dope works wrote:
The problem is that Jon said he knows the key and everyone else is dumb
dope works wrote:
The problem is that Jon said he knows the key and everyone else is dumb
He was right in your case wrote:
dope works wrote:The problem is that Jon said he knows the key and everyone else is dumb
That makes no sense. Put more effort into your retorts.
letters from space wrote:
But thousands of people have done a 4:00 1500. Even girls.
Yeah but girls get paid considerable money for running 4:00 1500m.
Yeah, I dunno where Jon Orange's reasoning goes from where I stopped. I'd greatly appreciate it if he'd try to work his statement that 'elite runners use less oxygen' into equation form. In particularly
As a starting point, let's split the relative VO2max into absolute VO2max, VO2max_abs and mass. Then for a 'well trained' runner, we have (let's call this equation 1)
v = f(T) * e * VO2max_abs / mass (Equ. 1)
where,
v = speed [units: meter/min]
T = race duration [units: min]
VO2max_abs = maximal rate of total oxygen usage [units: mL/ min]
f(T) = fractional utilization [units: dimensionless]
-Daniels' has a functional form for this for a 'well trained' runner
e = efficiency [units: meter * kg / mL]
mass = body weight of runner [units: kg]
I think Jon would argue that after fractional utilization, absolute VO2max is the most trainable variable and that we should just assume that after 2 or 3 years of training it reaches a peak level. That leaves body mass and efficiency, e, as the only remaining variables. Is that what you are saying Jon?
To Jon, anything that he says is right and he doesn't have to back it up. I've never seen such a thread filled with so much drivel I want to puke. I don't care what he did or didn't run when he was younger, he's clueless as genetics are the key. Running more efficient? Give me a break! He's got some serious issues or this is all a big joke/troll thread and nothing more.
So, if we are going back to this equation:
V=f(t)*e*VO2max_abs / mass
We said up above that e was some function of c/VO2max/abs/mass where c equals a constant. So efficiency and VO2 are inversely related?
Is this only true if v is equal for two runners? Do we do away with that relationship when v is not a given?
Is the c the same for every runner, or is it individual? What is the value of c, do we know that or could we figure it out?
Thanks for the explanations, this is very helpful
This is where Jon's argument gets hazy for me. If two guys run the same time, then v and T are the same and if you add in Jack Daniels' "well trained" fractional utilization assumption, then f(T) is also the same for them. That means that the following combination of efficiency, absolute VO2max and body mass has to be equal for the two guys:
e_1 * VO2max_abs_1 / mass_1 = e_2 * VO2max_abs_2 / mass_2
for guy 1 and guy 2.
This is strictly true only for two guys with the same race time. I think Jon would like to say something stronger, however, I'm not clear on what exactly.
affirmative action wrote:
letters from space wrote:But thousands of people have done a 4:00 1500. Even girls.
Yeah but girls get paid considerable money for running 4:00 1500m.
That's going to change soon now that 3:55 is the new 4:00.
dope works wrote:
"The energy cost of running reflects the sum of both aerobic and anaerobic metabolism, and the aerobic demand, measured by the VO2 in L.min−1 at a given speed does not necessarily account for the energy cost of running, which is measured in joules, kilojoules, calories or kilocalories of work done "
Your simple oxygen model that you've been ranting about for 900 plus posts doesn't prove that elites use less glycogen and fats.
You really need to find better sources. Just because you interpret a paper in your own special way does not mean you get it.
No, you're missing the point, over and over and over. I wrote about genetics, you claim I didn't. I wrote about effiency including the anearobic cost, you claim I didn't
etc etc etc. Either you are deliberately trolling which I strongly suspect, or you are just very good at missing the point over and over and over.
How to get to the faster time? Apart from reduced body fat which is not applicable in the above scenario, to improve the biomechanical efficiency runner B needs to produce more sustained power through the feet/ankles/achilles, since all of the metabolic adaptions are already in place.
It is impossible to go faster without doing this, there is simply no way around it. The feet ankles and achilles need to be adapted to sustaining a greater range of movement during a race. There is no drug that can do this for runner B, it has to be practised and learned.
No, that's not what I'm saying. Absolute VO2 max is genetic, it just needs maintaining.
Fractional utilization of oxygen and oxyen economy (so called running economy) is the same thing. It is related to body mass (ideal body fat for example) but it is also related to how efficiently you can use your feet as levers to gain a longer stride/faster stride rate.
Can you not just produce more power from the hips and upper legs and move them faster?
Of course you can. That's how the flat footed guys improve.
You're doing your one dimensional solution thing again.
I'm not even trying to argue with you anymore, just trying to understand what you are saying.
So you are saying that absolute VO2max is essentially fixed if you are healthy? Any change to the regular VO2max [units: ml/(min * kg)] just come from changes in body mass?
these guys ... wrote:
Jon Orange wrote:My point in a nutshell is that improving economy/efficiency involves learning to use the natural movements of running at various speeds, for longer.
NOW I get it.
Saying 'PEDs doesn't work!!!' is clickbait. You main point is actually 'The importance of running economy is vastly underestimated!' But subject line would never launch a 800+ post thread.
That said ... I don't your quote above is very clear.
1. "Learning to use [something] ... for longer." We don't 'learn' to do things for longer; we 'train' to. Tomayto/tomahto? Or do you mean something else.
2. "the natural movements of running" ... do you mean an individual's natural movements, ie the way they already run? Or do you mean proper, ideal economical movements, ie the 'natural' way for any human to run optimally?
Don't try to tell me what it's all about. Study the paper and educate yourself.
test2 wrote:
So you are saying that absolute VO2max is essentially fixed if you are healthy? Any change to the regular VO2max [units: ml/(min * kg)] just come from changes in body mass?
Yes.
So now genetics DO matter?
You are still in denial about training of ALL of those factors that your sources mention.
For the thousandth time not agreeing is not trolling.
Did you really expect to make your one statement and then have a 1000 guys nodding and saying "yep that's right"?
Jon Orange wrote:
No, that's not what I'm saying. Absolute VO2 max is genetic, it just needs maintaining.
Fractional utilization of oxygen and oxyen economy (so called running economy) is the same thing. It is related to body mass (ideal body fat for example) but it is also related to how efficiently you can use your feet as levers to gain a longer stride/faster stride rate.
Can you write that in an equation? I'm sorry I'm such a concrete thinker, I'm just having a hard time figuring out what all the variables would be that would go into making a runner faster or slower.
dope works wrote:
Can you not just produce more power from the hips and upper legs and move them faster?
Of course you can. That's how the flat footed guys improve.
You're doing your one dimensional solution thing again.
No, wrong again. The flat footed guys still have to increase stride length/stride rate. Power from other muscles can only follow what happens from below. More elastic energy return = better effciency/economy = less energy used to race and faster times.
Jon Orange wrote:
test2 wrote:So you are saying that absolute VO2max is essentially fixed if you are healthy? Any change to the regular VO2max [units: ml/(min * kg)] just come from changes in body mass?
Yes.
Okay.
Does the following sum up your model:
1) fractional utilization can be trained up to the generic curve in Daniels' Running formula.
2) absolute VO2max is genetic and fixed.
3) relative VO2max can be improved but only by cutting weight
4) once you have optimized (1) and (3) through training, economy remains as the sole remaining means of improvement
dope works wrote:
Jon Orange wrote:No, you're missing the point, over and over and over. I wrote about genetics, you claim I didn't. I wrote about effiency including the anearobic cost, you claim I didn't
etc etc etc. Either you are deliberately trolling which I strongly suspect, or you are just very good at missing the point over and over and over.
So now genetics DO matter?
You are still in denial about training of ALL of those factors that your sources mention.
For the thousandth time not agreeing is not trolling.
Did you really expect to make your one statement and then have a 1000 guys nodding and saying "yep that's right"?
No, you're missing the point over and over and over. You must be doing this deliberately?
Great interview with Steve Cram - says Jakob has no chance of WRs this year
I’m a D2 female runner. Our coach explicitly told us not to visit LetsRun forums.
Guys between age of 45 and 55 do you think about death or does it seem far away
2024 College Track & Field Open Coaching Positions Discussion
adizero Road to Records with Yomif Kejelcha, Agnes Ngetich, Hobbs Kessler & many more is Saturday