>>That is until recently since a new trend of running very long distances at a low intensity for training became popular, just as runners from Kenya and Ethiopia do. Now Americans who employ the latter tactic are starting to fair better on the international scene, even reaching the podium for some long distance events. More American collegiate athletes who are employing the low-intensity, long distance training strategy are clocking sub-4 minute miles as well which is a hallmark of elite running status.

This conclusion is premature. We have no way of knowing whether the increase in performance in American athletes comes from them changing their training methods, as opposed to countless other factors. As far as I know, no random controlled trials have been conducted in this area (and those are the only truly reliable scientific method for answering questions like this).

edit: only someone who doesn't understand science would downvote this comment. :)

I agree, it deserves better scientific treatment. I'd be shocked if such a study isn't being conducted as we speak.

I would be shocked. Randomised, controlled trials are difficult and expensive.

You need enough subjects.

First problem: how many advanced and elite athletes are there? Not many.

Second problem: how many have coaches who are happy for you to experiment on their charges? Not many.

Third problem: given the small samples, how do you control other factors such as diet and sleeping patterns? With great difficulty.

Fourth problem: funding the dream trial. Most research money is public money, and "give us money to find out how to make healthy adults run slightly faster so we can win an extra medal every 4 years" is a pretty difficult ask next to research into helping sick folk.

There's a reason that a great deal of sports science still relies on research done in the eastern bloc throughout the cold war. Totalitarian societies had the conditions and the motivation to set large, serious experiments up, and they did.

In general though, progress occurs through a cut down version of science. Coaches observe, hypothesise and tinker. Scientists do small studies; the studies compound or refute each other. Over time rough consensus emerges about what works and what doesn't. Things that don't work disappear quickly. Meanwhile, unseen, population effects muddy everybody's waters.

Is it the fully dressed version of science we demand from physics or medicine? It is not. But it's what we can reasonably expect.

> There's a reason that a great deal of sports science still relies on research done in the eastern bloc throughout the cold war.

how do we know these types of studies aren't happening right now in other countries that have more lax ethics in science?

> how do we know these types of studies aren't happening right now in other countries that have more lax ethics in science?

The one truly totalitarian society left, AFAIK, is North Korea; they might be doing this.

But pretty much the easiest strategy for a centralised sports system is to just throw bodies at sports until the normal distribution gives you winners. The Chinese are finding that this works well for them.

I mainly agree with your points about performance in elite athletes, but this has very little to do with health benefits for the average couch potato.

Are you referring specifically to marathon training, or some other form of competitive running?

Any non-sprint running, actually. So from the mile run all the way up to ultra marathoners. I would imagine that these tactics just as effective for other endurance sports, too, such as swimming or biking, but AFIAK there's been less talk about it in those sports.

Any sources on this?

I read this in a fairly long article that I'm not able to find at the moment, but there's a lot of other stuff that's been written about it out there. Who knows whether or not it holds water.