True
test2 wrote:
test2 wrote:True
I didn't say "True" to this.
True
test2 wrote:
test2 wrote:True
I didn't say "True" to this.
fred wrote:
Here's the basis of Jon's " theories "
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hgOx8w_3Bzw
You posted a cartoon link. Such an ignorant troll you are.
You have no credibility and Jon Orange is right.
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.
Correct.
Skilsaw 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?
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're missing the point.
rekrunner wrote:
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: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.
You're making stuff up again. Why wouldn't Lance have been a decent marathon runner if he had chosen that path instead? He would have run a fast time, maybe not super elite, who knows? But a very fast time.
Of course his running VO2 max was over 70 when he ran his first marathon. And it would have been much higher if he was a skinny as when he was cycling, well over 80
You are still making this ridiculous claim that a 3 hour marathon is way off the scale for a 68 VO2 max. No it's not, neither is a 78 VO2 max. It often takes years of training to just run sub 3. My first was 2.52 aged 34 and I ran 2.29 aged 40. I had to be in decent running shape to run 2.52 and that took a lot of training.
And why did you pick a 53.5 VO2 max for a 63.5 kilo runner? To run what time? 2 hours for a marathon? Yes that would be off the scale. You're making stuff up out of desperation. I chose realistic numbers. You don't understand the concepts.
Jon Orange wrote:
You're making stuff up again. Why wouldn't Lance have been a decent marathon runner if he had chosen that path instead? He would have run a fast time, maybe not super elite, who knows? But a very fast time.
Of course his running VO2 max was over 70 when he ran his first marathon. And it would have been much higher if he was a skinny as when he was cycling, well over 80
You are still making this ridiculous claim that a 3 hour marathon is way off the scale for a 68 VO2 max. No it's not, neither is a 78 VO2 max. It often takes years of training to just run sub 3. My first was 2.52 aged 34 and I ran 2.29 aged 40. I had to be in decent running shape to run 2.52 and that took a lot of training.
And why did you pick a 53.5 VO2 max for a 63.5 kilo runner? To run what time? 2 hours for a marathon? Yes that would be off the scale. You're making stuff up out of desperation. I chose realistic numbers. You don't understand the concepts.
How do you know what Lance's VO2Max was at the time of his New York City marathon? Did you measure it?
How do you know you are choosing realistic numbers? Are the real life examples?
When Lance was not in hard training his VO2 was well below 70. It was around 65 then.
Lance wasn't in great shape for his first so that lines up nicely with his low VO2 when slacking.
rekrunner wrote:
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/min
For a 3 hour marathon, velocity is 234.4 m/min and VO2 is 43.84 ml/kg/min
The 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.
Oh dear, that paper is full of nonsense. Running is not a skill sport it is a conditioning sport???? What the heck did he think the conditioning was????
The first figure shows a generic economy curve. There is no generic economy, economy is specific. So, no a fast runner with excellent economy does not use the same amount of energy as a slow runner with a similar oxgyen uptake. If that was true, then elite runners wouldn't have to train and they would never become slow runners. And slow runners couldn't become fast runners.
Did you read the paper I posted to you? I have posted the link several times now. Does anyone actually read it?
A few years ago JD gave the example here of a 4 minutel miler using the same energy jogging an 8 minute mile as racing a 4 minute mile. I had this argument with JD himself. He was missing out the anaerobic component wasn't he? A huge difference in energy output.
That paper contradicts his own research. I hope he no longer stands by it?
Sub 2:19 Women
1 2:15:25 Paula Radcliffe GBR 17.12.73 1 London 13.04.2003
2 2:17:18 Paula Radcliffe GBR 17.12.73 1 Chicago 13.10.2002
3 2:17:42 Paula Radcliffe GBR 17.12.73 1 London 17.04.2005
* * 2:18:20 Liliya Shobukhova
4 2:18:37 Mary Keitany KEN 18.01.82 1 London 22.04.2012
5 2:18:47 Catherine N'dereba KEN 21.07.72 1 Chicago 07.10.2001
6 2:18:56 Paula Radcliffe GBR 17.12.73 1 London
**** 7 2:18:57a Rita Sitienei Jeptoo KEN 15.02.81 1 Boston 21.04.2014
8 2:18:58 Tiki Gelana ETH 22.10.87 1 Rotterdam 15.04.2012
Jeptoo and Shobukhova caught. Radcliffe with 3 high values.
3 other Africans.
rekrunner wrote:
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.
Okay, thanks rekrunner. I am reading through the thread and replying to each of your posts one by one. I am sure we can eventually come to some reasonable conclusion. I can now see where the discrepancy lies, in the lack of understanding on JD's part of bio-mechanics and neural conditioning. That's why I say that PhDs have a tunnel visionary fixation on their own thesis and don't see the big picture.
test2 wrote:
just don't hold me to the 75% number
I takes time. I sent wejo an email about this last year saying he will maybe get it in 20 years time? I don't think he saw it though, but he did reply to another one I sent him in December on the Paula Radcliffe debate.
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.
Exactly. I don't know why people don't understand this? The sport is so full of mythology, hence the stupid drug obsession.
Jon, how much race pace specific running did you do per event?
fizzy ologee wrote:
Mr. Obvious wrote: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
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9293417There 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.
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.
Yes. Noakes turned fizzyology on it's head when he dared to introduce the neural component into the science. Of course he didn't claim that the Central Governor Hypothesis was his, he gave credit to A.V. Hill who wrote about this in 1924. But where did Hill get the idea from?
Neuroscience started in about 1800, maybe earlier. Neuromuscual co-ordination was first hypothesized in publication probably around 1865?
Jon Orange wrote:
A few years ago JD gave the example here of a 4 minutel miler using the same energy jogging an 8 minute mile as racing a 4 minute mile. I had this argument with JD himself. He was missing out the anaerobic component wasn't he? A huge difference in energy output.
Are you saying it requires more energy to go faster?
Mr. Obvious wrote:
Jon Orange wrote:Correct.
It's funny that JonO is trolling his own thread under multiple names.
Jon,
Let's look at the example above. Are you stating the slower group of runners in my example (the 20 minute runners) would have a higher VO2Max than the 13 minute runners?
Both you and fred can fukc off with the false accusations. I have posted on this thread under one name only. You are just desperate, both of you. You both have a personality disorder.
wait a sec wrote:
Jon Orange wrote:A few years ago JD gave the example here of a 4 minutel miler using the same energy jogging an 8 minute mile as racing a 4 minute mile. I had this argument with JD himself. He was missing out the anaerobic component wasn't he? A huge difference in energy output.
Are you saying it requires more energy to go faster?
You're not very bright are you? Try to keep up.
A higher intensity uses more energy. However a 2.03 marathon runner can use less energy (less intensity) than you and still run much faster.
If there is one thing you DO know about, it would be personality disorders.
Jon Orange wrote:
Mr. Obvious wrote:It's funny that JonO is trolling his own thread under multiple names.
Jon,
Let's look at the example above. Are you stating the slower group of runners in my example (the 20 minute runners) would have a higher VO2Max than the 13 minute runners?
Both you and fred can fukc off with the false accusations. I have posted on this thread under one name only. You are just desperate, both of you. You both have a personality disorder.
Let's look at the example above. Are you stating the slower group of runners in my example (the 20 minute runners) would have a higher VO2Max than the 13 minute runners?
Jon Orange wrote:
wait a sec wrote:Are you saying it requires more energy to go faster?
You're not very bright are you? Try to keep up.
A higher intensity uses more energy. However a 2.03 marathon runner can use less energy (less intensity) than you and still run much faster.
But we're not comparing them to us, we're comparing them to themselves..
What did you say about the 2:04 guy cruising a 2:12?