What's the reason/s that high schoolers and collegiates are running so fast in the last couple of years.

I agree the Internet has made a significant difference in running, but this started 20 or so years ago. What has changed with the Internet in the last 3-4 years that led to such a dramatic change in performances, particularly at the HS and college levels? Strava isn't new. Tempo isn't new. Arcadia isn't new.

Shoes. I stepped away from coaching prior to super shoes, but have very close friends still in the profession. My friends in the NCAA can't believe how much shoes changed the sport. Immediately. Literally, from day one when super shoes and super spikes arrived on campus they witnessed a dramatic change.

It is what it is, but let's not deny the obvious.

Do you think technology has stopped for doping, if it continues for shoes?

No. I don't dispute that doping exists by any means, but I don't attribute an increase in doping to the drastic change in performances since 2021.

Let’s say it is drugs. What became available in 2020 to the point where kids in like 50 colleges and 100 high schools had access? Maybe one of the SARMs but have any of them been linked to endurance performance at this level?

I ran at Arcadia and have microdosed nandro, use unnecessary thyroid meds, and mainline caffeine on race day.

/thread

If a less talented runner travels to a meet, his slow-twitch muscles will be along for the ride.

Genuinely the dumbest thing ever said was this. Just repeating was Snore Brostard said, and it just doesn't really make sense. If a coach pushes people to run fast that's one thing, but to say that all of a sudden kids don't think 4:20 is fast is dumb, since kids have been breaking 4:00 since like the 1960s or 1970s. 4:20 has never really been fast. The shoes have just made it seem even slower than it used to be.

The "efficiency" required to sprint (or, for that matter, to hit a hard forehand in tennis) is related to the transfer of force. Your muscles can only generate so much force, so you want to transfer it efficiently in order to deliver as much force as possible to the ground (or the ball). It has nothing to do with how much chemical energy remains stored in your muscles.

The benefit of improving running economy (as supershoes do) is not that you can deliver a greater maximum force; it's that you can deliver the same force while expending less energy. This is only relevant if (a) your total supply of energy is constrained, or (b) the rate at which you can metabolize energy is related to the speed you can maintain. This is only the case for races that requires a significant contribution from aerobic energy.

Think of cars. If you're a drag racer, then improving your gas mileage is not relevant to your performance. Drag racers are not meaningfully constrained by the size of their gas tank.

How do you know doping hasn't increased? No one's going to admit to it and testing is virtually nonexistent at this level. Or are you simply saying doping doesn't enhance performance but shoes do?

You are simply confining your view of "efficiency" as to whether it aids aerobic performance. There are different standards of what constitutes "efficiency" in every sport. It can be improved in very different ways. But in track and running, shoes are an important factor - for sprinters and middle distance runners as much as for distance runners.

"Think of cars. If you're a drag racer, then improving your gas mileage is not relevant to your performance. Drag racers are not meaningfully constrained by the size of their gas tank."

But the tyres they use are crucially important. Think shoes.

I think it's mostly knowledge and belief.

Back in the 90's (1) we just missed out on the internet, (2) coaches were still having us run mostly intervals, (3) I didn't have any older runners to emulate. 40 miles per week sounds like a ton when you're new to the sport and there is no group of older guys doing it who can say "yeah I thought that too but you'll build up to it gradually and it will feel normal after a while. I did it, you can do it too".

I still kick myself for missing out. Eventually I was able to run faster in my late 20's post-internet but man, how nice it would have been to be pushing the envelope at age 20 rather than 30. My recuperation skills would have been amazing.

yep.

no knowledge or belief before the internet... especially in events longer than 800m.

shoes have nothing to do with it!

Cheater road shoes come out, times drop, we nod our heads.

Cheater spikes come out, times drop, and we have no idea.

Hold on, rojo. Are you claiming that the reason for the increase in speed in high-school distance running is doping? You, the head of letsrun? Are you only referring to pro runners? What? You willing to go public with that claim, shout it from the rooftops? That's a serious charge. Everybody here is speculating as if it were fact, without providing one iota of evidence. Not one.

I have a feeling modern kids didn’t know things like books existed where guys like Lydiard explained why you ran 100mpw. Or bowerman. Or any of the other dozen I read.

That being said the importance of things like short sprints wasn’t really mentioned. Or some drills. Not hugee things by any means but when talking those last half dozen seconds..

"No, there is no "proof", as you say. But you can't prove kids at your local gym will be using drugs either. But they will be."

This is a deflection, as we are not discussing what local kids do at local gyms. We are talking about highly visible runners from across the country, whom some of you think are all in some kind of doping though you have absolutely no evidence. No one can name one current top HS Name one runner from Arcadia who you even think was doping. You willing to do that? runner who has been found to dope. To say "you can't rule it out" is inane. The burden of proof is not on me as I am not the one making the claim that people are doping. If you make the claim you should be able to back it up. No one can. Name one runner from Arcadia that you think was doping. Go on, do it. Of course, if you are wrong, you could be open to a lawsuit, but go ahead and back up your comments. You can believe what you want, of course, but you cannot make that claim without risk, which is why everyone speaks in generalities.

Let me correct that:

"No, there is no "proof", as you say. But you can't prove kids at your local gym will be using drugs either. But they will be."
This is a deflection, as we are not discussing what local kids do at local
gyms. We are talking about highly visible runners from across the
country, whom some of you think are all in some kind of doping though
you have absolutely no evidence. Name
one runner from Arcadia who you even think was doping. You willing to
do that? No one can name one current top HS runner who has been found to dope. To say "you can't rule it out" is inane. The burden of proof is not on me as I am not the one making the claim that people are doping. If you make the claim you
should be able to back it up. No one can. Name one runner from Arcadia
that you think was doping. Go on, do it. Of course, if you are wrong,
you could be open to a lawsuit, but go ahead and back up your comments.
You can believe what you want, of course, but you cannot make that claim
without risk, which is why everyone speaks in generaliti