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

test2 wrote:

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.

Well we agree on that. Although I must say, this will apply to millions of young runners.

All runners need to work on efficiency. Back to my point about running skill being the power we can develop with the feet, ankles and achilles. That's why I told another poster to run slowly up a steep grass slope trying to get as much range of movement in the feet and ankles as possible. Translate that to running on the flat with more adrenaline, and you are really moving efficiently.

More fun with math:

If the 2:05 runner slows down and runs for 2:15 then he uses:

5x .795=3.975 x 135=536.625 liters oxygen! Same as for the slower runner.

So if you run longer you use more oxygen. Stunning conclusion! But if two people (one presumably more efficient than the other), with the same oxygen intake run the same amount of time then they use the same amount of oxygen.

What is this proving?

My figures as shown above should leave you dumbstruck with awe. Not because I have some great insight, but because they completely contradict conventional wisdom in a most appealing way to those looking for the answers to training problems and the doping problem.

Look at the beautiful simplicity of what it's really all about, this running business? This applies to all distances, although calculations for sprint efficiency are a real problem. But the philosophy still applies.

Lets see proof of those measures of adrenaline being higher. Is that genetic?

The trolls will follow, no doubt. Personally I'm just getting tired of this discussion. A few of us are trying to correct a few errors in your reasoning but if you aren't interested in rethinking a few things, there's not much we can do. Everyone else is just trying to torment you for reasons of their own.

Anyway, I like that you list three causes of VO2max variation:

1, they are DISTANCE RUNNERS.

2, they have LOW BODY FAT

3, they are YOUNG

because it makes it easier for me to say that those aren't all of the reasons. They are three big ones, no doubt, but runners can actually add lean muscle to their skeletal and heart muscle over time. Mitochondria do multiply. All of these 'reductionist' things you'd rather not think about. And fine, for on the ground training, I actually agree with you. Thinking about your mitochondria while you train does absolutely no good. It's more useful to think about they way your ankles flex and snap. I guess that's why I'd rather talk training because it's something you and I and others could probably have a constructive discussion about without arguing over what minimal model of oxygen metabolism we subscribe to.

Simple arithmetic is not your strong point is it Mr. Oblivious?

You got the numbers wrong dumbaa$$.

Mitochondria eh? Show me real evidence?

You should know that there is some very spurious research on the subject?

I think muscle biopsies have been very inadequately examined.

I know a guy who is a skinny young distance runner who moves like an elite and his V02 is really low. Not surprisingly he is NOT elite.

Mr. Obvious wrote:

More fun with math:

If the 2:05 runner slows down and runs for 2:15 then he uses:

5x .795=3.975 x 135=536.625 liters oxygen! Same as for the slower runner.

So if you run longer you use more oxygen. Stunning conclusion! But if two people (one presumably more efficient than the other), with the same oxygen intake run the same amount of time then they use the same amount of oxygen.

What is this proving?

The inverse works, too. If the slower runner runs as hard as he can for 2:05, then he will use

5x.8=4x125=500 liters of oxygen.

Just a note that the above works because JonO is totally misrepresenting the chart in the Daniel's paper that he keeps posting. The chart is clearly labeled as being % of velocity at VO2max. He keeps ignoring this, but it does not go away. I do think I referred to that label as being on the X-axis but it is on the y-axis. If you (he) was actually reading the chart correctly, you would find out that the above runner is exactly the same. Neither one is slower or faster. They are just operating at a different percentage of their capacity.

Also, but using %VO2Max instead of %Velocity at VO2Max, Jon has a situation where the runners are going to die instantly when they stop running (because if they are using 80% of VO2max at 80% of Velcity at VO2max, then when they are at 0% velocity of VO2Max, which means they won't be breathing at all.

Jon Orange wrote:

Mitochondria eh? Show me real evidence?

You should know that there is some very spurious research on the subject?

I think muscle biopsies have been very inadequately examined.

Look, it's nuts. These are things the size of bacteria that have their own DNA--they aren't even really human cells. I don't pretend to know what goes on in the life of a mitochondrian and those who say they do are selling you something. But surely you must realize that by saying those are the only three reasons for VO2max growth you are oversimplifying a tad.

Jon Orange wrote:

Simple arithmetic is not your strong point is it Mr. Oblivious?

You got the numbers wrong dumbaa$$.

I'm using YOUR numbers. They match exactly with what you have posited.

test2 wrote:

Jon Orange wrote:

Mitochondria eh? Show me real evidence?

You should know that there is some very spurious research on the subject?

I think muscle biopsies have been very inadequately examined.

Look, it's nuts. These are things the size of bacteria that have their own DNA--they aren't even really human cells. I don't pretend to know what goes on in the life of a mitochondrian and those who say they do are selling you something. But surely you must realize that by saying those are the only three reasons for VO2max growth you are oversimplifying a tad.

Pretty soon he will acuse you of being reductionistic. And then if you don't stop he will accuse you of being a troll and posting as multiple accounts.

NO YOU DIMWIT. YOUR NUMBERS ARE WRONG. You don't undestand that percentage of intensity of VO2 max is TIME DEPENDENT.

And secondly, YOU FORGOT TO CHANGE THE INTENSITY IN YOUR CALUCULATIONS.

test2 wrote:

Jon Orange wrote:

Mitochondria eh? Show me real evidence?

You should know that there is some very spurious research on the subject?

I think muscle biopsies have been very inadequately examined.

Look, it's nuts. These are things the size of bacteria that have their own DNA--they aren't even really human cells. I don't pretend to know what goes on in the life of a mitochondrian and those who say they do are selling you something. But surely you must realize that by saying those are the only three reasons for VO2max growth you are oversimplifying a tad.

No, I'm not oversimplifying. Look at it this way. Those calculations I showed you, which are correct and not as mr. oblivious says, he's just trolling anyway,

... those calculations show you that elites aren't using more fuel. So why would they need more mitochondria?

OK, please do these calculations, because I did change the numbers. Those were the results I got.

If your 2:05 runner slows down (from 80% to 79.5%) and runs for 2:15, how much oxygen is he using?

If your 2:15 runner speeds up slightly (from 79.5% to 80%) and runs for 2:05, how much oxygen is he using?

Show me how my equations are wrong and I will stop posting on your thread.

Jon Orange wrote:

test2 wrote:

Look, it's nuts. These are things the size of bacteria that have their own DNA--they aren't even really human cells. I don't pretend to know what goes on in the life of a mitochondrian and those who say they do are selling you something. But surely you must realize that by saying those are the only three reasons for VO2max growth you are oversimplifying a tad.

No, I'm not oversimplifying. Look at it this way. Those calculations I showed you, which are correct and not as mr. oblivious says, he's just trolling anyway,

... those calculations show you that elites aren't using more fuel. So why would they need more mitochondria?

The truth is it's been a week since I've read though every math post. Back then the sticking point was the elites used few total fuel but use what fuel they did burn at a faster rate. Since mitochondria process fuel but don't store it, having more would be helpful. Also, and don't take this hard, back then Mr. Obvious and rekrunners math looked right to me. I can understand that after being trolled for a decade and a half one can become very entrenched in their beliefs (I'd have stop posting long ago), but you are just wrong about a few things, Jon.

Jon Orange wrote:

test2 wrote:

Look, it's nuts. These are things the size of bacteria that have their own DNA--they aren't even really human cells. I don't pretend to know what goes on in the life of a mitochondrian and those who say they do are selling you something. But surely you must realize that by saying those are the only three reasons for VO2max growth you are oversimplifying a tad.

No, I'm not oversimplifying. Look at it this way. Those calculations I showed you, which are correct and not as mr. oblivious says, he's just trolling anyway,

... those calculations show you that elites aren't using more fuel. So why would they need more mitochondria?

So that they can burn through their tank faster. That's how you win a race.

Daniels' graph is for racing pace 100% race effort. If the faster runner slows down 10 minutes, his intensity goes down by about 5% and if the slower runner speed up to 2.05 pace, his intensity goes up by about the same amount. Obviously he will not last very long at this pace which is more or less his half marathon pace.

Please read more carefully. I care about this stuff more than all of you put together. Sorry if that sounds arrogant, but that's the way it is.