You are confusing yourself. I don't have a theory.
I don't have a single factor hypothesis either. You are making stuff up.
An intelligent person would realize that I don't agree with everything that a single researcher says.
Tadesse's economy was wrongly measured but Ross Tucker doesn't have the gumption to say it.
"the use of oxygen PER MINUTE goes up with running speed, but the use per kilometer remains relatively constant. "
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?!?!
You're just not getting the point.
Mr. fred Obvious wrote:
I'm taking this opportunity to post more nonsensical drivel.
You're not getting the point
Jon Orange wrote:
You are confusing yourself. I don't have a theory.
I don't have a single factor hypothesis either. You are making stuff up.
An intelligent person would realize that I don't agree with everything that a single researcher says.
Tadesse's economy was wrongly measured but Ross Tucker doesn't have the gumption to say it.
So why did you link to that then? Because a couple of sentences agree with you and the rest doesn't?
You most certainly have said that ALL improvement is neural and about refining skill.
This is true -- it was not the point of VDOT charts to show you how to move up the chart, or specify any pace for jumping drills, just measure where you are, and help you predict what other performances should be.It's not the VDOT tables that tell you this, but the rest of Daniels "Running Formula" describes his training approach based on the VDOTs and some appropriate training paces for that VDOT.Your performance and economy should usually improve by following his plans, but of course, because everyone is not the same, a good coach will temper them with knowing when to slow down or take a break.
Jon Orange wrote:
...
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.
I linked to the generic graph of East Africans, v less well trained athletes. The Tadesse thing was just some wrongly measured data that was being hyped up by ex phys geeks in a silly way. Im saying what rekrunner summarized. Improvement in oxygen delivery are easily and quickly made. Improvements in efficiency take years and thousands of miles of running.
Why don't you read what I'm saying instead of what you think I'm saying? Your brain is playing tricks with you, that's why you are confused. Constantly posting endless OCD drivel under hundreds of different names trying to catch me out or just lying and deliberately misrepresenting, it's just pathetic. Get a life. Seriously, just get a life.
Jon Orange wrote:
I linked to the generic graph of East Africans, v less well trained athletes. The Tadesse thing was just some wrongly measured data that was being hyped up by ex phys geeks in a silly way. Im saying what rekrunner summarized. Improvement in oxygen delivery are easily and quickly made. Improvements in efficiency take years and thousands of miles of running.
Why don't you read what I'm saying instead of what you think I'm saying? Your brain is playing tricks with you, that's why you are confused. Constantly posting endless OCD drivel under hundreds of different names trying to catch me out or just lying and deliberately misrepresenting, it's just pathetic. Get a life. Seriously, just get a life.
So you ARE saying just one thing and that is your life. Seriously, it is.
13 years, 13 YEARS! That's OCD.
rekrunner wrote:
This is true -- it was not the point of VDOT charts to show you how to move up the chart, or specify any pace for jumping drills, just measure where you are, and help you predict what other performances should be.
It's not the VDOT tables that tell you this, but the rest of Daniels "Running Formula" describes his training approach based on the VDOTs and some appropriate training paces for that VDOT.
Your performance and economy should usually improve by following his plans, but of course, because everyone is not the same, a good coach will temper them with knowing when to slow down or take a break.
It's a bit reductionist.
I hope he changed his philosophy from that 1979 paper?
When I suggested doing hill springing to another poster, the idea is to gain more mobility in the feet/ankles/achilles. As we get older, we tend to get lazier in that area.
The session should get quicker naturally without forcing the pace. It should translate to faster, more efficient running on the flat, but it does take time.
My philosophy is very much predicated on not forcing the pace, but letting it come to you and it will.
Confusius wrote:
Jon Orange wrote:I linked to the generic graph of East Africans, v less well trained athletes. The Tadesse thing was just some wrongly measured data that was being hyped up by ex phys geeks in a silly way. Im saying what rekrunner summarized. Improvement in oxygen delivery are easily and quickly made. Improvements in efficiency take years and thousands of miles of running.
Why don't you read what I'm saying instead of what you think I'm saying? Your brain is playing tricks with you, that's why you are confused. Constantly posting endless OCD drivel under hundreds of different names trying to catch me out or just lying and deliberately misrepresenting, it's just pathetic. Get a life. Seriously, just get a life.
So you ARE saying just one thing and that is your life. Seriously, it is.
13 years, 13 YEARS! That's OCD.
You're doing it again. You can't stop lying can you? Grow the fukc up fred and get a life of your own. You're a psychopath. Why are you posting hundreds of messages to me unders hundreds of different names? Get a life of your own. Seriously, do it, get a life of your own.
Stiffer tendons and ankles and stiffer shoes increase economy Jon. I read that in one of your sources.
Why would we want to increase the flexibility and range of motion there?
Jon Orange wrote:
Confusius wrote:So you ARE saying just one thing and that is your life. Seriously, it is.
13 years, 13 YEARS! That's OCD.
You're doing it again. You can't stop lying can you? Grow the fukc up fred and get a life of your own. You're a psychopath. Why are you posting hundreds of messages to me unders hundreds of different names? Get a life of your own. Seriously, do it, get a life of your own.
Don't you hate it when the whole theory you have based 39 years of your life on comes crumbling down?
You have to get a whole new life then and that will be hard for you.
The Reductionist wrote:
Stiffer tendons and ankles and stiffer shoes increase economy Jon. I read that in one of your sources.
Why would we want to increase the flexibility and range of motion there?
To get a longer stride.
inclusionist wrote:
The Reductionist wrote:Stiffer tendons and ankles and stiffer shoes increase economy Jon. I read that in one of your sources.
Why would we want to increase the flexibility and range of motion there?
To get a longer stride.
So stiff and flexible at the same time?
Confusius wrote:
"the use of oxygen PER MINUTE goes up with running speed, but the use per kilometer remains relatively constant. "
Therefore the fastest athletes can use oxygen at a faster rate. Earth shattering news.
Yes, stiff and flexible at the same time. Both are recognized as important factors in running performance.
There's a sweet spot in the middle.Too floppy is uneconomic.
The Reductionist wrote:
inclusionist wrote:To get a longer stride.
So stiff and flexible at the same time?
Achieving "stiff flexibility" happens very quickly and then plateaus. You don't continuously get better at that as you improve.
Nor is every person with World Class ankles an elite runner.
just like VO2 max wrote:
Achieving "stiff flexibility" happens very quickly and then plateaus. You don't continuously get better at that as you improve.
Nor is every person with World Class ankles an elite runner.
Please tell us more?
eye see wrote:
just like VO2 max wrote:Achieving "stiff flexibility" happens very quickly and then plateaus. You don't continuously get better at that as you improve.
Nor is every person with World Class ankles an elite runner.
Please tell us more?
Running improvement is 90% at the muscular level. Changes in fiber type and enzymes/mitochondria. Unless you are actually changing your maximum velocity you are not learning any new skills.
You already" know" how to run all of your paces you're just training for duration.
The other half is mental.