So, let's just post some evidence in this thread. Here is a study of 22 elite male distance runners (defined as training for the 1994? [I am confused by this] Olympic trials).
I'm actually just taking the absolute VO2Max portion of the study for purposes of this thread. So what they found is among 22 male distance runners, the average VO2Max was 75.8 +/- 3.4 ml/kg/m.
So, what they found among these runners is that as a group, they had quite large engines...
rekrunner wrote:
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.
We know the drugs work.
Ok, since you said please. Manners go a long way with me.
Riddler Returns wrote:
Riddler Returns wrote:I came back to post a couple things to get Jon thinking again.
Could you just use your own name please?
Bingo!
Paula Ruggercliff wrote:
rekrunner wrote: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.
We know the drugs work.
That was a classic thread. Brutal trying to read more than a page or two though.
Jon is caught in this loop of saying that numbers are disempowering to athletes and then he says beyond a certain number is "impossible".
What are your numbers, Jon?
Most people don't actually know and they still come nowhere close to elite, you are one of those people.
The bottom line is that it is ultimately numbers that tell you the cold hard truth.
I believe in the value of technique and efficiency and keep on my athletes constantly to be relaxed and efficient. The extra couple of seconds per mile it affects can make the difference in a close race.
Abeba Aregawi, a 3:56 female middle distance runner, tests positive for Meldonium.
"To date, substances such as Mildronate (Meldonium) are not on the radar of anti-doping laboratories as the compound is not explicitly classified as prohibited. However, the anti-ischemic drug Mildronate demonstrates an increase in endurance performance of athletes, improved rehabilitation after exercise, protection against stress, and enhanced activations of central nervous system (CNS) functions."
Enhanced activation of the CNS could lead to greater neuromuscular efficiency.
Jon Lemmon wrote:
I believe in the value of technique and efficiency and keep on my athletes constantly to be relaxed and efficient. The extra couple of seconds per mile it affects can make the difference in a close race.
Any of your female athletes run sub 4 for 15?
The one they are still using.
Roidvisor:
"Telmisartan has been used by endurance athletes as an alternative to the banned substances AICAR and GW1516. It is also a relatively safe and non-toxic drug used by athletes in dosages of 80-160 mg/day in divided dosages. The latter two drugs have been banned. Telmisartan has been shown to act by a similar mechanism. Specifically, telmisartan promises to enhance running ability, increase fat burning ability, reduce lactic acid formation and enhance recovery from exercise. However, its actual performance-enhancing effects remain the subject of debate."
Jon Orange wrote:
I'M IGNORING YOU BECAUSE YOU ARE A CRAZY STALKER. I will not post any more answers to you. Have a nice life.
Good idea.
He's oblivious to the truth.
I think I'm most confused by your usage of the word "concept".Look at your own link to the "economy" review. Your imaginary 3-hour 68 VO2max recreational runner is off the scale.Your answer was basically "Imagine a fast economic runner and a slow uneconomic runner. See? This shows that elites use less oxygen."I never really thought one way or another about a "bigger engine concept", until now when you told me to look at Daniels' graphs, and do some simple arithmetic. I saw Daniels' explicit conclusion that oxygen usage increases predictably with velocity -- something you conceded no one disputes.
Jon Orange wrote:
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.
In physiology, efficiency and economy co-exist with and complement aerobic development. The dogma can also be found in the textbook you read.Daniels' research shows us that FASTER RUNNERS USE MORE OXYGEN.
Jon Orange wrote:
So what friendly advice can you give me rekrunner? I explain things to you over and over. Finally, after several years, you get some of them. As time goes on and I explain more things, the same process repeats. These are actually very simple concepts to understand, really very simple. However, since they are the opposite of what you have been taught and discussed over decades, they are hard for you and others to accept.
But I assure you, these are really basic physiological concepts. I provide links which nobody reads. I give evidence that people can't accept.
This is the real problem with sports science, drowning in dogma and ignorance, not because it's too complicated to learn, but because old beliefs die hard.
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.
JTup
"Drop by sometime and I will explain the whole thing to you because it sounds like something went over your head. Sorry if it isn't clear."
That's funny.
fred wrote:
Enhanced activation of the CNS could lead to greater neuromuscular efficiency.
Certainly not working in your case.
rekrunner wrote:
Daniels' research shows us that FASTER RUNNERS USE MORE OXYGEN.
VO2 is the result of work output.
Anyone uses more oxygen to run faster, because work output is higher.
Faster runners only use more oxygen then others when they are running significantly faster, but they use LESS oxygen when running the same speeds, because their efficiency is much greater.
Theoretically but wrote:
fred wrote:Enhanced activation of the CNS could lead to greater neuromuscular efficiency.
Certainly not working in your case.
Maybe because he's 40 years past his prime?
You are stupid wrote:
rekrunner wrote:Daniels' research shows us that FASTER RUNNERS USE MORE OXYGEN.
VO2 is the result of work output.
Anyone uses more oxygen to run faster, because work output is higher.
Faster runners only use more oxygen then others when they are running significantly faster, but they use LESS oxygen when running the same speeds, because their efficiency is much greater.
Then others? Than.
The point is that they ARE running faster. The "same speed" comparison is irrelevant.
Ok thanks. I thought VO2 was an input. My bad. In races, faster runners don't run the same speed, they run faster. This could be due to better economy.
You are stupid wrote:
rekrunner wrote:Daniels' research shows us that FASTER RUNNERS USE MORE OXYGEN.
VO2 is the result of work output.
Anyone uses more oxygen to run faster, because work output is higher.
Faster runners only use more oxygen then others when they are running significantly faster, but they use LESS oxygen when running the same speeds, because their efficiency is much greater.