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

He ran a 2:29:51, he's beyond his pr days, and he's trying to tell "who" how to be more economical with their running? I've broken 2:30 twice in the 90's and I'd be embarrassed to post my name and brag about it. No elite is going to listen to him, so seriously, what's the point of all of this? And whoever he is, why does he think everyone is obsessed with him? He's a nobody. Me confused?

fred wrote:

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

Thanks again. I just looked it up and not a bad time for someone in their 40's. So he's about 55 now? Regardless, what's his issue with arguing with everyone. Again, me confused? If he was Greg Meyer or Bill Rodgers, I could understand, but Jon Orange?

Far, far from JR (aka not him) wrote:

He ran a 2:29:51, he's beyond his pr days, and he's trying to tell "who" how to be more economical with their running?

I've broken 2:30 twice in the 90's and I'd be embarrassed to post my name and brag about it. No elite is going to listen to him, so seriously, what's the point of all of this?

And whoever he is, why does he think everyone is obsessed with him? He's a nobody. Me confused?

fred wrote:

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

He's just one of those people that thinks they've discovered a secret.

Kind of like the guy a few years ago that was going to linearly progress to the Olympics and 5k record at 40 plus because of his special natural diet.

More wellnow quotes proving he does not understand VDOT:

[quote]Voice of Ray-san wrote:

.

VDOT tables are "economy-neutral". This is because economy is factored out by design, willfully, on-purpose, in order to simplify its use and aid understanding. They neither support nor contradict running-economy research. This is true even if they both come from the same man.

The number in the first column of the VDOT tables is the least important one in the table. How the VDOT index rises, with respect to training and performance is not important, and certainly not a basis to claim it is fundamentally flawed.

[quote]

Ray, all of these statements are false. The VDOT tables are NOT economy neutral.

The VDOT figure IS important, because it implies a status quo, a hierarchy of 'talent' above which, the reader is given very little chance of rising more than a few points.

A VDOT number of 85 is completely unrealistic, and is disempowering to sub elite runners, who want to raise their status, because it implies that VO2 max is much more important than it really is.

If you disagree with these last two paragraphs, then you are underestimating how psychologically numbers are and how important psychology is in empowering or disempowering the athlete.

But regardless of your understanding of psychology, the VDOT tables do contradict the running economy research.

Read more:

http://www.letsrun.com/forum/flat_read.php?thread=3120976&page=2#ixzz41JPE4YvH

Even more, just so much here:

espinosa, The problem with the VDOT table is that the higher the VDOT, the lower the economy. So the faster you run, the more unfeasible the number.

espinosa wrote:

It's very likey that 85 is unfeasible, however, the farther away the number predicted is from the actual observed data used, the less accurate it will be. If you took the time to understand the methodology before critiquing JD you would know this.

So how does the VDOT table tally with the methodology? It doesn't it contradicts the methodology, because of the common economy curve, it doesn't address the issue of why we usually don't improve our stride length to match the the more economical runners.

Read more:

http://www.letsrun.com/forum/flat_read.php?thread=3120976&page=2#ixzz41JQEQdO1

Jonny, I thought that you said you started running at 31. In that other thread it says you ran a 5:40 mile at 17.

Does your personal history change depending on the thread you are responding to?

This must be terribly psychologically disempowering.

M50 5000 14:53.2 David Martin Rees United Kingdom 28.02.53 50

Seriously, thanks as that explains it. I haven't been here that long and was confused on what the heck he was talking about and being so overly adamant about being right. I'll avoid his threads from now on, and again thanks for the warning as he must have some issues. Ciao!

Mad Hopper wrote:

He's just one of those people that thinks they've discovered a secret.

Kind of like the guy a few years ago that was going to linearly progress to the Olympics and 5k record at 40 plus because of his special natural diet.

Far, far from JR (aka not him) wrote:

Seriously, thanks as that explains it. I haven't been here that long and was confused on what the heck he was talking about and being so overly adamant about being right. I'll avoid his threads from now on, and again thanks for the warning as he must have some issues.

The point is that elite runners aren't using more oxygen to race. The belief in so-called 'PEDs' is predicated on the bigger engine model, but the total oxygen uptake and glycogen uptake is less in any race. The bigger engine model in nonsense.

Again this is the false concept of the bigger engine. If having more red blood cells was an advantage, then why doesnt' the human body produce more red blood cells naturally? Because that's not how it works. We don't improve beyond our normal oxygen delivery, we improve through better efficiency, so we use less total oxygen in a race. The slight increase in intensity between the hypothetical 2 hour and 3 hour marathon runners is one per cent and this relates to time duration.

I have used the same absolute VO2 max to illustrate the point. They could be indentical twins, one running up to 150 miles per week having raced at every track distance in his career, the other having just taken up the sport a year before running no more than 30 miles per week. On that basis he is doing well to run sub 3 isn't he?

I haven't lost sight of anything. It's the same thing I have been saying since I started posting here 13 years ago.

Your point about Daniels saying that elites use more oxygen at higher speeds is not disputed, we all do. If you test the 3 hour runner, he is going to peak at 25 kmh and the faster runner at 28, depending on the test protocal, but still slightly below their maximum speed that they could achieve at the end of a race with increasing pace.

It's not unrealistic for the guy with the 68 ml/kg/min figure. He has the same absolute VO2 max. It's quite normal for a man his size who is essentially a slow twitch runner, an endurance athlete, to be between 4.5 and 5.5 liters per minute. Thats' why I chose those numbers to illustrate the point. His heart is normally developed, but his efficiency need some work.

To say that such a runner with hopleless efficiency doesn't exist is ludicrous. There are millions of such runners out there, you see them every day. What is so ridiculously inneficient about him running 3 hours for a marathon. How is that ridiculously slow? It is no such thing for a recreational runner.

You're completey missing the point. Comparing a recretational low mileage runner with Derek Clayton? Excuse me? What??

You can't see the wood for the trees. This is my argument witth Daniels. His research is brilliant. His VDOT numbers are just silly. They confuse people like you, who really should know better, into conflating VDOT with VO2max.

If you and other posters here can be so confused about VDOT, then how the heck can others be expected to understand?

test2 the graph I provided is not quite the same as Daniels' graph is it? The numbers are slightly higher?

In my mind I have the figures of Daniels's graph as being 5% lower, can you confirm which is right please? Thanks.

So are humans the only running animals that defy the bigger engine model? Every other thing that runs or flies has a supercharged engine, why not people?

Here's another riddle for you, Jon.

Say a 2:04 guy cruises a 2:12, will he use more oxygen to do that than he would to run a 2:04?

Say a 2:08 guy with a VO2Max of 69 runs 150 miles a week at sub 6 minute pace. Could he be a role model?

No.The oxygen based on the equivalent V02 flow rate chart equivalency is based on the exponential curve multiplied by 3.14 divided by the temperature 6 days prior to the race, therefore producing an oxygen rate that would be equivalent to a hobby jogger's 5k best time performance at the age of 33.2 years old on races held during leap year only.Point?Just run and forgot all of this crap that Mr. Orange thinks is important to discuss as it's meaningless at best.

Jack The Riddler wrote:

Here's another riddle for you, Jon.

Say a 2:04 guy cruises a 2:12, will he use more oxygen to do that than he would to run a 2:04?