Roberta Groner 2:29:06 PR AGE 41

Jack Foster syndrome wrote:

?? wrote:

it's suspicious that somebody who ran from middle school through college and didn't train for a huge chunk of her adult life suddenly had a breakthrough a few years ago and is now nearly as good as Deena Kastor as a master's runner--and Deena trained for nearly her entire adult life.

That's not suspicious at all. If you have talent and fresh legs you get good quickly and catch up to those who ran consistently and are now fading.

Deena would be doing the same if she'd missed her prime years.

Does Kipchoge have "fresh legs"?

Tatyana Pozdniakova has run much more impressive. She ran a 2:31 at 50 and a 2:30 at 49

Also Lydia Cheromei ran 2:22 low at almost 43 years old.

LydiaC wrote:

Also Lydia Cheromei ran 2:22 low at almost 43 years old.

She has had a 29 year career, medaling in world junior champs 10000m at 13 years old.

Armstronglivs wrote:

You leave out the point about her age. That is the crucial distinction. Benoit shattered the American women's record in '84, and yet was not a lot faster than Groner is today. Benoit was 27. Groner is 41. Yet at Groner's rate of improvement it is conceivable she could be faster than Benoit while being 15-20 years older. These are trends we are now seeing in masters sport.

No I did not leave out her age, if she was 29 we wouldn't be having this argument - and Benoit ran that on a slower course and ran 2:24, that's a pretty big assumption that sometime in the next 6 years from now she is going to run 2:24. If that happens, I will be on your side in assuming some help from big pharma.

But on your point about Benoit, she ran her 2:24 she had been doing marathon training for about 6 years - Groner has been training seriously for about that. Who is to say that had she discovered this talent and love for the marathon at 21, instead of a mediocre 5K runner at an obscure college she might have become a 2:25 or 2:26 runner at 28/29? The earlier poster was right about one thing, its not so much fresh legs but a lack of accumulated injuries and hence biomechanical inefficiencies that have likely benefited her in her rapid rise. As far a muscles losing their capabilities as you age - that varies by individual and tends to effect speed more than endurance. Perhaps that is why her marathon times are much better than her efforts at shorter distances. My guess is if she bumps her mileage up, I would not be surprised to see her get slower not faster.

None of this is proof that she is not doping but its at least as good of proof as your argument that she is old, runs fast, and improved a lot.

?? wrote:

Jack Foster syndrome wrote:

That's not suspicious at all. If you have talent and fresh legs you get good quickly and catch up to those who ran consistently and are now fading.

Deena would be doing the same if she'd missed her prime years.

___________________

One of my major points regarding her suspiciousness is that she DID run for many years and did not show signs of this magnitude of talent. Also, the "fresh legs" thing is nonsense. Years spent training don't wear the engine down. They keep you fit. What holds some people back are the injuries they accumulate over years of training.

Again, I'm not saying she's dirty. I'm saying you'd have to be willfully ignorant about running to not entertain the possibility. This is about as suspicious as they come.

They do wear you down, especially if you do Marathons at a high rate for years.

Not doing them early on saves it for later.

I remember while back I happened to see her Strava page. She runs a lot. A lot of miles. I don't know how she does it with a job and kids. Just imagine what she could have ran in her 20s.

LydiaC wrote:

LydiaC wrote:

Also Lydia Cheromei ran 2:22 low at almost 43 years old.

She has had a 29 year career, medaling in world junior champs 10000m at 13 years old.

_________________

Do you think that 2:22 is clean? I'd practically bet my life that it's not. Distance running at the world class level is dirty. It just is.

i think Roberta is Jewish

I've been following her on Strava for a couple years. She posts most of her workouts. Nothing surprising -- lots of longish strength runs and much of it at good pace (low sixes). More power to her -- hope she continues to be successful.

Armstronglivs wrote:

Jack Foster syndrome wrote:

That's not suspicious at all. If you have talent and fresh legs you get good quickly and catch up to those who ran consistently and are now fading.

Deena would be doing the same if she'd missed her prime years.

Does Kipchoge have "fresh legs"?

Fresh enough.

Hjalmar wrote:

i think Roberta is Jewish

That's good. Little risk of her getting on a podcast and announcing that she wants to go for a run with Hitler.

such a controversial statement wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

Does Kipchoge have "fresh legs"?

Fresh enough.

They all have fresh legs. Like a twenty year-old. Even at "33", or 41. Age is just a number. It seems.

?? wrote:

LydiaC wrote:

She has had a 29 year career, medaling in world junior champs 10000m at 13 years old.

_________________

Do you think that 2:22 is clean? I'd practically bet my life that it's not. Distance running at the world class level is dirty. It just is.

Roberta’s 2:29 converts to an age-graded 2:20, a world class performance but not out of the realm of possibility. On the other hand, a 2:22 for a 43 year-old woman converts to 2:11. Now, that would be something...

Armstronglivs wrote:

such a controversial statement wrote:

Fresh enough.

They all have fresh legs. Like a twenty year-old. Even at "33", or 41. Age is just a number. It seems.

To some it is. Just like elite level talent.

Only for a select few.

Everyone actually is different wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

They all have fresh legs. Like a twenty year-old. Even at "33", or 41. Age is just a number. It seems.

To some it is. Just like elite level talent.

Only for a select few.

Actually, not so few. It's becoming a commonplace. But sarcopenia is only for the masses.

Armstronglivs wrote:

Everyone actually is different wrote:

To some it is. Just like elite level talent.

Only for a select few.

Actually, not so few. It's becoming a commonplace. But sarcopenia is only for the masses.

No it isn't. Sarcopenia is like baldness. It doesn't happen the same way with everyone.

Bizarre that you think it is such a precise process. Even the people slowing down aren't doing it fast enough for your formula.

It isn't like baldness at all. Not everyone goes bald. Sarcopenia - muscle-degeneration (which begins at around age 30) - affects all, and elites age at much the same rate as the general population; it's just that their base-level is much higher. Science tells us that we decline at a rate of about 10% each decade after 30, so the performance level of an athlete in their forties will have declined 10%. On that basis, a 2.29 marathon at 41 is worth 2.15-16 at a peak age of around 30.

Despite what the math appears to show. a decrease of 10% of a 2:15 marathon isn't 2:30. It is not linear. It is exponential. You wouldn't say a 2:30 thonner is 90% as good as a 2:15 thonner. Or you wouldn't say a 4:06 thonner is half as good as Bekele for sure. I would say a 2:30 thonner is 90% as good as a 2:25 thonner and 50% as good as a 2:15 thonner.