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

Jon Orange wrote:

I was using the same absolute VO2 max to illustrate the point. It is wrong to assume that all elites have a very high absolute VO2 max or that slow runners have a low absolute VO2 max or that the number correlates with talent.

What I am trying to show is the fact that your efficiency is the only thing that you can continue to develop. VO2 is basically genetics plus basic health and fitness. The absolute value can not be expected to increase, nor does it need to. This is one of the key points of Dr. Daniels' research.

Then what are we arguing about? I agree with what you are saying. For a well trained adult runner, future VO2max gains are marginal at best (although if you are close enough to your goals marginal improvements may still be valuable). Training efficiency is key. I love Jack Daniels.

How the hell does any of this relate to the title of the thread?

Very funny to read that wellnow is basing all of his arguments on Jack Daniels,

Here he is arguing with Jack Daniels that Jack's numbers are wrong.

Much like this thread, it demonstrates that Jon really does not understand, at even the most basic level, the difference between vdot and VO2max.

He insists he does understand the VDOT number, the number is wrong, and he (Jon Orange) can't report the results of Jack Daniel's research until Jack corrects his figures so that they agree with his Jono's) conclusions. I'm sure Jack was very worried about that:

http://www.letsrun.com/forum/flat_read.php?thread=3120976

test2 wrote:

I agree that the fractional utilization is similar, differing by order 1 percent, however, we can't just assume that the average 2:30 marathoner has the same VO2max as the average 3:00 marathoner because that's what I thought we were trying to prove.

Are assuming that VO2max has no correlation with running speed? I believe it does. If I can find a good scatter plot of this online, I'll post the link.

Exactly, it is circular reasoning. If you assume that everybody has the same VO2max, then the difference in running speed is entirely due to economy.

It is clear that Jono does not understand that Jack Daniel's vdot numbers already have the efficiency baked in...

Jon Orange wrote:

Mr. Obvious wrote:

That's very funny, J.R. How many names do you troll Letsrun.com under?

Wellnow, jono, J.R. Jon Orange, Trail Master, I have a theory, Dan Onymous,

Dave the dude, Interval Kid, Wait a sec, Dr ss, Spaniel,

Just a few of the dozens of aliases you have posted under.

YOU ARE COMPLETELY FUKCING NUTS. GO AWAY AND STOP STALKING ME.

This is just too funny. You call out other people for trolling under different names, then when you are called on that exact same behavior, you claim that other people are obsessed with you. Do you think that people forget?

Accountability is a bitch, hey Jon.

For the record, I post about 99% of the time under this name. I have occasionally posted on other threads under topically relevant names but have never posted under multiple names for the purpose of agreeing with myself, or appearing to support my own argument.

I've never posted on any of Spaniel's threads under any other name.

Sorry I let my exasperation show through there. I've been trying to understand the logical leap between efficiency being important, VO2max gains being marginal and PEDs having no effect. I still don't see it. Can PEDs turn a 2:30 marathoner into a world beater? Like you are saying, there are probably a lot of things, efficiency included that the PEDs aren't fixing. So no, there are a lot of more important things a mortal marathoner should be worrying about that PEDs.

That said, I don't see the argument that PEDs like EPO yield small improvements. Tick your VO2max up 1% with EPO and none of the curves we are talking about change qualitatively but if you were a 13:10 flat 5k guy you go from being in the hunt to being a world beater.

Yes well Jonny has it baked in too, if you know what I mean.

Age 42

Jonny \\\"NaturalBoy\\\" Orange - Mar 2:29:51 London Flora London Marathon 13 Apr 03

versus

Eddie \\\"Superman\\\" Hellebuyck - 2:12

Jon Orange wrote:

No, you missed the math, here it is again:

Here's a similar graph

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pm...gure/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.

They don't have the same max. That's your assumption.

Use real physiology, not made up stuff.

Even here, Jono is absolutely wrong. It is absolutely true that faster runners tend to have higher absoluve VO2max and slower runners tend to ave lower absolute VO2max. That is pretty much the definition of correlation. (I know that you, test2, understand this already). If you get into a more nuanced argument, then you could of course say that that correlation is not determinative. Which would be true. if you tested a bunch of 16:00 5k runners, they could have results all over the place, and in that case the results would be down to efficiency. That just means the r value for it is not very good. If, on the other hand, you tested a bunch two groups, a bunch of 13 minute 5k runners and a group of 20 minute 5k runners, you would find that the faster runners, as a group, had a much higher absolute VO2max than the 20 minute runners.

He is of course right that improving efficiency is an important part of running. Maybe the most important part of it once you have some basic fitness. Of course if he posted that he couldn't have 20+ page threads full of arguing, since it is so blatantly obvious that nobody would disagree with it.

Of course you are right in the last statement, which is that if we agree that his entire argument boils down to this, and we granted that everything he said is correct, then it does nothing to prove that Performance Enhancing Drugs exist, or don't exist, or work, or don't work, etc.

Jon, there is only one known mammal species that becomes more efficient at higher speeds and it's not us.

That is all.

ahhhh yes,but i bet,under that cold,arrogant rude egocentric exterior beats a smouldering volcano of passion.id say jon oracle is a sexy bugger,hotter than lava,and a dynamo beneath the sheets.yum !

Right. End of the day, unless the Rsq value between VO2max and speed is zero, these sorts of arguments don't prove that PEDs like EPO can't work.

I think you've loss sight of what you were asked to show. You've claimed:- elite runners use less oxygen- Daniels' fractional VO2max utilization curve, and some simple arithmetic, shows thisYou are supposed to be showing us how Daniels' graphs support your claims, despite Daniels himself saying VO2 increases quite predictably with racing speed. (Elite runners tend to run faster, therefore oxygen consumption tends to be higher.)What's unrealistic is the runner with a VO2max of 68 ml/kg/min running ~40K in 3:00:00. This runner simply doesn't exist, that is so inefficient, that he has a measured VO2max of 68, while racing for 3 hours with a VDOT of 50. VDOT is not VO2max, but they cannot be 18 points apart. Derek Clayton is held up as some kind of exceptional outlier, and the difference is about 10 points. Even if such an extreme outlier exists, this would be a poor example to draw universal conclusions from.And you give a circular argument. You assume two runners, one economical fast runner and one uneconomical slow runner, to support a claim that the faster runners are economical compared to slow runners. You attempt to add strength to your example, by assuring us that it is realistic. For a real world proof of such importance, we need to see some data that exists outside of your imagination.

Jon Orange wrote:

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.

Jon, What is your VO2 max and how much do you weigh?

rekrunner wrote:

For a real world proof of such importance, we need to see some data that exists outside of your imagination.

YOU ARE COMPLETELY FUKCING NUTS. GO AWAY AND STOP STALKING ME.

If you do the math, using your own numbers for weight, VO2max, and percent VO2max, you will find that your runners, at 85% and 86% VO2max utilization, have an absolute VO2 consumption of 4.3 l/min and 4.25 l/min, respectively and not the 5 l/min you assumed is realistic for both.I'm not convinced, despite your reassurance, that this is a realistic assumption. What's realistic from Daniel's real world measurements, is not both using 5.0 l/min, but rather your 2 hour runner using 4.2 l/min and your 3 hour runner using 3.0 l/min.The difference in absolute economy is mainly coming from the difference in their weight. Once corrected for weight, the faster runner consumes more oxygen, in ml/kg.

Jon Orange wrote:

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.

rekrunner wrote:

You are supposed to be showing us how Daniels' graphs support your claims, despite Daniels himself saying VO2 increases quite predictably with racing speed. (Elite runners tend to run faster, therefore oxygen consumption tends to be higher.)

But Daniel's is wrong, and he is the one who does not understand his own charts. His numbers are completely unrealistic.

How do I know this? Because jono/wellnow/Spaniel/J.R. tells him so:

show me da evidence wrote:

You believe in fairies - show us the evidence?

If PED's don't help, then why do so many professional and amateur athletes use them?

Here is a gem of an argument from Jono on the thread with Jack Daniels. Jack shouldn't use high values for VDOT because it makes world class performances seem out of reach to his American readers.

That's a great argument. If only he didn't use high numbers then people would of course just run faster times. Never mind that VDOT is really just an index of racing speed. And never mind that world class performances really are out of the reach of most of Jack's American readers. If only he didn't put such high numbers on them, everybody would achieve them because they would believe...

I understand the rationale. However, Jack shows how three women with widely differing VO2 max, run about the same time. He has recorded the same thing in men.

So the range for elite me is from below 70 to the high 80's

So surely the mean value for elite runners would be in the high seventies?

With the highest VDOT in the book being 85 it will have the inevitable effect of making World Class performance seem out of reach to his American readers.

Numbers have very significant psychological effects on runners. They can present a mental barrier. If this applies to race times, it must also apply to an arbitrary VDOT value, which is what the 85 value is. I say that in reality a VDOT of 85 is physically impossible for any human to attain.

Read more:

http://www.letsrun.com/forum/flat_read.php?thread=3120976&page=1#ixzz41Ia2X5yO

#### wrote:

show me da evidence wrote:

You believe in fairies - show us the evidence?

If PED's don't help, then why do so many professional and amateur athletes use them?

Just read the thread...it's all in there. They use them because they believe that they work.

That is all because of the drug pushers like you.