I'm a sad, needy person!
I'm a sad, needy person!
And I use drugs all the time!
I'm Mr. Oblivous! aka fred.
Hi Jon!
The thread just reached the "mark of the beast". Well done, Jon!
rekrunner wrote:
OK Jon,
Here's the friendly advice. You are working hard to convince us something, yet you are not gaining any traction, so far as I can see, with anyone. In trying to sell us economy, you are extremely inefficient. You use the same techniques that you have for more than a decade at letsrun, and yet, from the beginning, you mostly provoke others to question many things about you, including your ability to grasp, interpret, and convey, the science you read, and occasionally why you weren't a better runner, or trained some leading runner yourself, if you were so smart. You are no doubt a great runner for your age, and better than many at any age. At the risk of lumping you with coaches that have achieved greatness, you now accuse Daniels, and you have accused Lydiard and Canova, of misunderstanding the science. You must concede that it is possible to achieve great performances, yet possess grave misunderstandings of how you achieved it.
I cannot speak for others, but considering myself more like a scientist, here are some reasons I hesitate to accept your unique concepts that deviate from my own notions of basic physiology:
- Where is your data? I see many conclusions, but very little data. The data you do present, representing "basic physiology" seems to always support, or reaffirm, rather than contradict, any conventional notions I had before. I have struggled for a decade to see your "aerobic dogma" as dogma, or factors that improve economy exclusively contradicting (rather than complementing) aerobic factors determining performance improvement. Jack Daniels published material based on real VO2 and speed measurements of a rather large population, including elite runners, and formed relations from the real measurements. You come up with an imaginary scenario, coupled with some assumptions, backed up by your personal assurance and re-assurance that it is realistic. Your scenario contradicts some of Daniels' statements derived from real data, and you presume that Daniels must have learned so much since then, and would agree with you today. I would be tempted to consider your claims further if you actually presented us with some real contradictory data, rather than fabricating scenarios with twins assuming the same absolute VO2max. You've effectively contradicted Daniels' real data, with your imagination, and you hope by now he has since come around to his senses.
- Should Daniels recant his 1979 statements? I guess Daniels rightly stands by the VO2 measurements and the velocity measurements, and Gilbert stands by the math that generated a good curve-fit of VO2 to velocity. This data is still as real and the math still as applicable in 2016 as much as it was in 1979. What can change is the interpretation and implication of the data, in a larger exercise context, and perhaps the importance of the role of other non-oxygen factors which were lost as confounding noise during the curve-fitting exercise of VO2 to velocity. Maybe Daniels has other papers that explore economy further -- some of the "brilliant research" that you acknowledge that he has done. Maybe you could point us to a few of those, as part of your arguments supporting the points you want us to accept.
- Who is presumptuous? I presume the point of a published work "Oxygen Power" was to show the role of "oxygen" in generating sustained "power". Economy briefly appears as something that reduces the correlation of the curve-fit of VO2 to velocity, influencing some comparable fit measure of "r" smaller than 1. While Daniels makes no secret that economy can vary widely between runners with the same VO2max measurements, the focus of "Oxygen Power" was the relation of Oxygen, and Power. Economy should be featured in a complementary paper "Non-oxygen Power" or "Economic Powers" -- maybe you would like to write this one, or find someone who wrote it, or will write it?
- How do you respond to doubt? Despite me asking you 4 or 5 times, you have still not shown us where your 3 hour runner, fits in the Table 1 of your linked Economy paper. This helps illustrate whether we are struggling to meet the lowest bar of determining the mere existence of such a runner, or rather whether such an uneconomic runner is more the norm, numbering in the millions. Using your 85% figure, that you obtained from the same paper, your paper shows this athlete does not possess "representative VO2 values for different caliber of runners from the existing literature". I already know the answer, because I did read your paper, but can't help feel that you should do more of your own work when answering doubts. You actually have the data, and you have a choice. You chose not to use the data. You presented us with an economy paper with data showing us "representative VO2 values … from the existing literature", yet when questioned about the existence of such an uneconomic runner, you chose to personally reassure us that such a runner exists, and you chose to question my own links to reality. Maybe you really are "too lazy". If you want me (I don't speak for anyone else) to appreciate you as a scientist, you must make a scientific choice when responding to real doubt.
- What is your imaginary scenario supposed to show us? I guess if someone has a measured 68 VO2max, and 20% bodyfat, and a 3-hour marathon time, they can make big improvements if I train, lose weight and improve technique. This is hardly a remarkable statement, and at best it is applicable to a small subset of the running population. There is no doubt that a measured VO2max of 68 indicates a huge potential for the 3 hour runner. Looking up a 3 hour marathon in a VDOT table could be a huge source of encouragement, by highlighting that economy is lacking. The doubt is how many there are that possess such a poor economy, and if this can be applied to runners who have elite performances. What about the other twin? Can your 2 hour twin further improve his economy? Can he improve his engine with PEDs? These doubts remain unaddressed, despite your conclusions to the contrary.
- Are the conclusions from this illustrative imaginary scenario something exceptional, or something that we can generalize to a whole population? You already told me it was NOT something we could generalize (even asking where would I get such an idea?). How does this extreme example fit in a thread which seems to want to say that PEDs are not necessary for anyone and everyone, in order to be the "best that they can be". If this is NOT something we can generalize, how do you get from your imaginary scenario, to "my point still stands: ELITE RUNNERS USE LESS OXYGEN, GLYCOGEN AND FATS TO RACE FASTER." (Glycogen and fats? Yikes! More conclusions with missing data!).
- What is the message from your scenario? I gather that it is something like, any of the millions of uneconomic athletes with a measured VO2max of 68, and a 3-hour marathon PB, could become the next Derek Clayton (measured VO2max of 69, marathon PB 2:08:33) without PEDs, just by training, losing weight and improving technique. And more generally, any athlete, regardless of their measured VO2max, can always improve economy factors, and therefore performance, rendering PEDs superfluous, or even worse, ineffective, as they don't target economy. It's a positive and hopeful message, but judging by the near universal reactions spanning more than a decade, you seem to be the wrong messenger. The first challenge you face is, "OK, but what if we increase the size of the engine, and economy"? You can personally reassure us again that this is a "false concept" contradicting basic physiology, or show us the science. The choice is yours.
Jon Orange wrote:To redo the previous calcualation with Daniels' time v intensity graph which is the one I originally alluded to early in this thread:
http://s3.amazonaws.com/zanran_storage/www.canibaisereis.com/ContentPages/2466959967.pdf79% VO2 max for a 3 hour race but only 80% for a 2 hour race.
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
The difference in intensity is minimal. You assumed the fast runner has to have a massively hypertrophic heart giving him a super human VO2 max. This is the dogma, it goes back to even before you were born. Elite athletes don't have massively hypertrophic hearts.
The slower runner uses more fats and more carbs, as we all do when we run for longer periods.
Even if we use the example of two identical twins with a relatively low VO2 max, they will have genetically superior economy relative to those with a higher VO2 max. Say 4 liters/minute then the 3 hour runner uses 4 x .79 = 3.16 x 180 = 569 liters oxygen
Elite runner uses 4 x .80 = 3.20 liters x 120 = 384 liters.
So my point still stands: ELITE RUNNERS USE LESS OXYGEN, GLYCOGEN AND FATS TO RACE FASTER.
The same principle applies to runners with much smaller differences in ability.
Really, it's not hard to figure this stuff out, it's not quantum mechanics.
rekrunner. For goodness sake, surely you must realize that most of the posts on this thread are from the same 2 people, fred and sir rants-alot aka Mr Obvious and 1000s of other names?
Second point I explain things to you over and over and over, and you ask me the same questions over and over and over expecting me to agree with you. Eventually you actually look up some references and find lo and behold they agree with me and not you. Then you claim that you knew this all along since you read those references years ago.
Where does my 3 hour runner fit in the table of the study I gave? He doesn't, that table is normative data, more generic data like Daniels' VDOT.
The example I gave was for a beginner with just one year running expericence but with good fitness. That was the whole point, to show improvements in running skill/running economy.
Forget about data tables that are generic and not specific. I can't argue the point with generic numbers can I? Only specific numbers. I can show different numbers that are closer together in economy. Are you actually denying that they would show improved economy unless they fit with the tables?
Daniels said in that 1979 paper that running was NOT a skill. I was shocked at his ignorance when I read that last week, but thanks for the link anyway.
The second graph in Oxygen power is relevant since, despite being a generic graph it is applicable to the purposes of my point.
Read the rest of the paper, It says that oxygen uptake is genetics plus basic training which is what I'm saying too. Why are you arguing the point? Who are you arguing with?
The figures I showed you are realistic and for you to claim otherwise is yet another example of you just arguing for the sake of it. How long is this particular argument going to go on for, with you asking me the same quesitions over and over and over and me giving the same replies over and over and over?
For goodness sake man, read what I wrote and the numbers I gave. Everything tallies. I have not made any mistakes. You imagine that I must have, that is all in your head. Look closely, it's not hard to figure out.
[quote]Jon Orange wrote:
Read the rest of the paper, It says that oxygen uptake is genetics [quote]
It all comes down to genetics, Jon. That's why you were nowhere close to elite despite knowing the key to limitless performance.
The last 2 sentences are the answer, believe it or not. Genes. Thread closed.
dope works wrote:
[quote]Jon Orange wrote:
Read the rest of the paper, It says that oxygen uptake is genetics [quote]
It all comes down to genetics, Jon. That's why you were nowhere close to elite despite knowing the key to limitless performance.
Yes oxygen uptake is genetics, I've been saying that all along. That's not the point is it? You're completely missing the point. Everyone is missing the point.
Economy is the point. That's what makes a runner elite.
How did Deena Kastor lift hers so much over the years?
Guess what economy ultimately depends on? Genetics.
To be elite you must be able to move fast. Guess what that depends on? Genetics.
Not rocket scientry here Jon boy.
She trained better than you will ever know troll boy.
Jon Orange wrote:
She trained better than you will ever know troll boy.
And you too, right?
The difference between those with a high oxygen uptake and relatively low economy and those with a relatively low oxygen uptake and a high economy:
http://jeb.biologists.org/content/211/20/3266
Generic data for the differences between East African elite runners and less efficient runners:
Great quote from your first source. " Training has little or no effect on running economy"
Plus structural features that promote economy are clearly genetic.
Well done, Jon.
Right! They take drugs just because they are bored and hungry. After all drugs don't work.
Jon Orange wrote:
Yes oxygen uptake is genetics, I've been saying that all along. That's not the point is it? You're completely missing the point. Everyone is missing the point.
Economy is the point. That's what makes a runner elite.
Jon, you started this thread writing that oxygen usage doesn't matter, it's all about economy and therefore a drug like EPO that enhances oxygen usage but does nothing for economy is worthless. That is such an extreme viewpoint as to be indefensible: you yourself admit that elite runners all have relatively high abilities to use oxygen (VO2max > 70). Having admitted that having a 'big engine' is necessary, the argument that EPO can't work because engine size is irrelevant makes no sense. That's okay though, because it doesn't negate your main point: for accomplished runners high V02max is more or less a given; it is efficiency that distinguishes the best from the rest. And you yourself have ideas about how to train for optimal efficiency. Let's drop this thread and start a new one about that. It's much more interesting and important.
p.s. Here's what I think happened. When you taught yourself physiology, you missed the part where VO2max has some predictive power for performances. That's nothing to be ashamed of. This stuff is complicated and if you aren't studying it in school there's no one to catch your mistakes or bounce ideas off of. Also, a lot of the early papers on VO2max are behind paywalls so you didn't have easy access to them. I had journal access when taught myself this stuff because I was in school studying something else and I missed a lot of stuff too, for example that Daniels' fractional utilization curve you and rekrunner corrected my about. There are doubtless other things I got wrong that haven't come to light yet been caught yet. Anyway, there's no shame in realizing you got something wrong. Let's move on.
While I generally don't agree with J.O. on the (un)importance of oxygen delivery on performance, here is an interesting quotation from a 49 years old research paper by Bengt Saltin (d. 2014) and Per-Olof Ã…strand (d. 2015) - two giants of exercise physiology - both of whom passed just recently:
Maximal oxygen uptake, Journal of Applied Physiology, 23;3; 1967
The top runners today do not attain higher values for maximal oxygen uptake than Don Lash, the world record holder 30 years ago in 2 miles (13). This is surprising since the world record of today is about 30 set faster. The improved results can be due to a better running technique, ability to work closer to the maximum, difference in the anaerobic power, and better tracks and equipment nowadays.
That at least tilts towards the conclusions that most of the improvement in performance is due to factors independent of Vo2MAX elevation, a conclusion I see no reason to deny. Two things should still be kept in mind:
- The same GIH-laboratory did most of the work on the blood doping from mid-1960s onward that was the basis for the theory that total hemoglobin is closely related to performance.
- When comparing the Vo2MAX values of cross country skiers decade-by-decade, there actually is a tendency for the values to rise slightly from 1960s to 1990s.
He doesn't have any different training ideas, He just gives known principles and techniques different attributes.
Here is another calcualation with Daniels' time v intensity graph which is the one I originally alluded to early in this thread, the second graph which is on page 3:
http://s3.amazonaws.com/zanran...959967.pdf
Comparing a 2.05 runner to a 2.15 runner who is genetically identical (for the purpose of comparing like with like with regards to genetics v training)
79.5% VO2 max for a 2.15 race but only 80% for a 2.05 hour race.
If we suppose they are identical twins, one a super elite runner and the other having less experience and training, sub elite. They both have the same absolute VO2 max (as per Daniels' observations on genetics and training of oxygen uptake)
If both runners have the same absolute VO2 max say 5 liters/minute then:
2.15 runner uses 5 x .795 = 3.975 liters x 135 = 536.6 liters oxygen
2.05 runner uses 5x .80 = 4.0 liters x 125 = 500 liters oxygen
The difference in intensity is minimal. The slower runner uses more fats and more carbs, as we all do when we run for longer periods.
So my point still stands:
ELITE RUNNERS USE LESS OXYGEN, GLYCOGEN AND FATS TO RACE FASTER.
Really, it's not hard to figure this stuff out, it's not quantum mechanics. The only point on which we can possibly disagree is that of relative oxygen uptkake versus relative economy. I agree with Daniels on these points. Other physiologists agree with Daniels too.
Nothing Innovative wrote:
He doesn't have any different training ideas, He just gives known principles and techniques different attributes.
Hasn't that been said of every coach?
I don't know if Jon has the answers but how often have you seen a thread on here where some average runner has paid to have a VO2max test and got a high number and he or she asks what do I with this information? Slow runner, high VO2max: by definition that runner has low efficiency. Seems to me that there is a need for a training plan for such people. It's not obvious that such a runner should train the same as, say, a runner who's VO2max matches their vdot.