thanks for the laughs.
Yes, I believe Europeans benefit more from carbon shoes because East Africans already have “natural carbon shoes” due to the tension in their Achilles tendons and similar biomechanical advantages. And as you can see, Africans were already able to run fast times even before carbon shoes existed — for example, 2:02 or 2:03 marathons.
I believe Jakob has revolutionized the mentality of many white runners. A few years ago, the mindset in Europe was all about training as little as possible and avoiding high-intensity sessions. Jakob showed that it’s absolutely possible to run high mileage so you can handle a lot of tough, specific workouts. Talent exists all over the world — not just in East Africa. But the mentality of training hard is something we Europeans have only truly learned through Jakob.
Rosa has revolutionized the training methodology in Kenya — especially through fast long runs, which have a similar effect to double threshold sessions. Before that, the Kenyans didn’t really train in a structured way — they just ran around a lot. And yes… when you’re already training extremely hard and with high volume at altitude, EPO doesn’t really give you any extra advantage. Our bodies and vascular systems have limits — we can’t have an unlimited amount of blood.
Why do you feel a greater need to insult me, who simply asks, from the most devout doping worshippers like you, for something concrete and tangible, rather than answering the only question of the thread that you have already contributed so many posts to? Why not give me something I cannot deny, rather than something irrelevant?
Because he has nothing of relevance to say. It's always the same thing, always the same words, day after day.
I believe Jakob has revolutionized the mentality of many white runners. A few years ago, the mindset in Europe was all about training as little as possible and avoiding high-intensity sessions. Jakob showed that it’s absolutely possible to run high mileage so you can handle a lot of tough, specific workouts. Talent exists all over the world — not just in East Africa. But the mentality of training hard is something we Europeans have only truly learned through Jakob.
I would say that the opposite was the case. Going back to the 1990s the prevailing ideas on training throughout Europe and the US were that lower volume training with high intensity sessions (regular V02 max 3K pace 5k pace etc) were the most effective way to train. I guess that 2 of the main influencers behind this thinking were Coe who had a lot of his training approaches published and David Martin who was implying things like anything more than 60/70 miles per week was wasted/junk training. In the 1990s the performances of European/US distance runners generally fell of a cliff compared to the levels they were at in the 1970s/early 80s.
Only at some point in the 2000s did things start to change and less intense threshold training became more popular and performances started to improve.
However, I come from a bodybuilding background where It’s a given that everyone is juiced to the gills. So, it seems silly to me to just dismiss the idea that no American runners use PEDs.
As far the claims being baseless, how exactly would you prove it, other than seeing it first hand? Lots of PED users have passed lots of tests.
It’s also possible that they’ve gotten better at drug taking the same way they’ve gotten better at training. There are people with expertise in this area who advise athletes on how to use PEDs to achieve maximum results while avoiding getting popped.
How was it done for cycling? Like bodybuilders, many cyclists came forward with personal confessions and testimonies saying what they took, what worked, and what didn't. In running, there are no such professional testimonies. The only ones talking as if they know something are armchair fans not speaking from personal experience, but saying things like "what about cycling, or bodybuilding? -- why would running be different?" How about looking at running instead?
How do we turn silly ideas into serious ones? In my opinion, we can stop using presumptuously vague terms like "PEDs", which never identify which drugs (D) are actually performance enhancing (PE) for these national class runners. I have no doubt many Americans are using drugs (D), but, as the question of the thread asks, my doubts are about which drugs can enhance the performance (PE) of any American runner to run 3:27, 7:22, and 12:45? Surely not the predictable candidates that have existed for decades, since the '90s, or even further back since the '50s. In order to start a serious doping conversation, there first has to be credible candidates that could potentially answer the question "which new drug?"
What could help is to paint a credible scenario of how something can be well known, yet at the same time, not known. How is it that so many "fans" of the sport believe a new drug must exist -- drugs that many athletes, including college and high school athletes breaking their respective national school records, surely must know about -- yet the smartest armchair pundits here don't seem to have a clue what it could be?
Well, if you want specific drugs, obviously EPO to get more oxygen to the working muscles, and Test which can aid in recovery.
I’ve seen this type of defensiveness in bodybuilding as well. They take it as an indictment of their training.
Of course, the two are not mutually exclusive. You can train hard and use PEDs, and in BBing, there’s a whole laundry list of drugs they take but the base drug is Test.
You pompous moron. I didn't say there has been no great music since Bach, Beethoven and Mozart but that their music hasn't been surpassed by that which is regarded - by experts (not you) - as greater. Hence your use of music as an analogy for advances in training fails.
Pure self-projection. Bach, Mozart, and Beethoven are like Lydiard and Newton. The greats of today are standing on the shoulders of these giants of their time, but progress did not stop with them.
Your pretending to speak on behalf of "experts" only shows all of us your limited knowledge in yet another domain.
Still a complete moron. Advances in scientific knowledge are not the same as works of art. The artists of today have not produced works greater than those of da Vinci and Michelangelo - they have only produced works of art. Recent does not mean better than those that went before. You can't open your mouth without disclosing your idiocy. Your analogy to advances in sports training fails but your vanity makes you unable to admit it.
This post was edited 1 minute after it was posted.
I don't have to deny what is irrelevant. You really are a total retard. Your obsession with doping actually exceeds any other posters because your endlessly prattling pompous tedious posts go on longer than anyone's - and only to deny what is in front of your face.
It may not be relevant to you, but it helps others understand you are essentially Grandpa Simpson shouting at the sky.
Why do you feel a greater need to insult me, who simply asks, from the most devout doping worshippers like you, for something concrete and tangible, rather than answering the only question of the thread that you have already contributed so many posts to? Why not give me something I cannot deny, rather than something irrelevant?
If I am shouting at the sky then so is every other poster who posts a thread on doping or who speculates on such threads. There is no point in giving you "something you cannot deny" because you must deny everything. That is your lunacy.
Why do you feel a greater need to insult me, who simply asks, from the most devout doping worshippers like you, for something concrete and tangible, rather than answering the only question of the thread that you have already contributed so many posts to? Why not give me something I cannot deny, rather than something irrelevant?
Because he has nothing of relevance to say. It's always the same thing, always the same words, day after day.
Your lack of self-awareness is boggling. I should be used to it by now but you exceed yourself.