I'm amused when crazy people talk to themselves. Especially when they just got schooled.
I'm amused when crazy people talk to themselves. Especially when they just got schooled.
rekrunner wrote:
The phrase that stands out to me is the oxymoron "popular ex phys". Malcolm Gladwell is popular by any measure, but only tells half the story, filling in the other half with his vivid imagination. I don't expect popular to be right, and I don't expect the right exercise physiologist to be popular. David Epstein's Sports Genes (IMO) is much better science than Gladwell's Outliers, but I expect will be much less popular.
I don't find training lacking in this aspect in any practical sense. Fortunately for coaches and athletes, if they train thinking about VO2max and LT (as vague as that concept may be), their running economy improves too, over time. Popular training, like Lydiard or Daniels, includes this emphasis on aerobic development, but also combining it with speedwork, sprint development (for improved form), and often drills for strength (hill training or plyometrics). From a training aspect, if you experiment enough to find out what works for you, than lacking in advanced topics like bioenergetics, biomechanics, neuroscience (what happened to neuro-muscular coordination?) is a problem for scientists, but not coaches or athletes.
Good science, bad science wrote:Yes, a good text book deals with the neuroscience. But how many popular ex phys writers do or have done in the past 50 years? Conventional wisdom on running and cycling training is lacking in this most important aspect.
I stopped using the term neuromuscular coordination because it tends to be used by people only in regard to sprinting. They just won't accept that it controls every movement. So I just use the terms neural, neuro motor control, or nervous system control etc in the hope that it might spark a few brain cells in people who are reading. I also want to talk about the endocrine system and how naturally released chemicals are kinda under rated by the letsrun training guruwannabes.
Whilst I agree that training and coaching is an art not a science, athletes and coaches at elite or sub elite levels are constantly bombarded with the drug dogma. Who is going to couner this? Well fortunately there are more and more people who have the knowledge and courage to do this. They will meet a lot of resistance from those with their head in the sand, or gullible people who believe the drug dogma. But the intelligent people will win eventually.
rekrunner wrote:
Again, I don't doubt or dispute her LT improved since 1992, and that some of the performance improvement is dependent on these LT improvements. That quote wasn't meant to be exclusive, but to emphasize that other factors besides VO2max and LT can improve performance. Some factors are dependent on LT, and some factors are independent. Perhaps this quote can be fixed by adding "in part" or "also".
In your discussion, you don't talk about LT, but rather vLT. Table 6 shows us that Paula got faster with the same Lactate levels, but Jones only speculates later what could have caused it. Some of the speculation involves improvements in LT, while others are independent.
My interpretation of Good/Bad Science's main message is, that an aspiring athlete has a choice:
1) Take EPO to improve aerobic parameters, therefore performance
2) Train to improve economy, therefore performance
The message here is that aerobics is not everything, and performance can improve significantly without choosing EPO.
Everyone is 100% focused on VO2max and LT, and he is trying to say -- don't forgot about economy. And here you are trying to say -- hey what about LT -- why are you ignoring LT?
No, number one is wrong. I don't believe that EPO improves 'aerobic parameters' that just plain ole bad science. Aerobic parameters are a combination of basic health and basic fitness pluse genetics. Most runners have all three, they just need to know that and not believe they are physically lacking. If you have all three but you don't believe it, you are mentally lacking.
LT is a stupid concept anyway. Looking at Jones' graphs, where the heck do you see her suposed LT? Treadmill testers like nouse4abrain will use standard measurments of 1, 2 and 4 mmols, but she is much more efficient at those numbers because she is a natural endurance athlete. She run a 10 at 3 mmols and marathon at 1.5 mmols.
drugs work just fine
you take the drugs and you run faster
the drugged athlete will run faster than the equivalent non-drugged athlete
if drugs are prevalent and effective,the athlete must be doped to win
you don't need to be a scientist to understand this
Yes runners have all three, they just don't have enough of them. That's why drugs work.
Gary Oldman wrote:
I'm amused when crazy people talk to themselves. Especially when they just got schooled.
I'm not rekrunner. We have had many disagreements in the past, but I just kept explaining until he understood my points. We still don't agree on everything in this thread.
As for getting schooled? Another fantasy. I do the lecturing here not nouse4abrain. He has posted some really dreadfully bad science. In fact he has been wrong on 90% of his points.
Good science, bad science wrote:
Gary Oldman wrote:I'm amused when crazy people talk to themselves. Especially when they just got schooled.
I'm not rekrunner. We have had many disagreements in the past, but I just kept explaining until he understood my points. We still don't agree on everything in this thread.
As for getting schooled? Another fantasy. I do the lecturing here not nouse4abrain. He has posted some really dreadfully bad science. In fact he has been wrong on 90% of his points.
He is 10% ahead of you though.
He is a long long way behind me. And he is going to get a very rude awakening when the really smart ex phsy guys gain more respect.
It's already happening. You are just unaware of it.
Good science, bad science wrote:
Therefore glucose uses more oxygen to generate energy. So fat metabolism is more efficient.
After posting 5 different sources which all state that glucose is more oxygen efficient than fat, I give up. This guy is beyond hope...
Good science, bad science wrote:
Did you really believe that palmitate was oxidised in the mitochondria? Look at the numbers and use a bit of common sense, even if you can't understand the biochemistry.
Please, tell us again how fatty acids need to be built back up into triglycerides before the mitochodria can use them? Yeah, i think you know where you can shove your opinions on biochemistry. Hint: its the same place you're pulling most of your "facts" from...
For goodness sake, use a bit of common sense. If palmitate was oxidised and used 53% more oxygen when running, then we would exceed VO2 max just jogging.
Palmitate is a saturated FA it needs to be broken down and stored as intramuscular tryglycerides, which are then used by the mitochondria for lipolysis.
And stop this ridiculous argument about the numbers I gave you. You evidently don't know the difference between glycoysis and glycogenolysis.
You don't even know what lactate is.
Stop pretending you know what you are talking about. Stop trying to lecture me on biochemistry and bioenergetics. You have no clue what you are talking about.
Good science, bad science wrote:
Cycling is much more like running that most people realize. The high power outputs that everyone talks about these days still have to come from force, which requires a sudden explosive push on the pedals at exactly the right moment. This happens almost at the bottom of the pedal stroke, almost exactly like in running. And as that happens the other leg is doing its own stretch shortening elastic return to prepare for the push over the top of the pedal stroke, very much like it does in running.
Finally, something i agree with this idiot on... The energy system utilization is similar. Power/velocity at lactate threshold are the key factors in performance for both sports.
Good science, bad science wrote:
Cycling is much more like running that most people realize. The high power outputs that everyone talks about these days still have to come from force, which requires a sudden explosive push on the pedals at exactly the right moment. This happens almost at the bottom of the pedal stroke, almost exactly like in running. And as that happens the other leg is doing its own stretch shortening elastic return to prepare for the push over the top of the pedal stroke, very much like it does in running.
Wrong again... Peak power in cycling occurs at 100 degrees past top dead center which is due to the knee extensor torque relative the effective crank and pedal angle here (Broker, 2003). Actually, the bottom of the pedal stroke (180 deg TDC) has very low torque and therefore low power production.
REFERENCE
Broker J (2003). Cycling power: Road and mountain. In, E Burke (Ed.), High-Tech Cycling (pp. 147-174). Champaign, IL, USA: Human Kinetics.
GS,BS You're getting blown out of the water on this one.
Good science, bad science wrote:
He is a long long way behind me. And he is going to get a very rude awakening when the really smart ex phsy guys gain more respect.
It's already happening. You are just unaware of it.
And you think you're gaining respect with the garbage you're typing on here? Your giving yourself and your colleagues a very bad reputation...
See, the difference between you and I (apart from all the obvious inaccuracies and false claims you keep making), is that you seem desperate for approval from people on here. Tomorrow I'll wake up, go back into the lab and continue doing the job that i'm paid to do. The only approval i need is from my employer and the elite athletes that i work with on a daily basis.
Broker is wrong. Towards the bottom of the pedal stroke, the stretch shortening cycle is complete releasing the elastic energy return. At 100 degress past top dead center, the pedal is still accelerating downwards to produce force. It is not a matter of torque but force application. If it was just torque then 90 degrees to top dead center would be the peak force application, but at that point and at 100 degrees, the bodyweight is not acting on the pedal and the accleration of the pedal stroke is just gaining momentum.
nouse4aname wrote:
Good science, bad science wrote:He is a long long way behind me. And he is going to get a very rude awakening when the really smart ex phsy guys gain more respect.
It's already happening. You are just unaware of it.
And you think you're gaining respect with the garbage you're typing on here? Your giving yourself and your colleagues a very bad reputation...
See, the difference between you and I (apart from all the obvious inaccuracies and false claims you keep making), is that you seem desperate for approval from people on here. Tomorrow I'll wake up, go back into the lab and continue doing the job that i'm paid to do. The only approval i need is from my employer and the elite athletes that i work with on a daily basis.
And just when are you going to recognise that elite athletes use less oxygen to go faster. This is what allows them to do the superior speed endurance performances. If they wer using more oxgen/glycogen/lactate, then they would run out of gas wouldn't they?
You are incapable of think logically and conceptually. All you can do is repeat stupid pseudosientific dogma. I have shown this on point after point after point.
This is the philosophy that we in this country, not yours, are using. You will see and you must surely know that you will have to change your views or be out of a job.
Good science, bad science wrote:
Broker is wrong. Towards the bottom of the pedal stroke, the stretch shortening cycle is complete releasing the elastic energy return. At 100 degress past top dead center, the pedal is still accelerating downwards to produce force. It is not a matter of torque but force application. If it was just torque then 90 degrees to top dead center would be the peak force application, but at that point and at 100 degrees, the bodyweight is not acting on the pedal and the accleration of the pedal stroke is just gaining momentum.
Please provide a reference for this.
I've analyzed GB's of data from power meters located on the crank, bottom bracket and even at the rear hub. I have never seen a cyclist produce peak power or force at 180 deg. Additionally i have never read a single article which quotes 180 deg for peak power production. This is more of the same unsupported garbage that you've been posting on here. You've just decided to switch sports...
170 degrees or so. Do your own tests. To produce the high power outputs, the cyclist has to push his/her weight on the pedal and accelerate that pedal downwards slightly with each revolution, so that is why I am saying it is similar to running, using the some of kind of force production techniqes which naturally occur in running, but with subtle differences not big differences.
The mid revolution torque hypothesis is just silly, you can lever a crank with high force when the leg angles are small.
I am basing this on a decent knowledge of biomechanics and my own decades of cycling experience. Maybe you can be the first to publish this?
[quote]Good science, bad science wrote:
my own decades of cycling experience. quote]
So you should REALLY know that drugs work. Your stupidity is inexcusable now.
Good science, bad science wrote:
I am basing this on a decent knowledge of biomechanics and my own decades of cycling experience. Maybe you can be the first to publish this?
So no reference then? You trash other people's publications based on your own "decent knowledge of biomechanics" and a few years of cycling.
Seems like a pretty robust scientific approach alright...
I get the sarcasm. I was still hoping to find out what "slipped in recent years" could mean, with some real examples. (Some track events got slower, but the marathon got faster.)A few pages back, the discussion briefly turned toward the 5000m event, an event which should surely benefit from increased oxygen uptake more.Looking at American, European, and Australian national record progressions, all of these nations struggled to match pre-1990 performances, during the peak of untestable EPO-era in the 1990's.Can you help me understand the role of EPO in American, European, and Australian track in the 1990's, and how it impacted performance, or alternatively, why it didn't?Even if we extend this "western" analysis to all distance track events, and road events, and go as far as 2005, maybe 2010?, I think we find a similar lack of progression. The few exceptions that come to mind are mostly American or European based athletes with North or East African origin.
Gary Oldman wrote:
You seem to have trouble with sarcasm.