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

Ima help you out wrote:

You keep missing this quote: " "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.

So, no point in doing any training then?

You're missing the point. Let me help YOU out. Runners with the highest VO2 max have the worst economy and vice versa.

However, all runners must improve economy to improve their performance.

The point is that it's economy of ALL of those little factors, not just economy of movement that you're harping on about.

Hilarious that your spout nonsense like running slowly up a hill emphasizing ankle movement and flexibility and then link to studies showing that stiff shoes and tendons enhance economy.

The running up the hill slowly to emphasize ankle, foot and achilles mobility was just part of it, a warm up and/or another part of the conditioning, not the whole package. A good place to start. Without it, you can't run efficiently.

You're still missing the point. Read my previous post. A regular trainer already has those other factors in place. What they don't have is the ability to race using fuel efficiently.

Why is this so hard for you to understand?

Because they don't have all of those factors in place. All of them need continuous improvement.

You need to stop pretending it's that one factor. None of your sources say this so unless you can link to one really good study showing it's all from that one factor then just give it up.

You need to stop missing the point. Your oxygen delivery is not going to improve, you economy needs some work.

I don't think you want to learn this stuff at all. You are in denial. Look at the figures I showed you, they are realistic. You don't want that though, you want a fantasy. Perhaps the 'bigger engine' fanstasy that so many believe in?

A convenient excuse for failure.

So working hard to improve all factors is a fantasy and this coming from a guy who was too lazy?

Tell me more about convenient excuses for failure.

You're not improving all factors if the oxygen delivery is in place. And you can't expect an increase in oxygen uptake beyond basic fitness.

You can troll all you want, you won't post anything worthwhile.

Jon Orange wrote:

You're not improving all factors if the oxygen delivery is in place. And you can't expect an increase in oxygen uptake beyond basic fitness.

You can troll all you want, you won't post anything worthwhile.

Your source suggests otherwise. Perhaps you need to look for a source that actually agrees with you since you are tool lazy to prove it on your own?

One more time : "it is evident that RE is a complex, multifactorial concept that reflects the integrated composite of a variety of metabolic, cardiorespiratory, biomechanical and neuromuscular characteristics that are unique to the individual"

The authors have to give a multifactoria approach don't they? However, it is well recognize that oxygen uptake is a combination of basic health and fitness plus genetics. Beyond that, where are you going to see continuned improvements?

In improved neural/biomechanical effiency. You have to be able to produce sustained power through the feet/ankles/achilles, without this, you can't sustain a fast pace.

Jon Orange wrote:

The authors have to give a multifactoria approach don't they? However, it is well recognize that oxygen uptake is a combination of basic health and fitness plus genetics. Beyond that, where are you going to see continuned improvements?

In improved neural/biomechanical effiency. You have to be able to produce sustained power through the feet/ankles/achilles, without this, you can't sustain a fast pace.

No they don't. They could try to prove your point if it was real.

It's what you do with the oxygen that is taken up that you train for..

You've painted yourself into a corner with bad sources.

One more time to you too.

How do you think I made those improvements up to the age of 45? Do you really think I improved my oxygen delivery?

How do you think Gebreseallasie ran World Records up to the age of 35? Do you really think he improved his oxygen delivery?

Or could it be that you are ignoring the real issue for continuous improvement?

Running skill, improved efficiency of movement?

Ima help you out wrote:

Jon Orange wrote:

The authors have to give a multifactoria approach don't they? However, it is well recognize that oxygen uptake is a combination of basic health and fitness plus genetics. Beyond that, where are you going to see continuned improvements?

In improved neural/biomechanical effiency. You have to be able to produce sustained power through the feet/ankles/achilles, without this, you can't sustain a fast pace.

No they don't. They could try to prove your point if it was real.

It's what you do with the oxygen that is taken up that you train for..

You've painted yourself into a corner with bad sources.

Bad sources? I happen to know one of the authors. Maybe I should give him a call and let him know how let down you feel?

Jon Orange wrote:

One more time to you too.

How do you think I made those improvements up to the age of 45? Do you really think I improved my oxygen delivery?

How do you think Gebreseallasie ran World Records up to the age of 35? Do you really think he improved his oxygen delivery?

Or could it be that you are ignoring the real issue for continuous improvement?

Running skill, improved efficiency of movement?

You were lazy so progress was slower. You also stopped improving.

Geb was running faster in the Marathon because of changes in what his oxygen delivery system was delivering to. ie a different fuel burning mix.

His calves and ,lower leg power were far below his prime years, that's why he couldn't run as fast.

If Geb had just trained for the Marathon at a young age he would have been much faster ultimately.

Jon Orange wrote:

Ima help you out wrote:

No they don't. They could try to prove your point if it was real.

It's what you do with the oxygen that is taken up that you train for..

You've painted yourself into a corner with bad sources.

Bad sources? I happen to know one of the authors. Maybe I should give him a call and let him know how let down you feel?

Maybe you should give him a call and tell him that your idea is the only one that matters? Why don't you do that?

I think they are great sources for MY argument. YOU are the one who should feel let down.

Well thank you for your amazing insights. You should write a book. And give Haile a call, tell him where he was going wrong. However, if you do a bit more research you will find that the Ethiopians know a lot more about running efficiency than you do.

Jon Orange wrote:

Well thank you for your amazing insights. You should write a book. And give Haile a call, tell him where he was going wrong. However, if you do a bit more research you will find that the Ethiopians know a lot more about running efficiency than you do.

Call the guy Jon, you have his number.

Ima help you out wrote:

You were lazy so progress was slower. You also stopped improving.

I wasn't lazy. That was a joke. Evidently you missed that.

I improved up to age 45. That had nothing to do with improved oxygen delivery. My VO2 max probably peaked more than 20 years earlier.

I improved my running skill. Something you don't understand.

Counting Lanes wrote:

Jon Orange wrote:

Well thank you for your amazing insights. You should write a book. And give Haile a call, tell him where he was going wrong. However, if you do a bit more research you will find that the Ethiopians know a lot more about running efficiency than you do.

Call the guy Jon, you have his number.

This

And Haile did nothing wrong. Where did I say he did?