the guardian is digging into a question that gets asked here often at slowtwitch: why aren’t we faster today that we used to be, considering all the alleged improvements we ought to be getting from gear, food, training techniques, and so on?
it’ll be interesting to follow the story as it progresses, but there’s already heaps that i agree with in the intro:
-mike
.
there are no improvements we should be getting from gear in running.
and the food stuff is all snake oil
so that leaves training technique!
so you mean i spent $5000 on compression gear, a GPS, five-fingers and fuel belt
and it was all for nothing?
gps might be a little bit useful
.
so you mean i spent $5000 on compression gear, a GPS, five-fingers and fuel belt
and it was all for nothing?
It wasn’t for nothing. It was for $5000.
John
I thought that running times at the point end of the spectrum were getting faster. Are there any records still on the books in any country from the 80’s?
I also think that the talent pool is being diluted a bit. I’m not sure about the UK, but out here runner’s aren’t nearly as celebrated as any other sport in schools from HS–> College–> Professional. My guess is that many of the most talented runners are picking other sports, such as soccer.
As for the masses, I think any form of encouragement on getting off the couch should be encouraged.
Over all times are faster but lots of countries have records that date back to the 80s particularly in mid distance. Off hand I think Coe still has the UK 800m, J Kracktovilova (sp) still has the 800m WR, etc.
I’d take food off that list considering how most people eat these days.
Fewer doping controls in the 80’s?
It isn’t like human physiology has changed in the last 35 years. And there is no one best method for training. So I would never make the assumption that we would just automatically be faster. Most run training plans boil down to “run a lot”. Studies have shown the one thing that correlates to IM finishing times is training volume, not training methods.
And they admit that running has waned in the UK, so the best athletes may well be going to other sports.
the argument in the article isn’t about out-and-out records, per se, but about the quality of the whole field.
(although seb coe’s records have held up damn well.)
they give the example of the men’s marathon standards, and the number of british men who were sub 2:17 in the early 80’s versus the early 'teens. there were more back then.
-mike
I don’t think people run as much. Everyone seems to think they need to do intervals or tempo runs instead of just putting in more miles.
that was one of the recurring themes in the article and in the comments - the 100-mile week used to be a standard benchmark.
that and racing rather than participating. running clubs used to put on weekly races, whereas these days many runners will only do a few races in a year.
-mike
First of all the increased general popularity of running (or any other sport for that matter) has nothing to do with top end performance. No one competing on the world stage because they decied to take up a sport in their 20’s or 30s. (And, for all the PR, the fact is running is probably less popular among adults now than it was in the early 80’s).
So, you need to look at what kids in their early teens (or before) are doing. My guess if England is anything like the US, more English preteens are playing soccer than taking up running these days. There are probably half a dozen kids who could have been great marathon runners happy as can be because they are playing minor league soccer . . . . That may be part of your answer.
Then, if you are a runner an want to make a living, there is more money if you can run more than one event (marathon) so you end up getting more top talent these days who are trying to be at least competitive at 10K or even 5K so they can get some appearance money at track meets. That would further dilute the quality of the marathon pool a bit. (I know for a fact that US distance swimming suffers a bit because is is much easier to get scholarships if you can score in 3 events rather than just being a killer 1500m guy or gal. Back in the day, there were alot more pure distance swimmers before it was required to do the 200 fly and 400IM too if you had edurance).
Those are my theories anyway.
Oh, there’s no doubt about it.
The older I get, the faster I was.
that was one of the recurring themes in the article and in the comments - the 100-mile week used to be a standard benchmark.
that and racing rather than participating. running clubs used to put on weekly races, whereas these days many runners will only do a few races in a year.
-mike
Here is a good article “Miles Make Champions” by Richard Englehart… I could only find it reposted on some random blog…read it a long time ago on chucky v’s blog…
http://teamspiridon.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=general&action=print&thread=552
so you mean i spent $5000 on compression gear, a GPS, five-fingers and fuel belt
and it was all for nothing?
It wasn’t for nothing. It was for $5000.
John
Good one!
I do find that race nutrition is quite helpful for events beyond 1.5 - 2 hrs. Gels, blocks, etc. Wish I would have had them when I was younger. I did 6 marathons in the stone age on a few splashes of gatoraid - not exactly what I’d do today 
at least they don’t cost that much.
Global warming. The air is thicker.
I love the…
“the older I get the faster I was!!!”
I remember in the early 80’s in Minneapolis running 10k’s and going below 34 and feeling lucky to be in the top 100, and, being passed by anywhere between 2 and 5 women. I just looked up the '12 results and indeed they are slower than the “old days.” (race “Get in Gear” 10k).
Could be attributable to:
Demographics. Lower quantities of “kids”
Video games
Less desire to “hurt” (my pet theory)
Lower expectations to be active
Expectation that only the Africans can be good distance runners.
Etc.
If you’ve got the time and inclination, this series of articles on Bodyrecomposition with the uplifting (her her) title “Why the US sucks at Olympic Lifting” goes into detail on why Kenyans are so dominant in distance running, and how the UK went from nobody to giant in track cycling over 10 short years. This in turn sheds light on what the US might be doing wrong in OLing, and possibly why the UK mens marathon runners 'taint what they used to be.
The article series starts here: http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/training/why-the-us-sucks-at-olympic-lifting-part-1.html (The discussion of Kenyan distance running starts about half way through and continues in parts 2 and 3.)
The discussion of UK track cycling and why Chris Hoy kicks serious ass starts here: http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/training/why-the-us-sucks-at-olympic-lifting-part-4.html