Seriously, it's getting ridiculous now. It was already hard to grasp that Karissa Schweizer did 8:25 and Vanessa Fraser 14:48 in february (+of course Woody Kincaid 12:58 last year), but now even fcking Elise Cranny can run 14:48 with something like a ~2:47 last k?? Did Jerry Schumacher figure out the holy grail of training or are they just on the normal nike doping regime?
best coach ever? wrote:
Seriously, it's getting ridiculous now. It was already hard to grasp that Karissa Schweizer did 8:25 and Vanessa Fraser 14:48 in february (+of course Woody Kincaid 12:58 last year), but now even fcking Elise Cranny can run 14:48 with something like a ~2:47 last k?? Did Jerry Schumacher figure out the holy grail of training or are they just on the normal nike doping regime?
Anyone who has been paying attention over the years is aware of their talent. Fraser ran 15:20 like 3 or 4 years ago. Cranny ran like 4:10 in high school. I don't think we're seeing doping, we are seeing the benefits of group training (which the Africans do and school is with).
best coach ever? wrote:
Seriously, it's getting ridiculous now. It was already hard to grasp that Karissa Schweizer did 8:25 and Vanessa Fraser 14:48 in february (+of course Woody Kincaid 12:58 last year), but now even fcking Elise Cranny can run 14:48 with something like a ~2:47 last k?? Did Jerry Schumacher figure out the holy grail of training or are they just on the normal nike doping regime?
Time trials do that
We are seeing what ever good coach gives. Weekly threshold and economy work. That’s really the key to running well and improving.
2/3 of the people you mentioned were Stanford athletes. A program that's arguably the best at focusing on career longevity rather than getting good results fast and burning out their athletes
Keep in mind they just came off a stint at altitude.
WinnytheBish wrote:
Anyone who has been paying attention over the years is aware of their talent. Fraser ran 15:20 like 3 or 4 years ago. Cranny ran like 4:10 in high school. I don't think we're seeing doping, we are seeing the benefits of group training (which the Africans do and school is with).
A 4:06 1500m runner running a 14:48 isn't exactly shocking. Cranny seemed to struggle a bit in college but the last couple years have had some nice improvements.
DirtyT wrote:
We are seeing what ever good coach gives. Weekly threshold and economy work. That’s really the key to running well and improving.
in this economy?
seriously though what even is economy. race-specific pace?
dadsfadsfdasfdsafdas wrote:
A 4:06 1500m runner running a 14:48 isn't exactly shocking. Cranny seemed to struggle a bit in college but the last couple years have had some nice improvements.
14:48 is much better than 4:06, especially considering she basically closed in sub14 pace
Also Cranny didn't improve at all until last year when she ran 4:05.83.
dadsfadsfdasfdsafdas wrote:
A 4:06 1500m runner running a 14:48 isn't exactly shocking.
Lolwut. It's #7 all-time. It's not that many years ago the American record was only 14:45.
anoncowerd wrote:
DirtyT wrote:
We are seeing what ever good coach gives. Weekly threshold and economy work. That’s really the key to running well and improving.
in this economy?
seriously though what even is economy. race-specific pace?
Economy is how efficient you are. Performance in running is mostly explained as a function of VO2max and economy. The best runners in the world have a high VO2max and are incredibly economical. This means their velocity at VO2max will be much faster than everyone else's.
VO2max is the maximal amount of oxygen in mL per kg (body weight) per minute your cells can use to produce energy via aerobic metabolism. If the exercise demand exceeds the energy supplied at VO2max (meaning a speed faster than velocity at VO2max), the remaining energy required to meet the demand is supplied by anaerobic metabolism (glycolysis), which is done by fast-twitch muscle fibers that are much quicker to fatigue.
Both aerobic metabolism and anaerobic metabolism are constantly ongoing during exercise, but the more the exercise demand exceeds VO2max, the faster a runner fatigues due to increased anaerobic metabolism, resulting in increased glycolysis, muscle acidosis, central nervous system feedback, and recruitment of fast-twitch muscle fibers which fatigue much more quickly than slow-twitch muscle fibers.
The more you run at a given speed, the more economical you will become at that speed. Elite runners train often at speeds near, at, or beyond VO2max without "going to the well" or fatiguing themselves in order to increase their economy at fast paces. This is done with a system like Daniels reps - fast runs with ample recovery.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iNR6gvdj7SU&t=1sanoncowerd wrote:
DirtyT wrote:
We are seeing what ever good coach gives. Weekly threshold and economy work. That’s really the key to running well and improving.
in this economy?
seriously though what even is economy. race-specific pace?
Daltonj800m wrote:
2/3 of the people you mentioned were Stanford athletes. A program that's arguably the best at focusing on career longevity rather than getting good results fast and burning out their athletes
Whatever you're smoking, I want some.
Anyone else sniff out the bias here?
Salazar athletes do this and LRC says dirty.
Jerriatric athletes do this and we say great training.
Grow up.
Not to take anything away from these performances, or Jerry Schumacher's coaching, but I'm genuinely interested in the footwear worn. I haven't seen the video. Did most of the folks wear (prototype) spikes with a carbon fiber plates?
It’s a very good time for sure, but I’m wondering if we need to reassess what is good for an American women. We look at sub-15 as a big deal but now it’s 30ish seconds off being a medal threat in the 5? 14:45 sounds great but less so when you equate it to a guy running a 13:05 or so for the 5k which is the rough equivalent. These are good times no doubt but we have many women breaking 4 in the 1500 of nearly and that’s better than 14:50
fartlekpants wrote:
Not to take anything away from these performances, or Jerry Schumacher's coaching, but I'm genuinely interested in the footwear worn. I haven't seen the video. Did most of the folks wear (prototype) spikes with a carbon fiber plates?
No, the overwhelming majority wore the soon to be public release version of the new victory or dragonfly- Jager, Hill, and Marielle had the only non public release white prototype versions (dragonfly prototypes). Quigley in mambas. Houlihan in OG Vic Elites (Streak LT splats for pace work.
THOUGHTSLEADER wrote:
It’s a very good time for sure, but I’m wondering if we need to reassess what is good for an American women. We look at sub-15 as a big deal but now it’s 30ish seconds off being a medal threat in the 5? 14:45 sounds great but less so when you equate it to a guy running a 13:05 or so for the 5k which is the rough equivalent. These are good times no doubt but we have many women breaking 4 in the 1500 of nearly and that’s better than 14:50
yes, the old round numbers of 2:00, 4:00 and 15:00 are misleading, if one thinks they are similarly good, it is for women even less true. 14:50 is never going to be a medal threat, but 3:59 can be in a race that is not blazingly fast (cf. Simpson's many medals).
Maybe partly because for women the 5k was introduced so late and so records lagged behind the shorter distances. It of course also depends on whether one is more the miler or long distance type.
Nevertheless, for Schweizer last season and indoors, Fraser indoors and now Cranny, McGorty, Fisher these are considerable improvements.
They are definitely dirty unfortunately.
fartlekpants wrote:
Not to take anything away from these performances, or Jerry Schumacher's coaching, but I'm genuinely interested in the footwear worn. I haven't seen the video. Did most of the folks wear (prototype) spikes with a carbon fiber plates?
Yep, some wore the pogo spikes.. boing, boing.