He does have huge VO2 max, check old insta posts where he and the team got tested. And yes the world needs more of you Bio 3. As if the eye test means nothing you tool. Countless studies regarding significance of biomechanics.. But no.. I will not provide them for you because you are an ignorant oaf.
He does have huge VO2 max, check old insta posts where he and the team got tested. And yes the world needs more of you Bio 3. As if the eye test means nothing you tool. Countless studies regarding significance of biomechanics.. But no.. I will not provide them for you because you are an ignorant oaf.
#formmatters
You don't know his VO2 max or his running economy.
Go on then genius, tell us how you think it works?
You can be incredibly inefficient and run fast if you have a big engine (can only sustain low % of VO2, but have a high VO2max).
You can run fast with a low VO2 if you are incredibly efficient (able to sustain high % of VO2max - Frank Shorter as an example).
You can run really fast if you are both efficient and have a high VO2 (the Kipchoge).
Just because you have a VO2 of X does not mean you have a efficiency (running economy) of Y.
Whats more important though - is you cannot tell an efficient runner from an inefficient runner just based on form (there are actually studies demonstrating this). What "visually" looks inefficient may not be - so unless you've seen testing data from Drew (i.e. metabolic cart measuring running economy), your hypothesis that his "form" is why he's slow doesn't hold water.
Kipchoge's VO2max is around 71 ml/kg/min. Not exactly high considering his very low body fat.
If you are referring to claims that his VO2max was 78, this is a misinterpretation of the term "Oxygen demand" which itself is a misinterpretation of Bioenergetics because it includes both Aerobic and Anaerobic energy supply, the Anaerobic component in distance running usually being underestimated.
You can be incredibly inefficient and run fast if you have a big engine (can only sustain low % of VO2, but have a high VO2max).
You can run fast with a low VO2 if you are incredibly efficient (able to sustain high % of VO2max - Frank Shorter as an example).
You can run really fast if you are both efficient and have a high VO2 (the Kipchoge).
Just because you have a VO2 of X does not mean you have a efficiency (running economy) of Y.
Whats more important though - is you cannot tell an efficient runner from an inefficient runner just based on form (there are actually studies demonstrating this). What "visually" looks inefficient may not be - so unless you've seen testing data from Drew (i.e. metabolic cart measuring running economy), your hypothesis that his "form" is why he's slow doesn't hold water.
Kipchoge's VO2max is around 71 ml/kg/min. Not exactly high considering his very low body fat.
If you are referring to claims that his VO2max was 78, this is a misinterpretation of the term "Oxygen demand" which itself is a misinterpretation of Bioenergetics because it includes both Aerobic and Anaerobic energy supply, the Anaerobic component in distance running usually being underestimated.
For one they signed him when he was very young. Second Tinman exists because of their social presence. It's not just about being the fastest anymore you have to have a good social media presence.
I find it odd that adidas thought to invest so much in him and he really has not produced as a pro. Do they see value in him via social media and are ok with his pro races? There are A LOT more deserving running who should be under contract with a shoe company and are not.
I find it odd that you guys are so bothered by Hunter and Tinman Elite. If they aren't that good stop following them on social media and over scrutinizing their every result.
4
3
adidas brand recognition, adidas & Hunter name recognition
Wait, what’s wrong with Sam Parsons, what did I miss?
You didn't really miss anything. No person is liked by all, but this is a case where Wesfly, that alfalfa, I mean self-anointed alpha, male, just has a beef with Parsons, for reasons that must be far deeper than we know, and Wesfly and his following herd of wannabes slam Parsons whenever they can. When Wesfly starts failing in his chosen field, which might be years from now for all we know, let's see how he responds to the negativity on The World's Favorite Running Forum. What goes around comes around for mudslingers.
Go on then genius, tell us how you think it works?
You can be incredibly inefficient and run fast if you have a big engine (can only sustain low % of VO2, but have a high VO2max).
You can run fast with a low VO2 if you are incredibly efficient (able to sustain high % of VO2max - Frank Shorter as an example).
You can run really fast if you are both efficient and have a high VO2 (the Kipchoge).
Just because you have a VO2 of X does not mean you have a efficiency (running economy) of Y.
Whats more important though - is you cannot tell an efficient runner from an inefficient runner just based on form (there are actually studies demonstrating this). What "visually" looks inefficient may not be - so unless you've seen testing data from Drew (i.e. metabolic cart measuring running economy), your hypothesis that his "form" is why he's slow doesn't hold water.
I'm a little skeptical of the Frank Shorter low Vo2max claim. First, Shorter was world-class down to 5k. Second, I recall that Shorter has said that he wasn't too motivated to hammer that famous Vo2 test, unlike Prefontaine who reputedly was trying to beat the machine.
Enough with the fixation on running economy. This term has been outdated for about 30 years now.
This story of Shorter's supposedly low VO2peak is likewise a bit silly: one testing protocol, probably not the best, w/ no consideration for allometrics (VO2 does not scale/kg)
You can be incredibly inefficient and run fast if you have a big engine (can only sustain low % of VO2, but have a high VO2max).
You can run fast with a low VO2 if you are incredibly efficient (able to sustain high % of VO2max - Frank Shorter as an example).
You can run really fast if you are both efficient and have a high VO2 (the Kipchoge).
Just because you have a VO2 of X does not mean you have a efficiency (running economy) of Y.
Whats more important though - is you cannot tell an efficient runner from an inefficient runner just based on form (there are actually studies demonstrating this). What "visually" looks inefficient may not be - so unless you've seen testing data from Drew (i.e. metabolic cart measuring running economy), your hypothesis that his "form" is why he's slow doesn't hold water.
I'm a little skeptical of the Frank Shorter low Vo2max claim. First, Shorter was world-class down to 5k. Second, I recall that Shorter has said that he wasn't too motivated to hammer that famous Vo2 test, unlike Prefontaine who reputedly was trying to beat the machine.
Shorter was tested by Jack Daniels. 71 ml/ kg/min. The same as Kipchoge. What's so unbelievable about it?
He does have huge VO2 max, check old insta posts where he and the team got tested. And yes the world needs more of you Bio 3. As if the eye test means nothing you tool. Countless studies regarding significance of biomechanics.. But no.. I will not provide them for you because you are an ignorant oaf.
#formmatters
Form does matter, but studies show that you can't determine efficiency based on aesthetic (1). It's possible that using machine learning you might be able to extract some predictive measurements that are associated with high running economy (eg. kinematics, kinetics), but this hasn't been achieved yet AFAIK. At best you can say that it's probably good to be symmetric, but even that's somewhat debatable.
Why is this? You brain operates like a computer and is continuously solving a complex set of optimization equations for the various parameters that are available to you while you run. We can simulate this type of process for simple tasks using software, but even with a very good computer the solve time is slow. Though there are probably other weighted optimizations involved (eg. minimize muscle stress/pain etc.) for simplicity we'll assume your brain is only trying to minimize O2 consumption at some particular effort level when you're doing a distance run. If you encounter an incline, your brain will adjust your various stride parameters (cadence, stride length, joint angles, force application, muscular recruitment etc.) to cover this most efficiently. Similarly, you'll adjust if you're running on a cambered surface, if you're given a backpack, or if the surface type changes (eg. lumpy/soft grass vs. track).
However what the precise response is depends very much on the machine (body) you are working with. If you have a true leg length discrepancy (different length bones) your optimization will reflect this. Your stride might look a bit janky and asymmetrical, but it is in fact the most efficient way for you to run. Things like your muscular strength/endurance, range of motion, neuromuscular training will also influence what options your brain is able to pick from when selecting the most efficient form. Some of these things can be changed by doing more mileage, more pace-specific work, strength/neuromuscular work, physio etc., but some things cannot be changed too easily (skeletal or joint geometry). This is also why there are sex-based differences in running form - women's pelvises and hips have different geometry on average, which necessitates their form be slightly different than men's in order to be efficient.
So all this is to say that yes, form matters, but no, coaching a distance runner to have "better" form based on some arbitrary aesthetic considerations isn't a good idea. Run economy is best addressed by trying to improve the body by doing running-specific ancillary work (weights, plyos, drills) and by running more mileage.
He does have huge VO2 max, check old insta posts where he and the team got tested. And yes the world needs more of you Bio 3. As if the eye test means nothing you tool. Countless studies regarding significance of biomechanics.. But no.. I will not provide them for you because you are an ignorant oaf.
#formmatters
Form does matter, but studies show that you can't determine efficiency based on aesthetic (1). It's possible that using machine learning you might be able to extract some predictive measurements that are associated with high running economy (eg. kinematics, kinetics), but this hasn't been achieved yet AFAIK. At best you can say that it's probably good to be symmetric, but even that's somewhat debatable.
Why is this? You brain operates like a computer and is continuously solving a complex set of optimization equations for the various parameters that are available to you while you run. We can simulate this type of process for simple tasks using software, but even with a very good computer the solve time is slow. Though there are probably other weighted optimizations involved (eg. minimize muscle stress/pain etc.) for simplicity we'll assume your brain is only trying to minimize O2 consumption at some particular effort level when you're doing a distance run. If you encounter an incline, your brain will adjust your various stride parameters (cadence, stride length, joint angles, force application, muscular recruitment etc.) to cover this most efficiently. Similarly, you'll adjust if you're running on a cambered surface, if you're given a backpack, or if the surface type changes (eg. lumpy/soft grass vs. track).
However what the precise response is depends very much on the machine (body) you are working with. If you have a true leg length discrepancy (different length bones) your optimization will reflect this. Your stride might look a bit janky and asymmetrical, but it is in fact the most efficient way for you to run. Things like your muscular strength/endurance, range of motion, neuromuscular training will also influence what options your brain is able to pick from when selecting the most efficient form. Some of these things can be changed by doing more mileage, more pace-specific work, strength/neuromuscular work, physio etc., but some things cannot be changed too easily (skeletal or joint geometry). This is also why there are sex-based differences in running form - women's pelvises and hips have different geometry on average, which necessitates their form be slightly different than men's in order to be efficient.
So all this is to say that yes, form matters, but no, coaching a distance runner to have "better" form based on some arbitrary aesthetic considerations isn't a good idea. Run economy is best addressed by trying to improve the body by doing running-specific ancillary work (weights, plyos, drills) and by running more mileage.
The TL;DR version of this is... Looks like I'm not an oaf after all.
Re: the VO2 of Shorter - I was just using it as an example based on the old adage, rather than having seen the data myself. That said - 71 is not "that high" for a runner. The point is - you can't predict a runners success based on VO2 alone. Rather its a combination of VO2, % of VO2 that is sustainable, and running economy etc. This has been modelled numerous times by Michael Joyner/Andy Jones etc., and applied to the Nike Breaking 2 projects.
Form does matter, but studies show that you can't determine efficiency based on aesthetic (1). It's possible that using machine learning you might be able to extract some predictive measurements that are associated with high running economy (eg. kinematics, kinetics), but this hasn't been achieved yet AFAIK. At best you can say that it's probably good to be symmetric, but even that's somewhat debatable.
Why is this? You brain operates like a computer and is continuously solving a complex set of optimization equations for the various parameters that are available to you while you run. We can simulate this type of process for simple tasks using software, but even with a very good computer the solve time is slow. Though there are probably other weighted optimizations involved (eg. minimize muscle stress/pain etc.) for simplicity we'll assume your brain is only trying to minimize O2 consumption at some particular effort level when you're doing a distance run. If you encounter an incline, your brain will adjust your various stride parameters (cadence, stride length, joint angles, force application, muscular recruitment etc.) to cover this most efficiently. Similarly, you'll adjust if you're running on a cambered surface, if you're given a backpack, or if the surface type changes (eg. lumpy/soft grass vs. track).
However what the precise response is depends very much on the machine (body) you are working with. If you have a true leg length discrepancy (different length bones) your optimization will reflect this. Your stride might look a bit janky and asymmetrical, but it is in fact the most efficient way for you to run. Things like your muscular strength/endurance, range of motion, neuromuscular training will also influence what options your brain is able to pick from when selecting the most efficient form. Some of these things can be changed by doing more mileage, more pace-specific work, strength/neuromuscular work, physio etc., but some things cannot be changed too easily (skeletal or joint geometry). This is also why there are sex-based differences in running form - women's pelvises and hips have different geometry on average, which necessitates their form be slightly different than men's in order to be efficient.
So all this is to say that yes, form matters, but no, coaching a distance runner to have "better" form based on some arbitrary aesthetic considerations isn't a good idea. Run economy is best addressed by trying to improve the body by doing running-specific ancillary work (weights, plyos, drills) and by running more mileage.
The TL;DR version of this is... Looks like I'm not an oaf after all.
Re: the VO2 of Shorter - I was just using it as an example based on the old adage, rather than having seen the data myself. That said - 71 is not "that high" for a runner. The point is - you can't predict a runners success based on VO2 alone. Rather its a combination of VO2, % of VO2 that is sustainable, and running economy etc. This has been modelled numerous times by Michael Joyner/Andy Jones etc., and applied to the Nike Breaking 2 projects.
Yep, many of us will have first hand experience of this. e.g. I had my VO2max measured in low 70s and was never going to be anything approaching world class!
The TL;DR version of this is... Looks like I'm not an oaf after all.
Re: the VO2 of Shorter - I was just using it as an example based on the old adage, rather than having seen the data myself. That said - 71 is not "that high" for a runner. The point is - you can't predict a runners success based on VO2 alone. Rather its a combination of VO2, % of VO2 that is sustainable, and running economy etc. This has been modelled numerous times by Michael Joyner/Andy Jones etc., and applied to the Nike Breaking 2 projects.
Yep, many of us will have first hand experience of this. e.g. I had my VO2max measured in low 70s and was never going to be anything approaching world class!
Me neither. I don't know Shorter's 400 speed back in the day, but I will wager he was a bit faster than me.
We do know about Kipchoge's finishing speed, outkicking El Gerrouj and Bekele in the world championships 5000 in 2003.
Help us build the best running shoe review site for a chance to win a LetsRun t-shirt.Help us build the best running shoe review site for a chance to win one of 10 LetsRun t-shirts.