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

Jon Orange wrote:

Extreme parameters means runners at either end of the VO2max/economy spectrum.

Please read that posts more carefully, otherwise this could just go round and round with you asking me the same questions over and over expecting a different answer.

You have to put some work into this, and understand my points. If you don't consider what I am saying and post another question without understanding a simple answer, then we are back to square one.

I am reading carefully to try to understand your points. I just keep asking questions to clarify:

It appears from this post that you believe that VO2Max and economy are on a spectrum and that having a high value on one end of the spectrum necessarily means that you have a low value on the other end. So that you can have a high VO2max and a low economy and a low VO2max and a high economy. But it would not be possible to have a high VO2max and a high economy simultaneously? Or a low VO2max and low economy?

Can you post up any research to support that contention?

That summary is correct. If we look at someone with high VO2 max, such as Froome, if his economy was as good as someone with 25% lower VO2max, then he would be climbing Alpe d'Huez in 30 minutes or less. It's not realistic.

I am sure that a distance runner will go under 2 hours for a marathon, but not under 1.45

Yes a runner can have a low absolute VO2 max and a low economy, that would apply to any overweight sprinter.

Jon Orange wrote:

That summary is correct. If we look at someone with high VO2 max, such as Froome, if his economy was as good as someone with 25% lower VO2max, then he would be climbing Alpe d'Huez in 30 minutes or less. It's not realistic.

I am sure that a distance runner will go under 2 hours for a marathon, but not under 1.45

Yes a runner can have a low absolute VO2 max and a low economy, that would apply to any overweight sprinter.

Ok. I confess that I am out of my element when it comes to cycling. I don't even know how or if they measure economy. I think they usually measure power output.

If you have references to economy for Froome and other tour cyclists I'd be happy to look at it. I'm more familiar and more comfortable keeping the examples in distance running.

I don't think that if you lowered Froome's VO2max by 25% that his economy would automatically go up, so that he would be climbing at the same speed. Which I think is what you would get if VO2max and economy are related on a single scale.

Do you think Froome has poor economy?

economic major wrote:

Do you think Froome has poor economy?

I have no idea what Froome's economy is. It is why I asked Jon for any figures he might have.

I would be surprised if he had "poor" economy. But of course we would have to define what counts as "poor."

I'm mostly interested in understanding Jon's concept of the interrelationship of VO2max and economy. Preferably in mathematical terms.

Jon Orange wrote:

Apology accepted. Now, about those figures I presented. It's a completey mind boggling idea that people can't accept, that eliter runners are using less energy to race. But it's actually an old concept that I learned back in the 70's, so to me it's easy to understand. For people brought up on the usual 'bigger engine' dogma, it's something they can't accept.

Therein lies the problem I face convincing people that 'PEDs' is a philosophical concept rather than fact.

An old concept that I learned back in the 70's was that people were doped.

Steroids and blood transfusions beat Shorter.

Mr. Obvious wrote:

economic major wrote:

Do you think Froome has poor economy?

I have no idea what Froome's economy is. It is why I asked Jon for any figures he might have.

I would be surprised if he had "poor" economy. But of course we would have to define what counts as "poor."

I'm mostly interested in understanding Jon's concept of the interrelationship of VO2max and economy. Preferably in mathematical terms.

I'm asking Jon.

Jon Orange wrote:

Yes, the philosophy is quite simple. A runner with an oxygen uptake of 7 liters still has to do the training, and this will make him more economical. He still has to improve his economy. To go from, young hopeful to elite in his 20s he has to learn to run the same pace using less energy and to run faster using the same amount of energy.

So, I think most people would agree that runners can improve their running economy regardless of their oxygen uptake. Of course I am responding for "most people" which is a little dangerous. We have certainly seen in this thread that people would debate the degree of trainability of running economy. Improving economy would help him to be a faster runner.

I just want to be sure to point out where we agree as well as places where I disagree or places where I am unsure what your argument is.

VO2 is a result of work output, i.e. the faster you run the higher your work output, however the more efficient you are the lower the work output.

Thus faster runners can have higher work outputs when speeds are much faster, but have lower work outputs at given speeds because of greater efficiency.

Thus VO2 is a comparative measure of efficiency / inefficiency, but only when everyone is running the same speed.

Adding a note:

Understanding VO2 wrote:

Thus faster runners can have higher work outputs when speeds are much faster

The same as anyone has higher work outputs when speeds are much faster.

fred wrote:

Jon Orange wrote:

Apology accepted. Now, about those figures I presented. It's a completey mind boggling idea that people can't accept, that eliter runners are using less energy to race. But it's actually an old concept that I learned back in the 70's, so to me it's easy to understand. For people brought up on the usual 'bigger engine' dogma, it's something they can't accept.

Therein lies the problem I face convincing people that 'PEDs' is a philosophical concept rather than fact.

An old concept that I learned back in the 70's was that people were doped.

Steroids and blood transfusions beat Shorter.

Shorter had 72 VO2max, but he was very economical. But his economy could not beat the East German's " big engine ", provided by manipulating the blood.

Understanding VO2 wrote:

VO2 is a result of work output, i.e. the faster you run the higher your work output, however the more efficient you are the lower the work output.

Thus faster runners can have higher work outputs when speeds are much faster, but have lower work outputs at given speeds because of greater efficiency.

Thus VO2 is a comparative measure of efficiency / inefficiency, but only when everyone is running the same speed.

Can you write that as an equation? I think this is very similar to what I am figuring from Jon's examples.

If you control both speed and VO2max, the more efficient runner runs faster, I think is what you are stating.

If you are controlling speed and efficiency, the runner with the larger VO2max will be faster. Correct?

Understanding VO2 wrote:

Adding a note:

]

The same as anyone has higher work outputs when speeds are much faster.

This is the part that Jon doesn't get. A very simple concept too.

Jon - what was the advice you have to Chris Boardman?

OutThere Monthly:

"Cierpinski says, “Coach Schmidt implemented a scientific approach to training that stopped the vicious cycle of injury for me.” Schmidt enrolled his protégé in highly classified sport science testing at the Kreischa Institute, which was an International Olympic Committee (IOC) accredited doping control laboratory. Ironically, it would play a crucial role in shielding East German athletes from the detection of banned performance-enhancing drugs in international competitions.

East German sport scientists probed every internal organ of the young Cierpinksi. They introduced carbo-loading, lactic acid testing, and the value of altitude training. In 1974, Cierpinski entered a marathon and placed a surprising third. Coach Schmidt immediately re-classified the steeplechaser as a marathoner, complete with 200-mile training weeks. To prevent the damaging effects of intensive marathon training, a highly classified program for chemically enhancing GDR athletes was implemented."

No need for apologies...

Mr. Obvious wrote:

Now that I am at a full-size computer, instead of a phone, I see that you are right and I was mistaken in my interpretation of the chart. I apologize to you and to Jon Orange as well, for any confusion I have caused.

Yet another hypothetical overly simplified example. I realize that you strongly believe this, but all scientific evidence points elsewhere. Here is how it works. Training produces a stimuli that makes muscles, tendons, bones stronger and better adapted to the exercise. Stronger includes more capillaries, more mitochondria, tougher tendons, enzyme level changes and yes, possibly better economy. Because training produces these fundamental changes that make a better athlete, more training typically produces the changes faster. Of course, the human body breaks down at a certain point, even when diet, recovery, etc are done well. This is where PEDs come into the picture. They allow a little more training without breaking down, thus faster/better adaptation without breakdown. Viola! Better athlete.People have provided examples of athletes who said that the PEDs helped them, the evidence (their times before and after) shows that too. Studies have shown an increase in ability using PEDs. Countless athletes have used them in route to the top of their sport whether they admit or believe it helped or not. The human body is very complex. Running economy, VO2Max and "belief" are just 3 of 100s of things that influence how fast a runner can get. I get that you Really REALLY believe this, but you have oversimplified.

Jon Orange wrote:

Yes they should be compared on performance. But I took a figure in between the extremes, to show two genetically identical twins, one an elite runner and the other a beginner to show how much difference in performance is realistic given their different specific fitness. Even though the beginner could have been an elite cyclist.

The point being that speed endurance in running is related to the ability to produce lots of power through the feet/ankles/achilles and that requires a lot of spefific work, regardless of what may be considered as 'aerobic conditioning'.

Mr. Obvious wrote:

If you control both speed and VO2max, the more efficient runner runs faster, I think is what you are stating.

Right.

If you are controlling speed and efficiency, the runner with the larger VO2max will be faster. Correct?

You can't control both speed and efficiency. When you control for speed, the faster runners will be more efficient. I'm not sure you can control for efficiency, as inefficient runners would need to have the same efficiency as faster runners, which they don't.

Mr. Obvious wrote:

If you control both speed and VO2max, the more efficient runner runs faster, I think is what you are stating.

Correction, you can't control for both speed and VO2max.

Generally at a given speed, the more efficient runner has a lower VO2.

There are individual differences involved, so these things can't really be compared directly, but just in a general sense.