How pathetic is it that the top US marathoner can't even crack 2:10? Should we just give up?

Hodgie-san wrote:

...

I have read books by David Costill, Jack Daniels, and Peter Pfitzinger/Scott Douglas. Very interesting. I highly recommend them, but contrast them with books by Arthur Lydiard and some of the great biographies – Peter Snell, Murray Halberg, Ron Hill, Ron Clarke, Clarence DeMar, and even Bill Rodgers and Frank Shorter. The latter provide inspiration and methodology. While reading them you want to head out for a run.

...

And I remember in HS reading about you GBTC guys and being inspired to run.

My #2 favorite running picture was from RW, I think, of Rodgers and several others (I can't remember whether you were in it) doing mile repeats on the track. As I recall, Rodgers was shirtless and wearing black shorts, and definitely not smiling. To me it captured what a workout looks like.

WiT. I know! Lindgren's PR is 4:01. Lindgren and Ryun were both vying for the HS national record about 1964 going from 4:06 - to Ryuns 3:59 in L.A, a race where Lindgren ran against the Soviets, remember? Gerry Lindgren could've broken four minutes in high school but the condtions did not exist (injuries, conceeding to Ryun's goal and Lindgrens' other goals were imminent i.e. the 10k). It was fate to let Ryun set his goal of going under four minutes as a high schooler and not pose a direct threat because of the shadow:). Right, it didn't happen. But what if?

WiT wrote: Gerry the Jogger did not run sub 4 out of respect for Jim Ryun? Wanna buy a bridge in NYC? I got one for you hell I have 914 of them all at a great price.

I wasn't responding to you Bob (nor was I arguing), and I never said that you said it was only belief. I was responding to HRE, but I don't know who he is. You ran 2:10:59 at Nike, I'd take that any day of the week and so would 99.999999999999999% of the runners in this world. You were a very, very good runner. I simply used you as an example to explain that if you were training with Bill, why didn't you run faster? It was NOT to rip on you, quite the contrary. It was to point out that just because Hall ran 2:06 in London, that doesn't mean Luke Puskedra can do the same because he just ran 2:10 and now he "believes" he can do it to, as in it's possible. Sorry, that is certifiably wrong Bob and if you Malmo and the others on this board disagree, so be it. The poster, although very respectful, was wrong. For the record, I think you trained very hard and ran very well. Everybody isn't going under 2:09. Good day.

Oh, I see how retard logic works, no cigar? So if Rogers,was traininh with Hodge, why didn't Rogers run slower?

What Hodge is saying is clear. When you train with others who have big breakthroughs it opens your own eyes to the possibilities that leads to your own breakthroughs. It sets your personal expectations higher making it possible to maximize your innate talent.

Also, what common thread do a LOT of these examples have running through them? Rodger's, Meyer's, DeCastella's, Meyer's, Beardsley's PR's for all time. Seko's for a couple years? All set at Boston. Maybe even Ndeti's, I don't want to look. I will throw in Durden, Tabb, Mendoza ... and practically every runner who ran Boston in 1983.

All of these guys ran A LOT of marathons, all of them. And all of them ran their best time ever on a point-to-point course that is often aided by the wind.

You really have to look at people's best time on a course like Fukuoka, because we didn't have so many "fast" courses back then like they do now.

I think Shorter would have run in the 2:07-2:08 area had he had a chance to run in a Berlin-type race and field and weather that they have now. Also, he ran 2 marathons a year and XC, indoors and outdoors and in some years road racing.

I think Rodgers would have run 2:08-2:09 with the same setup, especially if he had gotten started earlier and ran 15 races a year instead of 50.

They both would have run much faster still with the drugs that are available now and since 1990. That is of course, assuming they would take them. Shorter was at Rupp's level in the 10k and often ran in the top 2 in big Euro 10ks. He was 15 seconds off the WR (Bedford's). In 1975 he ran 27:45 (a half-second behiond Brendan Foster - who set the 3k WR of 7:35 and ran 13:14 {1 second off WR}).

By 1975, only 3 men had ever run under 27:40 and Shorter was at 27:45. Clearly he could have run well under 2:10, he has said so himself.

Gene Summons wrote:

sospiri wrote:

Running talent is as common as dirt. East Africans don't have a monopoly on these genetic traits.

Correct. Pretty much everyone can actually run. The East Africans only have a monopoly on the extreme ability to run well.

Okay, every other nation that is nowhere near the rift valley should give up running?

That's why my first post in the thread mentioned the U.S. problem of low self esteem amongst distance runners.

Hi Poxia! wrote:

sospiri wrote:

You obviously don't understand the concept of oxygen economy. Look it up, you will find it under the heading "running economy". You could also look up the word efficiency, but I think it will confuse you too much?

Try running efficiently and economically with a clothespin over your nose and a sock in your mouth. The need to still breathe a lot of oxygen in will become abundantly apparent.

So you think altitude training makes runners less efficient and economical with oxygen?

And not the other way around?

I agree with every point Hodgie-san. I have spent 38 years looking for that ultimate training/physiology book. It doesn't exist, but I don't think it can't be written. It would require a much wider outlook than any ex phys writer can show, because they all (it seems to me) to lack self belief in their own physical ability and this leads them to mythologize the physical attributes required to run well. A very common trait on this message board and amongst runners in general.

I believe we are only as good as our training and our confidence. Why do 99.99% of runners and cyclists deny this?

rekrunner wrote:

Just the same, East Africans dominate, and Epstein treats the subject comprehensively. It's the hardware and the software.

sospiri wrote:

Running talent is as common as dirt. East Africans don't have a monopoly on these genetic traits.

Well, on the subject of genetics, most of us have altitude adaptive genes.

Does altitude training improve oxygen economy?

I think it most likely does.

Is it essential for elite distance runners to compete with East Africans?

I don't know, maybe?

What is the best altitude for training if it is essential to beat the East Africans?

Higher than them 10000 feet? 12000? Or lower? 5000? 4000?

After all, the differences we are talking about in oxygen economy are small, and you could say they are attributable to slightly lower body fat. And the difference in oxygen availability between sea level and even 4000 feet is quite large.

sospiri wrote:

I have spent 38 years looking for that ultimate training/physiology book. It doesn't exist, but I don't think it can't be written. It would require a much wider outlook than any ex phys writer can show, because they all (it seems to me) to lack self belief in their own physical ability and this leads them to mythologize the physical attributes required to run well. A very common trait on this message board and amongst runners in general.

I believe we are only as good as our training and our confidence. Why do 99.99% of runners and cyclists deny this?

1. How fast do you run now?

2. How fast do you BELIEVE you can run?

3. How fast have you run?

4. How fast do you think you could have run if you had BELIEVED in your potential?

I am not sure how old you are, but do you believe you can run a sub-3 marathon in your 70s? Ed Whitlock did. So that means it's doable, right?

as was mentioned, it's not 99.99% belief. Mr. Hodge ran 2:10:59 or 2:11, depends on the source. why didn't he run as fast as Rodgers did if it was just belief? he trained with him so why not closer to him in a marathon? you guys are really missing it.

We all have genes, but the East Africans tend to have a higher combination of the right ones. Besides genes, growing up at high altitude also provides changes that don't occur at sea-level. There are not too many American/European athletes with a Nilotic body-type, born and raised at altitude. All this is explained in the book much better than I can treat it here.It's also interesting that what makes Kenyans great is not the same as Ethiopians, and that other countries, like Sudan, could produce great athletes, if they weren't fighting.Epstein uses a hardware (genes/innate talent) and software (training) analogy to explain that genes are only one part of the story. This looks like an improvement compared to Gladwell's "Outliers", which focuses more on the time spent training.Re: altitude, there is a sweet spot, where too low is too low, and too high is too high. I forget the exact range, but I think it's something like 1300m to 2300m. Also too long is too long -- the Kenyans and Ethiopians that are great have only "recently" moved to altitude.

sospiri wrote:

Well, on the subject of genetics, most of us have altitude adaptive genes.

Does altitude training improve oxygen economy?

I think it most likely does.

Is it essential for elite distance runners to compete with East Africans?

I don't know, maybe?

What is the best altitude for training if it is essential to beat the East Africans?

Higher than them 10000 feet? 12000? Or lower? 5000? 4000?

After all, the differences we are talking about in oxygen economy are small, and you could say they are attributable to slightly lower body fat. And the difference in oxygen availability between sea level and even 4000 feet is quite large.

Oh, and lets not forget the likeliest factor of recent East African marathon capability....unabridged doping!!

Perhaps once you can truly convince this is not happening, then all this diversionary talk of why and how they're "gifted," which does not matter now, can then be taken into account. Otherwise...

This "likeliest factor" only makes sense if the rest of the world outside East Africa is not doping, and, for that matter, has not doped for 30 years. Because if they were doping, then doping wouldn't be the likeliest factor separating East Africans. Perhaps if you can truly convince that doping is not happening outside East Africa, then this could be taken into account. Otherwise...

ohheyaa wrote:

Oh, and lets not forget the likeliest factor of recent East African marathon capability....unabridged doping!!

Perhaps once you can truly convince this is not happening, then all this diversionary talk of why and how they're "gifted," which does not matter now, can then be taken into account. Otherwise...

So everyone who trains in the same group should run the same times?

Whatever genetic advantages that Ethios and Kenyans might have, I will proffer that it is the exceedingly large (by Western standards) training groups that fuel the depth of marathoning in those countries. While in the U.S. an "elite" training group might have a dozen guys at the 27-28 minute 10K level, in Eldoret you have fartlek training groups ten times that large with a proportionately larger base of 28-minute guys. While the American groups try to cherry-pick talent from the college ranks, Kenyans get an endeless stream of equivalent talent essentially for free, as they are willing to support themselves in hopes of breaking into the pro ranks, whereas Americans will only train that hard if they are already guaranteed a pro contract. It is a system driven innately by the perfect combination of poverty and opportunity.

rekrunner wrote:

This "likeliest factor" only makes sense if the rest of the world outside East Africa is not doping, and, for that matter, has not doped for 30 years. Because if they were doping, then doping wouldn't be the likeliest factor separating East Africans. Perhaps if you can truly convince that doping is not happening outside East Africa, then this could be taken into account. Otherwise...

ohheyaa wrote:

Oh, and lets not forget the likeliest factor of recent East African marathon capability....unabridged doping!!

Perhaps once you can truly convince this is not happening, then all this diversionary talk of why and how they're "gifted," which does not matter now, can then be taken into account. Otherwise...

Ummm, anybody with a half a brain and a small amount of knowledge of the running world knows that there is no off season drug testing in east Africa.

There are no functioning drug agencies.

Tiger By The Tale wrote:

Whatever genetic advantages that Ethios and Kenyans might have, I will proffer that it is the exceedingly large (by Western standards) training groups that fuel the depth of marathoning in those countries. While in the U.S. an "elite" training group might have a dozen guys at the 27-28 minute 10K level, in Eldoret you have fartlek training groups ten times that large with a proportionately larger base of 28-minute guys. While the American groups try to cherry-pick talent from the college ranks, Kenyans get an endeless stream of equivalent talent essentially for free, as they are willing to support themselves in hopes of breaking into the pro ranks, whereas Americans will only train that hard if they are already guaranteed a pro contract. It is a system driven innately by the perfect combination of poverty and opportunity.

So how much better would the following runners have been had they stayed in Kenya instead of coming to the US?

Bernard Lagat, Sally Kipyego, Wesley Korir, Sam Chelanga, Stephen Sambu, Lawi Lalang, Betsy Saina... did they trade their running potential for their college degrees?

How about Sammy Wanjiru, Douglas Wakiihuri, Eric Wainaina, Martin Mathathi, Paul Tanui, Bedan Karoki, Lucy Kabuu and others who went to Japan? Would they have been better off had they stayed in Kenya?

No one will ever know. They might have been faster had they stayed in Kenya. They might have had opportunities to compete after emigrating that took them to a higher level that they wouldn\'t have had id they\'d stayed in Kenya. The ones who went to Japan and ran marathons certainly did not miss out on training in big, fast, groups.