Thank you Renato for those precisions. It's true that I don't know much about different types of doping and I was thinking of PEDs in general and i should have said PED instead of EPO.
One thing I don't understand is why cycliste would use EPO whereas they are training for hours every day all year long. I guess their aerobic condition cannot be better. EPO must do something else, at least for recovery.
Before speaking as the one knowing everything, you need to understand that, for every distance, there are two typologies of athletes : the "fast" and the "resistant".
Fast specialists of 1500m are also Resistant specialists of 800m, while resistant specialists of 1500m are also top specialists of 3000 and 5000m, and frequently, after many years on track, move to longer distances, till Marathon.
Why this ? Because the Resistant are "Aerobic Animals" more than the first typology, and their best training is not to waste a lot of time training where they are weaker, but is to emphasis the main quality they have.
Since it's not possible to train at the same time speed and resistance, when we speak not about "general" speed and "general" resistance, but about "specific" speed or "specific" endurance, it's clear that the choice of training depends on the typology of the athletes and has the only goal to produce the best result in the main event.
All your examples don't have anything to do with Bernard Lagat. Snell started as 800m runner, in the event won two Olympics and was WR holder ; Ryun was WR holder of 880 yards ; Coe was WR holder of 800, 1000, 1500, Mile ; Cram was WR holder of 1500, Mile and 2000m. They NEVER had the vision to run fast 5000m, till when too many injuries did't allow speed training anymore.
How many athletes of "Fast" typology do you find in the top lists ? Not many : not El Guerrouj, Olympic Champion of 5000n too ; not Bernard ; not exactly Ngeny, also if WR holder of 1000m ; not Asbel, World Junior Champion of Cross (8 km) ; not Silas Kiplagat, 28' flat in 10 km ; not Timothy who, in spite of his 1'43"11, is more aerobic and in the future will go for 5000m ; not Iguider, under 13' in 5000m ; not Mo Farah ; not Ronald Kwemoi. You find only Makhloufi and Manangoi, who, also if officially more than one seconds slower than Timothy, really is very much faster like pure speed.
You speak about what you read, or you see in TV, but don't know the process for arriving where the athletes are. You don't know what there is behind any performance, and like you a lot of people able to criticize only, without any specific knowledge.
This happens for training, happens for doping, happens the athletic history, happens for physiology. There is no branch of human knowledge that you don't know, talking with arrogance and superior air. And, like you, some other poster that is everywhere, moving from history, medicine, policy, society, economy etc.. (everybody knows their names).
A good bath of humilty can help you to become more normal.
Renato Canova wrote:
Before speaking as the one knowing everything, you need to understand that, for every distance, there are two typologies of athletes : the "fast" and the "resistant".
Fast specialists of 1500m are also Resistant specialists of 800m, while resistant specialists of 1500m are also top specialists of 3000 and 5000m, and frequently, after many years on track, move to longer distances, till Marathon.
Why this ? Because the Resistant are "Aerobic Animals" more than the first typology, and their best training is not to waste a lot of time training where they are weaker, but is to emphasis the main quality they have.
Since it's not possible to train at the same time speed and resistance, when we speak not about "general" speed and "general" resistance, but about "specific" speed or "specific" endurance, it's clear that the choice of training depends on the typology of the athletes and has the only goal to produce the best result in the main event.
All your examples don't have anything to do with Bernard Lagat. Snell started as 800m runner, in the event won two Olympics and was WR holder ; Ryun was WR holder of 880 yards ; Coe was WR holder of 800, 1000, 1500, Mile ; Cram was WR holder of 1500, Mile and 2000m. They NEVER had the vision to run fast 5000m, till when too many injuries did't allow speed training anymore.
How many athletes of "Fast" typology do you find in the top lists ? Not many : not El Guerrouj, Olympic Champion of 5000n too ; not Bernard ; not exactly Ngeny, also if WR holder of 1000m ; not Asbel, World Junior Champion of Cross (8 km) ; not Silas Kiplagat, 28' flat in 10 km ; not Timothy who, in spite of his 1'43"11, is more aerobic and in the future will go for 5000m ; not Iguider, under 13' in 5000m ; not Mo Farah ; not Ronald Kwemoi. You find only Makhloufi and Manangoi, who, also if officially more than one seconds slower than Timothy, really is very much faster like pure speed.
You speak about what you read, or you see in TV, but don't know the process for arriving where the athletes are. You don't know what there is behind any performance, and like you a lot of people able to criticize only, without any specific knowledge.
This happens for training, happens for doping, happens the athletic history, happens for physiology. There is no branch of human knowledge that you don't know, talking with arrogance and superior air. And, like you, some other poster that is everywhere, moving from history, medicine, policy, society, economy etc.. (everybody knows their names).
A good bath of humilty can help you to become more normal.
I can see why you would wish to offer a lecture about humility, as you have much to be humble about.
If words by themselves signified achievement, you would be a Nobel Prize winner. But behind the verbiage you spout your arguments are comparatively facile. To suggest there are two classes of runner is a case in point. You talk about athletes being either "fast" or "resistant", depending on which distance they run, in which case they appear to morph from one category to the other as the distance increases. To describe this nonsense as pseudo-science is generous. Faster athletes like Snell trained like marathon runners - and still won championships and set world records over 800m, as well as over the longer distances. Lagat would never have been a successful 800m runner because he wasn't fast enough - and the same might apply to Jakob. It isn't because of their training that they are limited. As a 1.43 runner Cheruiyot is clearly faster, and certainly also has the stamina for the 1500. Unlike what you say for Lagat, Cheruiyot doesn't compromise his ability to succeed over 1500 by being able to run a very quick 800.
You might have said athletes typically focus on the distances for which they are naturally better suited, and some are better suited to longer events. But that is so obvious as barely requiring stating. It would also sound rather more humble.
But the elephant in the room when you discuss the preponderance of "resistant" or "aerobic animals" in the middle distances in recent years is the pervasiveness of doping, that enhances their performances. If there are two categories of athletes they might be "clean" or "doped" - and I can quite surmise where those on your list might fall.
The big mistake is to consider running and cycling as similar activities, because in common they need "resistance".
While for runners we have in competition a level of effort growing with the distance, and there are not period of recovery during the race, cyclists have continuous variations in their efforts, going during the same race from a HR of 80 per minute (when are in group at 40 km of speed or slower) to HR of 220 when there is some attack at 60 km of speed at the end of a race, or climbing a very tough mountain.
For running fast, the body is your machine, and the only solution is increasing the frequency of your strides maintaining the same length, or increasing the length maintaining the same frequency.
For cyclists, the best way for creating speed is to have the strength for pushing a gear with one or two teeth more, and for doing this you need POWER. You can have top level marathon runners of 52-55 kg, never a top cyclist so small, if not only a "grimpeur" (strong climbing).
Cyclists are able to reach a level of lactate of more than 20-22 mmol/l, lasting for some minute, and after can recovery ; distance runners, particularly marathon runners, are not able to overtake 7-9 mmol/l during the race.
Cyclists have to recover day by day, while in big tours lasting 22 days. Athletes train several months for one competition only.
At the end of the day, EPO doesn't represent more than 5% of the cocktails used by Armstrong and other cyclists of some year ago. The real doping was connected with steroids, GH and substances able to delay the tireness of the nervous system helping the coordination, something they needed at top level for being able to use high frequency when climbing.
For cyclists, EPO had the only task to help recovery, very important during big tours, not so much important in the competitions of one day only.
In athletics, recovery is not important. There is no reason to think that training in alternate days with tough workouts is better than having 2 workouts per week or one workouts every 4-5 days. It depends on the intensity of the workout : higher the intensity, longer the recovery, and the athlete himself can decide if it's better to have a tough training or an easy regeneration, postponing the training to the next day.
With your last phrase, you clearly show your limited ability to think.
I can't here give you some lesson about methodology, but I need to point something.
The natural qualities of every human being, when we speak about "running", bring runners to individuate from when are very young where they can succeed at the moment. So, we have boys and girls that, without training, feel better running something longer, and others who discover are better in something short and fast.
The reason because a boy/girl is already fast is because the percentage of fast fibers, and, of course, the power of the nervous system. Also the morphology is important : short boys/girls develop their muscle system faster than long boys/girls, and spend less time for reaching performances near their top, because their chronological age doesn't corrispond to the biological age.
Therefore, everybody can have a specific duration at top personal level, using a well defined percentage of intensity. This means that for some athletes the best "hypothetical" distance can be 300m (not 200 and not 400), or 600m (not 400 and not 800), and so and so. But, if those distances don't exist, the athlete must use a "compromise" in training, that normally is so train for the superior distance.
Why this ? Because, under methodological point of view, it's very much more effective to EXTEND the intensity, than to QUALIFY the extension.
Whern you speak about Snell training like a marathon runner, clearly you show that don't understand anything about methodology. Running 160 km per week, sometimes with 3 hours continuous run very slow, is not training like a marathon runner. In his marathon (Snell tried almost every year, for controlling his resistance) his times were 30 minutes slower than the top marathon runners of today, while his times in 800m could be at the top still now. This means that he NEVER trained like a marathon runner : he trained like a 800m runner, having some session of long and slow run, that NEVER could make of him a runner for 5000m.
Snell was 1,79 tall for 80 kg, and his main quality was not the aerobic, but the Muscle Power.
You are totally ridiculous when write that all the best were doped, and clearly don't know what are speaking about, but are prisoner of your obsession. You don't have any idea about what it means to have talent, and till where the talent can bring an athlete.
The fact that somebody used doping doesn't mean that all used doping, and the fact that the number 5 in some event was acclared doped doesn't mean that is not possible to have other 4 clean athletes faster than him.
And this for two reason :
1) The advantage doping can give to the performances are largely overestimated, and depend on individual characteristics and the level of training they had before doping
2) You suppose all the athletes have the same talent, but is not like this. So, talented clean athletes can run faster than doped athletes with less talent.
But when somebody is mentally sick, being subject to hallucinations and seeing doping everywhere, it's difficult to follow a line of reasoning based on facts and not on suppositions.
Lots of hoop jumping and broscience to avoid the fact that most top E. Africans of the last three decades have been doped to their eyeballs.
Divoc 91 wrote:
Lots of hoop jumping and broscience to avoid the fact that most top E. Africans of the last three decades have been doped to their eyeballs.
As opposed to your assertion with no support. Cool.
Renato Canova wrote:
With your last phrase, you clearly show your limited ability to think.
Adressing Armstronglives.
Cannot help loving this man.
Renato Canova wrote:
With your last phrase, you clearly show your limited ability to think.
+1
under a bridge wrote:
Divoc 91 wrote:
Lots of hoop jumping and broscience to avoid the fact that most top E. Africans of the last three decades have been doped to their eyeballs.
As opposed to your assertion with no support. Cool.
+1
Renato Canova wrote:
With your last phrase, you clearly show your limited ability to think.
I can't here give you some lesson about methodology, but I need to point something.
The natural qualities of every human being, when we speak about "running", bring runners to individuate from when are very young where they can succeed at the moment. So, we have boys and girls that, without training, feel better running something longer, and others who discover are better in something short and fast.
The reason because a boy/girl is already fast is because the percentage of fast fibers, and, of course, the power of the nervous system. Also the morphology is important : short boys/girls develop their muscle system faster than long boys/girls, and spend less time for reaching performances near their top, because their chronological age doesn't corrispond to the biological age.
Therefore, everybody can have a specific duration at top personal level, using a well defined percentage of intensity. This means that for some athletes the best "hypothetical" distance can be 300m (not 200 and not 400), or 600m (not 400 and not 800), and so and so. But, if those distances don't exist, the athlete must use a "compromise" in training, that normally is so train for the superior distance.
Why this ? Because, under methodological point of view, it's very much more effective to EXTEND the intensity, than to QUALIFY the extension.
Whern you speak about Snell training like a marathon runner, clearly you show that don't understand anything about methodology. Running 160 km per week, sometimes with 3 hours continuous run very slow, is not training like a marathon runner. In his marathon (Snell tried almost every year, for controlling his resistance) his times were 30 minutes slower than the top marathon runners of today, while his times in 800m could be at the top still now. This means that he NEVER trained like a marathon runner : he trained like a 800m runner, having some session of long and slow run, that NEVER could make of him a runner for 5000m.
Snell was 1,79 tall for 80 kg, and his main quality was not the aerobic, but the Muscle Power.
You are totally ridiculous when write that all the best were doped, and clearly don't know what are speaking about, but are prisoner of your obsession. You don't have any idea about what it means to have talent, and till where the talent can bring an athlete.
The fact that somebody used doping doesn't mean that all used doping, and the fact that the number 5 in some event was acclared doped doesn't mean that is not possible to have other 4 clean athletes faster than him.
And this for two reason :
1) The advantage doping can give to the performances are largely overestimated, and depend on individual characteristics and the level of training they had before doping
2) You suppose all the athletes have the same talent, but is not like this. So, talented clean athletes can run faster than doped athletes with less talent.
But when somebody is mentally sick, being subject to hallucinations and seeing doping everywhere, it's difficult to follow a line of reasoning based on facts and not on suppositions.
I thought the problem with your posts is that for you English is a second language, but you show the problem is more fundamental, in the way that you think. Example: I did not say that Snell's "training like a marathon runner" would therefore have made him a successful marathon runner; it gave him the extra endurance that helped him succeed at middle distances. (And he did train like the Lydiard marathon runners of his era.) In other words, athletes do best at the distances that suit them best. That applies as much to 800m specialists as to marathon exponents. I have not argued against the banal observation you labor that some athletes have more speed than others and some have more endurance. You have added nothing meaningful to this, in your continued dialogue with yourself.
Your views on doping are equally well-rehearsed here, as you continue to defend elite performances in a sport that is unequivocally shown to be afflicted with serious doping issues. You maintain against all expert evidence that doping doesn't work on the best athletes - even while we see so many of those athletes continue to dope (and get caught).
SprintTriathlon wrote:
Renato Canova wrote:
With your last phrase, you clearly show your limited ability to think.
Adressing Armstronglives.
Cannot help loving this man.
Being lectured by Renato on thinking skills is like receiving advice on literacy from someone who doesn't read.
You have reason about my language : several times I don't understand what you and other posters write, because too much complicated.
However, I understand enough for understanding that you don't understand about training.
When you speak about the "marathon training" of Peter Snell, this has nothing to do with the training you need for preparing 5000m : at his best, probably Snell could have had problems to run 3000m in 8'. Instead, we speak about athletes who have a second event of the same level of the first, like Bernard Lagat (World Champion) or El Guerrouj (Olympic Champion).
In this case, their training can't include short and very fast and lactic tests that athletes need in order to prepare 800 meters, and of course their PB in this event is not what they could do, if specifically preparing for 800m.
I ask you : if you are an athlete winning 1500m, and can also win 5000m while in 800m can reach, maybe, the semifinal in Olympics, and want to double in big Championships, which strategy you follow : to prepare 800 and 1500, or 1500 and 5000 ?
Secondly : in spite of your pseudo ironic comment about the "fast" and "resistant" typology of athletes for every event (everybody knows there are fast and resistant athletes), the fact is that these two different types of specialists need to train, for the same event, in very different way.
So, if I don't add anything to the common knowledge when I say that one can be fast, and another can be more resistant, I point out that they need very different training, while you seem to think that there is a type of training specific for any event. This is not true : there is a type of training specific for EVERY ATHLETE, that have to look for what is the best for him, considering many factors (for example, if in the future they have the characteristics, the interest and the will to move to longer distances, or not).
Nobody could ask Juantorena, or Billy Konchellah, or Rudisha, to move to 1500m : simply, they can't achieve top results in that event, so there is no interest to change their training system including specific workouts with the goal to increase the Lactic Threshold, but only to increase, step by step, their aerobic BASIC level, in order to increase the volume of the specific training for their main event, that remains 800m.
But if you have athletes whose main natural quality is the Aerobic Power, you need to have a strategy for all his career, because some of them can move, during several years, to the longer event, in some case till the marathon. Don't forget examples like Dixon and Quax, that were also able to win New York, or Grete Waitz, who was also one of top 3 specialists in 1500m when young.
So, don't think to be smart with your ironic comments, but start to think a little bit more to the teachments of the athletic history ; and under that point of view you need to become a little bit more humble, understanding that not always what you say has real basis, and is a fact while, instead, is only your supposition.
Renato Canova wrote:
When you speak about the "marathon training" of Peter Snell, this has nothing to do with the training you need for preparing 5000m : at his best, probably Snell could have had problems to run 3000m in 8'. Instead, we speak about athletes who have a second event of the same level of the first, like Bernard Lagat (World Champion) or El Guerrouj (Olympic Champion).
In this case, their training can't include short and very fast and lactic tests that athletes need in order to prepare 800 meters, and of course their PB in this event is not what they could do, if specifically preparing for 800m.
I ask you : if you are an athlete winning 1500m, and can also win 5000m while in 800m can reach, maybe, the semifinal in Olympics, and want to double in big Championships, which strategy you follow : to prepare 800 and 1500, or 1500 and 5000 ?.
Hey Canova, some interesting points there. Can I ask you - what 5000m time do you think Aouita was capable of in 1988 (around the time of Seoul)?
Do you have any (direct) knowledge of his training in 88?
Ex-runner claims he could have ran close to his pb of 12:58 in 1988. I say, that as he was surely doing a great deal of specific training for the 800m that year, he likely wouldn't have been able to run 13:10.
Also, what theoretical 800/5000m times would Ovett have been capable of in 78 or 80? (in the same season).
Coevett wrote:
Hey Canova, .
Great start to a good conversation.
In my opinion, Aouita in 1988 could have had the possibility to run between 13'05" and 13'10", not under 13'. His training was in different direction : Olympics were at the end of the season, and he never ran one 5000 or one 3000m in all the season. Probably, if he had decided to run 5000m, could had have in any case good chances of winning, because faster than Ngugi in the last lap, but his shape was very far (for 5000m) from 1987, and from 1989.
Ovett always had a training more aerobic than Coe. In 1978, he ran in 35 competitions, starting in winter with 5 cross, and defeating on 21 Jan in the Championships among Counties in Derby, Steve Jones in the distance of 7 and half miles. Also, that winter Ovett finished number 4 in the National CC Ch (14,484m) in 42'24" behind Bernie Ford, Ian Stewart and Tony Simmonds.
But Ovett was fast on his own : on 19th August, in Brighton, he ran 100m in 11"5 (competition, with starting blocks), 200m in 22"9 and 400m in the relay in 47"4.
So, the shape of Ovett, looking at 5000m, could be very different according to the period of the season. My opinion is that in April / beginning of May, if wanted to run a good 5000m, Ovett could already run between 13'15" and 13'20", but at the peak of the shape for the double 800/1500 (like in Moscow) could not be able to run better than 13'35" - 13'40".
The big mistake of Aouita was not to train for 800m : was to think possible to be in shape for 800 and 5000m at the same time. For an athlete like Aouita, 100% of shape in 1500m means you can be at 90% in 800m and 90% in 5000 at the same time ; and, for winning Olympics, 90% of shape is not enough.
Renato Canova wrote:
You have reason about my language : several times I don't understand what you and other posters write, because too much complicated.
However, I understand enough for understanding that you don't understand about training.
When you speak about the "marathon training" of Peter Snell, this has nothing to do with the training you need for preparing 5000m : at his best, probably Snell could have had problems to run 3000m in 8'. Instead, we speak about athletes who have a second event of the same level of the first, like Bernard Lagat (World Champion) or El Guerrouj (Olympic Champion).
In this case, their training can't include short and very fast and lactic tests that athletes need in order to prepare 800 meters, and of course their PB in this event is not what they could do, if specifically preparing for 800m.
I ask you : if you are an athlete winning 1500m, and can also win 5000m while in 800m can reach, maybe, the semifinal in Olympics, and want to double in big Championships, which strategy you follow : to prepare 800 and 1500, or 1500 and 5000 ?
Secondly : in spite of your pseudo ironic comment about the "fast" and "resistant" typology of athletes for every event (everybody knows there are fast and resistant athletes), the fact is that these two different types of specialists need to train, for the same event, in very different way.
So, if I don't add anything to the common knowledge when I say that one can be fast, and another can be more resistant, I point out that they need very different training, while you seem to think that there is a type of training specific for any event. This is not true : there is a type of training specific for EVERY ATHLETE, that have to look for what is the best for him, considering many factors (for example, if in the future they have the characteristics, the interest and the will to move to longer distances, or not).
Nobody could ask Juantorena, or Billy Konchellah, or Rudisha, to move to 1500m : simply, they can't achieve top results in that event, so there is no interest to change their training system including specific workouts with the goal to increase the Lactic Threshold, but only to increase, step by step, their aerobic BASIC level, in order to increase the volume of the specific training for their main event, that remains 800m.
But if you have athletes whose main natural quality is the Aerobic Power, you need to have a strategy for all his career, because some of them can move, during several years, to the longer event, in some case till the marathon. Don't forget examples like Dixon and Quax, that were also able to win New York, or Grete Waitz, who was also one of top 3 specialists in 1500m when young.
So, don't think to be smart with your ironic comments, but start to think a little bit more to the teachments of the athletic history ; and under that point of view you need to become a little bit more humble, understanding that not always what you say has real basis, and is a fact while, instead, is only your supposition.
So how does any of this relate to the subject of the thread?
Thanks Canova, that was an interesting insight.
It's related because people need to understand tha for Jakob 1'42" never can be possible, if he wants to have a proper training looking at his best future event, that probably can be 5000m.
This is not something regarding you, that already had a correct idea about the possible performance of Jakob before the race.
But can be also something you can learn, because from your examples it's clear you don't have the right vision about training and performance.
Renato Canova wrote:
It's related because people need to understand tha for Jakob 1'42" never can be possible, if he wants to have a proper training looking at his best future event, that probably can be 5000m.
This is not something regarding you, that already had a correct idea about the possible performance of Jakob before the race.
But can be also something you can learn, because from your examples it's clear you don't have the right vision about training and performance.
It has nothing to do with his training. He isn't capable of 1.42 because he isn't fast enough. In your parlance, he is too "resistant" to ever achieve anything like that time.