Why can Deena Run 2:19 but Shalane can't????

fat burning wrote:

Who knows wrote:

Has anyone wondered about Schumacher's ability to train marathoners to be efficient fat users? Remember what happened with Bairu?

Agree. This is a metabolic difference- Deena is a better fat burner. It took Ritzenhein several tries to nail one, and even then his marathon performance pales compared to his shorter distance speed (12:56 5K). Same can be said for Mo F..

You guys are mythologizing. It's not more efficient fat burning, it more efficiency per se. Slower runners burn more fat in a marathon than fast runners.

Deena is the more serious marathon runner, that's why she is faster.

Dingler wrote:

dsrunner wrote:

the 'fat burner' stuff is kinda dumb.

Umm actually it's not. Did you read Renato's post from a few days ago?

Did Renato do any blood work and real physiological molecular analysis? If not, then yes the 'fat burner' stuff is dumb.

dumberz wrote:

Dingler wrote:

Umm actually it's not. Did you read Renato's post from a few days ago?

Did Renato do any blood work and real physiological molecular analysis? If not, then yes the 'fat burner' stuff is dumb.

You don't need to conduct research yourself to know that something is true.

But I'm sure you'll come back at me with some snappy response about why I'm wrong.

Cheers

Shalane came late to the marathon, but is still setting personal bests at age 33. She's faster at 10k and may yet be faster at the marathon.

Shalane's only mistake at Berlin was not competing. If she would have competed with the women, instead of gun-hoing for a time trial effort, I think she had the fitness to dip under 2:20 with a great last 10km or second half.

Once she nails competing over the full distance of the marathon, she will kill it. Look at how tough Deena was in Athens, competing every step of the way, catching as many as she could.

It's all a mindset.

Thank goodness!! Someone with a brain. It surprises me people jump on this bandwagon. She has goals and drive...people that succeed usually do! Please go do something more productive than troll. It's a matter of time before she gets where she's going. I'm fairly certain she's has had NEARLY every AR from 5000m and higher at some point in her career.

fat burning wrote:

dsrunner wrote:

the 'fat burner' stuff is kinda dumb.

No it's not. Shalane can sustain the necessary pace up to a point, and then she 'bonks'. That's an energy/metabolism issue.

I can maintain the pace for 800 meters and then boink. Is that a energy/metabolism issue? So if i can figure this issue out i can beat Shalane?

Because running 2:19 is *damn* hard.

I don't think the gap between Shalane and Deena is that big, to be honest. Shalane's time is the second fastest ever run by an American woman (two seconds faster than Deena's #2 time). Shalane has run under 2:26 four times (vs. three for Deena). Obviously Deena has the lead at the moment, but I don't know that I'd count Shalane out just yet.

fan of US distance running wrote:

You don't need to conduct research yourself to know that something is true.

But I'm sure you'll come back at me with some snappy response about why I'm wrong.

Cheers

Yeah you're right. Science and research have never proven the opposite of what some people "know" is true. You're still holding onto the belief that the Earth is flat, aren't you?

Thanks for letting us all know that we shouldn't take anything you say seriously ever from now on.

Doesn't this raise the question as to why every American female that has run a marathon is slower than Deena?

DontFeedTheTroll wrote:

Because running 2:19 is *damn* hard.

I don't think the gap between Shalane and Deena is that big, to be honest. Shalane's time is the second fastest ever run by an American woman (two seconds faster than Deena's #2 time). Shalane has run under 2:26 four times (vs. three for Deena). Obviously Deena has the lead at the moment, but I don't know that I'd count Shalane out just yet.

you don't think the differance between a 2:19 mid and a 2:21 low on a faster course is a big difference? Thats ridiculous. Deena totally hit it when she ran 2:19 in London. Perhaps hit one that may take years and years to break. I believe Shalane is good but will need something very very special to break that record...and time isn't on her side.

The reason I think we ask the question about Shalane and being faster then Deena is two-fold; 1. She was faster then Deena at all other distances below half marathon and 2. She talks a very big game before each and every marathon attempt which gives rist to overhype.

I'm cheering for her but it's going to take a special performance on a special day as father time waits for no man/woman.

I figured she wouldn't be able to run that when she got scalped by Gemma Steel way back in the summer. Not that I knew at that moment but seeing Gemma at the great north run have a terrific race and get beaten that badly I figured Shalane was no way capable of 2:19.

I don't know why she can't run that fast, it's weird based on her PR's. And her incredible 10000m time was run in an olympic final...not a Payton Jordan type 10km. You'd have to think she has the talent, but look at ritz...12:56 and can't run better then 2:07 high....

The marathon is strange, maybe fuelling i.e. fat metabolism is a factor, perhaps her stride is better suited to the track...it's hard to say.

But I think that was her only opportunity to ever get it. She won't have another chance before the trials and you can't see her running Berlin after the Olympics in 2016 as it's in August. Come 2017 your looking at a 36 year old who is well removed from her track days and hitting that velocity for 26.2 miles will be much harder then it was this year.

All in all she ran well though, nothing wrong with that time.

If the US was smart they would expedite the citizenship process of Bizunesh Deba, she's only 27 and just PB's running 2:19 in Boston, you put that girl on Berlin and then you'll have a 2:18 American Record.

Strike out royal wrote:

She was faster then Deena at all other distances below half marathon

Deena hold the US record for 15K, 8K and 5K.

R2D3 wrote:

Strike out royal wrote:

She was faster then Deena at all other distances below half marathon

Deena hold the US record for 15K, 8K and 5K.

I guess i was thinking she took the 15K record but I guess i'm wrong. Her track times are still significantly faster at 5K & 10K then Kastor has ever run. I think she can get the record but it's going to take that once in a lifetime performance. She will also have to likely be in the race to win it or be close to winning the race. If I was her I'd get back on the track and down to 31:00 for 10,000M and then build up and take my shot. I don't think she can do the 31:00 10,000M. This is how i ran my fastest marathons coming off great track seasons.

Male pacemakers from gun to tape.

Shes a shoe-in for the US Trials win. She could run London this year and then even come back with Chicago or Berlin if she wanted to go after the record again.

Then she could cruise the trials and get ready for the Olympics

I'm just going to post this again.

survey says wrote:

Who says Shalane can't just because she hasn't yet? Deena started marathoning in 2001. Two years later she ran 2:21:16, and three years after than she ran 2:19:36. Shalane started in 2010. Four years later she ran 2:21:14. It took her a little longer to get to where she is but she's already a tiny bit faster than Deena was at the same point in time in her marathon career (with a lot more tries along the way than Shalane has made). Give Shalane two more years, the same amount of time it took Deena, and then get back to us.

Shalane didn't build all the floors to her house yet to

run 2:19.

The first woman to run sub 2:20 was doing 180 mile weeks in Boulder.

I believe that Deena did up to 150 with a focus on dropping her AT.

Paula did up to 160 at altitude.

Shalane felt a little burnt with 8 weeks @ 120-125, and her

previous training was 70 mile weeks.

+1

pacing people, pacing.