World Cross Country

[Eric Postlethwaite]

NO! I'll be lynched.

Someone please, lets get it over and done with.

[CL]

CL, the reason I think your argument is circular is because you only rely on the fact that runners are fast therefore that they take drugs. They take drugs therefore they are fast.

Aouita may have been clean but he was a lesser runner than Rono.

Coe's record over 800 metres stood for 20 odd years befor Kipketer beat it by fractions.

To be honest I don't really care because I myself have lost a fair bit of interest in mainstream athletics due to drug issues - I refuse to argue the point as to whether I am more dangerously naive than you are. What I do take issue with is you trashing everything on here with your agenda.

My opinion is that we are rubbish as a nation because we buy into a victim mentality.

It is a fellrunning forum. As far as I know Jebbie doesn't buy into the mediocrity - but you trashed my suggestion that people should train that way, suggesting that people would die from it!

Those of us who never ran as hard as we could will never know that we just weren't very good at it.

But aren't you contradicting yourself?Or are you just losing interest because of those athletes that are caught?

Obviously there is a point athletes can't go beyond.I've got a book here by Lydiard.In it he quotes from Moorhouse and Millar's 'The physiology of sport' certain facts pertinent to running.

To go from a 78.43secs/400m to a 67.60secs/400m requires an increase of 3.67litres of oxygen/min.To go from a 47.91secs/400m to a 47.24secs/400m requires an increase of 5.5litres of oxygen/min.

So clearly as the speed increases the demands for oxygen increase dramatically.So going from a 66secs/lap in a 10k to a 64secs/lap calls for huge increases in oxygen, that cannot be met by normal metabolism.

If you don't understand this there really isn't anything else I can say to make you understand.At the top level of our sport there is very little natural difference between the speed of world class athletes.

The point I was making about Jebb is, for some athletes to copy his training routine would be a mistake.They wouldn't be able to stand the amount of training that he does.Others could.

Each of us must tailor our training to our own abilities.

I think you know very well Chris that I'm not trashing EVERYTHING.To say that is to misrepresent my views, that I've clearly made.

My agenda is to redeem our sport by frank discussion of the corruption destroying it.

[dominion]

To tell all athletes to train like Jebb is a big mistake, because some couldn't take that much training.Each of us must tailor our training to ourselves.

I've never seen Rob Jebbs' training quoted anywhere? Maybe Saz should get him to take a proper V02 max test and find out what he may / may not be capable of?

[CL]

According to this,
http://www.sauktri.org/reports/report30.php

Radcliffe has a V02 Max "In the region of" 80.

Other V02 max info shows,

Bjorn Daehlie Cross country skier 90.0
Miguel Indurain Cyclist (winner of Tour de France) 88.0
John Ngugi 5 times world cross country champ 85.0
Dave Bedford 10km World Record holder 85.0
Steve Prefontaine 1 mile in 3:54.6 84.4
Lance Armstrong Cyclist (winner of Tour de France) 84.0
Joan Benoit Marathon runner (2:24:52) 78.6
Bill Rodgers Marathon runner (2:09:27) 78.5
Sebastian Coe Middle distance (1 mile WR) 77.0
Grete Waitz Marathon runner (WR 1980) 73.0
Frank Shorter Marathon runner 71.0
Derek Clayton Marathon runner (WR 1969) 69.7

So, if V02 max is the only critera, why can Seb Coe run 800 in 1:41, and Radcliffe only 2:05?

Nikalas increased his V02 max from 49 to 66. From here on I'd suggest the law of dimminshing returns applies? I'd also speculate that he didn't push himself 100% in the first V02 max test.

Application is the key to knowledge and intelligence.

All I can state with certainty is that Radcliffe has improved dramatically since I last took her on a training run...

I NEVER said it was the ONLY criteria.I said if you raise the same athletes V02 from 60-80 they'll run a faster marathon.

Likewise if you remove a pint or 2 of blood from an athlete, they'll run slower.

[dominion]

Saz lets get to the crux.I have an athlete stood in front of me, with a V02 of 60.I now pump enough red cells into him to bring his V02 to 80.

For the sake of argument we'll assume he doesn't suffer a negative reaction(a reasonable assumption considering blood dopings widespread use).I now get him to run the marathon.

Remember nothing else has changed except his ability to carry oxygen.Isn't it obvious, that now he'll be able to run considerably faster?

Well it's obvious to me!

Sure about that?

[Chris]

If the Norwegian skier and the Spanish cyclist got off their skis and bikes could they be the fastest runners?

[dominion]

If the Norwegian skier and the Spanish cyclist got off their skis and bikes could they be the fastest runners?

It's an interesting question. Lance Armstrong has run a 2:46 marathon. Now that ain't world class but I doubt he trained anywhere close to the levels he trained at as a pro cyclist? So V02 max plus application?

[Chris]

The point I was making about Jebb is, for some athletes to copy his training routine would be a mistake.

Why? If you aren't very good and you want to be why not ask Jebbie what he does in training and copy it.

There is a fair percentage chance that even if you don't become great, you'll be better than you are now.

[CL]

Sure about that?

Dom that was an example to demonstrate one variable.

[CL]

Why? If you aren't very good and you want to be why not ask Jebbie what he does in training and copy it.

There is a fair percentage chance that even if you don't become great, you'll be better than you are now.

There's a fair chance you'd get slower as well.Particulary if you couldn't recover.

There's a logical way for every runner that wants to get better, to train.