RE: If you believe in the concept of Performance Enhancing Drugs......

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.

Jon Orange wrote:

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

Jon Orange wrote:

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.

test2 wrote:

Let me try to put this in my own words.

In running, it is customary when calculating VdotO2 to divide by bodymass (gives rate of oxygen consumption per kilogram).

This means that an athlete can increase VdotO2_max simply by shedding extra pounds without actually changing their actual (not divided by mass) ability to use oxygen, let's call that abs_VdotO2_max.

I think you are contending that increases in VdotO2 are often interpreted as increases in abs_VdotO2 (i.e. heart hypertrophy, capillarization, mitochondrial growth etc.) when really VdotO2 has only increased because the athlete got leaner and was divided by a smaller bodymass.

Taking the next step, when you say elite runners use less oxygen not more, this is what you mean: training does not increase abs_VdotO2_max, at least not after the first few years. Two questions: 1) is that what you mean? and 2) if so, can you point to a graph of it online? I don't see this particular thing plotted in Daniels Running Formula.

test2 wrote:

Jon Orange wrote:

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?

2:06 wrote:

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.

rekrunner wrote:

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.

Aragon wrote:

rekrunner wrote:

VO2max maxes quite quickly (I say ~1-2 years). LT threshold will also plateau, but less quickly (I say ~5 years). Thereafter, long term improvements can still come basically for the rest of your career, from "non-oxygen" sources. This is the point where oxygen vector drugs have much less effect, if any at all. Luckily these improvements come anyway, without changing training drastically, or being aware that the source of improvement is no longer connected to oxygen.

Not having followed this thread too closely, to the defence of J.O. it must be said, that there is definitely more than something in the notion that most improvements of endurance athletes after a few years of exercise do come from non-oxygen uptake related factors.

There is a plenty of evidence for this. Perhaps for most LR-readers this is old (revised?) information, but most of the improvement of Paula Radcliffe came from this non oxygen delivery source. Here is an interesting quotation from a 2006 research paper on the master runner:

Vo2MAX has remained relatively stable at approximately 70 mL x kg-1 x min-1 between 1992 (when PR was 18 years of age) until 2003 (when she was 29 years of age)...

[T]he O2 cost of running at 16 km/h expressed in units of mL x kg-1 x km-1, has decreased markedly between 1992 (when it was approximately 205 mL x kg-1 x km-1) and 2003 (when it was approximately 175 mL x kg-1 x km-1), with this representing a 15 % improvement in RE [=running economy]. This improvement in RE shows no sign of abating; most recently, RE was measured at 165 mL x kg-1 x km-1... It appears, therefore, that the physiological adaptations which permit a reduction in the O2 cost of sub-maximal exercise are the key to continued improvements in endurance exercise performance over the longer term.

http://multi-science.atypon.com/doi/pdf/10.1260/174795406777641258

Mr. Obvious wrote:

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.

Well, you actually posted some math, which it appears you have correct.

However you made the assumption in here that both the slower and the faster runner (and this is a large relative difference in fast and slow, as you are saying the slower runner is covering in 3 hours what the faster runner will cover in 2) have the EXACT SAME absolute VO2max. This is a colossally stupid assumption, but it brings into relief the underlying logic in your theory. If you assume everybody has the exact same absolute VO2max (engine) then of course all of the differences come down the efficiency and the more efficient runner is going to use less energy and be much faster.

Of course this is the man telling everybody in this thread (and also the vast majority of trained exercise physiologists) that they do not understand basic physiology. All because he read a complete textbook (but apparently did not understand and is unable to apply what he read).

Citizen Runner wrote:

rekrunner wrote:

I read once a description of "Daniels Running Formula", noting that the book is about a formula that never appears in the book!

It's in the appendix of an earlier book "Oxygen Power".

See:

http://s3.amazonaws.com/zanran_storage/www.canibaisereis.com/ContentPages/2466959967.pdf

Thanks for posting this. DRF does reference that essay numerous times and I'd never bothered to track it down.

rekrunner wrote: re Jon Orange

. . . his science, math, and ability to coherently express his ideas to the public.

He wants you, and everyone, to replace the mindset of "I, and everyone, can only improve with drugs" with "I can always improve by developing a more efficient and economical technique". The "drug only" mindset is a poisonous one, for athletes and fans alike. It's not the only way, and not always the most effective way.

VO2max maxes quite quickly (I say ~1-2 years). LT threshold will also plateau, but less quickly (I say ~5 years). Thereafter, long term improvements can still come basically for the rest of your career, from "non-oxygen" sources. . . .

If you waste a lot of energy with a bad technique, then improving technique, eliminating the waste, brings faster times at no extra energy cost. . . .

I get the feeling this is where Jon's trying to go and if he could express it in so many words most would nod their heads and the thread would be over pages ago. If one can get past the bizarre PED denialism, he does offer ideas worth considering.