Here's Jon, hammering away on another thread, this time under the name 'train smart'
Here's Jon, hammering away on another thread, this time under the name 'train smart'
rekrunner wrote:
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.
Concept as in a philosophical idea. That's what 'PEDs' is an idea, not a fact.
You continue to say that the runner with a 68 ml/kg/min running 3 hours is unbelievable. That is complete nonsense. What about Lance Armstrong in his first marathon: 2.59.36 And he had previous running experience?
Lance's VO2 max would have been over 70 at the time, taking his extra weight into account.
rekrunner wrote:
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.
Daniels' research shows no such thing. Don't make stuff up. His great breakthroughs in the late 60s/early 70s are still misunderstood by people like you who claim to know otherwise. That is why you don't understand the VDOT concept. It ascribes a generic economy in the numbers. However running economy is specific to the individual not generic. You don't seem to grasp this point in relation to his VDOT table.
Mr. Obvious wrote:
Here's a thread in which jono claims false academic credentials:
I have a Ph.D. in exercise physiology and a M.S. in applied kinesiology.
He has no such thing, as he has admitted in this thread. Note that he posts under multiple different names in the thread as well. He will probably refer to me as a stalker again, but it is called accountability:
http://www.letsrun.com/forum/flat_read.php?thread=1994888&page=2
That wasn't me you clown. I neve made any such claim. It was probably you.
You are obsessed with me, seeking out these threads. You are just obsessed with me. You and fred really need to get a life of your own.
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.
You're wasting your time on these idiot trolls. They will argue that black is white and white is black just for the hell of it.
Looks like there his moniker was hijacked, and someone else made the false credentials claim.
Mr. Obvious wrote:
Here's a thread in which jono claims false academic credentials:
I have a Ph.D. in exercise physiology and a M.S. in applied kinesiology.
He has no such thing, as he has admitted in this thread. Note that he posts under multiple different names in the thread as well. He will probably refer to me as a stalker again, but it is called accountability:
http://www.letsrun.com/forum/flat_read.php?thread=1994888&page=2
Yes, thank you rekrunner. We may argue, but you aren't a lying, stalking psychopath like those two.
PHD wrote:
A horse actually can know it is being doped but it learns of the effect by experience rather than being told.
Which proves that doping works that way rather than through "belief".
A real PhD would know that you don't misuse the word proves like that.
Jon Orange wrote:
PHD wrote:A horse actually can know it is being doped but it learns of the effect by experience rather than being told.
Which proves that doping works that way rather than through "belief".
A real PhD would know that you don't misuse the word proves like that.
A guy with no schooling would know that he can't prove ANYTHING.
Aragon wrote:
rekrunner wrote:VO2max maxes quite quickly (I say ~1-2 years). LT threshold will also plateau, but less quickly (I say ~5 years). Thereafter, long term improvements can still come basically for the rest of your career, from "non-oxygen" sources. This is the point where oxygen vector drugs have much less effect, if any at all. Luckily these improvements come anyway, without changing training drastically, or being aware that the source of improvement is no longer connected to oxygen.
Not having followed this thread too closely, to the defence of J.O. it must be said, that there is definitely more than something in the notion that most improvements of endurance athletes after a few years of exercise do come from non-oxygen uptake related factors.
There is a plenty of evidence for this. Perhaps for most LR-readers this is old (revised?) information, but most of the improvement of Paula Radcliffe came from this non oxygen delivery source. Here is an interesting quotation from a 2006 research paper on the master runner:
http://multi-science.atypon.com/doi/pdf/10.1260/174795406777641258Vo2MAX has remained relatively stable at approximately 70 mL x kg-1 x min-1 between 1992 (when PR was 18 years of age) until 2003 (when she was 29 years of age)...
[T]he O2 cost of running at 16 km/h expressed in units of mL x kg-1 x km-1, has decreased markedly between 1992 (when it was approximately 205 mL x kg-1 x km-1) and 2003 (when it was approximately 175 mL x kg-1 x km-1), with this representing a 15 % improvement in RE [=running economy]. This improvement in RE shows no sign of abating; most recently, RE was measured at 165 mL x kg-1 x km-1... It appears, therefore, that the physiological adaptations which permit a reduction in the O2 cost of sub-maximal exercise are the key to continued improvements in endurance exercise performance over the longer term.
Unfortunately, the letsrun trolls don't accept such evidence on behalf of Paula. They have this fantasy that she must have doped to run 2.15.25
It's beyond their limited understanding to grasp that she had superior speed endurance to any female marathon runner. To them that can only be achieved with illegal means.
The whole PED concept is nonsense. Runners still have to produce sustained power through the feet and ankles. There is no drug to give you that skill.
Why don't runners understand that running is a skill?
Jon Orange wrote:
You are obsessed with me, seeking out these threads. You are just obsessed with me. You and fred really need to get a life of your own.
You are the one who has tried to argue the same old crap for 13 years. You
take a beating on a thread, then start the same thread 4 months later.
So who doesn't have a life, Jon?
Jon Orange wrote:
The whole PED concept is nonsense. Runners still have to produce sustained power through the feet and ankles. There is no drug to give you that skill.
Why don't runners understand that running is a skill?
We do but we also understand that the larger the engine powering said skill the better it will be.
Why can't you understand that?
You also said "VDOT concept".Did you look at your own "economy review" paper as instructed? Tell me where your 3 hour runner fits inside of Table 1.VO2max, like economy, varies by sport. Do you think Lance's "running" VO2max was also over 70 ml/kg/min?Do you think his VO2 usage in the marathon was 59.5 ml/kg/min (85%)?Do you think with training, he could improve his economy, perhaps up to the Daniels "generic" one, and run a 2:23? Maybe even 2:15 if he lost weight?Lance was a big disciple of the PED concept, especially with oxygen vector drugs and procedures.The fact remains, you claimed Daniels graphs supports your other claim about elites and higher economy and lower oxygen, despite a faster pace. You picked a RELATIVE intensity curve showing fractional utilization of VO2max (independent of economy) and two imaginary runners, one with off the scale poor economy, to illustrate that, in this exceptional case, the slow fat one uses ABSOLUTELY more oxygen, than the faster leaner one. For such an important universal statement, seemingly essential to disprove the PED concept once and for all, don't you think you should do better than attempting to generalize from an obviously hand picked biased exception? I mean, two can play that game. Suppose I were inclined to equally prove the opposite claim, and I sensibly picked a 53.5 VO2max 63.5 kilo runner. Then the elite runner uses MORE oxygen. There's no limit to what you can show when your boundary is your imagination.
Jon Orange wrote:
rekrunner wrote: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.
Concept as in a philosophical idea. That's what 'PEDs' is an idea, not a fact.
You continue to say that the runner with a 68 ml/kg/min running 3 hours is unbelievable. That is complete nonsense. What about Lance Armstrong in his first marathon: 2.59.36 And he had previous running experience?
Lance's VO2 max would have been over 70 at the time, taking his extra weight into account.
rekrunner, you'll be labelled a psychopathic troll if you keep up with that sort of logical evidence.
Jon Orange wrote:
The whole PED concept is nonsense. Runners still have to produce sustained power through the feet and ankles. There is no drug to give you that skill.
Why don't runners understand that running is a skill?
What about the drugs that increase efficiency through weight loss?
What about drugs that increase neuro-muscular stimulation?
You've said in this thread that a lighter runner is more efficient. You've also said that adrenaline is the key feedback mechanism.
We have drugs that help runners lose weight. We have drugs that mimic the effects of adrenaline.
Not all drugs work on the "bigger engine" model.
Mr. Obvious wrote:
Jon Orange wrote:The whole PED concept is nonsense. Runners still have to produce sustained power through the feet and ankles. There is no drug to give you that skill.
Why don't runners understand that running is a skill?
What about the drugs that increase efficiency through weight loss?
What about drugs that increase neuro-muscular stimulation?
You've said in this thread that a lighter runner is more efficient. You've also said that adrenaline is the key feedback mechanism.
We have drugs that help runners lose weight. We have drugs that mimic the effects of adrenaline.
Not all drugs work on the "bigger engine" model.
True but the bigger engine is the key. Even Jon's 2:06 800 speed is enough to run at WR Marathon pace but alas his 2 stroke moped engine wasn't up to the task.
He had marvellously strong feet though.
Did you look at the "Oxygen Power" link I provided, written by Daniels and Gilbert, from 1979?http://s3.amazonaws.com/zanran_storage/www.canibaisereis.com/ContentPages/2466959967.pdfDaniels tells us:"The difference between the better runner and the not-so-good runner would be in the maximum rate of oxygen consumption which could be reached by each; the better athlete would be able to go faster because of a better maximum rate of energy expenditure being available. What this boils down to is that there is quite a predictable relationship between running velocity and the energy demands of running."This VO2/velocity relation is independent of the runner's level:"However, the total energy expenditure for the (8:00) mile run would be about the same for each runner; even the per-second oxygen consumption (a measure of energy expended) could be identical for both."Figure 1 shows how VO2 is reliably predictable from velocity.For a 2 hour marathon, velocity is 351.6 m/min and VO2 is 72.34 ml/kg/minFor a 3 hour marathon, velocity is 234.4 m/min and VO2 is 43.84 ml/kg/minThe faster runner absolutely consumes about 65% more VO2 in ml/kg/min.The faster runner absolutely consumes about 10% more VO2 in ml/kg.The runners consume the same VO2 when the slower one weighs 10% more.This is straight from Daniels and Gilbert -- I'm not making anything up. This isn't VDOT, but VO2.Please show me Daniels' other research on economy, that tells me how economy is distributed for different calibers of athletes.
Jon Orange wrote:
Daniels' research shows no such thing. Don't make stuff up. His great breakthroughs in the late 60s/early 70s are still misunderstood by people like you who claim to know otherwise. That is why you don't understand the VDOT concept. It ascribes a generic economy in the numbers. However running economy is specific to the individual not generic. You don't seem to grasp this point in relation to his VDOT table.
Interestingly Daniels also says (same source):"Running is primarily a conditioning sport. It is not a skill sport as is basketball or handball or, to a certain extent, swimming where technique is of primary importance."
Jon Orange wrote:
The whole PED concept is nonsense. Runners still have to produce sustained power through the feet and ankles. There is no drug to give you that skill.
Why don't runners understand that running is a skill?
At the end of the day, I don't hate you, and I admire your enthusiasm, even if one (or maybe both) of us misunderstands the science.I actually agree about 75% with your views on PED concepts, but think that drugs can work, especially for women in strength events and mid distance. I think no drug has yet been proven or reliably observed as effective for the marathon (and economy plays a fundamental role for that view), despite the handful of positives that have occured.I would love for you to "prove me" wrong, so long as there is a proof. Like an ideal scientist, being wrong is part of progress, and I don't mind changing my mind 180 degrees later based on new facts and a good argument.
Jon Orange wrote:
Yes, thank you rekrunner. We may argue, but you aren't a lying, stalking psychopath like those two.