Are Kenyan runners doped?

Page 6 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
slcbiker said:
The 800 is a really hard event. It's right on the border between aerobic and anaerobic. The sprinters don't do it cause its too long and the distance guys don't do it cause it's too short.

As for why the Africans are better in distance, I think there are a number of reasons. Genetics, early training, barefoot running? Read Born to Run, not specifically about African runners but it does touch on human ancestors running down prey (not running from lions).

African successes in distance running go way back, not just the EPO era. Not to say that they haven't doped, but I don't think they have done it any more than anyone else.
As for record progressions in recent years, all sports have seen record progressions. Technology and better training have had a fair amount to do with that.
Yep 800 is wierd. Every other distance has its top athletes attempting both higher and lower events.
200m has 100m and 400m runners. 1500 has 800 and 5000 m (even though thats its a multiple of over 3) runners. 5000 has 1500 and 1000 and marathon runners. But for some reason no 400 m runner will do the 800 or vice versa.
 
Ok i have a question about evolution for those who see themselves as experts. I have heard a lot from scientists recently that Human Brains are increasing in size. But how is this happening. There is absolutely no evolutionary benefit in the current situation for humans to evolve bigger brains. People with small brains arent being killed off. Their chance at survival are the exact same as that of people with big brains.

How is this happening.
 
Jun 12, 2010
1,234
0
0
The Hitch said:
Ok i have a question about evolution for those who see themselves as experts. I have heard a lot from scientists recently that Human Brains are increasing in size. But how is this happening. There is absolutely no evolutionary benefit in the current situation for humans to evolve bigger brains. People with small brains arent being killed off. Their chance at survival are the exact same as that of people with big brains.

How is this happening.
Ive not come across anything about human brain size increasing but im no expert on the matter.
However, if indeed its the case, ( and im rather dubious ) the evolutionery benifit would likely be not that area thats in use ( we use much less than our brains total capacity) but an increase in the "back up potential"..
Think in terms of keeping your hard drive with plenty of avaiable capacity rather than filing it to the brim..when we do that it tends to cause malfunction.
The timescale of something like brain evolution is in in the order of 10`s of 1000`s of years and skull cases are one of the main ways anthropoligists accertain when full developed homo sapians "arrived" as they show areas of the brain associated with speech and complex cognitive facility.
 
Darryl Webster said:
Ive not come across anything about human brain size increasing but im no expert on the matter.
However, if indeed its the case, ( and im rather dubious ) the evolutionery benifit would likely be not that area thats in use ( we use much less than our brains total capacity) but an increase in the "back up potential"..
Think in terms of keeping your hard drive with plenty of avaiable capacity rather than filing it to the brim..when we do that it tends to cause malfunction.
The timescale of something like brain evolution is in in the order of 10`s of 1000`s of years and skull cases are one of the main ways anthropoligists accertain when full developed homo sapians "arrived" as they show areas of the brain associated with speech and complex cognitive facility.
I guess i should have put forward my theory which is that since we eat a lot of meat, our brains increase, especially, especially in the womb ( i remember reading that our ancestors began to scavenge for meat thousands of years ago because it increases the brain size)

Also, a related question. Why are we always getting taller. Napoleon, who lived just 200 years ago, was considered tall at the time, evern though we belive that at 160 cm, he was a midget, and mockingly name a small persons agrression complex after him. Again, there is not any real evelutionary benefit these days for humans to be taller.
 

Barrus

BANNED
Apr 28, 2010
3,480
0
0
The Hitch said:
Ok i have a question about evolution for those who see themselves as experts. I have heard a lot from scientists recently that Human Brains are increasing in size. But how is this happening. There is absolutely no evolutionary benefit in the current situation for humans to evolve bigger brains. People with small brains arent being killed off. Their chance at survival are the exact same as that of people with big brains.

How is this happening.
well there is the fact that humans with bigger brain capacity and who are smarter are less likely to be in a dangerous job, which increases their chance to get offspring. There is also the fact that people who are smarter are probably more likely to be succesful and able to get better jobs and a higher income, which can be seen as an incentive for being a suitable partner for procreation.

But probably in reality it has more to do with nutrition, which is more widely available and easier to obtain. This is the same with growing taller. This has more to do with better health care and nutrition. If I am not mistaken for the largest part of the last two millenia the average heigth did not increase that much, it was not until the second part of the 19th or the first part of the 20th that it really increased quickly

Disclaimer: not an expert, but this is what I understand about it, I might be horribly wrong
 
Sep 25, 2009
7,527
0
0
The Hitch said:
<snip>Napoleon, who lived just 200 years ago, was considered tall at the time, evern though we belive that at 160 cm, he was a midget, and mockingly name a small persons agrression complex after him. Again, there is not any real evelutionary benefit these days for humans to be taller.
how did we get from kenyan runners to brain size to napoleon :confused:

but since you asked and we know now about lions, don't worry about the the short corsican - he'd never promulgated his genes too far since he could not outrun some british lion and succumbed to a bear from the northern steppes.

ps:
napoleon was NOT considered tall for his day. his 157 cm was below mans average of the time - about 165.
 
Jul 19, 2009
949
0
0
The Hitch said:
Yep 800 is wierd. Every other distance has its top athletes attempting both higher and lower events.
200m has 100m and 400m runners. 1500 has 800 and 5000 m (even though thats its a multiple of over 3) runners. 5000 has 1500 and 1000 and marathon runners. But for some reason no 400 m runner will do the 800 or vice versa.
Alberto Juantorena won gold medals at 400m and 800m in Montreal, but probably the uniq case
 
Jun 12, 2010
1,234
0
0
Chro Magnum man ( our emmediete ancester) was bigger and stronger than any modern human. With the advent of farming and static comunities approx 30, 000 yrs ago average homp sapian size became smaller so im not sure how this all fits in with some of the more fancifull ideas being put forward on this thread.
Its long been a theory put forward that meat played a substantial part in brain evolution as a vegative diet requires a large gut and a large gut reguires a lot of energy , energy thats not then avaiable for brain development.
A human brain uses a simialer amount of energy to a 40 watt light bulb...though somtimes ya have to wonder if some peeps are more like low energy light bulbs!..:D
 
poupou said:
Alberto Juantorena won gold medals at 400m and 800m in Montreal, but probably the uniq case.
I think part of the reason for that is over the last 34 years since Montreal, the 400 has developed more into a direct sprint. If we go far enough back the 400 was treated a little bit more like a middle distance race, akin to the 800. Just as today no one thinks someone can run an 800 like a sprint, back a half-century ago, it was thought the same on the 400.

I realize someone may come along and argue the real jump to the 400 being considered a sprint was probably in Mexico City, or Tokyo or Rome even. But I still wanted to toss this out there.
 
Rudisha's this year's 400m PR is significantly better than any of the "recent" 800m WR holders. He has more speed on tab, in part from those long legs.
If he opens quick halfway an 800m, even finalists in large tournaments will be on PR 400m pace to stay with him, while he has 3-4s in reserve, on which he then round another lap.

I'm a tall guy myself, even longer legs, and I run on the track since a little while. Recently in practice I did the last 400m of the evening in a playful 71s. Hard to imagine doing it in 49, and another in 52 before taking a breather.
Not too long ago I did a bunch of 100s. The fastest (starting carefully) was still way slower than this guy's 800m.
Imagine this, 13m/100m is actually too slow still.
 
roundabout said:
Rieti is a fast track for middle distance running, i think.
what would make it fast for middle distance running, but not for other speeds?
The best 100m time of the year was also broken. By, surprise surprise a jamaican. Considering the "greates athletes of all time" partner was last year sanctioned for doping and the "great man" himself breaks world records at ease, the arrival of another jamaican may be suspicious as well. (nesta carter has been a runner for some time but has not shown this kind of form)
 
Mar 4, 2010
1,826
0
0
The Hitch said:
what would make it fast for middle distance running, but not for other speeds?
The best 100m time of the year was also broken. By, surprise surprise a jamaican. Considering the "greates athletes of all time" partner was last year sanctioned for doping and the "great man" himself breaks world records at ease, the arrival of another jamaican may be suspicious as well. (nesta carter has been a runner for some time but has not shown this kind of form)
He has definitely been eating his yams.

 
Jul 19, 2010
347
0
0
stephens said:
I think you are misunderstanding evolution. The animal attacks do not cause genetic adaptation. But those individuals who happened to have been fast enough to escape animal attacks stayed alive and reproduced, whereas the poor runners died. Eventually, generations later, the population consists of more and more good runners and fewer and fewer bad runners because the good runners have been more likely to survive and reproduce and pass along their good runner genes.
Once again, those who survived animal attacks were not those who ran, so this whole argument is nonsense. If a big cat attacks you, your best bet is to fight it hard. Running from a big cat is asking to die.
 
May 9, 2009
583
0
0
I really wasn't siding with the running-from-cats theory so much as just clarifying how we should explain evolution.

But fwiw, as for your advice, maybe it's fine if I'm alone. But if I'm with you, I don't have to outrun the cat: I just have to outrun you. The gazelle do the same thing and it is the one's that can't run well that get eaten, while the fast survive.
 
May 13, 2009
692
1
0
Green Tea said:
Greg, I have managed to put out 1,128 watts on a 2% gradient outside my house. My VO2 is in the very low 70's???... It was achieved straight after pulling 208Kg's in the deadlift.

Chris Hoy can put out 2300 watts of power & 800 watt intervals whilst training for the kilo record attempt.

Whats your point?.

Are we both doing EPO :rolleyes:, LMAO.

The jealously & hate LeMond must have for Armstrong. Did LeMond ever train as hard as Armstrong?. Did LeMond ever lift weights? or do any weight training in his prime?.

Did LeMond ever do any training to improve max applicable power?. Or is he still rabbling on like hes still living in the 80's?.
Very dumb argument, I can output 1000 W too while sprinting, does that mean I can sustain 500 kW for 30 -60 min? Absolutely NO, which is the reason I don't race bicycles for a living.

As for the other einstein who argued that African runners are faster cause they run away from animals, here is some sophisticated mathematics against your argument: fastest guy in the world runs 40 kmh, and we are clear that he is not a marathon runner. How are you supposed to outsprint mother nature when almost any wild animal runs faster than that?...do the math...:rolleyes: Funny how an interesting question generates two of the most idiotic posts I have read...
 
May 13, 2009
692
1
0
stephens said:
I really wasn't siding with the running-from-cats theory so much as just clarifying how we should explain evolution.

But fwiw, as for your advice, maybe it's fine if I'm alone. But if I'm with you, I don't have to outrun the cat: I just have to outrun you. The gazelle do the same thing and it is the one's that can't run well that get eaten, while the fast survive.
What?? Dude...just stop ...:eek:
 
May 28, 2010
9
0
0
indurain666 said:
Very dumb argument, I can output 1000 W too while sprinting, does that mean I can sustain 500 kW for 30 -60 min? Absolutely NO, which is the reason I don't race bicycles for a living.

As for the other einstein who argued that African runners are faster cause they run away from animals, here is some sophisticated mathematics against your argument: fastest guy in the world runs 40 kmh, and we are clear that he is not a marathon runner. How are you supposed to outsprint mother nature when almost any wild animal runs faster than that?...do the math...:rolleyes: Funny how an interesting question generates two of the most idiotic posts I have read...
If you read Bernd Heinrich's Why We Run, you would better understand the evolutionary principles with concern to distance running... i can give anyone a summary if they wish
 
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
masking_agent The Clinic 12
B The Clinic 2
D The Clinic 9
Invicituz The Clinic 0

ASK THE COMMUNITY