El Guerrouj 2k WR - Incredible 3:49 Mile pace

The standard is not the hobby jogger - it is the level that an individual runner, such as an elite, is able to improve on with an increase in aerobic fitness, and the biological processes necessary to achieve that. It is achieved by increasing the body's ability to use oxygen. The less fit athlete, like the hobby jogger, is merely an example of how fatigue - that includes breathlessness - sets in sooner than in a fitter athlete.

So if increased oxygen supplied to the muscles from the blood stream is not key to improving aerobic fitness, what is?

Why do altitude training and blood doping both seek the same objective, of increasing the capacity of the blood to transfer oxygen to the muscles?

Why is it that athletes of superior aerobic fitness are able to run faster for longer than those of lesser fitness? Why do they appear to expend less effort? Why do less fit athletes literally run out of breath sooner than athletes of superior fitness?

Since you have discounted every attempt here to explain this I can't wait to see what alternative theory you can conjure up to answer those questions.

Don't get Jon started on technique practice and springy feet.

Armstronglivs wrote:

You said there is a "right kind" of expert? But you can't produce any. They appear to be as rare as unicorns. But that suits a doping denier like yourself. You views on antidoping are ignorant drivel.

I have no trouble producing the right kind of experts to support statements I make.

My views on anti-doping are knowledgeable and informed directly by WADA.

Then why would you bring the hobby jogger into it?

Just for context, this is your response to addressing the seeming contradictions in the previously mentioned papers; another request for the names of experts who talk about "scarcely breathing"; and a request to clarify whether you are arguing that this "necessary connection" is an inverse relation, or a direct relation.

Having me explain my ideas of performance do not address any of these outstanding points.

I'm sure earlier in this thread, I posted a link to Stephen Seiler's collection of "Exercise Physiology" topics, which includes a Performance Model, and a discussion of three kinds of adaptations required for performance improvement. Aerobic fitness is important, but not the only thing. Oxygen utilization is imporant, but not the only thing. A third factor is economy, which essentially means running faster for the same oxygen cost. Aerobic fitness is a short term adaptation; Oxygen utilization is a medium term adaptation; and economy is the cumulative result of long term adaptations. Elite athletes tend to have had longer training than hobby joggers and "well trained" athletes in studies.

If you had to ask me to explain elite athletes running faster while scarcely breathing, I would look at the factor defined as increased speed without an increase in oxygen cost, rather than a factor that is defined as the increase in the cost of oxygen.

Aerobic fitness is important, but not the only thing. Oxygen utilization is imporant, but not the only thing.

[/quote]

It wasn't argued that aerobic fitness is "the only thing"; you were asked to explain how aerobic fitness can improve without an increase in oxygen transfer to the muscles. The questions included:

So if increased oxygen supplied to the muscles from the blood stream is not key to improving aerobic fitness, what is?

Why do altitude training and blood doping both seek the same objective, of increasing the capacity of the blood to transfer oxygen to the muscles?

rekrunner wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

You said there is a "right kind" of expert? But you can't produce any. They appear to be as rare as unicorns. But that suits a doping denier like yourself. You views on antidoping are ignorant drivel.

I have no trouble producing the right kind of experts to support statements I make.

My views on anti-doping are knowledgeable and informed directly by WADA.

But you can't find any expert on the effects of doping on elite runners' performance - only "experts" who advocate "caution" in reading too much from their limited data. How fortunate for you. In the absence of proof - or proof that you will accept - you conclude there is no effect. In your ivory tower splendid isolation you are unconvinced by years of doping by countless elite and professional athletes, including of course distance runners. It is ironic that you believe you base your views on the "real world", when the real world clearly doesn't share your views.

Armstronglivs wrote:

It wasn't argued that aerobic fitness is "the only thing"; you were asked to explain how aerobic fitness can improve without an increase in oxygen transfer to the muscles. The questions included:

So if increased oxygen supplied to the muscles from the blood stream is not key to improving aerobic fitness, what is?

Why do altitude training and blood doping both seek the same objective, of increasing the capacity of the blood to transfer oxygen to the muscles?

I believe I said I would address your questions once you can establish that aerobic fitness increases in elite athletes, and you can establish that extra oxygen is getting to the muscles. Otherwise we are just arguing hypotheticals.

Athletes altitude train and blood dope based on belief and hope.

Nevertheless, I did point out that experts think you can still run faster without increasing oxygen.

Armstronglivs wrote:

But you can't find any expert on the effects of doping on elite runners' performance - only "experts" who advocate "caution" in reading too much from their limited data. How fortunate for you. In the absence of proof - or proof that you will accept - you conclude there is no effect. In your ivory tower splendid isolation you are unconvinced by years of doping by countless elite and professional athletes, including of course distance runners. It is ironic that you believe you base your views on the "real world", when the real world clearly doesn't share your views.

I did not conclude "no effect" -- this is your scarecrow.

I agree with "High Octane's" "experts" regarding the potential: "could be up to ..."

I concluded insufficient data or observations to reliably draw stronger conclusions.

Not finding experts only reinforces that conclusion.

I base my views on real world data, which has no capability to share views.

You can see in much more detail in my performance thread why I am "unconvinced by years of doping by countless elite and professional athletes, including of course distance runners".

Armstronglivs wrote:

Of course - doping only works for Russian women on steroids. But never for elite distance runners. They dont have a clue about how to dope to get results. But they do keep trying.

I think Russia has many clues.

It is telling that Russia did not produce results in men's elite distance running.

Jon can also take comfort that Russian women have done very little in the 100m or 200m, with only 1 woman able to produce a top-100 performance in both events combined.

SDSU Aztec wrote:

Subway Surfers wrote:

John Walker's 2,000m record was set in sub optimal conditions, it was windy and raining at Crystal Palace. It was his best performance and clear evidence he could have run faster than 3:49 for the mile.

I'm impressed that you would know the weather conditions for the race. At the time, the only source of information for T&F results in Europe was TF&N.

Walker didn't have the top-end speed of guys like Ovett and Coe so I believe 3:49 was a good time for him.

Arch Jelley, Walker's coach reported on this race to me directly. Windy and rainy. Also watch commonwealth last lab with walker vs cram, and walker OG win in montreal in 76. where he out ran 143 man Van Dame in the last 300. Walker was never fully fit after 75. but sometimes nearly so. at the end of the day, the montreal and 82 commonwealth finishes are the same pace as centro, finished with, or any other finals, baring coe at la.

longjack wrote:

SDSU Aztec wrote:

I'm impressed that you would know the weather conditions for the race. At the time, the only source of information for T&F results in Europe was TF&N.

Walker didn't have the top-end speed of guys like Ovett and Coe so I believe 3:49 was a good time for him.

Arch Jelley, Walker's coach reported on this race to me directly. Windy and rainy. Also watch commonwealth last lab with walker vs cram, and walker OG win in montreal in 76. where he out ran 143 man Van Dame in the last 300. Walker was never fully fit after 75. but sometimes nearly so. at the end of the day, the montreal and 82 commonwealth finishes are the same pace as centro, finished with, or any other finals, baring coe at la.

1972: Vasala last 200m: 26.3 s

1976: Walker last 200m: 25.2 s

1980: Coe last 200m: 25.4 s (est)

1984: Coe last 200m: 25.9 s

1988: Peter Rono last 200m: 26.1 s

1992: Fermin Cacho last 200m: 25.1 seconds!

1996: Nourredine Morceli last 200m: 27.6 s

2000: Noah Ngeny last 200m: 26.3 s

2004: El Guerrouj last 200m: 26.1 s

2012: Makhloufi last 200m: 27.0 s

Irina Privalova. Talent or taint?

Talent yes. Knowing Russia, could be both.

Could be bot

rekrunner wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

Of course - doping only works for Russian women on steroids. But never for elite distance runners. They dont have a clue about how to dope to get results. But they do keep trying.

I think Russia has many clues.

It is telling that Russia did not produce results in men's elite distance running.

Jon can also take comfort that Russian women have done very little in the 100m or 200m, with only 1 woman able to produce a top-100 performance in both events combined.

I've got 5 Slavic women in the top-100; which includes three from the Soviet Union and one from Ukraine. Irina Privalova (Russia) has the 13th fastest all-time and I believe she would be the fastest non-African (she's faster than the great Daphne Skippers, who's 23rd all-time). I included the Ukrainian, Zhanna Block, who's 25th all-time (Ukrainians & Russians are genetically the same and the Ukrainians were practicing the same doping methods as the Russians). In addition, Block was busted in the BALCO scandal and served a ban. You can looked up some photos and see her abnormal muscularity. And lastly, the Soviet Union holds 3 in the top-100.

Something else interesting is that East Germany holds 6 positions in the top-100 including 23rd fastest. And we know from declassified documents, the GDR was heavily doping their athletes with anabolic steroids (primarily Turinbol).

I did not conclude "no effect" -- this is your scarecrow. [/quote]

So if there is an "effect", what is it? (Specifically, on elite distance runners).

Armstronglivs wrote:

rekrunner wrote:

I did not conclude "no effect" -- this is your scarecrow.

So if there is an "effect", what is it? (Specifically, on elite distance runners).

Haven't we already done this?

The answer would depend on several factors, which you have not specified.

And then, it would be pointless conjecture about hypotheticals.

rekrunner wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

So if there is an "effect", what is it? (Specifically, on elite distance runners).

Haven't we already done this?

The answer would depend on several factors, which you have not specified.

And then, it would be pointless conjecture about hypotheticals.

So doping does have an effect but you can't say what it is; that "would be pointless conjecture about hypotheticals". You make evasion an art.

You guys are all arguing about a stupidity. The OP stated that El G's WR was 3:49/mile pace, when his WR is 3:43.

My PB 2000m is about 5 seconds slower/mile pace (4:08 mile pb, with 4:12 mile pace for 2000m), so not sure what all the beef is about.