Renato, I am very interested in this training camp of yours. Will you be providing more information about it in the future? I unfortunately cannot make it to the Distance Summit on June 11th and 12th (I have a university function which I must attend), but would very much like to see the of your top athletes and discuss their training.
And the Mt. Washington race -- would that substitute for those long hill runs the Kenyans do?
I'm interested Rita Jeptoo who ran lisbon, santa pola, and rotterdam marathon. I think she'll run chicago marathon this year in a personal best time of 2:23:25
YOU are calling out people on not being specific enough or scientific enough and you produce that gem? What the hell are "good legs"? Wanna add something by way of explaining why a runner might have good or bad legs on race day? ANYthing? You know, you being an exercise scientist and all.[/quote]
Isn't it rather obvious, that anyone can have a good or bad marathon regardless of how good they are?
But if you're just trying to be a dick etc....?
Ross, all stored glycogen and glucose is converted to lactate, there is no either/or.
Mr. Canova, will you have time at the distance summit you are speaking at in Colorado in June to answer questions?
If so, I will be there.
For those interested www.distancesummit.com
Renato Will you ever give a speech in Netherlands or belgium?
I would certainly be a listener and pay the necessary amount of money to hear so.
|dsrunner has the day off|
Relative intensity would not be of much value, comparing say, a 2:03 marathoner to a 3:03 marathoner.
They utilize CHO because they are running harder, not visa versa. Still the fixation on economy...
Most of these econonmy calculations would go out the window anyway with a strong tailwind, downhill. (Didn't Noakes publish a paper on downhill treadmill testing, showing important V02peak effects due to protocol?)
Doubtful calorie cost should be scaled/kg. And of course much data showing economy inversely correlated to V02peak and perceived effort.
The true peak lactate steady state would actually require the athlete slowing down as the run continues.
If what you say is true why do long runs ? No need, because then the marathon run energy question would be to "produce less lactate using more in early run stages" and this would be done while train by short runs and not on long runs where the runner attempt to continue while to keep on the pace after the depletion point, that some call the "wall".[/quote]
? That doesn't make any sense. The fastest marathon runners use lactate more efficiently because they are better trained.
I don´t doubt that Paula marathon WR is a outstand result.
However for soem reason she wasn´t able to win the marathon olympics or marathon of big games.
Also on her marathon HM pb she wasn´t helped by 2 male pacers as she wasn´t in the 2:15 something very wired in a woman run separate from the men field as London does.
Anyhow thanks for the information.
Do you know that Ernest van Aaken in the seventies did write that the woman can do best marathon RESISTANCE RATIO than man due to more lipid percent relate to the man that on her can act as "fuel"/energy for the marathon run ? With this Paula result i think he is right somehow.[/quote]
Perhaps a 3% difference between half marathon pace and marathon pace is possible for men and women?
The same ratio is possible between 10k road times (not 100000m times) and half marathon times.
I think that Paula's ratio of 3% is stronger than the best men, but perhaps her track times are not as good as theirs?
Fast oxidative fibers can use fat as fuel due to the presence of carnitine palmitoly transferase, but I don't know how much and I haven't found that information yet.
1. Absolutely, relative intensity is of value! Are you telling me that I should compare running economy values for a 2:03 marathoner at a pace that is relevant to a 3:03 runner? How often do 2:03 guys run 8 minute miles? The pace needs to be at a similar relative intensity so that pace is RELEVANT to each athlete and the duration of sustained exercise is similar. Thus, at a given absolute speed, the 2:03 runner will be burning a higher proportion of fat, which requires a greater volume of O2 for the same energy equivalent. This is very relevant to marathoners, and why treadmill running at altitude appears to be different, despite the energy demand being the same.
2. No, the economy values don't go out the window with a headwind/tailwind. It brings a few other factors into play (primarily the runner's cross-sectional area or surface area if running in the heat), but again, we're not comparing apples to oranges, usually. We're comparing the 55kg kenyan to another 55 kg kenyan.
3. Why SHOULDN'T economy be scaled to body weight? Do you not carry your body weight when you run?
4. Running economy (measured in ml/kg/min) is in fact inversely related to VO2peak. But, why? Does this make any sense? We know good runners have a high VO2peak AND good running economy...so why the paradoxical relationship. There are 2 studies that show this relationship:
Pate et al (1992) - Very heterogenous group. I actually have spoken to Pate about this on several occassions. The inverse RE vs VO2max relationship exists because the paces at which the good runners had to run were not RELEVANT training paces for them...they were far too slow that the runners never ran that slow, and their economy was poor as a result.
Morgan and Daniels (1994) - very homogeneous group. The relationship probably exists because in order to be a very competitive distance runner (like the subjects that Morgan and Daniels had), you either need a very high VO2max or good economy. If you are one of those runners with a low VO2max, you need to compensate for that by having very good economy. Similarly, runners with high VO2max's tend to use "additonal energy" because they can, compared to runners with low VO2max's.
This point is addressed in Fletcher et al (2009). Economy of locomotion: beyond the measurement of oxygen uptake. The inverse relationship is simply a function of how running economy is typically expressed.
5. If you are truly at "maximal lactate steady state", no, you shouldn't have to slow down as the duration of exercise continues. This is the asymptote of the intensity-duration relationship.
Ndereba Catherine :
ratio of 2.2% which makes paula's ratio rubbish in comparison
so what are you going to make of that ?
Kemboi Nicholas :
who's ratio 1.8% makes even catherine's look pathetic
let's clear this up about paula
here are her pbs :
30:01.09 ER, CWR
some caveats :
- buy/borrow her book : she quotes a tt c millemium of 4'01 ( presumably solo, so no drafting ), so that 4'05 is nonsensical
- she split 5'37 ( 8'25 pace ) in her 8'22 - she sped up in last 1k & was clearly worth at worst an 8'21 that day off even pace & that is again solo until homestretch when szabo just eked out ahead - no drafting for paula worth 3 or 4s
- her 14'29 is vastly inferior to her 14'31 in '02 : go watch the race - she jogged for 600m & then shot off running the last 4400m at ~ 14'24 pace - no pacing, losing at least 1/2 dozen secs for lack of such to 3k which is usual expectation on the circuit
- her 30'01 was run with some uneven 1/2ves & no pacing, latter worth close to dozen secs for such which is expected on circuit
in such circumstances, here is a suggestion : very rough estimate with just 400/800 times to nearest 0.25s let alone 0.2s or 0.1s :
58.25 / 2'02.25 -> 3'59.0 , 8'19.6 , 14'19.1 , 29'50.1
there was nothing wrong at all with her track runs if you bother to read her book or analyse her races
here is that great 5k ( poor quality ) :
jogs for 1st 400m, taking the lead in ~ 1'13 - running last 4600m in 14'27 pace
speeds up from that point to the finish line in ~ 1'50 - running last 4400m in 14'24 pace
another slow day, so i thought i'd have a go at what greatest 1500 - 10k woman of all time woud come out as :
wang '93, prelim estimate of nearest 0.25s for 400/800 :
~ 55.00 / 1'57.25 -> 3'50.5 , 5'13.8 , 8'04.4 , 13'56.1 , 29'10.3
- that 1500 race, they ran a huge last 700/400 - have to dig it up
- she ran pretty damn quicker last 1k in her 3k
- obviously no 5k that year
- her 10k splits were 15'05/14'26 & just kept getting quicker that last 1/2
however, 10k may have been a tad too far as far as her optimal distance goes - theoretically capable of 29'10 off her 400/800 but her actual flattened out 10k time was possibly ~ 29'20
this is a very important concept :
( even if you set the wr for it/around it )
Your analysis is flawed. You may have a good mathematical model (in theory) about performance but it becomes invalid when you compare personal best from years apart. An organism adapts to current stress placed on it (common sense). Why would you compare performance from years apart?
Athletes do different training and different type of stimulus (strength/endurance). You need to compare within one year or better yet within one season for analysis of performance efficiency. If this wasn’t the case no one would detrain, when they take time off from running, and would be able to maintain fitness or build upon year after year continuously regardless of injury or time off.
I don’t understand why no one has understood why these numbers do not make sense. If Canova is using these measurements that were taken prior to Boston, this is further proof that the wind helped them perform at a higher level than they were capable.
There is no “new” turbo diesel athletes. A marathon at blood lactate of 4mmol/l is too high. One would have bonked running at that intensity. It’s just too much sugar burning at that pace to complete a marathon without running out of fuel. Also, you can’t compare that to Paula Radcliffe, published studies have shown her to have very low blood lactate across all intensities, not higher.
Although you are undeniably & indisputably
"A Blaggard & a Charlatan"
Jeeves, has informed me that to "Blackball" such, is a
I "laudee" you very much...