logical training wrote:
Jon, how much race pace specific running did you do per event?
I was only as good as my training. My specificity was only as good as my race times. Just like every runner who ever raced.
logical training wrote:
Jon, how much race pace specific running did you do per event?
I was only as good as my training. My specificity was only as good as my race times. Just like every runner who ever raced.
I'm saying that oxygen uptake is a combination of basic health and basic fitness plus genetics. As is has been througout the history of our sport.
Look how much times have improved. The athletes have the same oxygen uptake as before 100 years ago, but look at the improvement in world records.
This isn't genetics or drugs, it's fitness. Genetics and drugs are excuses people use to explain their relative lack of success.
One day someone will run that sub 2 hour marathon, and what will be the reason for their extra fitness?
Improved economy.
And where does that economy come from?
From a more efficient running technique.
And what gives a runner a more efficient technique?
Look at what their feet and ankles are doing. They are producing more sustaine power through either a greater range of movement in the case of the long striders, or a very good range of movement repeated more frequently for sustained periods.
How do they get this extra sustained power?
This is how:
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/practise
Jon Orange wrote:
dope works wrote: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?
Just 40 Jon. Don't get distracted or attempt to distract.
Answer the second question too.
Jon Orange wrote:
logical training wrote:Jon, how much race pace specific running did you do per event?
I was only as good as my training. My specificity was only as good as my race times. Just like every runner who ever raced.
So why didn't you train more and better if that's the only limit?
Why is so little specific race pace necessary to improve? I used to do lots of specific work at race pace and failed to improve. I then switched to non race specific pace and got faster over even 400 despite never actually running at that pace except in a TT.
How does that fit the practice makes perfect model?
Could it be my engine that needed work and not my feet?
dope works wrote:
Jon Orange wrote: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?
Just 40 Jon. Don't get distracted or attempt to distract.
Answer the second question too.
It's tedious if you ignore my points. I'll just ignore you.
Jon Orange wrote:
dope works wrote:Just 40 Jon. Don't get distracted or attempt to distract.
Answer the second question too.
It's tedious if you ignore my points. I'll just ignore you.
Translation.-I got nothing
Jon Orange wrote:
dope works wrote:Just 40 Jon. Don't get distracted or attempt to distract.
Answer the second question too.
It's tedious if you ignore my points. I'll just ignore you.
Don't you find it tedious repeating the same tired theory for thousands of times over 13 years with no advancement on said theory?
Jon Orange wrote:
I'm saying that oxygen uptake is a combination of basic health and basic fitness plus genetics. As is has been througout the history of our sport.
Look how much times have improved. The athletes have the same oxygen uptake as before 100 years ago, but look at the improvement in world records.
This isn't genetics or drugs, it's fitness. Genetics and drugs are excuses people use to explain their relative lack of success.
One day someone will run that sub 2 hour marathon, and what will be the reason for their extra fitness?
Improved economy.
And where does that economy come from?
From a more efficient running technique.
And what gives a runner a more efficient technique?
Look at what their feet and ankles are doing. They are producing more sustaine power through either a greater range of movement in the case of the long striders, or a very good range of movement repeated more frequently for sustained periods.
How do they get this extra sustained power?
This is how:
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/practise
This deserves it's own thread / web page / web site.
rekrunner wrote:
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.
Right,
Well all that means that the VDOT works well to estimate VO2Max for a population, not for an individual runner. There is a lot of variance for individuals. You are using it for a purpose which it was not designed form.
Jon Orange wrote:
Look how much times have improved. The athletes have the same oxygen uptake as before 100 years ago, but look at the improvement in world records.
Do you have some data to back this up? Or is this just another 'fact' you get to assert because it's obvious??
I'm not using VDOT to help me estimate VO2max for individual runners. For my purpose, I pre-selected just one runner who has both a VDOT and VO2max of 53.5, regardless of the nature of the rest of the population. I only need one that is reasonably close, and I guess it's safe to assume that one exists. What was my purpose? What I did was hand-pick one "reasonable" example to show that hand-picking examples can support whatever conclusion you chose to draw.
Mr. Obvious wrote:
rekrunner wrote: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.
Right,
Well all that means that the VDOT works well to estimate VO2Max for a population, not for an individual runner. There is a lot of variance for individuals. You are using it for a purpose which it was not designed form.
All that matters is that these runners will all get faster if they dope. That's the main point.
Jon, as you know, we've been through a lot the last 11 years. Please don't spend too much energy (that would be vastly inefficient) trying to search for more common ground. In a nutshell, I get "efficiency" and "economy". Briefly, for me these are a third phase, where for you, they are the only phase.My model:There are short term (oxygen capacity), medium term (oxygen utilisation), and long term (non-oxygen) factors that improve performance.Where I agree with your concepts:I get economy and efficiency exist. In fact for me, economy is a giant fudge factor which tacitly concedes that VO2max and lactate threshold fall far short of their aspirated goals. Look at your Economy paper at Figure 2: Economy is no single thing, but an amalgamation of 5 major factors and 21 sub-factors. Daniels created VDOT because the oxygen influenced "VO2max" failed to meet its predictive goals, because of the many non-oxygen factors that influence economy. VDOT overcomes that weakness by curve-fitting oxygen and performance, effectively cancelling non-oxygen economy factors (or rather estimating these factors generically, and then solving for oxygen from performance).Where we part:You seem to think economy factors contradict, or maybe cause, the oxygen related factors. Please, please, don't spend any energy to try and persuade me in either of these directions, because, first I completely disagree, and second, I actually don't think it's important to change my mind. If you do want to convince me in this direction, you must do it as a pure scientist, holding yourself to a much higher standard. Otherwise you are wasting your time and mine.Huh?:At the end of the day, trial and error has shown us how to improve strength, speed, stamina, and endurance. Training for VO2max, combined with threshold training, combined with speed (interval) training, combined with strength drills (e.g. plyometrics, bounding, jumping) have proven effective.What about drugs?Drugs work against weakness. "Well trained" subjects in studies are weak. As are journalists who dope themselves.Elites have much fewer, and smaller magnitude, weaknesses.Male drugs work for women. Stop the nonsense.Drugs like EPO works for cycling, but not for running.Why? Because efficiency is crucial for running, but much less so for cycling.
Jon Orange wrote:
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.
"What about drugs?
Drugs work against weakness. "Well trained" subjects in studies are weak. As are journalists who dope themselves.
Elites have much fewer, and smaller magnitude, weaknesses.
Male drugs work for women. Stop the nonsense.
Drugs like EPO works for cycling, but not for running.
Why? Because efficiency is crucial for running, but much less so for cycling.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jon Orange wrote:
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."
This is a troll love fest.
EPO doesn't work on runners, and Jack Daniels doesn't understand neural conditioning. You guys are the best. Hats off to you two.
You guys should get a room together, at the state mental ward. There you can have your little arguments every day, and spout nonsense continuously.
Again, I'm happy to change my mind 180 degrees based on better evidence and good arguments.Here's my limited collection of evidence.In cycling we saw lots of lists where 8 out of the top 10 were implicated in doping.Look at a top-50 list for the marathon (men and women), and you will see EPO, and any drug, severely under-represented. You will find 1 or 2 that have tested positive. Maybe EPO helped these -- maybe it was just coincidental because someone (athlete, coach, husband, manager) believed it would help. In any case, their is a scarcity of evidence among elites compared to cycling.If EPO worked, and the usage was so rampant and undetectable for so long, I would expect to see more Americans and Europeans competive against the East Africans. What we saw is that they could barely match their own previous generations.Similarly If EPO worked for women in the marathon, I would think more women would have gone sub-2:18.I cannot mindlessly accept that all drugs work all the time for all people in all situations, and I'm more interested in discussions about which drugs work for whom in which scenarios. What did we just learn from Russia? Looks like their program was effective for women, mainly mid-distance, and race-walkers. Similarly, the Chinese women took over the world in the 90's, but the men were nowhere.
fred wrote:
EPO doesn't work on runners, and Jack Daniels doesn't understand neural conditioning. You guys are the best. Hats off to you two.
You guys should get a room together, at the state mental ward. There you can have your little arguments every day, and spout nonsense continuously.
Jack D doesn't understand biomechanics? You're kidding right? I know Jack. I'll let him know so that he can stop talking about things that he doesn't know. You guys are certified morons. Calling you arrogant would be a compliment as you seem to enjoy the definition as a compliment. Nutjobs!
fred wrote:
"What about drugs?
Drugs work against weakness. "Well trained" subjects in studies are weak. As are journalists who dope themselves.
Elites have much fewer, and smaller magnitude, weaknesses.
Male drugs work for women. Stop the nonsense.
Drugs like EPO works for cycling, but not for running.
Why? Because efficiency is crucial for running, but much less so for cycling.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jon Orange wrote:
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."
This is a troll love fest.
rekrunner wrote:
I cannot mindlessly accept that all drugs work all the time for all people in all situations, and I'm more interested in discussions about which drugs work for whom in which scenarios. What did we just learn from Russia? Looks like their program was effective for women, mainly mid-distance, and race-walkers.
[/quote]
The king of EPO and Comrades Records
Down Leonid Shvetsov Russia 2007 5:20:49
Up Leonid Shvetsov Russia 2008 5:24:49
Right, by handpicking one runner and inventing VO2max numbers for him, you can prove that he exists. However Jono can certainly find at least one runner who fits whatever implausible scenario he hopes to support. I mean, he can invent him, of course, which is all he has done in this thread. But he could also fine one measured example. A friend of mine with a Ph.D. in clinical psychology used to say (in different contexts), "there are 7 billion people in the world. I can find pretty much one example of just about anything". One example of course doesn't prove anything at all, except that not all people follow the general patterns. They don't prove anything about big engines or efficiency or any of that. It just proves that there is one example of just about anything. Of course the entire reason Jono/wellnow/I have a theory can continue to argue is that he hasn't provided any real data, and has ignored the data that has been posted, in favor of arguing from made up examples and repeating cliches. I don't have my Daniels in front of me, but I am just wondering if there are confidence intervals drawn around any of the representations that show VDOT/VO2Max correlation. I don't remember that. It probably wouldn't be important for Jack's purposes.
rekrunner wrote:
I'm not using VDOT to help me estimate VO2max for individual runners. For my purpose, I pre-selected just one runner who has both a VDOT and VO2max of 53.5, regardless of the nature of the rest of the population. I only need one that is reasonably close, and I guess it's safe to assume that one exists. What was my purpose? What I did was hand-pick one "reasonable" example to show that hand-picking examples can support whatever conclusion you chose to draw.
Mr. Obvious wrote:Right,
Well all that means that the VDOT works well to estimate VO2Max for a population, not for an individual runner. There is a lot of variance for individuals. You are using it for a purpose which it was not designed form.