Kiptum running up to 300km a week

Armstronglivs wrote:

Renato Canova wrote:

Clarke trained by far in different way from today. He improved his WR from 28'15" to 27'39" in one only competition, with a difference of 36" that, following your system of analysis, automatically makes everybody thinking he was doped AFTER his 28'15", because improvements of that greatness are only explained with doping.

It's clear you have some knowledge about training system of the period 60-80, but absolutely not knowledge about a modern training system of today.

Zatopek was abel to run under 14' and 28'54" and with those times never ran a marathon under 2:24, while today 100 women with a PB of 32'30" are able to run the same time.

The WR of 800m had very little improvement from 1979 till now, and the athletes running the final in Los Angeles 1984 could still stay in the final of today with big chances of medalling.

But from that era the general average of 10000m improved of more than 1 minute and the marathon of about 8 minutes, and this means that the training methodology changed essentially for the long distances. Fundamentally, while 40-50 years ago athletes were used to run 300 km per week with long runs at 80% of Marathon pace as intensity, together with other training with limited volume at high intensity not connected with what we need for running a marathon, now the best athletes run LONG and FAST, reaching for long specific runs the percentage of speed of 98% of MP in training. For that reason, while 5o years ago Marathon Runners competed in a lot of different races in one season (Shorter ran during the indoor season too), now they need to dedicate 6 full months of training only before a top Marathon.

I well know it's possible to better WR in clean way, because this is my profession, and I'm very happy if some expert who worked in this field at top level can explain, in his mother tongue and with a lot of words that I fatigue to understand (but the meaning is very clear) can express his opinion, based on the facts he knows and not on suppositions created by continuous "bombing" in media, that step by step go to create in the athletes too the idea that without doping is not possible to win.

About Conte, he was an expert for athletes of "strength" and speed, never had any clue about doping for long distances. So, speaking of Conte as expert for the doping of long distance runners is the same as to speak of the Wagner group expert of peace.

What is conspicuously absent from your claim that training is more intense - longer and faster - now than it was before 1980 is that doping enables this, and the biggest change to the sport after 1980 has been the increase in doping.

Renato Canova wrote:

For athletes who didn't think possible to train with the new system because the intensity combined with the volume were too hard, so they cant recovery, doping was the reason that allowed them to train more.

But the fact is that it's possible to train at high intensity and extension without doping too.

The above athletes NEVER TRIED to train with the modern system BECAUSE SUPPOSED NOT TO BE ABLE TO RECOVERY, but the reality is they didn't try.

Athletes believing possible to train in this way without fearing volume and intensity are able to reach HIGHER PERFORMANCES in clean way.

So, it's not true that blood doping is the only way for being at the top of the world : it's training that brings athletes to that level. And this is the reason because normally doped athletes are not the number one, but number 50 - 30 that look at doping as the way for becoming stronger. These athletes are mentally more weak, and normally NEVER can become the strongest Champions.

It's absolutely possible to be the best in clean way in all the endurance event, while is almost impossible to be the best in short events, throws and many women events where the muscle strength is the most important physical quality, without doping with some family of steroids.

This doesn't mean the best women or thrower today are doped, but that the old WR are at the moment very far.

Some example for women : High Jump 2.09 (1987) today 2.02-2.05, Long Jump 7.52 (1988) today around 7.10, Shot put 22.63 (87) today less than 21m, Discus 76.80 (1988, I was there) today about 70m, Javelin 80.00 and after had to change the javelin (today 66m), 400m 47.60 in 1985) today more than one second slower, 800m 1'53"28 (1983), today around 1'55". And for men, Hammer 86.74 (1986) now max 82m, Discus 74.08 (1986) now max 71m, and Javelin (old implement) 104.80.....

So somebody has to explain why these record last from 35-40 years, while in long endurance we continue to improve.

Armstronglivs wrote:

Renato Canova wrote:

For athletes who didn't think possible to train with the new system because the intensity combined with the volume were too hard, so they cant recovery, doping was the reason that allowed them to train more.

But the fact is that it's possible to train at high intensity and extension without doping too.

The above athletes NEVER TRIED to train with the modern system BECAUSE SUPPOSED NOT TO BE ABLE TO RECOVERY, but the reality is they didn't try.

Athletes believing possible to train in this way without fearing volume and intensity are able to reach HIGHER PERFORMANCES in clean way.

So, it's not true that blood doping is the only way for being at the top of the world : it's training that brings athletes to that level. And this is the reason because normally doped athletes are not the number one, but number 50 - 30 that look at doping as the way for becoming stronger. These athletes are mentally more weak, and normally NEVER can become the strongest Champions.

It's absolutely possible to be the best in clean way in all the endurance event, while is almost impossible to be the best in short events, throws and many women events where the muscle strength is the most important physical quality, without doping with some family of steroids.

This doesn't mean the best women or thrower today are doped, but that the old WR are at the moment very far.

Some example for women : High Jump 2.09 (1987) today 2.02-2.05, Long Jump 7.52 (1988) today around 7.10, Shot put 22.63 (87) today less than 21m, Discus 76.80 (1988, I was there) today about 70m, Javelin 80.00 and after had to change the javelin (today 66m), 400m 47.60 in 1985) today more than one second slower, 800m 1'53"28 (1983), today around 1'55". And for men, Hammer 86.74 (1986) now max 82m, Discus 74.08 (1986) now max 71m, and Javelin (old implement) 104.80.....

So somebody has to explain why these record last from 35-40 years, while in long endurance we continue to improve.

Your argument comes down to little more than athletes are faster today because they train harder, and they train harder because athletes in the past didn't believe they could train as hard. So it is all ultimately a mental issue, of what athletes believe is possible. Yet athletes in the past - certainly from Elliott onwards - trained as hard as they physically could. They trained much harder than their predecessors. They would likely take your claim, that their attitude towards training limited them, as both absurd and even insulting.

Running isn't the arcane science you and others claim it is. Any athlete knows when they are running to their limits - fatigue tells them this. They also know when they have recovered and when they haven't. To ignore those signs is to produce burnout or injury. Yet in the decades since into the modern era we know that doping has spread through the sport - which means athletes must be making gains from the practice or it would have long ago discontinued. These dopers include altitude-trained Kenyan distance runners - in their droves - as we see from the continuous stream of doping violations from that country. With doping it is known that athletes can train harder than if they were clean. There is nothing mental about it. They tire less and recover faster. And so we see the modern sport. Yet you maintain, with no experience you say of doping or training doped athletes, that doping doesn't help the best athletes. They appear to know better than you, because many of them dope.