JK- what’s the most rational explanation for how Sara Hall runs significantly faster at age 37

GBohannon wrote:

Common sense 2020 wrote:

Probably true. But that shoe discussion gets boring. Everybody can have them now, so it's a level playing field.

Completely agree.

Boring, yes. But we're comparing her times from long before the shoes existed to what she's throwing down with the shoes. It's not a stretch to assume that her road times in shorter distances would be much faster across the board with the new technology. Afterall, she's been a national champ since high school.

Other key factor is that she came to the marathon a bit later in her career and is just peaking. The potential was always there.

adsfdasfasfsafadfa wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

What's so crazy about it? She can run faster and have a longer career. Plenty of other athletes are doing it.

Sure and why didn't she do it at 25? Why does she wake up at 35 and say I am going to start injecting EPO?

Why does anyone start doping - at any age? To get better. But the incentive is surely greater for an older athlete. A 35 year old is not a 25 year old - unless they dope. Talent isn't immune from aging.

One overlooked aspect of the new "boing" shoes is lower impact and enhanced recovery during hard training. This gives some relative benefit to older runners who know their bodies but are constrained by all the hard miles their legs have in them (like myself). We are already seeing the masters records big re-written in the new shoes at the amateur level, and pros with a steady supply of the shoes for training will have an advantage as well.

Hall did not debut at the marathon until she was almost 32. From there, it has just been a matter of making consistent progress with consistent training and few injuries.

Women do not decline as much as men do in their late 30s because they are not dealing with losing testosterone. So, Deena Kastor's best years at the marathon were from about age 32-37 (only stopped due to a foot injury at the 2008 Olympics that sidelined her for a long time). And Shalane was 36 when she won NYC.

I don't think anything out of the ordinary is happening here. Hall focused on the shorter distances for a while and probably was doing modest mileage versus marathon training now. Look at Kipchoge. Look at Meb. Look at Flanagan. A lot of pros seem to do quite well at the marathon in their 30s, after years of working on their speed, and then going through more & more marathon build ups.

YMMV wrote:

One overlooked aspect of the new "boing" shoes

When did Asics introduce their boing shoes? Seems like most of her recent year improvements were before Asics joined the boing movement.

Excuses:

Doping

Shoes

Reasons: RYAN HALL

Coaching

Nutrition(Oates)

Super Stud Body

Is there anybody else who has improved so much relative to their earlier times at younger ages? Maybe graded performances for comparison?

Hall monitor wrote:

YMMV wrote:

One overlooked aspect of the new "boing" shoes

When did Asics introduce their boing shoes? Seems like most of her recent year improvements were before Asics joined the boing movement.

Long time ago I ran a 10k won by a respected marathoner (5th NYC marathon, another year 12th at Boston).

Can't some outstanding marathoner post on LRC the perceived benefits of the new shoes, whether Nike or Adidas or whatever shoe company.

Precious Roy wrote:

Hall did not debut at the marathon until she was almost 32. From there, it has just been a matter of making consistent progress with consistent training and few injuries.

Women do not decline as much as men do in their late 30s because they are not dealing with losing testosterone. So, Deena Kastor's best years at the marathon were from about age 32-37 (only stopped due to a foot injury at the 2008 Olympics that sidelined her for a long time). And Shalane was 36 when she won NYC.

She's not declining. She's far better in her late 30's than she ever was and certainly than in her 20's. The assumption is that she must be better trained in her late 30's - but that is only an assumption. Or that she wasn't a dedicated runner or properly trained when she was younger. That, too, is an assumption. Or that she has only recently discovered her best distances. Really? I could just as easily assume doping - and it would be the simplest explanation.

trainedbyjesus wrote:

Is there anybody else who has improved so much relative to their earlier times at younger ages? Maybe graded performances for comparison?

Yes, there are some. But no one wants to see the most likely reason. So we get all sorts of explanations for why some athletes appear to defy human aging in a way most can't.

76chine wrote:

adsfdasfasfsafadfa wrote:

Sure and why didn't she do it at 25? Why does she wake up at 35 and say I am going to start injecting EPO?

Did she drop out due to fear of failing the drug tests?

I've not thought of that angle before, but know of Oly trial athletes in the past who faked hamstring injuries or some other excuse to avoid doping tests when the Oly trials was about the only place where testing was done, and even then it was only the top 3 finishers.

If not, ,then probably it was the heat and the hills, both of which were not her forte.

And why would she fly to a race to drop out? Why not just have a training injury? And I am pretty sure they randomly test a half dozen people. And of course she just ran a race where she was planning on getting tested if she set a record. And London has testing. And so on. You need to come up with a lot of conspiracy level stuff to think she dropped out of the trials cause she dosed up too high for a couple of weeks. I am not saying she is clean (I have no clue) but I doubt that is the reason she dropped out.

trainedbyjesus wrote:

Is there anybody else who has improved so much relative to their earlier times at younger ages? Maybe graded performances for comparison?

Sara was a 15:20 type runner. Thats like a 2:27-2:30 marathon for the average person. If your best distance is the marathon, you run 2-5 mins faster. If you figure the shoes are 2-3 mins are we really talking about a big improvement? We aren't talking about Cathal Lombard level of improvements:)

Think about what the board would be like if Bill Rodgers showed up today. Guy is a scrub in HS, College and at 27 or so he drops an AR. Clearly a massive doper:)

Sara was awesome in high school and had a scholarship to Stanford. She didn’t just come out of nowhere. Most threads here would be about her underperforming all these years. Everything is finally coming together.

Agreed, she's at reaching the top of her career. As far as times, without the shoes we'd be talking something like 2:23. So it would be a still be a breakout performance, but not the big outlier beyond the rest of her PRs. She's got incredible range.

She's done the training

And she's moved to another level mentally that goes past her previous expectations.

Age is not yet a strong factor.

adsfdasfasfsafadfa wrote:

trainedbyjesus wrote:

Is there anybody else who has improved so much relative to their earlier times at younger ages? Maybe graded performances for comparison?

Sara was a 15:20 type runner. Thats like a 2:27-2:30 marathon for the average person. If your best distance is the marathon, you run 2-5 mins faster. If you figure the shoes are 2-3 mins are we really talking about a big improvement? We aren't talking about Cathal Lombard level of improvements:)

Think about what the board would be like if Bill Rodgers showed up today. Guy is a scrub in HS, College and at 27 or so he drops an AR. Clearly a massive doper:)

The "average person" - woman - doesn't become a 2.20 marathon runner. At 37. She's apparently gone from being a 15.20 runner over 5k to a minute faster in her late 30's. Sure - it's the shoes.

These boards will still see nothing funny when 40-45 year old women are eventually running 2.15. Aging doesn't exist where there's doping.

She was national champ in high school. Were you living in a cave? Her high school PRs were the same as Droddy. I guess she should be running about 2:10 by now.

jamese wrote:

She's done the training

And she's moved to another level mentally that goes past her previous expectations.

Age is not yet a strong factor.

I've got news for you; age is always a factor. Physically, your late-30's are not your 20's - unless you're juicing. Do you think physical decline only suddenly appears at 40? Or 50?