Jon,I don't speak only about these two people. Count how many times in this thread that you say "you are missing the point!". You just told "test2" that "Everyone is missing the point." If we are 37 pages into a thread, and everyone is missing your point -- this is not a "rekrunner" science comprehension or math skills problem. I always think my brutal honesty will help you understand why "everyone misses the point", and I give my observations with the best of intentions, but the next step is yours.I no longer ask you to explain anything, but just support your more provocative unique observations with specific external references that say something clearly similar. Don't personally assure me what is realistic, but point me to a credible source or a quote demonstrating the realism, e.g. who else compares runners with absolute VO2max (every reference seems to use relative VO2max, dividing by weight in kg -- including the two studies you've referenced here, plus the sportsscientists link), and who else suggests it is realistic to equate the absolute VO2max of two very different performers?You keep referring us to basic physiology. Somewhere around 2006-2007, I stumbled across a university homepage from Stephen Seiler (it's no longer there but I've given you many alternative links over time, since at least 2008. Here's one that works: http://www.owascoveloclub.com/Education_files/EXERCISE%20PHYSIOLOGY.pdf), with a broadly comprehensive collection of material and a physiological performance model (he describes as complex yet incomplete), that seemed highly representative of the current "state of the art" of basic physiology, dated around the 1996 timeframe. A lot of it was targeted at rowers, and also the effects of aging, but nonetheless, seemed highly representative of modern physiology. Nothing I've read since, from you, from Noakes, from Robergs, has caused me to radically reform, rethink, rework, or reject parts of this performance model, and I still basically stand by much of it today. The model explains the role of aerobic capacity, lactate, anaerobic threshold, efficiency, economy, psychology, etc. in determining performance factors. Since then, I've read a broad collection of material from scientists and sports writers, like Daniels, Noakes, Tucker and Dugas, Epstein, Magness, MacMillan, and Fitzgerald. There could have been way more, but my interest has since waned.I'm not sure what you mean by me looking up references that eventually confirm your ideas, and me claiming I knew it all along. I do recall one case where Matt Fitzgerald was able to explain neuro-muscular coordination, stride rate, and stride length, with a clarity that was not possible for me to get by reading your posts. I would have understood it's because he is both an amateur athlete and a sports writer, dabbling in many new "science gimmicks", like studies on barefoot running, minimalist shoes, etc. and that being a writer would give him a certain adeptness at self-expression. But now I learned that you were once a cycling journalist?Actually, if we use Daniels 80% figure, your 3 hour runner does barely fit in your table 1, at the very upper end of a "moderately trained" runner. So your illustrative example compares an economic elite runner, with an extremely uneconomical "moderately trained" runner, attempting to prove a generalization about all elite runners.You speak of the weakness of using generic numbers. Fair point, but your "specific" numbers come from one possible scenario that you handpicked. If I handpick a less economic elite runner, and more economic moderately trained runner, I could draw the opposite conclusion. The question remains open which scenario reflects best the general reality -- this must be addressed before you can claim your point still stands. You just provided a study that shows us that less economic elite runners do exist, as does more economic non-elite runners.Your last paper opens up with statements like "There is substantial variation in running economy, even among elite runners" and "Typically, variations in the order of 20–30% are reported, even among international-caliber long-distance runners (di Prampero et al., 1986; Heise and Martin, 2001; Saunders et al., 2004; Williams and Cavanagh, 1987)" and other gems like "Training has little or no effect on running economy... (Bailey and Pate, 1991; Billat et al., 2002; Franch et al., 1998; Lake and Cavanagh, 1996; Midgley et al., 2007)" and "This suggests that running economy is determined by intrinsic morphological and physiological properties." Your previous "running economy" paper seems to agree (see Figure 2) that "running economy" is completely determined by genetics.How to reconcile the high variance of economy, even among elites, and the untrainability of economy, with your points that elites always use less oxygen, that economy is the factor that separates elites from non-elites, that PEDs attacking strength and oxygen vectors do not improve economy (hence performance), and that we must train for economy. I only have to read your paper as far as the "Introduction" to see some inconsistencies with your concepts and the scientific research.
Jon Orange wrote:
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.