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

2:04 all out or cruising a 2:12. Which uses more oxygen?

The slower run uses about 5% more oxygen in total and about 1% less in intensity.

This is why efficiency makes the difference in race times. But it is the opposite of what you actually believe.

The problem is, you won't accept it, because you have been taught a certain way and you cling to that belief.

FASTER RUNNERS """""""DO NOT""""""" USE LESS ENERGY TO RACE THAN SLOWERS RUNNERS. They are simply moving faster due to genetics, not better economy. Some, yes, but it's not a blanket statement. You need to go back to school.

nope, you are clinging to a belief that you've been taught, and you won't accept that YOU'RE wrong.

Jon Orange wrote:

The slower run uses about 5% more oxygen in total and about 1% less in intensity.

This is why efficiency makes the difference in race times. But it is the opposite of what you actually believe.

The problem is, you won't accept it, because you have been taught a certain way and you cling to that belief.

Jon Orange wrote:

The slower run uses about 5% more oxygen in total and about 1% less in intensity.

This is why efficiency makes the difference in race times. But it is the opposite of what you actually believe.

The problem is, you won't accept it, because you have been taught a certain way and you cling to that belief.

And what happens when you up intensity?

Note that the above post was not actually mine.

Jon Orange wrote:

But you are confused by the VDOT concept. You showed it in your post.

You are confused by the VDOT concept. Jack Daniels himself said so. He offered for you to drop by so that he could explain it to you. That was a very gracious and generous offer, which I am sure most of the board would be happy if you took up.

Do you need me to post the link for you?

Jon Orange wrote:

Rich Porter wrote:

Do you think lance Armstrong could have won his 7 TDF titles totally clean?

Yes, but he doesn't. Do you know that his power outputs are actually the sa clme as athletes with normal hematocrits? And he never went over 6mmols lactate even in tests of 2 minutesimbing @ 9 per cent at over 7 watts per kilo, which Ferrari couldn't understand.

The tour is not about single performances its about 22 days of work. Not having to pull or go for the win each day is how GC riders demonstrate their strength. And why wouldn't they all have normal hematocrits? EPO was about preservation of the number over the race distance. - 22 days.

Domestiques sit up early and only work for sections. GC riders sit in as long as they are able and only put the hammer down when they strategically or tactically have to.

You're postulations are irrelevant

Jon Orange wrote:

The fact of the matter is simple. FASTER RUNNERS USE LESS ENERGY TO RACE THAN SLOWER RUNNERS.

'Running Economy' is just another way of saying the same thing. However, the 'bigger engine' model rules peoples' belief. So they put elite athletes on an unatainable pedestal, and invent this so called 'Performance Enhancing Drugs' mythology to re-inforce their belief.

If you can understand the concept of efficiency, you will see through the dogma.

Jon,

Not all performance enhancing drugs work on the same mechanism. If, which is a very big if, we granted that everything you say about efficiency is correct, then there are still drugs such as steroids, which do not work to create a bigger engine. they work to create more force production, which is just one way to increase efficiency. There are also drugs targeted at creating weight loss. You say yourself, in this thread, that leaner runners are more efficient.

Why do you push cytomel, insulin, thyroid, and anabolic steroid use?

Riddler Returns wrote:

Jon Orange wrote:

The slower run uses about 5% more oxygen in total and about 1% less in intensity.

This is why efficiency makes the difference in race times. But it is the opposite of what you actually believe.

The problem is, you won't accept it, because you have been taught a certain way and you cling to that belief.

And what happens when you up intensity?

Note that the above post was not actually mine.

Ok thanks. The personality disorder nutjobs are posting under various names and projecting their mental illness onto me. They will do it to you too, but just ignore them.

I have only posted under one name on this thread, my real name.

What happens when you up the intensity? Isn't that just the same question as you asked before, but in a different way?

Jon Orange wrote:

Riddler Returns wrote:

And what happens when you up intensity?

Note that the above post was not actually mine.

Ok thanks. The personality disorder nutjobs are posting under various names and projecting their mental illness onto me. They will do it to you too, but just ignore them.

I have only posted under one name on this thread, my real name.

What happens when you up the intensity? Isn't that just the same question as you asked before, but in a different way?

Maybe. Does their O2 consumption rate rise rise as they increase the pace from 2:12-2:04?

Jon, have you ever had your vo2 max measured?

Jon, I want to believe you.

It sounds like I need to work on my Running Economy more(?) than my "engine". Can you give me some ways to improve my Running Economy? (Please forgive me if you have posted this elsewhere; it is a very long thread.)

I already answered that question. Yes, according to Dr Daniels research it's about 1% If we assume that the 2.04 runner could hold the 2.12 pace for about 3 hours in a longer race.

thejeff wrote:

Jon, I want to believe you.

It sounds like I need to work on my Running Economy more(?) than my "engine". Can you give me some ways to improve my Running Economy? (Please forgive me if you have posted this elsewhere; it is a very long thread.)

Try running slowly up a steep grass slope with a very springy action, where you get the biggest range of movement possible in both feet and ankles without compromising your natural running style. Stop each effort before you get tired, walk/jog down, repeat several times. It's important not to stoop or lean your head forward and to keep the hips forward too.

You should feel that the potential for doing this on a flat surface will greatly improve your running, because this is elastic energy return you are trying to maximize and it's free energy, it has no oxygen or glycogen cost. It take a lot of practise and lots of miles to improve this, and you could improve for years even if you are already past your supposed prime years.

Elite runners do this when they run super fast times. It is a myth that they have super developed aerobic or anaerobic systems. Most runners have a huge amount of untapped talent. This was Lydiard's philosophy and mine too. However Lydiard got some of the physiological details wrong. That doesn't matter too much. If you could combine Lydiard's philosophy with Daniels' research.......

Maybe I should start another thread? Will that make me even more popular?

.

Jon Orange wrote:

I already answered that question. Yes, according to Dr Daniels research it's about 1% If we assume that the 2.04 runner could hold the 2.12 pace for about 3 hours in a longer race.

Therefore running faster requires a higher rate of oxygen consumption...

Mr. Obvious wrote:

Daniels Jackie wrote:

Jon would never take him up on that offer, as then he'd be proven wrong. Apparently, if he makes a post, it's gospel. Jon has many disorders and is very confused.

He apparently will not answer any of my questions. Here they are in consolidated fashion:

1. Does he want me to post the link where VDOT is explained clearly to him?

2. Why does he promote the use of steroids and weight loss performance enhancing drugs through his efficiency model of performance?

3. Does he believe there is any relationship between VO2Max and running performance?

I'M IGNORING YOU BECAUSE YOU ARE A CRAZY STALKER. I will not post any more answers to you. Have a nice life.

Riddler Returns wrote:

Jon Orange wrote:

I already answered that question. Yes, according to Dr Daniels research it's about 1% If we assume that the 2.04 runner could hold the 2.12 pace for about 3 hours in a longer race.

Therefore running faster requires a higher rate of oxygen consumption...

You're missing the point. No, faster runners are more economical with oxygen.

But you just said that the runner requires more to run faster.

Jon, Here is some food for thought:

http://austhrutime.com/kangaroos_hopping.htm