Nothing. Everything since then has been re-hashing of the same concepts already understood by runners in the late 70's / early 80's. All improvements since then have only come through better technology, faster courses, and a larger global talent pool of participation.
Not true.
No, I won't provide links. You do the homework yourself, Mr I Know It All :P
What was new in training on Jan 1980? And you've contradicted yourself. Better technology means new discoveries in training. And prove that a larger talent pool is the reason for faster times.
ook wrote:
What was new in training on Jan 1980?
Not necessarily anything. I am just stating a range in which all discoveries have been made.
ook wrote: And you've contradicted yourself. Better technology means new discoveries in training.
No it doesn't. Having a better shoe or track, or holding a marathon in the morning on a flat course (for example having the best runners in the world run Berlin instead of NYC) - none of this has to do with training.
ook wrote:
And prove that a larger talent pool is the reason for faster times.
It should be obvious that a larger world population and more participation from developing countries would bring more depth. How large was the training camp in Iten in 1980 vs. now?
It's 70s and 80s. I do agree with you, however. That's why it's a waste of money to pay for a coach. All of the training principles are available, well-known, and understood.
Hardloper wrote:
ook wrote:What was new in training on Jan 1980?
Not necessarily anything. I am just stating a range in which all discoveries have been made.
ook wrote: And you've contradicted yourself. Better technology means new discoveries in training.
No it doesn't. Having a better shoe or track, or holding a marathon in the morning on a flat course (for example having the best runners in the world run Berlin instead of NYC) - none of this has to do with training.
ook wrote:
And prove that a larger talent pool is the reason for faster times.
It should be obvious that a larger world population and more participation from developing countries would bring more depth. How large was the training camp in Iten in 1980 vs. now?
Why did you pick that range? What was the last new training discovery prior to 1980?
Having marathoners choose a different course to run on is not technology. Shoes and track are not the reason why the 5000m is 30+ seconds faster now than in 1980. They aren't running on springs.
No, it's not obvious that a larger population and more participation would bring faster times. Deeper sure. Faster? No. Prove that there is a connection.
well, there is some science - steve magness would probably have a few things to say on this thread.
I would say that we do know what DOESN'T work. Like stretching, orthotics, worrying about overpronation, and of course worrying about ovaries dropping out and that sort of thing.
we know things like a 3% gain in performance can be gained by merely swishing an energy drink.
we know that kids can run 100 miles per week without much problem.
we know that tech like alter g can help
we know about recovery nutrition - choc milk, etc.
we know that thyroid problems can affect training and how to fix them.
Using lactate to fuel the body, and training for this is new.
Although many knew it in 1980, developing the more all around distance runner - with speed (sprinting practice), strength (weight and med ball training) and better anaerobic abilities is somewhat new since then.
Better nutrtition (sepecially during a marathon).
Treadmills during inclement weather.
Better knowledge and use of altitude training.
The non-Lydiard idea of training all the systems year around.
Better recovery (massage techniques, ice baths, supplements and nutrition). Not that people didn't do this in the 70s, but the techniques now are much better.
ook wrote:
Why did you pick that range? What was the last new training discovery prior to 1980?
Because that is as far back as I can go while still being certain that there has been nothing new discovered. The last discovery may have been 1979 or 1965 for all I know.
ook wrote:
Having marathoners choose a different course to run on is not technology.
ook wrote:
Shoes and track are not the reason why the 5000m is 30+ seconds faster now than in 1980. They aren't running on springs.
No, it's not obvious that a larger population and more participation would bring faster times. Deeper sure. Faster? No. Prove that there is a connection.
When I get home I will compile the analysis to prove this point. But you have to look at all of the factors involved - no one factor accounts for all 30 seconds.
Would it be more accurate to say that much of what the running community intuitively knew back then has been validated by research since?
Rodgers and others might have raced the first 20 miles of
a marathon as a workout, but I don't think that is the same
as Canova's hard 40k workouts.
In the early 90s they made the revolutionary discovery that EPO enhanced training and made people able to do ridiculous workouts that were unheard of in 1980.
agip wrote:
we do know what DOESN'T work. Like stretching
"we"? LOL
Do you want a collection of videos and pictures of elite runners stretching? And if they do I guess there is reason to believe it works.
It even works for me!
If it doesn't work for you and Hardloper and many others, it's fine and I totally accept that but it's really stupid to say "we" know stretching doesn't work when so many people, elite runners included, say it does for them.
sddfsadfsa wrote:
It's 70s and 80s. I do agree with you, however. That's why it's a waste of money to pay for a coach. All of the training principles are available, well-known, and understood.
.
That sounds about right. It's a lot like diets and losing weight. Knowledge is not the problem.
Hardloper wrote:
Nothing. Everything since then has been re-hashing of the same concepts already understood by runners in the late 70's / early 80's.
And there was no reason for another Christmas song to be written after about 1/1/1960! Everything else is just a knockoff and there's nothing worse than a pop star doing a Christmas song - ie Bruce Springsteen
Ok, one exception was Cheech and Chong's christmas song. But that's the only one.
EPO?
Hardloper wrote:
Nothing. Everything since then has been re-hashing of the same concepts already understood by runners in the late 70's / early 80's. All improvements since then have only come through better technology, faster courses, and a larger global talent pool of participation.
One concept used in the 70's by Steve Prefontaine that is seldom used nowadays (sprinter Michael Johnson is the only one I can think of who does it). And that is MOVE YOUR HEAD BACK at least one inch. It makes running much more smoother,easier and relaxed.
There is ONE CONCEPT that applies to cycling that eventually EVERYONE will do that only myself and couple of others do now. That is MOVE YOUR SEAT UP one inch slide it forward and SLANT IT DOWN as much as you can. You will go FIVE PERCENT FASTER! you will also be more comfortable and your bike will handle better. Try it!
fred wrote:
Rodgers and others might have raced the first 20 miles of
a marathon as a workout, but I don't think that is the same
as Canova's hard 40k workouts.
Actually, a better analogy would be Rogers and others who would race 5+ marathons per year, but with some of them less important than others. For example in 1976 Rogers won the Baltimore marathon in 2:14. He trained through it for Boston. This is more like the hard 40k workouts and actually Canova has stated it can be beneficial to race a marathon on "80% fitness" a couple months before your real race.
Here's a new thing in training since 1980: if you incentivize enough Rift Valley denizens to train hard, times will improve by 10 seconds/mile.
Hardloper wrote:
fred wrote:Rodgers and others might have raced the first 20 miles of
a marathon as a workout, but I don't think that is the same
as Canova's hard 40k workouts.
Actually, a better analogy would be Rogers and others who would race 5+ marathons per year, but with some of them less important than others. For example in 1976 Rogers won the Baltimore marathon in 2:14. He trained through it for Boston. This is more like the hard 40k workouts and actually Canova has stated it can be beneficial to race a marathon on "80% fitness" a couple months before your real race.
"Hardloper
RE: To all those who doubted Wilson Kipsang's practice run, put that in your pipe and smoke it! 9/29/2013 3:02PM - in reply to NativeSon Reply | Return to Index | Report Post
Some people thought he was talking about running a full marathon in 2:03 in training. I knew he was referring to a 40 km run the whole time, because Renato has talked a lot about doing a hard 40k with his athletes though it was usually in the 2:10 range.
Though I was surprised to hear that the course and altitude mean that Kipsang's 2:03:30 training run was more like a sub-2 40k run on a nice course at sea level which is effectively over 97% of race pace."
What's new in the current training is the level of intensity
As you say Kipsang's 40k @ altitude was the equivalent of
sub 2 hours, on the INTERNAL LOAD.
Rodgers 2:14 marathon is in no way equivalent, and Kipsang's
way of running this workout is what is new in training.