Thread success wrote:
Has certainly brought out the dummies.
Brought out the drug believers.
Thread success wrote:
Has certainly brought out the dummies.
Brought out the drug believers.
Indeed ~ wrote:
Thread success wrote:Has certainly brought out the dummies.
Brought out the drug believers.
That was the intention. He then thought he could crush the belief, but that didn't happen, did it?
You need help little Jack, like meds. Have you won the senior division of your hometown 5k yet? He's really getting to you Jack, and you know it, don't you?
Jack The Riddler wrote:
The lost art of reading comprehension.
Spelling too. Who's?
dope works wrote:
Indeed ~ wrote:Brought out the drug believers.
That was the intention. He then thought he could crush the belief, but that didn't happen, did it?
There's no pill to be smart.
I hear ya brother! And Jack could use one.
Indeed ~ wrote:
dope works wrote:That was the intention. He then thought he could crush the belief, but that didn't happen, did it?
There's no pill to be smart.
Sorry, I was just being a butthole because this is the internet. I'm not very smart and cling to this site in hopes of sounding intelligent. Sorry Mr. Orange and to all the others.
wow
I am the real Jack the Riddler, I don't even run, and I don't know why I was being such a d*ck to 3 or 4 different posters. At least I can admit it.
The real Jack wrote:
wow
oh
oh
The real Jack wrote:
oh
As long as your reply was, you still didn't address how you claims are supported by Daniels graph. The only support you have provided for your claims is an illustrative example of two runners fabricated from your imagination, assuming too much, completing the circle.There is nothing about VDOT that confuses me. I'm fully aware how VDOT and VO2max are similar, yet different.
Jon Orange wrote:
rekrunner wrote: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 this
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.)
...
I haven't lost sight of anything. It's the same thing I have been saying since I started posting here 13 years ago.
...
Please stop trying to get Jon's approval. He just wants everyone to believe that he is right.Even though I agree with you, you'll never get him to admit he's wrong. I read this thread YEARS ago and he still won't let go. My buddy works at a U of M lab in Ann Arbor (Michigan), he laughs at what this guy has been claiming. Don't give him the satisfaction of a response, he's got some ego issues that he needs to work on. Just some friendly advice, that's all.
rekrunner wrote:
As long as your reply was, you still didn't address how you claims are supported by Daniels graph. The only support you have provided for your claims is an illustrative example of two runners fabricated from your imagination, assuming too much, completing the circle.
There is nothing about VDOT that confuses me. I'm fully aware how VDOT and VO2max are similar, yet different.
Jon Orange wrote:I haven't lost sight of anything. It's the same thing I have been saying since I started posting here 13 years ago.
...
Michigan Physio Connection wrote:
My buddy works at a U of M lab in Ann Arbor (Michigan), he laughs at what this guy has been claiming.
That's your proof?
You simply prove that the OP is correct.
That's proof for you?
Should use a colon wrote:
Michigan Physio Connection wrote:My buddy works at a U of M lab in Ann Arbor (Michigan), he laughs at what this guy has been claiming.
That's your proof?
You simply prove that the OP is correct.
I'm not trying to get his approval. Just like you -- I'm trying to give him friendly advice as to why he has so much difficulty gaining any traction after 13 years of saying the same thing.
Michigan Physio Connection wrote:
Please stop trying to get Jon's approval. He just wants everyone to believe that he is right.
Even though I agree with you, you'll never get him to admit he's wrong. I read this thread YEARS ago and he still won't let go.
My buddy works at a U of M lab in Ann Arbor (Michigan), he laughs at what this guy has been claiming. Don't give him the satisfaction of a response, he's got some ego issues that he needs to work on. Just some friendly advice, that's all.
Thread success wrote:
Has certainly brought out the dummies.
Yes it has, but they are internet weirdo stalkers aren't they? It's not just me they are obsessed with. But even so, I'm glad I live on the other side of the Atlantic.
test2 wrote:
Jon Orange wrote: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.
This is the clearest statement of your thesis I've seen. As I've said (and I think rekrunner has too), it seems to me that it is the rate of O2 usage not the total that relates to the 'size of the engine' (total is more like 'size of the gas tank') but I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree. Best of luck to you in future races.
Sorry, but you are missing the point. The 'size of the engine' is based on general health and fitness plus genetics. Those endurance athletes with the higher oxygen uptake have the worst economy and those with the lowest oxygen uptkae have the best oxygen economy.
So the 'bigger engine is better' concept is nonsense.
Treads for wrote:
Jon,
The European Journal of physiology has proven the effects of EPO on cycling performance. They took 16 well trained cyclists and injected them with EPO for 4 weeks. They had to tell all 16 that they were being injected with EPO for ethical reasons as the cyclists were well trained athletes but only 8 were actually administered EPO. The conclusion of the trial was that the group administered with EPO showed a 54% increase in performance relative to the placebo group on a trial to exhaustion.
You say that that a natural Haemocrite is the best for performance when we know this is not true in the case of cancer patients after a treatment of radiotherapy where EPO is used to treat the side effects that radiation has on RBC count. What exactly is a natural heamocrite? You also say that the extra oxygen EPO would have made available would result in higher energy costs. This is not true as lack of Oxygen has a higher energy cost (oxygen debt). The more oxygen that is availible, the less likely an athlete is going to go into oxygen debt thereby saving energy by keeping the activity aerobic. The "excess oxygen" as you call it is actually a reserve and not used until it is needed. Much like performance increase with a higher stroke volume because the heart is able to pump more oxygen rich blood more efficiently, it doesn't need to when oxygen is more abundant (in the case of EPO) in volume. An increased stroke volume is very similar and would you argue that a higher stroke volume does not aid in performance?
I'm not going to argue against the importance neuromuscular efficiency as it is no doubt a very important factor which is right up there with the above but you seem to be stuck in the idea that that is the only limiter when really, it is only one of many factors that contribute to performance.
We've already been through this argument. You're a bit late to the party.
test2 wrote:
Jon Orange wrote: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.
Your link
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4555089/figure/Fig3/shows the same figure as page 47 in Daniels' Running Formula. And yeah, those fractional utilizations are really high. I wonder whether there really do exist 3hr male marathoners who can hold 85% of their VO2max for 3 hours. I certainly don't know any but, then, they may not be 'highly trained' by Jack Daniels' definition.
Thanks. Those 3 and 3 hours plus marathon runners are maintaining a constant heart rate of 86-88% of maximum. They are racing, not just running. They are trying as hard as they can to break 3 hours or 3.15 or 3.30 whatever. They have been training for the race for months. They give it everything they have got.
In light of the comparison to elites, they are actually working much harder.
rekrunner wrote:
As long as your reply was, you still didn't address how you claims are supported by Daniels graph. The only support you have provided for your claims is an illustrative example of two runners fabricated from your imagination, assuming too much, completing the circle.
There is nothing about VDOT that confuses me. I'm fully aware how VDOT and VO2max are similar, yet different.
Jon Orange wrote:I haven't lost sight of anything. It's the same thing I have been saying since I started posting here 13 years ago.
...
But you are confused by the VDOT concept. You showed it in your post.
I answered your question. It didnt' fit with your belief in the bigger engine concept, which by the way contradicts Daniels' own research. You don't believe that a runner with a VO2 max of 68 could be as "slow" as 3 hours in a marathon. That is a ridiculous statement. If that doesn't show that you don't understand VDOT, then you aren't paying attention to either me or Daniels.