JonO. wrote:
the moran is done his shift wrote:
And faster energy consumption. Stop dodging that with your little army of straw men.
Wrong on two counts. Firstly, faster energy consumption has nothing to do with efficiency, in your model it actually implies the opposite. And secondly, your just wrong anyway, but you know that don't you?
Efficiency is not the goal. Getting done faster is.
You don't know the difference between create and convert.
Or your and you're for that matter.
You're not making any sense.
JonO. wrote:
You're not making any sense.
That's because you are a moran.
Andrew Hamilton:
Generally, larger animals (like humans) tend to be a little more efficient during running than small animals like mice, for reasons that are not exactly clear. The real paradox is this, however: when muscles are stripped from the legs of freshly killed mice and tested in the laboratory, they operate with an efficiency of 25%. That same experiment can obviously not be carried out with humans, but it is known that when humans ride bicycles, their efficiency is also about 25%. Why is running such an inefficient process for mice and so efficient for humans? When mice run marathons, their efficiency of movement drops from 25% to just 3%, while for humans efficiency during running soars from the 25% achieved during biking to 50%! The answer to the mouse question is unknown, but the key to the human running response is obvious. Each time a human foot hits the ground while running, energy is stored as ‘elastic strain energy’ by the key ‘springs’ in the human leg – mainly the connective-tissue strips which run along the bottom of the foot, the Achilles tendon and its associated muscles, the relevant muscles and tendons around the knee and the relevant muscles and tendons surrounding the hip. All of these structures are stretched when the foot hits the ground, and this stretching process stores energy – i.e. increases the potential energy of the leg. When the structures recoil elastically during toe-off, they manage to return about 90% of the work required to stretch them (with only 10% lost as heat). If the tendons and muscles of the leg were not able to store energy during impact with the ground, the muscles would have to increase their work output and energy expenditure dramatically. In fact, Alexander estimates that when humans run at middle-distance speeds, the spring-like properties of the Achilles tendon and the arch of the foot alone cut the work the leg muscles have to do by half. Here lies the answer to our paradox: human leg muscles are still working with only 25% efficiency during running; they do not really become more efficient just because running is the chosen sport. If the mechanical cost of movement is two joules per kg body weight per minute, half of this cost is furnished almost for free by the legs’ springs. Thus the muscles cough up four joules per kg per metre to provide the other joule per kg/metre of mechanical cost – with an efficiency of 1/4 = 25%.
The bottom line for you as an athlete who uses running in your chosen sport is that the best way to decrease your cost of running – and thus run faster and longer – is by enhancing the function of your leg springs. Since they are able to store energy more effectively when the foot hits the ground and then release this energy more fully and in a more timely fashion during push-off, your metabolic cost of running at a specific speed will drop, and you will be able to move up to higher speeds during training and racing.
Aragon wrote:
Naturally if you have this mindset of seeing yourself as the reincarnation of Indiana Jones but this time fighting in the Internet the "pro-doping russian whitewashers with unspecified 'agendas'", you can easily not notice the views that other people actually hold.
Pointing out your....
1) logical fallacies 2) double standards 3) cherry picking of evidence 4) or total lack of knowledge of the source material ≠ being "pro-doping" or thinking that doping doesn't "work"
Yeah...right, the same can be said for you with one key addition:
"1) logical fallacies 2) double standards 3) cherry picking of evidence 4) or total lack of knowledge of the source material ≠ being "pro-doping" or thinking that doping doesn't "work" 5)Delusions of Grandeur.
Still waiting for you to show how injecting rEPO can circumvent thermodynamics?
Strawman argument you cry.
Cop out. It can't circumvent thermodynamics. Thermoregulation can't be altered with more red blood cells than normal.
But keep telling yourself that you're right and the drugs really work and that others who ask these awkward questions are delusional.
JonO. wrote:
https://www.peakendurancesport.com/endurance-training/techniques/running-efficiency-increase-running-speed-power-reducing-energy-cost-movement/Andrew Hamilton:
Generally, larger animals (like humans) tend to be a little more efficient during running than small animals like mice, for reasons that are not exactly clear. The real paradox is this, however: when muscles are stripped from the legs of freshly killed mice and tested in the laboratory, they operate with an efficiency of 25%. That same experiment can obviously not be carried out with humans, but it is known that when humans ride bicycles, their efficiency is also about 25%. Why is running such an inefficient process for mice and so efficient for humans? When mice run marathons, their efficiency of movement drops from 25% to just 3%, while for humans efficiency during running soars from the 25% achieved during biking to 50%! The answer to the mouse question is unknown, but the key to the human running response is obvious. Each time a human foot hits the ground while running, energy is stored as ‘elastic strain energy’ by the key ‘springs’ in the human leg – mainly the connective-tissue strips which run along the bottom of the foot, the Achilles tendon and its associated muscles, the relevant muscles and tendons around the knee and the relevant muscles and tendons surrounding the hip. All of these structures are stretched when the foot hits the ground, and this stretching process stores energy – i.e. increases the potential energy of the leg. When the structures recoil elastically during toe-off, they manage to return about 90% of the work required to stretch them (with only 10% lost as heat). If the tendons and muscles of the leg were not able to store energy during impact with the ground, the muscles would have to increase their work output and energy expenditure dramatically. In fact, Alexander estimates that when humans run at middle-distance speeds, the spring-like properties of the Achilles tendon and the arch of the foot alone cut the work the leg muscles have to do by half. Here lies the answer to our paradox: human leg muscles are still working with only 25% efficiency during running; they do not really become more efficient just because running is the chosen sport. If the mechanical cost of movement is two joules per kg body weight per minute, half of this cost is furnished almost for free by the legs’ springs. Thus the muscles cough up four joules per kg per metre to provide the other joule per kg/metre of mechanical cost – with an efficiency of 1/4 = 25%.
The bottom line for you as an athlete who uses running in your chosen sport is that the best way to decrease your cost of running – and thus run faster and longer – is by enhancing the function of your leg springs. Since they are able to store energy more effectively when the foot hits the ground and then release this energy more fully and in a more timely fashion during push-off, your metabolic cost of running at a specific speed will drop, and you will be able to move up to higher speeds during training and racing.
Oh, Jon. It still takes energy at a higher rate to actually move the legs to set that in motion.
Plodding miles will always beat plyometrics when it comes to training for distances.
"It still takes energy at a higher rate to actually move the legs to set that in motion."
What is that supposed to mean?
JonO. wrote:
Please explain your equation.
It's not MY equation, it's the equation of running. Speed is function of fraction of Vo2 utilized and function of energetic cost of running.
Zede wrote:
JonO. wrote:
Please explain your equation.
It's not MY equation, it's the equation of running. Speed is function of fraction of Vo2 utilized and function of energetic cost of running.
So what about the anaerobic contribution, which has been greatly underestimated in distance running. A summary equation that misses this out is not for efficiency, but oxygen economy.
And what about the neural contribution to endurance. And the influence of plasma shifts? What about the neural skills of biomechanics influencing both the power and the energetic cost of running?
JonO. wrote:
So what about the anaerobic contribution, which has been greatly underestimated in distance running. A summary equation that misses this out is not for efficiency, but oxygen economy.
And what about the neural contribution to endurance. And the influence of plasma shifts? What about the neural skills of biomechanics influencing both the power and the energetic cost of running?
So enlighten us, write here your own equation.
Maybe there are many aspects, and all count, but i've never seen a man winning a major marathon with a Vo2max of 50.
But you must know that those with the highers VO2 have the worst economy?
Forget about VO2 max. Your oxygen uptake is exactly what it is supposed to be if you are healthy.
Chris Froome would not beat 20 minutes in a 5k and Eliud Kipchoge would not climb Alpe d'Huez in less than 60 minutes. Because they don't have the biomechanical skills to do that.
A true estimate of energy cost has to have accurate ATP counts for each energy system. My estimate for anaerobic contribution for elite marathon runners is 7-8% anaerobic, much higher than old school measurements of 1-2% which were based on the silly idea that lactate was a waste product.
Regarding the article above, learning to use eccentric contractions optimally is possibly the biggest challenge in developing biomechanical efficiency, not just for power but for endurance and recovery.
And when this skill is lost, elite runners become much slower runners even though their VO2 max will still be the same.
JonO. wrote:
Still waiting for you to show how injecting rEPO can circumvent thermodynamics?
Strawman argument you cry.
Cop out. It can't circumvent thermodynamics. Thermoregulation can't be altered with more red blood cells than normal.
But keep telling yourself that you're right and the drugs really work and that others who ask these awkward questions are delusional.
Strawman I merely state.
Still waiting for you to understand thermodynamics.
JonO. wrote:
"It still takes energy at a higher rate to actually move the legs to set that in motion."
What is that supposed to mean?
You can't increase the bounce unless you increase the force into it.
Basic physics.
JonO. wrote:
But you must know that those with the highers VO2 have the worst economy?
Forget about VO2 max. Your oxygen uptake is exactly what it is supposed to be if you are healthy.
Chris Froome would not beat 20 minutes in a 5k and Eliud Kipchoge would not climb Alpe d'Huez in less than 60 minutes. Because they don't have the biomechanical skills to do that.
A true estimate of energy cost has to have accurate ATP counts for each energy system. My estimate for anaerobic contribution for elite marathon runners is 7-8% anaerobic, much higher than old school measurements of 1-2% which were based on the silly idea that lactate was a waste product.
Regarding the article above, learning to use eccentric contractions optimally is possibly the biggest challenge in developing biomechanical efficiency, not just for power but for endurance and recovery.
And when this skill is lost, elite runners become much slower runners even though their VO2 max will still be the same.
Yes, biomechanical skills are important for top level, but Chris Froome would beat many amateur runners, and Eliud Kipchoge would beat many amateur cyclists. So also Vo2 is a factor, not sufficient, but very important.
Eccentric contractions? So they are all mad, all amateur and elite that do hills..... in ascent, they must do that... in descent.
JonO. wrote:
But you must know that those with the highers VO2 have the worst economy?
Forget about VO2 max. Your oxygen uptake is exactly what it is supposed to be if you are healthy.
Chris Froome would not beat 20 minutes in a 5k and Eliud Kipchoge would not climb Alpe d'Huez in less than 60 minutes. Because they don't have the biomechanical skills to do that.
A true estimate of energy cost has to have accurate ATP counts for each energy system. My estimate for anaerobic contribution for elite marathon runners is 7-8% anaerobic, much higher than old school measurements of 1-2% which were based on the silly idea that lactate was a waste product.
Regarding the article above, learning to use eccentric contractions optimally is possibly the biggest challenge in developing biomechanical efficiency, not just for power but for endurance and recovery.
And when this skill is lost, elite runners become much slower runners even though their VO2 max will still be the same.
pseudoscience from a pseudoscientist.
"my estimate" lol. Really got a lot of cred backing that one up.
It says that Deena's VO2 max went from 70.2 to 77.5 to 81.3 but you wrote, in part, "Forget about VO2 max. Your oxygen uptake is exactly what it is supposed to be if you are healthy."
What would account for her test results other than her VO2 max going up?
SlowFatMaster wrote:
http://www.coolrunning.com/engine/2/2_1/the-anatomy-of-a-medal.shtmlIt says that Deena's VO2 max went from 70.2 to 77.5 to 81.3 but you wrote, in part, "Forget about VO2 max. Your oxygen uptake is exactly what it is supposed to be if you are healthy."
What would account for her test results other than her VO2 max going up?
He rejects that and claims '"springier feet"
rekrunner wrote:
I'm going to say "Post hoc ergo propter hoc".
"Sine qua non."
FTFY
Morrocan Magic wrote:
... Yeah...right, the same can be said for you with one key addition...
Technically speaking everything can be said about anyone and it is upto the readers to judge for themselves our level of knowledge and sincerity.
To close my case about you knowing next to nothing about my knowledge of source material or even the positions I have, you are simply wrong when you claim that there are zero studies on blood doping with elite level athletes, because in the past I have referred to these studies where this have been done and Vo2MAX and performance have been increased with athletes with baseline relative Vo2Max values in the 80's and as high as 87 ml/kg/min.
On the other hand, who cares to look further into supporting your case, if the material is provided by someone with "Delusions of Grandeur"... ;)