Jon Orange wrote:
Speed is natural, speed endurance is natural. You people have no clue about physiology.
Jon Orange is a fool.
Jon Orange wrote:
Speed is natural, speed endurance is natural. You people have no clue about physiology.
Jon Orange is a fool.
kjhgvkhvgb wrote:
Jon Orange wrote:No, you're not getting it. The point is that 'PEDs' is a concept not a fact. A naive belief that your body will be better with some chemical assistance, when in fact it will be better with more efficient use of energy.
All of this constant information about so called 'PEDs' has blinded you and almost everyone else into believing whatever you are told about some magic chemical formulae and ignoring basic physiological fact that you will perform better with more efficient muscle action and this comes from the strectch shortening cycle of muscle contraction combined with more accurate timing of movement.
Banning so called 'PEDs' is just a PR campaign, and unwinnable war against chemists coming up with new formulae. How many so called 'PEDs' are there potentially? The numbers are uncountable.
The more people go on about so called 'PEDs' the more they believe in the BS and the further they get away from self belief. Did you know that the human body is amazing and amazingly adaptable? Have you forgotten? Please dont' try to justify the madness. Don't preach to me about how we can be improved chemically.
You're the only one preaching here. If you had the courage of your convictions you would say, "Let's continue to ban PEDs. When we truly enforce these bans, but still surpass the times achieved with the drugs, we will have proven that the drugs did nothing!" But you don't do this. Instead, you argue there should be no bans. This tells me you are a shill for those looking to allow cheating through effective PED use!
No, you're missing the point. Banning drugs is impossible, an unwinnable war, a PR exercise.
Jon Orange wrote:
Here's a similar graph
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4555089/figure/Fig3/85% VO2 max for a 3 hour race but only 86% for a 2 hour race.
The slower runnre will doubtless have more body fat, perhaps 20% versus 6% for the elite runner at his skinniest.
If both runners have the same absolute VO2 max say 5 liters/minute then the 3 hour runner uses 5 x .85 = 4.25 liters x 180 = 765 liters oxygen
Elite runner uses 5x .86 = 4.3 liters x 120 = 516 liters oxygen
The difference in intensity is minimal. You assumed the fast runner has to have a massively hypertrophic heart. This is the dogma, it goes back to even before you were born. Elite athletes don't have massively hypertrophic hearts.
The slower runner uses more fats and more carbs, as we all do when we run for longer periods.
Nice link. That was the graph I thought you were referring to after all. In the 2005 printing of Daniel's Running Formula it's on the bottom of Figure 3.2 on page 47.
If you initially saw this on the web, it's possible that you missed the context. This is the general trend Daniel's sees for fractional utilization for a given runner racing over different distances. That's not the same thing as plotting the fractional utilization of marathoners of all abilities against their marathon time, which is how you are interpretting it (for on thing, it wouldn't make sense that it went down to 15minutes if that were the case).
Yes, I know what the graph shows and no, I didn't first see it on the web.
You're misinterpreting. Yes the graph shows fractional utililisation for a given race time, but this applies to every well trained distance runner. But being well trained does not mean fast does it? Slower runners have to use more energy because they are running for a much longer time.
You can torture your brain with this concept as much as you want, but it's a fact, otherwise a slower runner would be fantastically efficient, which makes no sense.
Heart rate data shows the same thing, a high heart rate for the duration of the marathon, regardless of pace. Slower runner and Elite runners are both running a marathon at a similar intensity, the difference is minimal. But the longer duration of effort for the slower runner means a lot more oxygen and glycogen and fats are utilized.
Thus ELITE RUNNERS ARE MORE ENERGY EFFICIENT THAN SLOWER RUNNERS.
200 plus posts and I'm still trying to get the point across. You people are so brainwashed by bad science, come on wake up.
Jon Orange wrote:
test2 wrote:Nice link. That was the graph I thought you were referring to after all. In the 2005 printing of Daniel's Running Formula it's on the bottom of Figure 3.2 on page 47.
If you initially saw this on the web, it's possible that you missed the context. This is the general trend Daniel's sees for fractional utilization for a given runner racing over different distances. That's not the same thing as plotting the fractional utilization of marathoners of all abilities against their marathon time, which is how you are interpretting it (for on thing, it wouldn't make sense that it went down to 15minutes if that were the case).
Yes, I know what the graph shows and no, I didn't first see it on the web.
You're misinterpreting. Yes the graph shows fractional utililisation for a given race time, but this applies to every well trained distance runner. But being well trained does not mean fast does it? Slower runners have to use more energy because they are running for a much longer time.
You can torture your brain with this concept as much as you want, but it's a fact, otherwise a slower runner would be fantastically efficient, which makes no sense.
From page 46:
"Gilbert and I came up with another curve that represents the relative intensity at which a runner can race for various durations (figure 3.2)."
Daniels says "a runner" not "average marathon finisher." Also, why do you think the graph includes data from 5min to 2hrs if it's an average over marathon finishers?
You seem to have difficulty understanding that energy efficiency is only one piece of the performance equation.
Put another way, that curve shows how long a runner can hold a given intensity. In itself it has nothing to say about talented versus untalented runners.
Jon Orange wrote:
The womens's events from 100 to 800 are weak. That's the problem. It has nothing to do with lack of drugs, but lack of belief and proper training. What is so special about a woman running 49 seconds or a man running 45 seconds?
Speed is natural, speed endurance is natural. You people have no clue about physiology.
Thanks to Jon Orange, standing up for the TRUTH about drugs.
Jon Orange wrote:
Let's look at the womens 400 record. 47.60 by Marita Koch 1985.
Why would that be unbeatable without drugs? Why hasn't it been beaten?
Perhaps coaches and athletes are so obsessed with the idea that it can't be beaten naturally that they have a mental block?
It's 10% slower than Michael Johnson's 43.18. Why is no-one running 43 seconds in the men's even these days?
I think one of the problems is that coaches don't know enough about how to train for the distance, but Clyde Hart does.
The popular concept is that the runner must fight acidosis, fight fatigue. I think this is wrong because it doesn't work, you can't fight fatigue either in training or racing only accept it and adjust the stride accordingly. I also think that Brother Colm O'Connell follows this plan in a similar way to Clyde Hart, but for the 800 with David Rudisha.
When the adrenaline is flowing just right the speed endurance comes naturally. We have all experienced this.
I'm looking for the Daniels' graph online. There are a lot of them and a lot of charts.
Jon, you've done a 2:06 800 please don't talk about the effortless flow of speed endurance.
J.R. wrote:
Jon Orange wrote:The womens's events from 100 to 800 are weak. That's the problem. It has nothing to do with lack of drugs, but lack of belief and proper training. What is so special about a woman running 49 seconds or a man running 45 seconds?
Speed is natural, speed endurance is natural. You people have no clue about physiology.
Thanks to Jon Orange, standing up for the TRUTH about drugs.
Good job posting your support for yourself
test2 wrote:
Put another way, that curve shows how long a runner can hold a given intensity. In itself it has nothing to say about talented versus untalented runners.
What you are doing, Jon Orange, is taking a general fractional utilization curve meant to apply to say a 2:12 marathoner. Then you are taking data points at different points on the x-axis, say 2:30 and 3:00, and interpretting them as the fractional utilizations of a 2:30 marather or a 3:00 marathoner. That's not how this curve is meant to be used. You are implicitely assuming an equivalency between a 2:12 marathoner running a 3hr race and a 3hr marathoner running a marathon.
J.R. wrote:
Thanks to Jon Orange, standing up for the TRUTH about drugs.
Mr. Obvious wrote:
Good job posting your support for yourself
I am totally awesome.
J.R. wrote:
Jon Orange wrote:The womens's events from 100 to 800 are weak. That's the problem. It has nothing to do with lack of drugs, but lack of belief and proper training. What is so special about a woman running 49 seconds or a man running 45 seconds?
Speed is natural, speed endurance is natural. You people have no clue about physiology.
Thanks to Jon Orange, standing up for the TRUTH about drugs.
I bet you're both paid by pharma companies.
That's actually not the problem. For Daniels, it is the same curve for both runners, simply being a function of time.
test2 wrote:
test2 wrote:Put another way, that curve shows how long a runner can hold a given intensity. In itself it has nothing to say about talented versus untalented runners.
What you are doing, Jon Orange, is taking a general fractional utilization curve meant to apply to say a 2:12 marathoner. Then you are taking data points at different points on the x-axis, say 2:30 and 3:00, and interpretting them as the fractional utilizations of a 2:30 marather or a 3:00 marathoner. That's not how this curve is meant to be used. You are implicitely assuming an equivalency between a 2:12 marathoner running a 3hr race and a 3hr marathoner running a marathon.
rekrunner wrote:
That's actually not the problem. For Daniels, it is the same curve for both runners, simply being a function of time.
test2 wrote:What you are doing, Jon Orange, is taking a general fractional utilization curve meant to apply to say a 2:12 marathoner. Then you are taking data points at different points on the x-axis, say 2:30 and 3:00, and interpretting them as the fractional utilizations of a 2:30 marather or a 3:00 marathoner. That's not how this curve is meant to be used. You are implicitely assuming an equivalency between a 2:12 marathoner running a 3hr race and a 3hr marathoner running a marathon.
You are saying that physiologically, a 2:12 marathoner running a race that takes 3 hours happens to look a lot like a 3-hour marathoner running a 3-hour marathon? Just my luck. Well, evidence for it certainly doesn't come from that graph anyway.
kjhgvkhvgb wrote:
J.R. wrote:Thanks to Jon Orange, standing up for the TRUTH about drugs.
I bet you're both paid by pharma companies.
Not hardly, since neither use drugs, nor believe in them.
I note again that 86% is more than 85%.Does it make sense to assume the 2 hour runner and the 3 hour runner, racing the same distance, both have the same absolute VO2max of 5 liters/min?This means your 2 hour marathon runner, with a Daniels VDOT of 86, weighs something like 69 kilos (150 pounds), while your 3 hour runner, with a VDOT of 53.5, weighs 114 kilos (250 pounds). Of course, it takes much less energy to move 150 pounds over a marathon distance, compared to 250 pounds. Lean runners are more economical than obese runners.I didn't assume anything about the heart, or anything about carbs or fats. I only assume Daniels knows how to measure oxygen, and time, and distance, and Gilbert knows how to fit the data to a curve, and that this model is based on real world measurements. This is not dogma, but scientific measurements combined with mathematics.
Jon Orange wrote:
Here's a similar graph
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4555089/figure/Fig3/85% VO2 max for a 3 hour race but only 86% for a 2 hour race.
The slower runnre will doubtless have more body fat, perhaps 20% versus 6% for the elite runner at his skinniest.
If both runners have the same absolute VO2 max say 5 liters/minute then the 3 hour runner uses 5 x .85 = 4.25 liters x 180 = 765 liters oxygen
Elite runner uses 5x .86 = 4.3 liters x 120 = 516 liters oxygen
The difference in intensity is minimal. You assumed the fast runner has to have a massively hypertrophic heart. This is the dogma, it goes back to even before you were born. Elite athletes don't have massively hypertrophic hearts.
The slower runner uses more fats and more carbs, as we all do when we run for longer periods.
Retard alert wrote:
kjhgvkhvgb wrote:I bet you're both paid by pharma companies.
Not hardly, since neither use drugs, nor believe in them.
I think they're both full of shit. They don't believe in drugs, but call for the repealing of bans? If drugs did nothing, they shouldn't care either way. They're trying to justify repealing the bans by saying the drugs do nothing.
rekrunner wrote:
I note again that 86% is more than 85%.
Rekrunner, your amazing obfuscation is absolutely superfluous.
Thank you again for standing up for me.
Whoops! I've got to take more drugs and get back to my sleep. Now don't get me wrong, of course I take drugs, my doctors give me drugs and I take them to help me but they aren't PEDS you see! Uhuh okay back to sleep.