Gjert Ingebrigtsen shares the secret to his sons' success - high mileage - and claims "they don’t have any natural speed."

You're welcome wrote:

Jgt11 wrote:

Jakob has only run 51 400 and 1:49 800, and even Fillip,the speediest of the Ingebritsons(the one best suited to the mile in a world champs/tactical race), only has 1:47 pr.

I'm sorry, but to run 3.31 for the 1500 off such pedestrian basic speed tells me Jakob's doped to the gills. He is barely slower over the mile/1500 than he is over the half. I don't know how anyone buys that now.

This thread wasn't about the survey and I didn't intend to come here to discuss it; I merely referred to it at the beginning of the thread in a single comment. So what was the point in your endless posts, except to ensure that yours could be the only "correct" understanding of it? Pedantic, casuistical, and redundant. But like a dog that hears a noise in the dark, you can't stop barking.

For that matter, this thread wasn't about juicing, and getting away with it. I didn't really want to discuss the study either -- my only point was that your reference did not match the source given. Thereafter, my endless posts were one to one responses to your endless posts. You can continue to blame me, but it takes two to tango.

Armstronglivs wrote:

This thread wasn't about the survey and I didn't intend to come here to discuss it; I merely referred to it at the beginning of the thread in a single comment. So what was the point in your endless posts, except to ensure that yours could be the only "correct" understanding of it? Pedantic, casuistical, and redundant. But like a dog that hears a noise in the dark, you can't stop barking.

Assuming for argument that these reflect his 400m and 800m potential, isn't high endurance the expected result from high mileage training?

Armstronglivs wrote:

You're welcome wrote:

I'm sorry, but to run 3.31 for the 1500 off such pedestrian basic speed tells me Jakob's doped to the gills. He is barely slower over the mile/1500 than he is over the half. I don't know how anyone buys that now.

rekrunner wrote:

Assuming for argument that these reflect his 400m and 800m potential, isn't high endurance the expected result from high mileage training?

Armstronglivs wrote:

I'm sorry, but to run 3.31 for the 1500 off such pedestrian basic speed tells me Jakob's doped to the gills. He is barely slower over the mile/1500 than he is over the half. I don't know how anyone buys that now.

High mileage has been part of the training repertoire for decades now - since Lydiard introduced it in the fifties. It changed distance running over half a century ago; it isn't going to revolutionise it today.

In most athletes there will be a considerable differential beteeen their speed over the half and for the 1500/mile. When that differential is small - say, only 5 or 6 seconds - doping would explain it even better than aerobic conditioning - or it would have the pattern in athletes in the sixties. It wasn't. It is too much to believe that the Ingebrigtsens have discovered something new that enables performances many other faster athletes can't match, and that those athletes and their coaches are somehow unaware of.

rekrunner wrote:

Thanks for bringing it back to high mileage.

I just noticed, that responding to "in the 1990s", "casual obsever" brings up examples like:

"Radcliffe, Shobukhova, Farah, Solinsky, Rupp, Wanders, Moen, etc., etc."

Of course, in the 2000s,

I noticed of course that you are back to your old tricks and deleted my examples from the 90s.

Additional examples from the 90s would be Mourhit and Cacho and Kennedy and da Costa.

Plus, originally you didn't mention that the stagnation (which never happened in any case) was only temporary, which is way I used examples for all decades since and including the 90s.

casual obsever wrote:

rekrunner wrote:

Thanks for bringing it back to high mileage.

I just noticed, that responding to "in the 1990s", "casual obsever" brings up examples like:

"Radcliffe, Shobukhova, Farah, Solinsky, Rupp, Wanders, Moen, etc., etc."

Of course, in the 2000s,

I noticed of course that you are back to your old tricks and deleted my examples from the 90s.

Additional examples from the 90s would be Mourhit and Cacho and Kennedy and da Costa.

Plus, originally you didn't mention that the stagnation (which never happened in any case) was only temporary, which is way I used examples for all decades since and including the 90s.

Mourhit was simply out of control with his high-octane doping - have you seen some of his PBs and rapid performance improvement he displayed in the 90s? He got careless in the 00s though, and got pinged for rEPO after the test came out. Lol.

rekrunner wrote:

For that matter, this thread wasn't about juicing, and getting away with it.

I didn't really want to discuss the study either -- my only point was that your reference did not match the source given.

Thereafter, my endless posts were one to one responses to your endless posts.

You can continue to blame me, but it takes two to tango.

[quote]Armstronglivs wrote:

This thread wasn't about the survey and I didn't intend to come here to discuss it; I merely referred to it at the beginning of the thread in a single comment. So what was the point in your endless posts, except to ensure that yours could be the only "correct" understanding of it? Pedantic, casuistical, and redundant. But like a dog that hears a noise in the dark, you can't stop barking.

[/quote

Would you @$$holes please stop ruining threads? It's exhausting. Same $hit over and over and over again.

Armstronglivs wrote:

rekrunner wrote:

Assuming for argument that these reflect his 400m and 800m potential, isn't high endurance the expected result from high mileage training?

High mileage has been part of the training repertoire for decades now - since Lydiard introduced it in the fifties. It changed distance running over half a century ago; it isn't going to revolutionise it today.

In most athletes there will be a considerable differential beteeen their speed over the half and for the 1500/mile. When that differential is small - say, only 5 or 6 seconds - doping would explain it even better than aerobic conditioning - or it would have the pattern in athletes in the sixties. It wasn't. It is too much to believe that the Ingebrigtsens have discovered something new that enables performances many other faster athletes can't match, and that those athletes and their coaches are somehow unaware of.

An example of the differential between 800 and 1500 times in a distance-trained athlete was Snell, one of Lydiard's early protégés. His best 800 was 1.44xx, while his best 1500 (en route to a mile wr of 3.54) was 3.37xx - he never ran the distance except in the '64 Tokyo Olympics. That's a differential of about 12-13 secs between the half race and each half-split over the longer distance. Although not a distance-trained athlete, Coe is similar: from 1.41xx to 3.29 (and 3.47 mile) the difference is about 11-12 secs for each half split over the longer distance. Jakob, by contrast, is running 3.31 off 1.49 speed for the 800 - a difference of only about 5 secs per half split. Yet how is he so much more tireless than these previous Olympic champions and world record-holders- and he's only 17? The closest I can see to that kind of performance in a distance-trained athlete, who was also a miler/3 miler (unlike Snell and Coe) was Halberg. He could run 25 for the 200, sub 52 for the 400, and sub 1.52 for the 800, but could run a 3.38xx 1500 and 3.57xx mile. But while he almost never raced the half, the differential is still greater than for Jakob - and Halberg was an Olympic champion over 5k and world record holder over the 2 and 3 miles. My view is that the EPO era has contributed significantly to 1500 times being run much faster by athletes without high basic speed. They simply tire less.

Then what do you think Jacob should be running given the 1:49 and 52xx PBs? I also noticed his brother, Filip, runs very similar times with a 3:30.01 & 1:47.79. What is your assessment of him? I've never watched him race...so he does "tire less" also?

Morrocan Magic wrote:

Mourhit was simply out of control with his high-octane doping - have you seen some of his PBs and rapid performance improvement he displayed in the 90s? He got careless in the 00s though, and got pinged for rEPO after the test came out. Lol.

Of course. Do you want to look into some other runners of my list? Lolz.

High mileage existed before Lydiard. For example, Arthur Newton practiced it some 30-40 years earlier. It peaked in the heyday of the '60s and '70s, and fell out of favor by the '90s, and gained some popularity again in the 2000s. I wouldn't call 3:31 a revolution, compared to performances in the 1980s. Maybe we need to challenge the assumption that 51 and 1:49 accurately reflects his basic speed. I seems more likely that the reason for the discrepancy is that he never tried to run a fast 400 or 800, and the performances just cannot be compared. In the '60s and '70s, athletes raced a lot more and at a lot more distances, compared to the specialists of today.

Armstronglivs wrote:

High mileage has been part of the training repertoire for decades now - since Lydiard introduced it in the fifties. It changed distance running over half a century ago; it isn't going to revolutionise it today.

In most athletes there will be a considerable differential beteeen their speed over the half and for the 1500/mile. When that differential is small - say, only 5 or 6 seconds - doping would explain it even better than aerobic conditioning - or it would have the pattern in athletes in the sixties. It wasn't. It is too much to believe that the Ingebrigtsens have discovered something new that enables performances many other faster athletes can't match, and that those athletes and their coaches are somehow unaware of.

Tricks? How would anything else even make sense? Note that I only said "start" of stagnation, and that stagnation can also mean "slow growth", like economic stagnation.

casual obsever wrote:

rekrunner wrote:

Thanks for bringing it back to high mileage.

I just noticed, that responding to "in the 1990s", "casual obsever" brings up examples like:

"Radcliffe, Shobukhova, Farah, Solinsky, Rupp, Wanders, Moen, etc., etc."

Of course, in the 2000s,

I noticed of course that you are back to your old tricks and deleted my examples from the 90s.

Additional examples from the 90s would be Mourhit and Cacho and Kennedy and da Costa.

Plus, originally you didn't mention that the stagnation (which never happened in any case) was only temporary, which is way I used examples for all decades since and including the 90s.

rekrunner wrote:

Note that I only said "start" of stagnation, and that stagnation can also mean "slow growth", like economic stagnation.

]

Translation: You can argue endlessly about anything.

Surely this one wins the award for MOST DERAILED THREAD [2010-2019]

That's an interesting question. For half miler/miler types (now 800/1500), who are naturally faster, we might expect a wider differential because they are simply faster over the 2 laps. Around 10-12 secs per half mile split over a mile is typical for that type. Snell, Ryun and Coe are such examples. For the slightly slower but endurance-based athlete (1500/5k type) the differential may be a little less. That is in part because they may rarely compete over the half and do not reach their full potential over the distance. However, a differential of around 8 secs per half-mile split is a reasonable ball-park for that type.

Jakob appears to have a similar basic speed to Halberg and if he is a 51-52 runner over the 400 ( as Halberg was) he would certainly be near his limit in the 800, at 1.49. However, Halberg was a 3.39/58 man, compared to Jakobs 3.31/52. I find that remarkable, considering they are a similar type of runner, with similar basic speed and similar training, that has emphasised arerobic conditioning.

With his basic speed and 800 time, I would have picked Jakob's present ceiling to be about 3.36/54, based on an 8 second differential from his 800 pb. It is even more remarkable that he is running 3.31/52 given that he is not even at full physical maturity. I doubt that it is distance training alone that enables him to slow so little from a 2 lap to a 4 lap race. But we have seen that trend in quite a few middle distance runners since the '90's.

We wouldn't know Lydiard's name unless he had revolutionised the sport with his principles of aerobic conditioning. His "100 miles per week" was at the core of it. Runners have since varied his programme but aerobic conditioning has never completely fallen from favour.

I also doubt that Jakob's times over the 400 and 800 are the result of him "not really trying". These are races that are much less susceptible to tactical variation than the longer events, especially for a runner with less basic speed. I would think that Jakob would simply run these races flat-out, because he would lack the speed to sit and kick, as faster runners could. If he is only a 51-52 runner over 400, which for him is a sustained sprint, he is at his likely limit at 1.49 over 400. He clearly lacks speed compared to many of the best 1500/milers. He is certainly quite a bit slower than many of the great milers in the past, even going back to Elliot, who was a 1.47/3.54 man. (Elliot's differential was about 10 seconds per half-mile split; Jakob's differential is virtually half that, based on his 1500 time.) I find it remarkable, if not questionable, that he slows so little over the longer distance.

People here are so stupid. His 51 400 and 1:49 800 are from 2017, where his 1500 PR was a 3:40 flat.

From 16-17 he experienced a growth spurt, like many young kids (girls usually a few years earlier). His 1500 improved in just a year from 3:40 flat to 3:31 low. He did not race a 400 and 800 since 2017, but it is very likely he would be at 48 and 1:46ish. Lewandowski also went from 1:52 at age 16 to 1:48 at age 17.

Dont put too much thoughts into Jakobs 400 time. Some "fun facts":

He participated in this 400 mostly for fun, for the first time ever in competition, and first time running with starting blocks on the distance.

It was during National Championships for youths in Norway in 2017, still only 16 years old, and he should try to set a new record in the 3000 half an hour later (running 8.00.05 so was disappointed for not breaking the 8 minute barrier. The first rounds was too slow.)

He ran the last 400 m of the 1500 final in the European Indoor 3 weeks ago, under 53 seconds....