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

Mr. Obvious wrote:

blah blah

Jon Orange wrote:

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.

They already have one, same person.

just don't hold me to the 75% number

Clerk wrote:

Don't feed the trolls. They have been shown to post nothing of value, post nothing to back up their claims, and to avoid truths and logical conclusions. Just realize that Mr. Obvious, aka fred, Clerk, skilsaw etc, nas no character and keeps sinking lower in the mud.

[I'm not going to copy and past this every time someone responds to him, from now on because it's so obvious that anyone already sees it anyway.]

Anyone know of a link that isn't behind a pay wall showing a scatterplot of 3k time vs VO2max for a broad range of skill levels? 3k, 5k, 1500m times or average speeds or whatever. I believe such a plot show that Jon's slow, high VO2max runner is a rare breed.

test2 wrote:

Anyone know of a link that isn't behind a pay wall showing a scatterplot of 3k time vs VO2max for a broad range of skill levels? 3k, 5k, 1500m times or average speeds or whatever. I believe such a plot show that Jon's slow, high VO2max runner is a rare breed.

The faster you go, the higher your VO2, because the work output is higher.

The more inefficient you are at a given speed, the higher your VO2 at that speed, also because the work output is higher, but being more inefficient makes it harder to run fast.

Secret Plots wrote:

test2 wrote:

Anyone know of a link that isn't behind a pay wall showing a scatterplot of 3k time vs VO2max for a broad range of skill levels? 3k, 5k, 1500m times or average speeds or whatever. I believe such a plot show that Jon's slow, high VO2max runner is a rare breed.

The faster you go, the higher your VO2, because the work output is higher.

The more inefficient you are at a given speed, the higher your VO2 at that speed, also because the work output is higher, but being more inefficient makes it harder to run fast.

Agreed. I'm just having trouble finding a scatter plot that demonstrates this that I could link to. I never thought much about pay walls when I was in school but they make it hard for curious people to keep learning when they are out in working world.

test2 wrote:

Anyone know of a link that isn't behind a pay wall showing a scatterplot of 3k time vs VO2max for a broad range of skill levels? 3k, 5k, 1500m times or average speeds or whatever. I believe such a plot show that Jon's slow, high VO2max runner is a rare breed.

NOt a scatterplot, but this is an interesting abstract about 3k and VO2Max (and a number of other variable) which relates all of those variables to speed. Interesting conclusion for this discussion: Neither VO2 max nor running economy was strongly correlated with v-3km

There are lots of studies which show a relationship between VO2Max and running performance. Though it is not the best predictor, it is a relevant predictor (somewhere around r^2=.6 from what I can see). Running economy is also a relevant predictor.

Jon's low-VO2, high economy runner is a joke. His most frequent examples of this are Frank Shorter or Derek Clayton. Both of them had VO2Max of somewhere around 69-70. He is right that this is a "relatively" low number, but that number is relative to the population of elite distance runners. If you compare Shorter or Clayton to the entire population then you would come to the conclusion that both of them had very large aerobic engines.

Great runners, as a tendency, will have both a large engine and very good economy.

Came across that one in my search too... Rsq of 0.6 isn't nothing. I think the evidence might come across as more convincing in graph form. Just an aside, but there's an old SI article where Kenny Moore describes the treadmill test where Pre and Shorter (with essentially equal 5 and 10k times) put up such different VO2max numbers: "Shorter hated the test and stepped off after seven minutes, saying later, 'You know how Pollack teaches you hand signals...--well, at the end there I was ready to give him a hand signal everybody knows." He describes Pre thus "On the treadmill he was transformed. He drew his arms up high...visibly fighting the machine, raging against it the final minute." I wonder sometimes how much of the famed Pre/Shorter VO2max difference is an artefact of differing levels of motivation on that day.

Those tests from 45 years ago should have been from several accumulated tests.

Test Shorter in a race. Test anybody in a race and they'll likely do better than they do on a treadmill.

test2 wrote:

Came across that one in my search too... Rsq of 0.6 isn't nothing. I think the evidence might come across as more convincing in graph form. Just an aside, but there's an old SI article where Kenny Moore describes the treadmill test where Pre and Shorter (with essentially equal 5 and 10k times) put up such different VO2max numbers: "Shorter hated the test and stepped off after seven minutes, saying later, 'You know how Pollack teaches you hand signals...--well, at the end there I was ready to give him a hand signal everybody knows." He describes Pre thus "On the treadmill he was transformed. He drew his arms up high...visibly fighting the machine, raging against it the final minute." I wonder sometimes how much of the famed Pre/Shorter VO2max difference is an artefact of differing levels of motivation on that day.

Interesting, I have never heard that story. It is not insignificant to me that Jono's two examples are also marathon runners, where the combination of (relatively) low VO2 and high efficiency is most likely to pay dividends...

No, an Rsq of .6 is actually pretty significant correlation. It means (and I used this example previously) that if you take a group of say, 16 minute 5k runners, they could have a wide variety of VO2 levels. If however, you take two groups, one of 13 minute 5k ability, and one of 20 minute 5k ability, you are going to see pretty much zero overlap in their VO2Max ability. The 13 min would overlap some with the 14 minute runners, and the 20 minute runners would overlap some with 18 minute or 22 minute runners.

Elite runners are oing to have both large engines and good efficiency.

Skilsaw wrote:

Those tests from 45 years ago should have been from several accumulated tests.

Test Shorter in a race. Test anybody in a race and they'll likely do better than they do on a treadmill.

It may have been othewise but the article makes it sound like those tests were one-off. Pre died 5-months later. That's likely the only VO2max test he took. I don't know about Shorter.

Mr. Obvious wrote:

If however, you take two groups, one of 13 minute 5k ability, and one of 20 minute 5k ability, you are going to see pretty much zero overlap in their VO2Max ability. The 13 min would overlap some with the 14 minute runners, and the 20 minute runners would overlap some with 18 minute or 22 minute runners.

13 min runners run faster, due to their better efficiency, which results in greater work output.

Having a large engine doesn't mean the engine is efficient, and most often the contrary is the case.

Virtually anyone can run at 13 minute 5km pace. It takes a huge engine to sustain it though.

True

Mr. Duh ~ wrote:

Mr. Obvious wrote:

If however, you take two groups, one of 13 minute 5k ability, and one of 20 minute 5k ability, you are going to see pretty much zero overlap in their VO2Max ability. The 13 min would overlap some with the 14 minute runners, and the 20 minute runners would overlap some with 18 minute or 22 minute runners.

13 min runners run faster, due to their better efficiency, which results in greater work output.

Having a large engine doesn't mean the engine is efficient, and most often the contrary is the case.

Mr. Duh ~ wrote:

Having a large engine doesn't mean the engine is efficient, and most often the contrary is the case.

What exactly does this mean in molecular terms.

And please don't try to explain it using other clichés.

RUNNING PREDICTS RUNNING BETTER THAN PHYSIOLOGY

Noakes, T. D., Myburgh, K. H., & Schall, R. (1990). Peak treadmill running velocity during VO2max test predicts running performance. Journal of Sports Sciences, 8, 35-45.

Marathon runners (N = 20) and ultra-marathoners (N = 23) were tested for VO2max, peak treadmill running velocity, velocity at lactate turnpoint, and VO2 at 16 km/h using an incremental (1 min) treadmill test.

Results. Race times at 10, 21.1, and 42.2 km of the specialist marathoners were faster than those of the ultra-marathoners, however, only the 10 km time differed significantly. Lactate turnpoint occurred at 77.4% of VO2max and at 74.7% of peak treadmill velocity. The average VO2 at 16 km/h was 51.2 ml/kg/min which represented 78.5% of VO2max.

For all distances, performance time in other races was the best predictor of performance (r = .95 to .98).

The best laboratory predictors were: (a) peak treadmill running velocity (r = -.89 to -.94); (b) running velocity at lactate turnpoint (r = -.91 to -.93); and (c) fractional use of VO2max at 16 km/h (r = .86 to .90). The predictive value of the lactate turnpoint measure increased as the distance increased.

The poorest predictors were: VO2max (r = -.55 to -.81) and VO2 at 16 km/h (r = .40 to .45).

Conclusion. There may be no unique physiological characteristics that distinguish elite long-distance (10 km or longer) runners as is often promoted. Other factors determine success in high level sports among exclusive groups of superior athletes.

Implication. Running performance is the best predictor of running capability in elite long-distance runners. Physiological laboratory testing gives less information than does actual performance. Even the fastest speed of running on the treadmill is a better predictor than any physiological measure. This suggests that for at least endurance-dominated sports, actual performances in a variety of performance-specific situations will give more useful information than that which can be obtained in any physiology laboratory test.

test2 wrote:

True

Mr. Duh ~ wrote:

13 min runners run faster, due to their better efficiency, which results in greater work output.

Having a large engine doesn't mean the engine is efficient, and most often the contrary is the case.

I didn't say "True" to this.

Yes we know that running performance indicates running ability but testing after the fact reveals that they have huge engines.

We are not talking about using numbers as a predictor.

Too late -- you are a life member now.

test2 wrote:

just don't hold me to the 75% number