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

eye see wrote:

So where does economy fit into it?

Like the paper mentions it's one little bit of the whole puzzle and not very trainable.

So the fastest runners aren't more economical?

eye see wrote:

So the fastest runners aren't more economical?

The most economical runners are only the fastest when they win.

But what about the runners with the highest VO2max, don't they have to improve their economy to run fast too?

eye see wrote:

But what about the runners with the highest VO2max, don't they have to improve their economy to run fast too?

If they want to but it's just a small piece of the trainable puzzle and most experts say it happens naturally anyway.

So a runner with a high VO2max can be elite if he or she does a bit of training?

Here's a great video. Most would agree that economy is getting the most speed from the least amount of motion. But that's not the case here.

The guy with the bigger and more tuned engine can afford to do that extra range of reckless motion to maintain speed.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d1MbO_ZsXdA

eye see wrote:

So a runner with a high VO2max can be elite if he or she does a bit of training?

Sometimes. Nobody has ever said high VO2 is a guarantee..

Are you sure you're an expert on running economy and oxygen uptake?

You seem to be making stuff up as you go along?

Isn't that the purpose of this thread?

eye see wrote:

Are you sure you're an expert on running economy and oxygen uptake?

You seem to be making stuff up as you go along?

Hi Jon! Aren't random names fun?

I don't know, is it? I thought it was about representing what we know rather than what we think we know?

I know that this study says the opposite of the high VO2max is king idea

http://jeb.biologists.org/content/211/20/3266a

,

The Efficiency Expert wrote:

eye see wrote:

Are you sure you're an expert on running economy and oxygen uptake?

You seem to be making stuff up as you go along?

Hi Jon! Aren't random names fun?

Who are you?

eye see wrote:

I don't know, is it? I thought it was about representing what we know rather than what we think we know?

I know that this study says the opposite of the high VO2max is king idea

http://jeb.biologists.org/content/211/20/3266a

,

FAULTY study. Next?

Faulty study? Why? Because it doesn't fit the mould?

just like VO2 max wrote:

eye see wrote:

I don't know, is it? I thought it was about representing what we know rather than what we think we know?

I know that this study says the opposite of the high VO2max is king idea

http://jeb.biologists.org/content/211/20/3266a

,

FAULTY study. Next?

Correct. That's why there is nothing on that page now. Removed for containing erroneous info.

Weird, it was there a few minutes ago, now it's gone. Why would that happen?

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.

I'm sure you're right about the first part and the third part, but what about that second part? don't we learn to hold that stiff flexibility for longer?