i like jon :) he makes me laugh.thats why id never take him seriously,or pick a fight with him.and you do realise,while most people on here think hes a loathesome arrogant troll,hes just scored an incredibly popular post.
i like jon :) he makes me laugh.thats why id never take him seriously,or pick a fight with him.and you do realise,while most people on here think hes a loathesome arrogant troll,hes just scored an incredibly popular post.
the problem wrote:
Taking substances absolutely do work to change and improve human performance.
Jon's argument begins with a logical fallacy and goes downhill from there. The fallacy is that the human body will simply produce exactly what it needs to optimize performance. So he says, for example, that every person's body will just produce the optimal amount of red blood cells for performance. This is just not true. I don't usually bother arguing against a fallacy, it's enough to point out the statement is simply not true, but, I'll just point out, for example - sickle cell anemia.
In general, the human body requires the intake of numerous vitamins, minerals, amino acids, essentially fatty acids, etc. (and calories in general) to survive - and to increase performance. We are not a perpetual motion machine. Take one runner and starve them for a month and another runner who eats a normal 2,500 calorie a day diet for a month. Will they perform the same at the end of the month? No. And the changes are not just from a lack of calories. Food isn't just calories. What you eat etc. will cause a cascade of hormonal responses that can and will change the human body and how it subsequently performs through a number of different avenues.
To pretend that food can do this, but "drugs" cannot, is just inane.
I won't even begin on the ability to alter gene expression - as it's unnecessary. The simple truth is that human's can, beyond any shadow of a doubt, increase/enhance/improve their athletic performance with the use of drugs.
You are missing the point that the PED concept is a logical fallacy. What I am trying to explain is just that.
rekrunner wrote:
Your imaginary runners are unrealistic. Keep in mind you claimed that by studying Daniel's "percent utilization" graph, and doing simple arithmetic, this would clearly show that faster runners use less oxygen.
The VO2 numbers, and weights you give, correctly multiply out to 5 liters/min, bravo, but the oxygen value you should use is VO2, not VO2max.
Overlooking that error, assuming those VO2max values are correct, I would expect your 2 hour runner to race 39.8km in 2:00:00 and your 3 hour runner to race 39.8km in 2:18:00. No doubt if he is only able to race 39.8km in 3:00:00, while possessing a measured VO2max of 68 ml/kg/min, he is extremely inefficient.
But I can't help but feel that the outcome is biased too much by your imagination to be able to draw any kind of general or universal conclusion about faster runners using less oxygen. For the purpose of realism, can't you give me a reference to real data with real people?
Jon Orange wrote:It's a generic curve, so the absolute VO2 max I gave was generic too. As is their height and build. I made the body fat different in my example for the purpose of realism.
I didn't use Vdot. My imaginary 2 hour marathon runner weighs 62.5 kilos 138 pounds and has a VO2 max of 80ml/kg/min.
My 3 hour runner weighs 73.5 kilos 162 pounds with a VO2 max of 68 ml/kg/min.
I thought you were supposed to be good at math rekrunner? I'm very average, but I can apply what I know when I need to. You seem utterly perplexed by fairly simple computations of metabolism?
It's not unrealistic at all. As usual you are missing the point. You are trying to explain it as if Vdot was VO2, it's not.
jeff tallon wrote:
i like jon :) he makes me laugh.thats why id never take him seriously,or pick a fight with him.and you do realise,while most people on here think hes a loathesome arrogant troll,hes just scored an incredibly popular post.
Yes you are indeed a special kind of stupid.
michael johnson was on a drug regimen,and took a whole plethora of drugs over a long period of time.as a bodybuilder,i KNOW simply by looking at him.he had a ripped,shredded vascular physique,bulging ben johnson-like staring eyes,and sometimes dryness,and hardness to his muscles,and skin that can only come from using drugs.he wasnt huge,but his physique wasnt natural.i have no desire to argue with you,jon,but one thing i DO know a lot about is human physique.im sure youll try to insult me,but i wont be reading your reply.
jesus loves you :)
Mr. Obvious wrote:
rekrunner wrote:Your imaginary runners are unrealistic. Keep in mind you claimed that by studying Daniel's "percent utilization" graph, and doing simple arithmetic, this would clearly show that faster runners use less oxygen.
The VO2 numbers, and weights you give, correctly multiply out to 5 liters/min, bravo, but the oxygen value you should use is VO2, not VO2max.
Overlooking that error, assuming those VO2max values are correct, I would expect your 2 hour runner to race 39.8km in 2:00:00 and your 3 hour runner to race 39.8km in 2:18:00. No doubt if he is only able to race 39.8km in 3:00:00, while possessing a measured VO2max of 68 ml/kg/min, he is extremely inefficient.
But I can't help but feel that the outcome is biased too much by your imagination to be able to draw any kind of general or universal conclusion about faster runners using less oxygen. For the purpose of realism, can't you give me a reference to real data with real people?
Right, well this goes back to the point. It is an absolutely unwarranted example to use two runners who are covering the same distance in such vastly disparate times (2hrs vs. 3 hrs) and assign them randomly the same VO2. Of course if you do that, you find the more efficient runner is faster.
Fast runners tend to have both larger engines and more efficiency compared to slower runners. That is not to suggest that there are not difference in different runners. To get to your real life example, one of the classic ones would be to compare Frank Shorter and Steve Prefontaine. Both fast, both elite runners, fairly similar in their times in the 10000. Shorter was known for having a smaller engine and being very efficient. Prefontaine for having a huge engine. I don't know the numbers off the top of my head, but I believe Shorters measured VO2 was just about 70 and Prefontaine's was around 93? Not sure what pace those were measured at or all the details. Anyway, both of them had very high VO2 compared to the general population of runners but profiles kind of at the opposite extremes within the community of elite world class runners. You could calculate what Prefontaine could have done if he could have achieved Shorter's efficiency numbers (and then marvel what he could have done had he been so fortunate to have JonO/J.R. as his coach).
You are missing the point too. I gave the 2 runners the same absolute VO2max because that is a realistic expectation. But the weight relative value is quite different and the efficiency is very different. If VO2 max is measured properly you will see that the supposed differences between elite and ordinary distance runners is a thing of mythology.
If you assign a third value adjusted to a hypothetical 10% body fat you would see this more clearly.
Jon Orange wrote:
the problem wrote:Taking substances absolutely do work to change and improve human performance.
Jon's argument begins with a logical fallacy and goes downhill from there. The fallacy is that the human body will simply produce exactly what it needs to optimize performance. So he says, for example, that every person's body will just produce the optimal amount of red blood cells for performance. This is just not true. I don't usually bother arguing against a fallacy, it's enough to point out the statement is simply not true, but, I'll just point out, for example - sickle cell anemia.
In general, the human body requires the intake of numerous vitamins, minerals, amino acids, essentially fatty acids, etc. (and calories in general) to survive - and to increase performance. We are not a perpetual motion machine. Take one runner and starve them for a month and another runner who eats a normal 2,500 calorie a day diet for a month. Will they perform the same at the end of the month? No. And the changes are not just from a lack of calories. Food isn't just calories. What you eat etc. will cause a cascade of hormonal responses that can and will change the human body and how it subsequently performs through a number of different avenues.
To pretend that food can do this, but "drugs" cannot, is just inane.
I won't even begin on the ability to alter gene expression - as it's unnecessary. The simple truth is that human's can, beyond any shadow of a doubt, increase/enhance/improve their athletic performance with the use of drugs.
You are missing the point that the PED concept is a logical fallacy. What I am trying to explain is just that.
You are failing to explain it. PEDs are more like an illogical reality.
40.5 wrote:
Jon,
Slightly off topic, but what sort of training were you doing when you were running well in your mid forties?
Genuinely interested.
Nothing unusual. 80-90 mpw. I did do some barefoot running from July 2001 onwards to strengthen my feet. About once a week on a hilly grass circuit 8-10k.
I would also do occasional speed sessions with much younger runners on club nights on the track, sometimes barefoot also.
You're a certified wanna-be Jon, and nothing more. Insecurity is your best friend. Did you ever actually break 3 hours? I didn't think so. Fare crappy oh arrogant one.
Jon Orange wrote:
40.5 wrote:Jon,
Slightly off topic, but what sort of training were you doing when you were running well in your mid forties?
Genuinely interested.
Nothing unusual. 80-90 mpw. I did do some barefoot running from July 2001 onwards to strengthen my feet. About once a week on a hilly grass circuit 8-10k.
I would also do occasional speed sessions with much younger runners on club nights on the track, sometimes barefoot also.
jeff tallon wrote:
michael johnson was on a drug regimen,and took a whole plethora of drugs over a long period of time.as a bodybuilder,i KNOW simply by looking at him.he had a ripped,shredded vascular physique,bulging ben johnson-like staring eyes,and sometimes dryness,and hardness to his muscles,and skin that can only come from using drugs.he wasnt huge,but his physique wasnt natural.i have no desire to argue with you,jon,but one thing i DO know a lot about is human physique.im sure youll try to insult me,but i wont be reading your reply.
So he was a superhuman behemoth? How come he only weighed 175?
You have no idea what you are talking about.
Terrible Professor wrote:
Jon Orange wrote:You are missing the point that the PED concept is a logical fallacy. What I am trying to explain is just that.
You are failing to explain it. PEDs are more like an illogical reality.
I agree. But my explanations are spred over a wide area. On this thread I have focused on a few issues, each one has to be explained. The problem is that people can't get a grasp of some really basic ideas because they have believe the opposite for so long.
Give it a rest Jon, your ego needs at least an hour off. Not breaking into the bigtime really hurt, so you yearn for the approval of others. By the way, you stink.
Jon Orange wrote:
jeff tallon wrote:michael johnson was on a drug regimen,and took a whole plethora of drugs over a long period of time.as a bodybuilder,i KNOW simply by looking at him.he had a ripped,shredded vascular physique,bulging ben johnson-like staring eyes,and sometimes dryness,and hardness to his muscles,and skin that can only come from using drugs.he wasnt huge,but his physique wasnt natural.i have no desire to argue with you,jon,but one thing i DO know a lot about is human physique.im sure youll try to insult me,but i wont be reading your reply.
So he was a superhuman behemoth? How come he only weighed 175?
You have no idea what you are talking about.
i think i know a lot more than you do,sweetness.
Care to comment on Daniels' studies then oh trollific one?
rekrunner wrote:
The VO2 numbers, and weights you give, correctly multiply out to 5 liters/min, bravo, but the oxygen value you should use is VO2, not VO2max.
And what is this supposed to mean? It's nonsense. I was giving their numbers in both an absolute value and a weight relative value. You need to get some sleep rekrunner, your brain is getting more and more befuddled.
When you have had a decent night's sleep, look again at my numbers and explanations, to avoid another one of your bizarre round and round arguments where you miss the point over and over day after day.
oh jon,youre such a wag ! thanks for making me giggle.youre beginning to have a legion of fans on here.id suggest YOU comment on it,but well,im done giggling at you for the day.as for daniels studies,i dont even know who daniel is,or what youre on about.but then i dont think YOU know what youre on about,either.thanks for the laughs,mr roboto.until another time.
Don't come back.
Jonny meets Mr. Daniels:
Biggest A-Hole in the history of Letsrun, Agent Orangehead, Jon "someone please listen and agree with me " Orange. Does your boyfriend still love you?
Jon Orange wrote:
Don't come back.