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

Depending on what you mean by 'true distance runner' I could see this being truebut it's worth noting that this decidedly isn't everyone who participates in the sport.

People probably think about VO2max more than is good for them. Your last race gives you way more information about how to train than a VO2max test. No complaint there.

But why the nonsense bit? Elite runners do have relatively large VO2maxes as malmo's list demostrates. Why fight it?

Or a non runner.

Since you were 14?

Are you refuting the bigger engine model or are you saying it's inadaquet?

It's like Newton and Einstein. Einstein didn't come in a say Newton was 100% wrong. He simply added corrections at the edges (speeds near c, near very heavy objects etc) which where indeed wrong (see Michelson-Morley experiment, percession of Mercury). Einstein admitted Newton's theory was useful but inadaquet in these edge cases. Maybe this is an overly lofty example...

Jon Orange wrote:

Everyone is fixated on this idea that elite have super high VO2 maxes. It's nonsense. A more fast twitch runner with high body fat will of course have a VO2 max of 40 or less.

Fast twitch vs. slow-twitch is a neural difference. (The muscle fibers are not actually different, the neurons which enervate them are).

The differences in VO2 max between sprinters and distance runners are a result of training. Sprinters don't run long distances because doing so increases their VO2max and also changes the neurological make-up in their muscles. (see, it all works together).

Hmmm. You told me about the three kinds of factors (short, medium, and long term) 10 years ago? I thought the first two factors are what you repeatedly dismiss as "aerobic dogma" and seem to support the "bigger engine" model you say I believe in and you say is false.To give credit where credit is due, most of my basic physiology ideas, including the three factors, and their timelines, comes from a collection of papers from Stephen Seiler, PhD. around the 1996 timeframe. I've given you links before, asking your feedback.The "stupid" lack of "efficiency" in cycling idea comes from Michael Ashenden -- when evaluating the Texas study where Lance Armstrong gained 21% efficiency through training and weight loss. Ashenden claimed it's rare in cycling to observe more than 1% efficiency gains from training.I've done a fair bit of various reading on and around the subject -- I even read all the juicy bits of "The Lore of Running". Everything seems to fit quite well together. I'm not sure I care to do any more.

trollism wrote:

But you say PEDs don't work, but now you're saying PEDs work if you're looking to bulk up.

So PEDs work for some things?

They don't work to enhance performance.

They do work in some sense, if you consider getting fat to be working.

test2 wrote:

Look at the table in malmo's diatribe that you reposted. Those are all the elite guys VO2maxes he could find and they are all above 65. The average for a healthy untrained male is about 40. Trainability of VO2max on average is about 15% so the average guy never gets his VO2max above 50 whatever he does and because of this limited 'engine' he never reaches the elite level whatever his efficiency. If VO2max didn't matter then there would be guys on malmo's list with VO2maxes of 45, 50, 55 but there aren't. It simply doesn't happen. You need a pretty big engine to run at the highest levels.

Wrong because you're not comparing the same speeds.

Elites have lower VO2s when comparing the same speeds, due to greater efficiency.

If bigger engines were the key, elites would use more energy and have higher VO2s when running the same speeds, but that's not the case.

test2 wrote:

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.

Pre was running much faster and harder than Shorter.

His VO2 was higher, because his work output and effort were much higher.

All the test proved was that Pre was running much faster and harder.

So, as a math problem, when we correct for Jono/wellnow using the wrong units, here is how this comes out:Reminder: We are solving for the amount of oxygen used in the course of a race. We don't have a value for Velocity at VO2max. We do have, in Jon's example a time for each runner. All we need is a distance and then we could figure the velocity based on the intensity. Let's go with 20 miles. That would put the faster runner pretty close to Jon's marathon pace. Not an elite runner, but a good recreational one. That means the faster runner is running 4.4704 meters/sec and that represents 80% of his velocity at vo2max and his velocity at Vo2max is 5.588 m/sec.The slower runner would be running at 2.9803 m / s. That represents 79% of his velocity at VO2max. His velcity at VO2max is 3.773 m/s. The velocity at VO2max already has the units for efficiency and VO2 calculated into them. So you have to cancel those units out. He's given us an absolute VO2 in his example. He hasn't given us a weight, so we can't calculate a relative one. Of course we could give a "reverse engineer" a VO2max, using Daniel's and Gilberts formula, but that would be rather begging the question, as Jono has helpfully told us that is broken. Nontheless, as a thought exercise I've run it through this helpful calculator given here: http://www.had2know.com/health/vo2-max-calculator-racing-daniels-gilbert.html. That would give the 61.56 ml/kg/min. About what you would expect in a good but not quite elite runner. The slower runner would computer to 38.24 mL/kg/min. Again, not an outrageous number. But of course both of those assume a generic economy, which again, wellnow has told us is a complete fabrication and misleading nonsense. What we have here is a superefficient twin with great economy and a slower, inefficient twin with inferior economy. So we have to pick find some way that will normalize that number for both of them with the same absolute VO2. Jon also doesn't give us weights. He does say the slower twin has more body fat. Maybe, we can say he is heavier as well. I welcome him to provide his own numbers if mine aren't really right. Well, let's say the faster twin is 60kg (`132 lbs.). At 6' tall that would get him somewhere in the right bodyfat category. Let's put the second twin at 75kg (`165). That's a big difference but probably again puts him in the right ballpark, if not a little skinny, for 20% body fat%. So JonO told us the absolute was 5l/min. I am not sure how he got that, I guess he picked it out of thin air. So if we convert to relative units the fast runner ends up being5*1000/60=83.333 mL/kg/min/ and the slower runners ends up being5*1000/75=66.67Oh dear, both of them end up having very large engines. But Jon has already told us that is not the case and that doesn't fit our implied values so what we have is an example that is not very realistic. Jon seems to have picked a pretty high absolute VO2 max, i.e. a large engine. The highest ever recorded is 8.5 L/min, from what i can find, but that was for a very large rower. An untrained male is going to be around 3.5 L/min. And we know from JonO that does not change from training, or doesn't change past basic fitness, so even 5L seems like a very large engine. We are either going to have to change weights, or change absolute VO2 max to make a more realistic picture. I want to honor Jono's example so we will keep the absolute VO2 the same and change the weights. I think I will continue these calcuations in a second thread.

Mr. Obvious wrote:

1. You fundamentally misrepresent the nature of Daniel's work. Hint, the x axis is labeled as a velocity at VO2max. Your "equations" don't work because you are mixing units. (economy is already figured into the X-axis, so you can't use it to figure anything about economy.)

Jon Orange wrote:

If we compare two identical twins, one who is super elite and one who is a beginner but has good overall fitness, because they are genetically identical and both have good basic fitness, they will have the same absolute VO2 max.

The slower runner will doubtless have more body fat, perhaps 20% versus 6% for the elite runner at his skinniest.

If both runners have the same absolute VO2 max say 5 liters/minute then the 3 hour runner uses 5 x .79 = 3.95 liters x 180 = 711 liters oxygen

Elite runner uses 5x .80 = 4.0 liters x 120 = 480 liters oxygen

So, let's continue on with our math problem, only posting the givens and the units already solved for:

faster twin has a velocity at vo2max of: 5.588 m/sec

Slower twin has a velocity at VO2 max of: 3.773

both runners have an absolute VO2 max of 5L/min. We need to find a pair of weights to get them a relative VO2 somewhere between 38ml/kg/min and 61/ml/kg/min. Maybe Jon will say 61 is fine, but that would only give him a very average economy and he has already said he has a superior economy.

So let's say the skinnier runner, the one w/ 6% body fat, weighs 90kg. Seems a little heavy for a 6% body fat, but these are the values that Jon gave us. That means he would have a relative Vo2max of:

5*1000/90=55.55 mL/kg/min.

So then we need to solve for a weight that would give the slower brother a realistic Vo2. We could give him the same weight and just say he has less muscle and more fat. That would simplify things. Let's run the equations both ways, so we can be sure we are being fair to Jon's example. We'll run it with both twins at 90kg. We'll do a second run w/ the slower twin at 110 kg. That would give him a relative VO2 of:

5*1000/110=45.45 mL/kg/min.

That seems like a pretty good spread, with some differences in speed due to weight and the rest due purely to neuro-muscular efficiency. It seems in the spirit of Jono's example. I will say I am impressed these two brothers can run 6 minute miles at 198 lbs. and 9 minute miles at 242 lbs. Also, they must be very muscular to be those weights and that body fat %.

I think we are ready to solve for oxygen use in the next post. A reminder we are going to do so twice.

Clarity ~ wrote:

test2 wrote:

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.

Pre was running much faster and harder than Shorter.

His VO2 was higher, because his work output and effort were much higher.

All the test proved was that Pre was running much faster and harder.

He had " turbo ankles " after doing 2 hours of bounding and 4 hours of downhill sprinting every day.

So, we have to invent some numbers to get a picture of our runners. I'm not sure the resulting picture is very realistic, but we are going for it.

So, we have our numbers, although we may have to convert some units for consistency. Also, I used a little rounding in the example.

We are just going to use Jon's equations, which is merely multiplying usage rate times time. Although there is a very large assumption built into Jon's equations (which is why they work at all) that oxygen consumption scales linearly with along with intensity of running speed--so that running at 80% of velocity at VO2max means that you are using 80% of the oxygen that you use at VO2max. We will return to this point, as it is very critical. For now all we've really done is correct for the units.

So using them at the same weight, they have the same oxygen usage:

Faster brother:

55.55 ml/kg/min *.8*90=3960 ml/min *120 minutes=475200 or 475.2 liters of oxygen consumed.

The slower brother

55.55 ml/kg/min *.79*90=3910.5 *180 minutes=703890 or 703890 or 703.89 liters of oxygen consumed.

So the fast runner uses a lot less oxygen, although he uses it at a slightly faster rate.

If we use a weight adjusted calculation then the calculations stay exactly the same for the fast brother. The slower brother than uses:

45.45 mL/kg/min *110 kg= *.79 intensity *180 minutes=710928.9 or just over 710 L of oxygen consumed.

So, these are exactly the same as Jono's numbers once we account for a little rounding, which means that he can do math. Interestingly the slower twin uses just a tiny bit more total oxygen at 242 lbs. than he did at 198 lbs.

Of course all we've proven at this point is that if we give two people the exact same oxygen uptake, the one who uses that oxygen more efficiently is then faster.

So, we can look at these numbers and look at if they are realistic, look at the assumptions behind them, and we can also calculate an efficiency number as well. On to the next post.

So, to look at running economy, we can look at Ross Tucker's site, here:

You can look all through the series on economy. This should be a good site for Jono, as Tucker is sort of an apostle of TIm Noakes, who he speaks so highly of, and generally his views are somewhat like Jono posts here (i.e. economy is highly trainable while VO2Max is less so). He doesn't imply that Vo2Max has no relationship to running speed.

http://sportsscientists.com/2007/12/running-economy-part-i/

So, the good part of my example is that subVo2max (economy is essentially speed at subVO2max) is often measured at 80% and/or often measured at 16 km/hr. Which are right in line with our faster runner. So we can calculate his economy: 475200/32 /90 =165ml/kg/km.

This is slightly worse than Tedesse, but much better than shorter, elite Kenyans, etc. This economy is better than elite.

Or slower brother is using 246mL/kg/km if we go w/ the 90 kg weight or 201 if we go with the 110kg rate. The lower number is very, very good, and the second number is elite.

Conclusion: Put the brother's on a diet and we will have world record holders.

test2 wrote:

But why the nonsense bit? Elite runners do have relatively large VO2maxes as malmo's list demostrates. Why fight it?.

Are your sure?

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

Gigantic V12 wrote:

Jon, their hearts aren't "hypertrophic" they are already genetically larger andor wired differently.

Bigger and better pumps.

It's like you don't understand how a motor vehicle works.

Look up cardiac hypertrophy. It's a bit of a misnomer really, the word should be normotrophy. And no, elites don't have bigger hearts, that's a very old myth that won't go away. They have normal size hearts

Clarity ~ wrote:

test2 wrote:

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.

Pre was running much faster and harder than Shorter.

His VO2 was higher, because his work output and effort were much higher.

All the test proved was that Pre was running much faster and harder.

Pre also had a naturally high VO2 max and Shorter an naturally low VO2 max for a skinny distance runner. These differences are genetic and based on a combination of ankle length, where a shorter ankle develops more force like Shorter and a Longer ankle developes less force and has to be compensated for with a bigger muscle mass and a higher oxygen uptake to feed those muscles.

But both runners needed to improve their personal economy/efficiency to achieve their results.

I haven't misrepresented Daniels' work, you're completely missing the point, you are misrepsenting me in a very obsessive way that will not resolve with your constant misconceptions. And your other rebuttals are false claims too.

My examples based on identical twins is to represent changes in a person's state of fitness which changes greatly over many years. Using identical twins means that I am comparing like with like instead of comparing different genetic characteristics as being representative of some ideal of perfection.

This is a thread about how elites use less energy to race faster than slower runners, to point out the bad science surrounding the 'PED' concept and the dogma of supposedely superior genetics.

You can misrepresent/miss the point all you want, I won't engage your deliberately misleading arguements, because you are obsessed with finding some flaw in what is essentially basic physiology of which Daniels in 1979 was ignorant and most still are.

are they all elites? wrote:

test2 wrote:

But why the nonsense bit? Elite runners do have relatively large VO2maxes as malmo's list demostrates. Why fight it?.

Are your sure?

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

This.

The second Daniels graph, in oxygen power which shows 79% VO2 max for a 3 hour race but only 80% for a 2 hour race can be represented with this example:

If we compare two identical twins, one who is super elite and one who is a beginner but has good overall fitness, because they are genetically identical and both have good basic fitness, they will have the same absolute VO2 max.

The slower runner will doubtless have more body fat, perhaps 20% versus 6% for the elite runner at his skinniest.

If both runners have the same absolute VO2 max say 5 liters/minute then the 3 hour runner uses 5 x .79 = 3.95 liters x 180 = 711 liters oxygen

Elite runner uses 5x .80 = 4.0 liters x 120 = 480 liters oxygen

This completely contradicts Daniels' written statements in that paper. According to his model, the above scenario is impossible, when in fact he will know now in 2016 that it is completely realistic.

The difference between the two runners is a difference in economy of 50% of which 14% is attributable to weight and the rest is attributable to the force they can generate through the feet and ankles and up through the kinetic chain.

A typical example of this is an elite cyclist trying to run a marathon with only one year of training. They are doing very well to break 3 hours, not because of a lack of general endurance fitness, but a lack of specific running fitness, that lack of technique with the feet and ankles which is so different from cycling to running. All beginner runners or runners coming back from a long lay off face this same problem to different degrees, the problem of applying sustained force through the feet and ankles, which can give rise to problems in other muscles too.

Jon Orange wrote:

Gigantic V12 wrote:

Jon, their hearts aren't "hypertrophic" they are already genetically larger andor wired differently.

Bigger and better pumps.

It's like you don't understand how a motor vehicle works.

Look up cardiac hypertrophy. It's a bit of a misnomer really, the word should be normotrophy. And no, elites don't have bigger hearts, that's a very old myth that won't go away. They have normal size hearts

Viren had a huge heart which apparently expanded when he inhaled, was he not elite?

So why were you not elite, Jon?