The thing is that Jon basically just trained like everyone else, he just claims that his neural adaptations are what actually happens for everyone.
You do 5x1k to improve cardiac response, he does it because he's practicing the movement.
So nothing revolutionary is actually happening.
If he wanted to actually pursue his theory he would do hours per day of uphill bounding and downhill striding and NOTHING else.
Jon Orange wrote:
fizzy ologee wrote: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?
Why do you think this study supports your statements? I do not see anything in that study that contradicts anything I've said and it is quite consistent with the study I posted above.
Yes, I read it. I think economy is complementary.
Jon Orange wrote:
Did you read the paper I posted to you? I have posted the link several times now. Does anyone actually read it?
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.
The VDOT tables, or concepts, do not ascribe any particular economy number to any particular individual.
The are measures of running speed. The runners with a higher VDOT are faster.
Among runners who have the same VDOT, some get there by having a larger VO2 and lesser economy. Others have a smaller VO2 (again, compared to other runners of the same speed) and great economy.
It does not say anything about any individual's economy.
Mr. Obvious wrote:
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.
The VDOT tables, or concepts, do not ascribe any particular economy number to any particular individual.
The are measures of running speed. The runners with a higher VDOT are faster.
Among runners who have the same VDOT, some get there by having a larger VO2 and lesser economy. Others have a smaller VO2 (again, compared to other runners of the same speed) and great economy.
It does not say anything about any individual's economy.
The VDOT number does not care (or indicate in any way) how you get to your performance. If you get there through a larger engine or a superior economy, it ranks similar performances as similar. It is economy agnostic and engine agnostic.
It operates on the same assumption that the Noakes article you apparently thinks supports your position (namely that running performance is the best predictor of running performance).
semantics wrote:
If he wanted to actually pursue his theory he would do hours per day of uphill bounding and downhill striding and NOTHING else.
That would get you injured - all those micro tears and no anabolics.
523 posts so far!
Jon Orange gets my vote for the Troll Hall of Fame.
I thought this was an unpromising premise for a troll job - an even crazier version of J.R. LRC has been there, done that with J.R. But that shows what I know. The number of suckers who are responding and really seem to be into it is astonishing.
fred wrote:
semantics wrote:If he wanted to actually pursue his theory he would do hours per day of uphill bounding and downhill striding and NOTHING else.
That would get you injured - all those micro tears and no anabolics.
fred, as you get fitter you recover faster. Don't you know that?
Like you?
Recognizer of trolling genius wrote:
523 posts so far!
Jon Orange gets my vote for the Troll Hall of Fame.
I thought this was an unpromising premise for a troll job - an even crazier version of J.R. LRC has been there, done that with J.R. But that shows what I know. The number of suckers who are responding and really seem to be into it is astonishing.
Physiology Major 103 wrote:
You're a moron. Jon is anything but a troll. He's not anonymous and he actually believes the garbage that he spews on here. That's not being a troll, that's being a moronic person with a disorder that there is no cure for.
Recognizer of trolling genius wrote:.
I'm going with Autism Spectrum. Anybody that can repeat the same things over and over for 13 years, has got to have some autism in them.
fred wrote:
I'm going with Autism Spectrum. Anybody that can repeat the same things over and over for 13 years, has got to have some autism in them.
I always thought you were just a moron with no sense.
Is that your excuse wrote:
fred wrote:I'm going with Autism Spectrum. Anybody that can repeat the same things over and over for 13 years, has got to have some autism in them.
I always thought you were just a moron with no sense.
But now you realize that you were wrong.
OK, let's say the 68 VO2max 3:00 runner reasonably exists -- just tell me where your 3:00 runner fits in Table 1 of your Economy paper.It's not actually a question of how fast the 3-hour runner can run the full marathon (where a "true" 2:40 runner might bonk for other reasons), but rather how much VO2 he's consuming at 14 km/h, versus your other runner at 21 km/h.I actually meant to pick a 53.5 VO2max 62.5 kg (and not 63.5) runner for 3 hours:- As we know from Daniels 53.5 VO2max is very reasonable expected value for a 3:00 runner with Daniels' generic economy- I picked 62.5, so that economy gain wasn't simply due to the weight difference rather than training or genetics. If the runner weighs more, of course more energy is required to move more mass. If the weights are different, then it seems more fair to look at the relative VO2max (per kg), and not the absolute VO2max.The point is that your outcome is a direct result of your arbitrary choice of runners' characteristics and assumptions, combined with looking at absolute VO2 values. This is what you are trying to generalize across a whole population. Arbitrarily picking another "realistic" 3-hour runner with better economy than yours, yields a different conclusion. Both scenarios are possible, depending on your initial assumption of the individual economies.I personally know two 3:00:00 runners, with a weight around 70 kg. As seasoned, moderately trained, masters runners in their late 40's, I suppose if we measured them, it's more likely that their VO2max is closer to 54 than 68.
Jon Orange wrote:
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.
rekrunner wrote:
OK, let's say the 68 VO2max 3:00 runner reasonably exists -- just tell me where your 3:00 runner fits in Table 1 of your Economy paper.
It's not actually a question of how fast the 3-hour runner can run the full marathon (where a "true" 2:40 runner might bonk for other reasons), but rather how much VO2 he's consuming at 14 km/h, versus your other runner at 21 km/h.
I actually meant to pick a 53.5 VO2max 62.5 kg (and not 63.5) runner for 3 hours:
- As we know from Daniels 53.5 VO2max is very reasonable expected value for a 3:00 runner with Daniels' generic economy
- I picked 62.5, so that economy gain wasn't simply due to the weight difference rather than training or genetics. If the runner weighs more, of course more energy is required to move more mass. If the weights are different, then it seems more fair to look at the relative VO2max (per kg), and not the absolute VO2max.
The point is that your outcome is a direct result of your arbitrary choice of runners' characteristics and assumptions, combined with looking at absolute VO2 values. This is what you are trying to generalize across a whole population. Arbitrarily picking another "realistic" 3-hour runner with better economy than yours, yields a different conclusion. Both scenarios are possible, depending on your initial assumption of the individual economies.
It is a complete misuse of the VDOT tables to use them to then "backdoor" your way into positing a VO2Max for the runner.
The whole point of the VDOT is that most runners don't have the time, money, or access to equipment to have their VO2Max regularly tested. Nor is it the most reliable indicator. VDOT is simply a performance measure. Maybe he should have referred to them simply as Performance Units (PU), as he himself suggests.
rekrunner wrote:
OK, let's say the 68 VO2max 3:00 runner reasonably exists -- just tell me where your 3:00 runner fits in Table 1 of your Economy paper.
It's not actually a question of how fast the 3-hour runner can run the full marathon (where a "true" 2:40 runner might bonk for other reasons), but rather how much VO2 he's consuming at 14 km/h, versus your other runner at 21 km/h.
I actually meant to pick a 53.5 VO2max 62.5 kg (and not 63.5) runner for 3 hours:
- As we know from Daniels 53.5 VO2max is very reasonable expected value for a 3:00 runner with Daniels' generic economy
- I picked 62.5, so that economy gain wasn't simply due to the weight difference rather than training or genetics. If the runner weighs more, of course more energy is required to move more mass. If the weights are different, then it seems more fair to look at the relative VO2max (per kg), and not the absolute VO2max.
The point is that your outcome is a direct result of your arbitrary choice of runners' characteristics and assumptions, combined with looking at absolute VO2 values. This is what you are trying to generalize across a whole population. Arbitrarily picking another "realistic" 3-hour runner with better economy than yours, yields a different conclusion. Both scenarios are possible, depending on your initial assumption of the individual economies.
I personally know two 3:00:00 runners, with a weight around 70 kg. As seasoned, moderately trained, masters runners in their late 40's, I suppose if we measured them, it's more likely that their VO2max is closer to 54 than 68.
Jon Orange wrote: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.
54 or 55 would be the generic economy on Daniels graph. I'm not arguing that point. No my arbitrary numbers weren't something I was trying to generalize across a whole population. Where did you get that idea. The nubers relate to a relatively untrained runner. Such as someone going from cycling to running.
An elite cyclist like Armstrong, even with previous running experience simply can't get the power going through his feet and ankles the way an experienced runner can. Chris Boardman was the same. When he gave up cycling, he turned to running and just couldn't figure out why, with his VO2 max of 80 (5.4 liters/min), he couldn't run fast?
The same thing for me. Going from cycling to running took a lot of running, even though I was running well as a cyclist.
The point is, I was showing how much training has to be done to race well as a runner, regardless of your VO2 max. The big engine model is a myth. All healthy runners have the oxygen uptake they need to be elite runners. Economy is specific to the individual, you can't generalize it with a generic economy curve.
Runners love to make excuses for their supposed lack of ability, genetics being the perfect excuse, when the reality is, your fitness is only as good as your training. To argue otherwise is delusional.
Jon Orange wrote:
All healthy runners have the oxygen uptake they need to be elite runners. Economy is specific to the individual, you can't generalize it with a generic economy curve.
Runners love to make excuses for their supposed lack of ability, genetics being the perfect excuse, when the reality is, your fitness is only as good as your training. To argue otherwise is delusional.
So a healthy person with a 40 VO2 could do it?
Why were you not even elite for your age group? You have had 13 years to have your theories reach fruition.
Not if you know what you are doing. :-)While I'm completely aware VDOT is not VO2max, Gilbert and Daniels went through some great effort to curve-fit VDOT values to roughly match, with the same scale, VO2max.VO2max varies widely due to many factors that influence economy, positively and negatively, but all I'm attempting to say here is that it is reasonable to imagine at least one runner with a VDOT of 54 also having a VO2max of 54. I would even suggest that this is more reasonable than someone with a VDOT of 54 having a true VO2max of 68.
Mr. Obvious wrote:
It is a complete misuse of the VDOT tables to use them to then "backdoor" your way into positing a VO2Max for the runner.
The whole point of the VDOT is that most runners don't have the time, money, or access to equipment to have their VO2Max regularly tested. Nor is it the most reliable indicator. VDOT is simply a performance measure. Maybe he should have referred to them simply as Performance Units (PU), as he himself suggests.
Yes of course you will find many runners fitting the curve. But are you seriously suggesting that there aren't lots of runners with a 68 VO2 max who can't run faster than 3 hours for a marathon or 38 minutes for a 10k?You have not been paying attention since you first read that oxygen power paper. How did you miss this?:
malmo wrote:
VO2 Max doesn't mean anything.
It's an oft-used and little understood term used by grad students to justify to their parents that their efforts and money have not gone to waste. University administrators have been duped by this sciolistic fog-machine, as well. How else could the waste of valuable resources, time and money, be covered-up? Parents and other intelligent, rational thinking adults could not possibly decipher this code. Do not try to yourself. You'll only make yourself look foolish reciting the catechism of the exercise-physio-geeks.
This nascent science of exercise physiology was born out of a failed genetics experiment in the early 60s; the breeding of an economist and a sociologist. The offspring from this pairing would say more and mean less than the combined blather of the two parents put together. Common sense would have told us how this experiment would have ended, but stubborn researchers pushed ahead, nonetheless.
The only numbers that matter are the ones that you receive at the end of the race. The most important of these is called PLACE, and is represented as an ordinal. A '1' is the best indicator of your performance. If you get a '1' then you've done excellent. It's no small coincidence that '1' is a homophone for 'won'. Other excellent numbers to receive are '2' and '3'. Not nearly as good as a '1', but by tradition and convention the numbers '1', '2' and '3' are deemed to be the 'supreme ordinals'; that is to say, worthy of gold, silver and bronze, and are segregated from the other ordinals. The rest of the ordinals are represented by the formula: n + 1...(to infinity). There is a direct, inverse relationship between ordinal value and its worth. The closer to the supreme ordinals, the better you've done, the closer to infinity, the worse you've done.
One of the other numbers that matters much more than VO2 Max is TIME. TIME is always secondary to PLACE in it's value. Neither PLACE nor TIME are given in the gerbil-wheel lab tests conducted by the exercise-physio-geeks. You will only receive them in the experiment that the real experts call COMPETITION. TIME does not supersede PLACE, but it is a way of comparing the PLACE of two or more experiments from different venues and eras. The juxtaposition of TIME and PLACE is the business of track statisticians, who, by the way, are also the progeny from the aforementioned failed genetics experiment.
Physicists have proven, through complex mathematical machinations, that it is physically impossible for VO2Max to supersede either TIME or PLACE. Richard Feynman once said, "VO2Max and five bucks will get you a cup of joe at Starbucks."
So far, in the history of sports, not one award has ever been given, nor has there been remuneration for, VO2Max results.
Long ago, TIME was measured as a fraction of the earth's rotation in base 60: hours, minutes and seconds. It's still expressed as such, however, the predecessors to the exercise-physio-geeks have determined that TIME should now be measured in terms of the vibration frequency of irradiated Cesium atoms. Your watch has quartz crystals in it that will simulate this experiment for you (without the attendant radiation and disposal problems) and convert the results automatically, presenting them to you in the form of easily recognizable numerical glyphs. No complicated formulae to memorize!
There are many other factors that are much more indicative of athletic performance, or the potential for performance, than VO2 max. I couldn't possibly begin to list them all: height, weight, hair color, skin color, shoe size, favorite TV show...the list is endless.
------------------------------------
92.5 Greg LeMond, professional cyclist
92.0 Matt Carpenter, Pikes Peak marathon course record holder
88.0 Miguel Indurain, professional cyclist
87.4 Marius Bakken, Norwegian 5k record holder
85 Dave Bedford, 10k world record
84.4 Steve Prefontaine,US runner
84.3 "Physiologist in training," 15:12/30:55 runner
82.7 Gary Tuttle, US runner
82.0 Kip Keino, Olympic 1500 champion
81.1 Craig Virgin, twice World cross country champ
81.0 Jim Ryun, US miler WR holder
80.1 Steve Scott, US miler 3:47
79.4 "Runningart2004," 15:43 5k runner
78.5 Bill Rodgers, 2:09:27 marathoner
77.4 Don Kardong, 2:11:15 marathoner
76.6 John Landy, WR miler
76.0 Alberto Salazar, 2:08:51 marathoner
74.3 Amby Burfoot, US marathoner
74.4 Johnny Halberstadt, 2:11:44 marathoner
74.2 Kenny Moore, US marathoner 2:11:36
73.5 Grete Waitz, Norwegian Marathon runner
73.0 Jeff Galloway, US snake oil salesman
73.0 Buddy Edelen, marathoner
72.8 Jarmila Krotochvilova,Czech Olympian 400M/800M winner
72.3 Peter Snell, Olympic champion
72.0 Zithulele Sinqe, 2:08:05 marathoner
71.3 Frank Shorter, US Olympic Marathon winner
71.2 Ingrid Kristiansen, ex-Marathon World Record Holder
71.0 Paula Ivan, Russian Olympic 1500M Record Holder
70.3 Willie Mtolo, 2:08:15 marathoner
69.7 Derek Clayton, Australian ex-Marathon World Record holder 2:08:35
67.2 Rosa Mota, Marathon runner
----------------------------------------
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.
------------------------------------------
As I've said in the satire above, "VO2 max doesn't mean anything."
[/quote]
dope works wrote:
Jon Orange wrote:All healthy runners have the oxygen uptake they need to be elite runners. Economy is specific to the individual, you can't generalize it with a generic economy curve.
Runners love to make excuses for their supposed lack of ability, genetics being the perfect excuse, when the reality is, your fitness is only as good as your training. To argue otherwise is delusional.
So a healthy person with a 40 VO2 could do it?
Why were you not even elite for your age group? You have had 13 years to have your theories reach fruition.
Is that healthy person with a 40 VO2 max a distance runner or more of a sprinter? What is their body fat? Was their peak treadmill speed indicative of their actual ability, or somewhat below that level for reasons the geeks doing the test were unaware? For example, if your test stops at 19kmh, isn't that some way below your capability?
Jon, you've lost me. It started so long ago, some 20 pages back. I thought this whole thread is about PEDs not working because real improvements come from economy, and not from oxygen vector drugs, or other "strength" PEDs, and that even Daniels graph shows us that "elites use less oxygen". Are these general and universal truths for the whole population? or something exceptional that only applies when comparing elite runners to untrained runners?I got this idea because I asked you to show which Daniels' graph you meant, and how Daniels' graphs support "elites use less oxygen" and disprove the "PED concept".Are you saying something else, that maybe PEDs could work well for untrained runners, but not for elites with good economies?
Jon Orange wrote:
54 or 55 would be the generic economy on Daniels graph. I'm not arguing that point. No my arbitrary numbers weren't something I was trying to generalize across a whole population. Where did you get that idea. The nubers relate to a relatively untrained runner.