economic major wrote:
Do you think Froome has poor economy?
Relative to a cyclist with a low VO2 max, yes. It's all relative.
What everyone has to do to improve fitness is to improve their own efficiency/economy and the amount of time they can sustain it.
Mr. Obvious wrote:
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.
Yes, how much can we improve economy? that is the question. Any number anyone gives is going to be arbitrary.
Him Hurt wrote:
Jon - what was the advice you have to Chris Boardman?
I told him to go for the overall instead of just the prologue and the first yellow jersey.
He would taper a lot in the final week back then and that left him fresh for the prologue, but wasted after the first stage. There were other things about altitude training and I suggested Teneriffe as the ideal venue. I don't think he would have kept my letter and I don't think he was a good coach for Bradley Wiggins. Any similarity between what I said and what Sky later did is related to the fact that they are obvious things to do to win the Tour.
OverSimple wrote:
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'.
Drugs, drugs, yada yada. Like I have heard this $hit ten thousand times over?
And no I don't want to hear you play the Viola neither.
Mr. Obvious wrote:
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?
Here's where I'd start. If we can agree on the following, it's be a useful starting point for future discussion.
Jack Daniels' theory is is basically:
vVO2max = f * e * VO2max
where:
vVO2max = speed at VO2max [units: meter/min], roughly speed in a 3k race
VO2max = max rate of oxygen usage scaled by body mass [units: mL/(kg * min)]
f = fractional utilization [units: dimensionless]
e = efficiency [units: meter * kg / mL]
For the sake of clarity, let's abbreviate vVO2max as v:
v = f * e * VO2max
Running speed in distance events is modelled as the product of three factors. The general wisdom is that of the three, fractional utilization, f, is by far the most trainable. Daniels goes so far as to assume that it can be trained to a level represented by the generic economy curve that has been mentioned numerous times in this thread. Thus in the Daniels' system, if we assume the runner is "well trained" f is no longer a variable but a known function of race duration, T:
v = f(T) * e * VO2max
One thing that immediately follows from this is that if we compare two different runners with the same 3k time, then v and T are constant and hence f(T) also. So it follows that
e = c / VO2max
where c is some constant. Thus when comparing runners with similar times, VO2max and efficiency are inversely related: if one is higher, the other must be lower.
Difference in philosophy between what Daniels wrote in the 1979 paper oxygen power and what Barnes and Kilding are saying now.
Daniels 1979:
Running is primarily a conditioning sport. It is not a skill sport as is basketball or handball or, to a certain
extent, swimming where technique is of primary importance. Most of us are able to run without special
training, and for all practical purposes, all of us who do run, do so with nearly equal efficiency regardless
of how “inefficient we may appear or feel. Granted, small differences in style, technique or “efficiency
might spell the difference between two otherwise equal competitors, but the fact remains that we all expend about the same relative energy to run at any given velocity which is within our aerobic capacity (a term which will be described later).
http://s3.amazonaws.com/zanran_storage/www.canibaisereis.com/ContentPages/2466959967.pdf
_________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________
Barnes and Kilding 2015:
High performance running is a skill, much like hitting a golf ball or shooting a basketball, that requires precise timing of nearly all the major muscles and joints in the body to convert muscular force in translocation [5]. Similar to those skills, practice is needed to improve the efficiency at the activity. Motor learning studies have shown that continued practice of a task results in more skilled control of movement, characterized by decreased amplitude and duration of muscle activity, decreased muscle co-activation and less variability of movement [97,184,185]. Recent evidence has shown that recreational runners (3.4 ± 2.8 km.wk−1) exhibited greater individual variance (i.e. variability between strides), greater population variance (i.e. variability of muscle recruitment between athletes), more extensive and more variable muscle co-activation and longer durations of muscle activity than moderately trained runners (6.6 ± 1.4 years of running experience, who ran 61.4 ± 8.8 km.wk−1) [186].
Jon Orange wrote:
economic major wrote:Do you think Froome has poor economy?
Relative to a cyclist with a low VO2 max, yes. It's all relative.
What everyone has to do to improve fitness is to improve their own efficiency/economy and the amount of time they can sustain it.
He's ahead of everyone. So if his economy is low why isn't his huge engine causing him to lose?
That's what your theory predicts.
Jon Orange wrote:
Mr. Obvious wrote: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.
Yes, how much can we improve economy? that is the question. Any number anyone gives is going to be arbitrary.
Arbitrary but still a low number.
My point in a nutshell is that improving economy/efficiency involves learning to use the natural movements of running at various speeds, for longer.
I agree with Jack Daniels that running is an innate skill. But I also agree with Kyle Barnes and Andrew Kilding, that this skill can be extended considerably so that a given pace can be held for longer and longer races.
This is not compatible with the conventional belief that to improve continuously, we need to continue to increase oxygen uptake or output of anaerobically sourced ATP. These factors are easily trained in a very short period to invoke our genetic potential of energy output. What we do with that energy output is what actually determines our fitness level, i.e. we get faster over a long term because we are more efficient.
It seems to me that improving that efficiency in terms of technique from improved neural signalling and motor programming (skill level) is the longest task we face.
Jon Orange wrote:
Difference in philosophy between what Daniels wrote in the 1979 paper oxygen power and what Barnes and Kilding are saying now.
Daniels 1979:
Running is primarily a conditioning sport. It is not a skill sport as is basketball or handball or, to a certain
extent, swimming where technique is of primary importance. Most of us are able to run without special
training, and for all practical purposes, all of us who do run, do so with nearly equal efficiency regardless
of how “inefficient we may appear or feel. Granted, small differences in style, technique or “efficiency
might spell the difference between two otherwise equal competitors, but the fact remains that we all expend about the same relative energy to run at any given velocity which is within our aerobic capacity (a term which will be described later).
http://s3.amazonaws.com/zanran_storage/www.canibaisereis.com/ContentPages/2466959967.pdf_________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________
Barnes and Kilding 2015:
High performance running is a skill, much like hitting a golf ball or shooting a basketball, that requires precise timing of nearly all the major muscles and joints in the body to convert muscular force in translocation [5]. Similar to those skills, practice is needed to improve the efficiency at the activity. Motor learning studies have shown that continued practice of a task results in more skilled control of movement, characterized by decreased amplitude and duration of muscle activity, decreased muscle co-activation and less variability of movement [97,184,185]. Recent evidence has shown that recreational runners (3.4 ± 2.8 km.wk−1) exhibited greater individual variance (i.e. variability between strides), greater population variance (i.e. variability of muscle recruitment between athletes), more extensive and more variable muscle co-activation and longer durations of muscle activity than moderately trained runners (6.6 ± 1.4 years of running experience, who ran 61.4 ± 8.8 km.wk−1) [186].
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4555089/
Yes and the runners of longer experience probably attained almost all of those gains within the early portion of their running rather than continuously throughout.
Test a group for their entire curve of improvement using the same protocols and you'll see the plateau.
It won't correlate to peak performance.
dope works wrote:
Jon Orange wrote:Relative to a cyclist with a low VO2 max, yes. It's all relative.
What everyone has to do to improve fitness is to improve their own efficiency/economy and the amount of time they can sustain it.
He's ahead of everyone. So if his economy is low why isn't his huge engine causing him to lose?
That's what your theory predicts.
You're missing the point. I'm not predicting any such thing.
Greg Lemond says that he did a VO2 max test when he was 47 and that his max was the same as when he was young, 6.4 L/min, so if he had weighed the same, 67 kilos, his VO2 max would still have been 95 ml/kg/min.
Does this mean that he would have been just as good a racer as 20 years earlier? Well of course that would require the same riding skills and concentration. So that is what we gain and lose during our racing and post racing years.
Jon Orange wrote:
My point in a nutshell is that improving economy/efficiency involves learning to use the natural movements of running at various speeds, for longer.
I agree with Jack Daniels that running is an innate skill. But I also agree with Kyle Barnes and Andrew Kilding, that this skill can be extended considerably so that a given pace can be held for longer and longer races.
This is not compatible with the conventional belief that to improve continuously, we need to continue to increase oxygen uptake or output of anaerobically sourced ATP. These factors are easily trained in a very short period to invoke our genetic potential of energy output. What we do with that energy output is what actually determines our fitness level, i.e. we get faster over a long term because we are more efficient.
It seems to me that improving that efficiency in terms of technique from improved neural signalling and motor programming (skill level) is the longest task we face.
Yes, you've said that dozens of times. Put it back in the nut.
It "seems to you" but you have never even come close to proving it or even providing much beyond those papers saying that improvement is about 5-7 percent.
Jon Orange wrote:
Greg Lemond says that he did a VO2 max test when he was 47 and that his max was the same as when he was young, 6.4 L/min, so if he had weighed the same, 67 kilos, his VO2 max would still have been 95 ml/kg/min.
Does this mean that he would have been just as good a racer as 20 years earlier? Well of course that would require the same riding skills and concentration. So that is what we gain and lose during our racing and post racing years.
Skills and concentration That's all. lol
You are a pathetic man. What have you done compared to him?
Jon Orange wrote:
You are a pathetic man. What have you done compared to him?
I'm laughing at you Jon, not Lemond.
What have YOU done that makes you think that you can dispute the work of physiologists or top athletes?
Exactly nothing. No great performances and zero schooling on the subject.
And yet you write letters to great athletes and tell them how to win big events.
THAT'S pathetic.
You are an ignorant fool. You just quoted my post citing the work of two of the physiologist supporting what I have been saying for years.
Read the paper. Study it and the references for 10 years and get back to me in 2026.
Jon Orange wrote:
You are an ignorant fool. You just quoted my post citing the work of two of the physiologist supporting what I have been saying for years.
Read the paper. Study it and the references for 10 years and get back to me in 2026.
Nope. Everyone knows about the skill component. It's not the only key to long term performance and none of your papers say this.
Pure skills don't vanish like running fitness.
NEXT!
dope works wrote:
Jon Orange wrote:You are an ignorant fool. You just quoted my post citing the work of two of the physiologist supporting what I have been saying for years.
Read the paper. Study it and the references for 10 years and get back to me in 2026.
Nope. Everyone knows about the skill component. It's not the only key to long term performance and none of your papers say this.
Pure skills don't vanish like running fitness.
NEXT!
Wrong again. Read the paper and educate yourself.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4555089/That terrible source of your proof again?
" Despite being simple to measure and acceptably reliable, 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. Metabolic efficiency refers to the utilization of available energy to facilitate optimal performance, whereas cardiopulmonary efficiency refers to a reduced work output for the processes related to oxygen transport and utilization. Biomechanical and neuromuscular characteristics refer to the interaction between the neural and musculoskeletal systems and their ability to convert power output into translocation and therefore performance. Of the numerous metabolic, cardiopulmonary, biomechanical and neuromuscular characteristics contributing to RE, many of these are able to adapt through training or other interventions resulting in improved RE."