Standard backed in a corner response.. This is why you gain no ground with your theory.
Standard backed in a corner response.. This is why you gain no ground with your theory.
Let's try another tact. Do you believe anything changes in the body apart from neutrally?
The Efficiency Expert wrote:
Let's try another tact. Do you believe anything changes in the body apart from neutrally?
I think you mean tack, 'expert'.
Jonathan Orange wrote:
Well, you're the expert, you tell me?
I'm not an expert, I'm stupid.
The Efficiency Expert wrote:
Jonathan Orange wrote:Well, you're the expert, you tell me?
I'm not an expert, I'm stupid.
So clever! Handle stealing AND witty. The world is your oyster buddy.
To summarize this thread:
JO: Only running economy matters. PED effectiveness is in the mind.
Other: show proof
JO: Only running economy matters. here is an article
Other: the article shows many factors.
JO: No it doesn't. I'm right.
Other: Here are other articles.
JO: those are fiction
Other: Here are more articles and some excerpts/interpretation
JO: Here is a simple equation with made up numbers. Proof!
Other: those are made up numbers and the reality is too complex for that simple equation.
JO: You don't understand math. Here is my calculation again.
Other: Here is a different explanation
JO: You're wrong! Liar, Liar, Pants On FIRE!
Other: I'm trying to explain that there are many variables.
JO: No! It is one thing, only one thing. No one can be right but me!
Other: But...
JO: You don't understand math. Here is my calculation again. No one can be right but me!
JO clearly understands training and that is why he was the Olympic Champion without PEDs. Wait... He wasn't?!?!
Well done. Also note that Jon provided ALL of the articles.
So, let's go through this calculation again.The formula for oxygen use, according to JonO is5*time*intensity. We could also represent this as:5*X*y (x=time, y=intensity)We could also represent this as:5*x*f(x). Since in the Daniel's chart % of VO2 is directly dependent on the amount of time run. So every time you change x (time), you also change f(x) in the exact same way.So whether runner A runs (all out) for 2:05 or runner B runs (all out) for 2:05, they both run at .8 of absolute VO2 and use the exact same amount of total oxygen. Similarly if they both run (all out) for 2:15, they both run at .795 of absolute VO2 and use the exact same amount of oxygen. One runner may run farther in that time period, but there is no way to calculate which one that is from the equation. The only thing this scenario "proves" is that more economical runners are more economical. Jono insists this is a realistic scenario. As the putative marathon times differ by about 8% and the known variance in running economy is well within that, it surely is a realistic scenario. Other scenarios are also realistic. If Runner A, instead has a absolute VO2 of 5.4L, while runner B continues to have an absolute VO2 of 5.0 L the equations would be:Runner A is 5.4*.80*125=540LRunner B is 5*.795*135=536LHey look, the guy with the bigger Engine runs faster. This, of course, is also a very realistic scenario. Runner A has an absolute VO2 of 5, runner B has an absolute VO2 of 4.5Runner A=5*.8*125=500LRunner B=4.5*.795*135=482L. Look the guy who uses more oxygen runs faster. All very realistic scenarios. 10% is well within the variation we see in oxygen update among elite runners. Not sure where this is getting us. We can make up example to support whatever point we want. What we can't make up is large data sets of actual measurements. That has to be done by actual researchers. And it has been...This is not even to mention that the chart in the Daniel's paper is clearly labeled as being % of velocity VO2max, not %VO2max, which Jon keeps insisting. I've adopted Jon's assumption here, but that is not what Daniel's paper actually says.
Jon Orange wrote:
And consider this:
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.pdfComparing 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.
I'm taking this opportunity to post more nonsensical drivel.
Mr. fred Obvious wrote:
I'm taking this opportunity to post more nonsensical drivel.
You, on the other hand, made a brilliant contribution to the thread. Thanks!!
That's looks OK.There are other realistic scenarios. Jon showed us a link that says even among elite athletes, economies can vary 20-30%.What all this tells me is that you must do both (and more): "max your VO2max" (short term), and train to improve economy (long term). As your economy improves, you might find that VO2max even drops. (Just guessing here -- the only VO2max test I've ever done is a Polar watch gimmick which estimates VO2max from my heartbeat -- it matched pretty well with my VDOT).The economy of all runners will improve over time with consistent training, but this will not make everyone elite, and not all elite runners have the same economy. (Put another way, economy is a better predictor of performance than VO2max, but it is still not a great predictor. VDOT is better than both.)Which Daniels graph is "clearly labeled" for you as "% velocity of VO2max"? When I look at the Daniels graphs, the 80% and 79.5% clearly come from "Figure 2". The y-axis is "% VO2max" and the x-axis is duration (hh:mm). There is no mention of velocity at VO2max. "Figure 1" gives the relation of the rate of VO2 to velocity. It is not linear, but from the graph, it looks like a linear estimation would produce small errors.
Mr. Obvious wrote:
So, let's go through this calculation again.
...
Jono insists this is a realistic scenario. As the putative marathon times differ by about 8% and the known variance in running economy is well within that, it surely is a realistic scenario.
Other scenarios are also realistic.
...
All very realistic scenarios. 10% is well within the variation we see in oxygen update among elite runners.
...
This is not even to mention that the chart in the Daniel's paper is clearly labeled as being % of velocity VO2max, not %VO2max, which Jon keeps insisting. I've adopted Jon's assumption here, but that is not what Daniel's paper actually says.
Jon Orange wrote:And consider this:
Here is another calcualation with Daniels' time v intensity graph ...
If running is purely skill you would see old people continuing to get better, like Santana.
rekrunner wrote:
Which Daniels graph is "clearly labeled" for you as "% velocity of VO2max"? When I look at the Daniels graphs, the 80% and 79.5% clearly come from "Figure 2". The y-axis is "% VO2max" and the x-axis is duration (hh:mm). There is no mention of velocity at VO2max. "Figure 1" gives the relation of the rate of VO2 to velocity. It is not linear, but from the graph, it looks like a linear estimation would produce small errors.
[quote]Mr. Obvious wrote:
...
This is not even to mention that the chart in the Daniel's paper is clearly labeled as being % of velocity VO2max, not %VO2max, which Jon keeps insisting.
Look closely at figure 2. Expand it in your browser if you need to. There is a dot over the V in %V.O2 max. In Daniels LS writing that is velocity at VO2 max.
Read the text surrounding the figure. It confirms that he is talking about velocity.
The chart is faulty!
Mr. Obvious wrote:
the chart in the Daniel's paper is clearly labeled as being % of velocity VO2max, not %VO2max, which Jon keeps insisting.
You are making stuff up out of desperation. The chart is NOT labelled as being % of velocity of VO2max.
It is labelled as % V02max.
Why are you lying?
SumItAllUp wrote:
To summarize this thread:
JO: Only running economy matters. PED effectiveness is in the mind.
Other: show proof
JO: Only running economy matters. here is an article
Other: the article shows many factors.
JO: No it doesn't. I'm right.
Other: Here are other articles.
JO: those are fiction
Other: Here are more articles and some excerpts/interpretation
JO: Here is a simple equation with made up numbers. Proof!
Other: those are made up numbers and the reality is too complex for that simple equation.
JO: You don't understand math. Here is my calculation again.
Other: Here is a different explanation
JO: You're wrong! Liar, Liar, Pants On FIRE!
Other: I'm trying to explain that there are many variables.
JO: No! It is one thing, only one thing. No one can be right but me!
Other: But...
JO: You don't understand math. Here is my calculation again. No one can be right but me!
JO clearly understands training and that is why he was the Olympic Champion without PEDs. Wait... He wasn't?!?!
rekrunner wrote:
When I look at the Daniels graphs, the 80% and 79.5% clearly come from "Figure 2". The y-axis is "% VO2max" and the x-axis is duration (hh:mm). There is no mention of velocity at VO2max.
Correct rekrunner, it is VO2max not vVO2max.
The dot over the V refers to what is called minute ventilation.
From the man himself:
"By placing a dot over the V, we’re identifying the rate of oxygen uptake—that is, the volume of oxygen consumed per minute"
Does Tadesse have good economy or not? I am confused by the articles you choose to link to.
Are they supposed to be supporting your single factor theory?
rekrunner wrote:
Jon showed us a link that says even among elite athletes, economies can vary 20-30%.
What all this tells me is that you must do both (and more): "max your VO2max" (short term), and train to improve economy (long term). As your economy improves, you might find that VO2max even drops. (Just guessing here -- the only VO2max test I've ever done is a Polar watch gimmick which estimates VO2max from my heartbeat -- it matched pretty well with my VDOT).
The economy of all runners will improve over time with consistent training, but this will not make everyone elite, and not all elite runners have the same economy. (Put another way, economy is a better predictor of performance than VO2max, but it is still not a great predictor. VDOT is better than both.)
I agree. However, the statement, VDOT is better tha both is circular reasoning. Of course your race times at one distance will match predicted race times at another. That is just stating the obvious.
It doesn't tell you how to improve, and just training at target training paces will limit your improvement.
It is important to identify other types of training that don't involve mathematical formulae.
such as:
Training by feel and not by pace, so that you are not overworking or undeworking your body.
Training to improve force production. The Ethiopians are big on this, lot of bounding and drills and hill sprints. Training on different surfaces where pce varies. And hilly tempo runs, where you learn to run fast downhill whilst recovering from the uphill, but without straining.
The dot in VDOT indicates a volumetric flow rate. See for example https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volumetric_flow_rateIt's intended to be the rate a volume of oxygen is consumed, in this case in one minute, not velocity corresponding to VO2In "jtupper's" own words: "The dot over the V indicates a timed volume -- typically considered a 1-minute volume.http://www.letsrun.com/forum/flat_read.php?thread=2533488To indicated velocity, Daniels uses the term "vVO2max" (or maybe vV.O2max). This is computed by combining both formulas in Figure 1 and Figure 2.The text around Figure 2 describes "what percent of an individual’s aerobic capacity (aka VO2max) ..." as a function of time only, not involving distance (or velocity). You need Figure 1 for velocity. "With the two regression equations presented in Figures 1 and 2 and with the aid of the mathematical techniques described in Appendix B, the tables in this book have been produced, What these tables accomplish is to relate performances over various distances with a reference value, which is also a rough estimate of the V02max which would allow the related performances to be accomplished."(BTW, I note here the phrase "which is also a rough estimate of the V02max" -- a purpose I used it for, and I think you accused me of using VDOT wrongly for that purpose.)See here for his words explaining the difference between VO2 and vVO2:http://www.letsrun.com/forum/flat_read.php?board=1&id=735697&thread=735000
Mr. Obvious wrote:
rekrunner wrote:Which Daniels graph is "clearly labeled" for you as "% velocity of VO2max"? When I look at the Daniels graphs, the 80% and 79.5% clearly come from "Figure 2". The y-axis is "% VO2max" and the x-axis is duration (hh:mm). There is no mention of velocity at VO2max. "Figure 1" gives the relation of the rate of VO2 to velocity. It is not linear, but from the graph, it looks like a linear estimation would produce small errors.
[quote]Mr. Obvious wrote:
...
This is not even to mention that the chart in the Daniel's paper is clearly labeled as being % of velocity VO2max, not %VO2max, which Jon keeps insisting.
Look closely at figure 2. Expand it in your browser if you need to. There is a dot over the V in %V.O2 max. In Daniels LS writing that is velocity at VO2 max.
Read the text surrounding the figure. It confirms that he is talking about velocity.