Colorado has a fine coach with good athletes. They train hard (I assume). They consistenly place high at nationals every year. There are other teams that train as hard and have as much talent that do not have the same success. Do you think training at 5000-6000 feet as they do leads to success and championships??? If so, how much???
Look at the success of Adams and Western. It's not by coincidence that the two top DII teams are both at 7500 ft.
Of course altitude training helps. Who they hell are you? Professional athletes travel from all around the world to train at altitude.
However, when you're doing short intervals, it actually hurts you. Like Wetmore says, his guys can't handle a fast early pace because they have never run a mile in 4:25 during the XC season. So really, they can't go out that fast, period. Don't have the muscles for it.
Ideally, you would want to do all your aerobic-based runs at altitude, all your short, quick intervals at sealevel.
altitude definitely helps them. when you speak of "training hard" pretty much every team that makes it to the national meet in D1, D2, or D3 "trains hard". training smart is part the equation as well. there is no sense in training hard if are injured/tired/not ready to race.
Colorado should be banned from training at altitude!
Wetmore himself says altitude is a overall a neutral for training. He said it helps building aerobic capacity but hurts your anaerobic training because you can't run as fast in workouts to get a full nuromuscular stimulus for the legs. Overall the negative cancels out the benefit.
What really helps with altitude is having ancestors who evolved over hundreds of thousands of years at altitude. That give the East Africans a genetic edge.
So people believe in the Live High/Train low theory. Live up at altitude to get the aerobic effect then drive down to the bottom of the mountain so you can train fast.
So it makes a lot of sense that Wetmore makes the aerobic development of his athletes a top priority in their training.
It has only a little to do with altitude. It has more to do with intelligent racing. CU didn't gun for it, they let the race come to them in both races. They started off controlled and finished strong. The conditions were terrible and the course was going to run very slow, and CU adapted the best.
Stanford's women flew out of the gate and paid for it over the last 2k. Luckily for them they have so much talent that they could implode and still beat the field.
On the men's side, the individuals that won were not the ones pushing the pace or worrying about moving 3k-4k in or surging here or there. The ones that did faded. The ones that didn't and sat patiently in the lead pack, finished 1-2-3. CU's men were not winning at 5k, but it was almost clear they would win even before the race began. They did it in 2004 under the same conditions because Colorado races intelligently, and that's the best way to race in muddy, sloppy and SLOW conditions.
I don't think they were a "huge underdog." The women might have been, although they proved at Regionals that they can race, but not the men. Only those who don't understand XC (wejo, rojo?) think they were huge underdogs. They were first at pre-nats, presumably the second best (maybe third, slimly) team in the land the whole year behind Wisco. And if I knew the course would be muddy and slow, I would have moved CU up to first in the polls, because they've proved before and will prove again that Wetmore knows how to train his runners to run intelligently, especially in those conditions.
And yes, there may be a bit of "altitude builds aerobic fitness" stuff that may in fact HELP teams and individuals like CU in slower, more difficult races, certainly Baumgartner of SUU may not have been third in an all-out fast race (the difference between strength running and speed running), but altitude did not equal success uniformly at nationals this year. It was smart running, ultimately, and that's what CU accels at.
So how do you explain Goucher's ability to go out hard with the top guys when he won his XC title, or Torres'?
Adams and Western guys don't seem to have a problem going out hard at NCAA's or running fast 8's and 15's on the track.
Don't think it's just the altitude and coaching, but also the weather. Terra Haute isn't exactly balmy in November. Teams that are prepared for cooler temperatures and winds have an advantage. You think Alabama would have finished last if Nats were held in Florida?
Wisconsin??? Oregon??? those are probably the only schools I can think of that have the same-caliber runners coming from HS. Taken from the other thread:
Sick of Downplay wrote:
I'm tired of hearing how Wetmore develops all of these scrubs into world beaters. Looking at his Nats runners high school careers, shows how much talent he truly gets.
1. Brent Vaugh-8:45 3200m (faster than Torres and Goucher)
2. Stephen Pifer- 4:05 miler; 14th at Foot Locker XC
3. Erik Heinonen- 4th at Foot Locker; 14:35 5k on the track
4. James Strang-14th at Foot Locker XC
5. Billy Nelson-4th Foot Locker XC; 3rd at USA Jr. XC and was 33rd in the world at world champs while finishing as second American
6. Brad Harkrider- Beat Goucher's State XC record; 12th Foot Locker XC
7.Pete Janson- State champ in the mile; Won USA Jr. XC as a college frosh
Looking at their roster, all of their high school studs raced Nats, while their blue collar guys stayed at home. They have one of the most talented, if not the most talented team in the nation.
I think he was indicating that he has no individual stand-outs or national title winners like he has had in the past.
intelligent racing wrote:
It has only a little to do with altitude. It has more to do with intelligent racing. CU didn't gun for it, they let the race come to them in both races. They started off controlled and finished strong. The conditions were terrible and the course was going to run very slow, and CU adapted the best.
Stanford's women flew out of the gate and paid for it over the last 2k. Luckily for them they have so much talent that they could implode and still beat the field.
On the men's side, the individuals that won were not the ones pushing the pace or worrying about moving 3k-4k in or surging here or there. The ones that did faded. The ones that didn't and sat patiently in the lead pack, finished 1-2-3. CU's men were not winning at 5k, but it was almost clear they would win even before the race began. They did it in 2004 under the same conditions because Colorado races intelligently, and that's the best way to race in muddy, sloppy and SLOW conditions.
I don't think they were a "huge underdog." The women might have been, although they proved at Regionals that they can race, but not the men. Only those who don't understand XC (wejo, rojo?) think they were huge underdogs. They were first at pre-nats, presumably the second best (maybe third, slimly) team in the land the whole year behind Wisco. And if I knew the course would be muddy and slow, I would have moved CU up to first in the polls, because they've proved before and will prove again that Wetmore knows how to train his runners to run intelligently, especially in those conditions.
And yes, there may be a bit of "altitude builds aerobic fitness" stuff that may in fact HELP teams and individuals like CU in slower, more difficult races, certainly Baumgartner of SUU may not have been third in an all-out fast race (the difference between strength running and speed running), but altitude did not equal success uniformly at nationals this year. It was smart running, ultimately, and that's what CU accels at.
They were underdogs. Solinsky completely bombed. They had more talent on their team. It was like 4 or 5 to 1 in terms of first place votes. Don't imply you don't have to not understand XC to say Wisconsin was the favorite. Could Colorado win? Obviously, but on paper Wisconsin should have won just as they should have in 2004.
Beaver Tranquilizer wrote:
Don't think it's just the altitude and coaching, but also the weather. Terra Haute isn't exactly balmy in November. Teams that are prepared for cooler temperatures and winds have an advantage. You think Alabama would have finished last if Nats were held in Florida?
though not really a factor in the colorado vs wisconsin debate as both are from cold climates...this is a valid topic
personally I think its ridiculous to run nationals in the mid west or the north in november...puts teams from the southern half of the country at a complete disadvantage as they never see these temperatures during the year...hell why not just hold the race at altitude and really give the CU guys an advantage
its just as ridiculous though, to hold outdoor nats in the south in june...having the meet in austin that year was a prime example and the athletes paid the price
the idea system...hold XC in the south or a place where theres a more temperate climate in november...and hold outdoors in the midwest or north where theres decent weather in june...
not sure why thats so hard for the NCAA the understand (though I guess i am sure...more about $$ than about the quality of the meet)
[quote]Not so fast wrote:
What really helps with altitude is having ancestors who evolved over hundreds of thousands of years at altitude. That give the East Africans a genetic edge.
quote]
Yo, Amateur Anthropologist, we all have ancestors who spent hundreds of thousands of years in Africa. DNA analysis shows that Modern Man came out of Africa about 100,000 years ago and spread across the continents, displacing Neanderthals in Europe in the last 30,000 years or so. The superficial racial differences developed very recently in the scheme of things.
What's more important is what you did in the last few months, not the last few hundred thousand years. Apparently, CU knows how to prepare to run tough in tough conditions. I have trained extensively both at sea level and altitude and tend to agree that it's a net neutral.
If you are coming from living at sea level for a long time do not go up to 7000 ft. It will take you the entire time you are there to adapt. I came from 700ft to Steamboat which is at the lowest 7000ft in the valley. While you can get some training in if you aren't used to it you wont be used to it over the weekend. I would shoot going for 5-6k ft because adapting will be easier while still getting the benefit. I now live in Fort Collins and i would say a good place to end up in the front range would be Greely or the springs.
lkj wrote:
Colorado has a fine coach with good athletes. They train hard (I assume). They consistenly place high at nationals every year. There are other teams that train as hard and have as much talent that do not have the same success. Do you think training at 5000-6000 feet as they do leads to success and championships??? If so, how much???
Except they do not win all that often now do they?
My guess is that they finish high because they get better athletes year in, year out.
I think weather is too often an excuse. Colorado weather in the fall is actually quite mild for the most part, with occasional bad weather for a day or two. I bet CU trained in short sleeves and shorts for the vast majority of the fall. Arkansas has managed to run quite well over the years in all types of weather. Personally, I think cross country at it's core is also about bad weather. Cold, wet, muddy, that's cross country!
Your timeline is messed up. Humans evolved from Homo Erectus to Homo Sapiens and Neanderthal in parallel 100,000 years ago as two distint hominoids. Neandethal died out in Europe 30,000 years ago, Homo Sapiens (Modern Man) survived. The exodus from Africa happened long before that as Homo erectus fosils are all over Europe and Asia. When did the African exodus occur? They don't know for sure but likely 2 million years ago and it was homo erectus the left africa, not modern man. So I was correct saying hundreds of thousands of years ago as Homo Erectus existed from 4 million BC to 100,000 BC. Modern Caucasoids are decended from Homo Erectus in Europe not Homo Sapiens that migrated from Africa. East Africans are decended from Homo Erectus Africanus that never left Africa.
Jungleroy59 wrote:
[quote]Not so fast wrote:
What really helps with altitude is having ancestors who evolved over hundreds of thousands of years at altitude. That give the East Africans a genetic edge.
quote]
Yo, Amateur Anthropologist, we all have ancestors who spent hundreds of thousands of years in Africa. DNA analysis shows that Modern Man came out of Africa about 100,000 years ago and spread across the continents, displacing Neanderthals in Europe in the last 30,000 years or so. The superficial racial differences developed very recently in the scheme of things.
What's more important is what you did in the last few months, not the last few hundred thousand years. Apparently, CU knows how to prepare to run tough in tough conditions. I have trained extensively both at sea level and altitude and tend to agree that it's a net neutral.
luv2run wrote:
lkj wrote:Colorado has a fine coach with good athletes. They train hard (I assume). They consistenly place high at nationals every year. There are other teams that train as hard and have as much talent that do not have the same success. Do you think training at 5000-6000 feet as they do leads to success and championships??? If so, how much???
Except they do not win all that often now do they?
My guess is that they finish high because they get better athletes year in, year out.
Three out of the last six NCAA titles I think qualifies for "often" enough, don't you? How "often" do you want?!