Also, you have to realize that rekrunner and others on this thread are pretty lousy at math and understanding mathematical concepts. I show simple calculations which completely flummox and discombobulate their simple brains.
Check my figures, they tally.
Mr. Obvious wrote:
Show me how my equations are wrong and I will stop posting on your thread.
Is that a promise?
Jon,
I know you think I am just trolling your thread, but for reasons that aren't exactly clear to me, I"m interested in actually helping you understand these mathematics. From your example.
Here are the givens
So we have two runners:
Runner A has an absolute VO2Max of 5 L/min
Runner B has an absolute VO2Max of 5 L/min
And we are trying to solve for total oxygen used:
For either runner the generic equation is:
5*X*y=total oxygen used
Where X equals intensity and y equals total minutes run. It looks like you have two different variables that you can change. In fact, since the percentage in the Daniel's table is dependent on the amount of time run, you really have two dependent variable. So that anytime you change X, you simultaneously change Y by the exact same amount every time.
So anytime a runner, whether A or B, runs for 125 minutes, they use 80% of oxygen. And any time either runner runs for 135 minutes, they use 79.5% of oxygen. So anytime runner A and runner B run for the same amount of time (whether 1 minute or 10 hours) the intensity is going to be the same and the total amount of oxygen used is going to be the same.
I'm posting part of your original above, so people can see the equations
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
Read more:
http://www.letsrun.com/forum/flat_read.php?thread=7047695&page=34#ixzz42EvJNuJm
Jon Orange wrote:
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.
This is what you wrote on the last page:
You don't undestand that percentage of intensity of VO2 max is TIME DEPENDENT.
What you are writing here it totally inconsistent with the chart you are referencing.
DO THE MATH!
Jon Orange wrote:
test2 wrote: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.
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.
I know you do. That's why it's hard to watch because you are fighting so hard in a hopeless battle. I blame that trolls. The atmosphere here is not conducive to honest dialog. I probably won't post again unless I think of something truly new to add. Best of luck.
Jon Orange wrote:
Mr. Obvious wrote:Show me how my equations are wrong and I will stop posting on your thread.
Is that a promise?
Yes, if my equations are wrong, given what you have already posted.
I think your givens have been quite consistent until you changed them at the top of this page.
Jon Orange wrote:
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.
This is not what you've posted. If the faster runner runs for 10 minutes longer, his percentage of VO2max that he is using falls from 80% to 79.5%.
If the slower runner runs as fast as he can for 2:05, then he runs at 80% of his VO2max instead of 79.5%.
Just note that this doesn't mean that one runner can't be faster than the other, or the other can't be slower. IF just means if you pick the same absolute VO2, and the same amount of time run (and the % of VO2max is dependent on the time run) then they will use the same amount of oxygen in the same time.
One could still be faster or slower than the other one due to economy reasons (and therefore cover more or less ground in that same amount of time). You just can't tell which is which from the givens and the equations. The easiest way to do that would be to posit that one of them is less efficient than the other due to changes in weight, but i would not matter what the reason is.
Eliminate variables. Have people race with walking casts to eliminate elastic energy return.
You will note that some people still race faster.
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.
Yeah, all the research is spurious, but the fantasy numbers in your head for the imaginary twins, that's all real isn't it?
First John says that performance enhancing drugs don't have any effect, and then he says that he was influenced by a guy that manages athletes in a sport where the norm was using a s***load of drugs to enhance performance. And his second choice of influence, is a prof designing tests to catch people using EPO.
So, right off the bat, his ideas are whacked. When you point out this crap to him, you don't get an explanation of how he manages to hold the contradictions together in his head. You get called a troll.
Let me help. The numbers are OK, but the comparisons should be for the same race distance. If your fast runner runs longer, he also runs farther, and should consume more oxygen. Likewise, if the slow runner runs for less time, he doesn't run as far, and should consume less oxygen.I'll leave the math for those more capable.
Mr. Obvious wrote:
Jon Orange wrote: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.
This is not what you've posted. If the faster runner runs for 10 minutes longer, his percentage of VO2max that he is using falls from 80% to 79.5%.
If the slower runner runs as fast as he can for 2:05, then he runs at 80% of his VO2max instead of 79.5%.
I appreciate you trying to help, but I don't think this clarifies anything.The formula is 5*x*y. 5 is Jon's given for Absolute VO2max. X is percentage of VO2max. Y is time.There is no distance run in the equation. If the two runners are running at the same percentage of the same absolute VO2max for the same amount of time, then they will consume the same amount of oxygen. In other words, if Y (time) is equal for runner A and runner B, then X (% of VO2max) inherently has to be equal, because on the reference graph Jon keeps posting, X is a function of Y. It doesn't matter if X runs 26.2 miles in his 2:05 and Y runs 10 miles (assuming they are both racing all out) in his 2:05, they both consume the same amount of oxygen. Of vice versa. Similarly if they both slow down a little bit so that they can run for 2:15, then they both run at 79.5% of VO2max instead of 80% VO2max, so they continue to use the same amount of oxygen. If they run for 3:00 and run at 79% of VO2, same amount of oxygen.I guess this proves that if you make the oxygen consumption the same, then the more efficient runner will run farther in the same amount of time?
rekrunner wrote:
Let me help. The numbers are OK, but the comparisons should be for the same race distance. If your fast runner runs longer, he also runs farther, and should consume more oxygen. Likewise, if the slow runner runs for less time, he doesn't run as far, and should consume less oxygen.
I'll leave the math for those more capable.
Mr. Obvious wrote:This is not what you've posted. If the faster runner runs for 10 minutes longer, his percentage of VO2max that he is using falls from 80% to 79.5%.
If the slower runner runs as fast as he can for 2:05, then he runs at 80% of his VO2max instead of 79.5%.
Jon, I don't have a problem with your math. My observations:1) Your initial condition of equal absolute VO2max for both runners forces the outcome.2) You use the outcome of this specific scenario to generalize about elite runners, as if "proof by imaginary example" is a valid technique.
Jon Orange wrote:
Also, you have to realize that rekrunner and others on this thread are pretty lousy at math and understanding mathematical concepts. I show simple calculations which completely flummox and discombobulate their simple brains.
Check my figures, they tally.
rekrunner wrote:
Jon, I don't have a problem with your math. My observations:
1) Your initial condition of equal absolute VO2max for both runners forces the outcome.
2) You use the outcome of this specific scenario to generalize about elite runners, as if "proof by imaginary example" is a valid technique.
Jon Orange wrote:Also, you have to realize that rekrunner and others on this thread are pretty lousy at math and understanding mathematical concepts. I show simple calculations which completely flummox and discombobulate their simple brains.
Check my figures, they tally.
My math actually matches Jon's perfectly. I'm just generalizing the formula.
All other things being equal, faster runners run faster is the conclusion I'm coming to.
Mr. Obvious wrote:
rekrunner wrote:Jon, I don't have a problem with your math. My observations:
1) Your initial condition of equal absolute VO2max for both runners forces the outcome.
2) You use the outcome of this specific scenario to generalize about elite runners, as if "proof by imaginary example" is a valid technique.
My math actually matches Jon's perfectly. I'm just generalizing the formula.
All other things being equal, faster runners run faster is the conclusion I'm coming to.
They are faster because they are more efficient. Why are they more efficient - because they are faster.
Oh , and they take meldonium.
Jon Orange wrote:
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.
Maybe this is where I've gone wrong. I think it is much easier (and more consistent) just to think about it in the equation that Jon gave us.
If he thinks I mean slowing down so that the faster runner is then covering 26.2 miles in 2:15, well, that isn't it. I simply mean slowing down so that he can run at the appropriate 100% effort for 2:15. So that means shifting on Daniel's chart from 80% to 79.5%.
Similarly, I don't mean the slower runner would attempt to run a marathon in 2:05. That would be a disaster and of course he couldn't last very long at that intensity. I just mean increasing from 79.5% to 80% of VO2max. Which, again, is what Daniel's chart suggests he should be able to do.
It is amusing that people think that incomplete equations with made up data are proof of something. The human body has too many variables to fit neatly into a simple equation. That is why some respond much better to training than others. Likewise for PEDs.
Science is data and correlations. All variables cannot be controlled. The data (times have gotten much faster) correlates with a series of new available drugs and runners getting caught with those drugs (usually much later after the testers catch up).
I love how Jon's first listed study above says that "we assume" this and 'we assume" that and dismisses previous studies as being in error.
You know what they say about assuming.
I didn't check, but I think your numbers are fine.I'm just saying, be careful, because the initial goal was to compare between two runners covering the same distance in the same race to show that "elite runners use less oxygen in a race" (see page 3).If you are playing around with the equations to look at different things to gain a better understanding, maybe that wasn't clear to everyone.
Mr. Obvious wrote:
I appreciate you trying to help, but I don't think this clarifies anything.
The formula is 5*x*y. 5 is Jon's given for Absolute VO2max. X is percentage of VO2max. Y is time.
There is no distance run in the equation. If the two runners are running at the same percentage of the same absolute VO2max for the same amount of time, then they will consume the same amount of oxygen.
In other words, if Y (time) is equal for runner A and runner B, then X (% of VO2max) inherently has to be equal, because on the reference graph Jon keeps posting, X is a function of Y.
It doesn't matter if X runs 26.2 miles in his 2:05 and Y runs 10 miles (assuming they are both racing all out) in his 2:05, they both consume the same amount of oxygen. Of vice versa. Similarly if they both slow down a little bit so that they can run for 2:15, then they both run at 79.5% of VO2max instead of 80% VO2max, so they continue to use the same amount of oxygen. If they run for 3:00 and run at 79% of VO2, same amount of oxygen.
I guess this proves that if you make the oxygen consumption the same, then the more efficient runner will run farther in the same amount of time?