"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."
" Other interventions" like drugs.
"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."
" Other interventions" like drugs.
" The heritability of genetic traits is no doubt the prevailing factor affecting RE (Figure 2) "
Hey look, genetics!
"The energy cost of running reflects the sum of both aerobic and anaerobic metabolism, and the aerobic demand, measured by the VO2 in L.min−1 at a given speed does not necessarily account for the energy cost of running, which is measured in joules, kilojoules, calories or kilocalories of work done "
Your simple oxygen model that you've been ranting about for 900 plus posts doesn't prove that elites use less glycogen and fats.
You really need to find better sources. Just because you interpret a paper in your own special way does not mean you get it.
test2 wrote:
Mr. Obvious wrote: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.
Thank you. This is very helpful. I am a concrete thinker. I think I was fully on to this concept, although I was struggling to put it together into a forumula.
My concern at this point is to look at what factors we are controlling and therefore what point the equations are making.
So, for multiple well trained runners at the same v (velocity), the f(T) will be the same. and the e and VO2max are inversely related. This is perhaps what Jon is meaning when he states the efficiency and VO2max are inversely related. They are, but only when you control for velocity (so the V is the same) and also assume these are well trained runners (so the f(T) is the same).
So, I don't disagree with any of that. It just means that you can get to a time by being a larger engine and smaller efficiency or large efficiency and small engine (since they are inversely related). I guess I am underwhelmed at what that "proves." I'm more interested to figure out how these equations would model what actually happens with fewer controlled variables.
I think the next step for me is to try to figure out what it means and how you get to a higher velocity. Since the whole goal is to run faster. If you increase your f(T), your velocity goes up, since that is a multiplier. I am guessing in the Daniel's universe the fractional utilization can't advance past that point (I guess that is the Daniel's line). That is the 80% for a 2:05 hour marathoner, etc. that we have been using in our equation.
So, to take our two marathoners earlier (from Jon's example):
Runner A is a 2:05 marathon runner
Runner B is a 2:05 marathon runner
We found using the Daniel's chart runner A is running at 80% fractional utilization and B is running at 79.5% fractional utilization.
A given was that they had the same VO2. Jon used absolute VO2. You use relative. Using relative VO2 is really kind of a way to bake efficiency in there twice, right? So we can't really tell from the givens if they are the same weight but let's assume they are--we could convert this or not, it is just a little simpler to keep it absolute, but maybe I'm making a technical error here?
V=4:46/mile. I think this is often converted to m/s, but this is the common way to think about it. at some point maybe you can tell me if there is a "best units" for all of these, but at this point I just want to get concept.
f(t)=80
VO2=5l/min
economy=c/5l/
So runner A= 4:46= 80*5L*c/5l
Runner B= 5:09= 79.5*5L*c/5l
Hmmm, maybe you could confirm I"m on the right track so far...Don't want to type out too much and have it be totally off base.
Jon Orange wrote:
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, there are hundreds of drugs that target neural signalling, and modify efficiency through interaction at the synapse.
Your belief is based on pure ignorance.
I gave multiple other physiological factors improved by training and said drugs allow more training to produce those faster. Obviously you have no response of substance. You cannot dispute that these physiological adaptations exist, nor can you dispute that training improves them. When cornered by facts, you lash out with insults and "I've heard it all before". It is childish and comical. People keep posting relevant quotes from the articles YOU provided but either give a more complex picture or contradict you. But you seem to be ignoring all the things that don't support you. You don't seem to understand complex physiology or math that includes many variables. What sort of educational background do you have?
Jon Orange wrote:
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.
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.
Runner B is a 2:15 marathoner in example above.
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.
NOW I get it.
Saying 'PEDs doesn't work!!!' is clickbait. You main point is actually 'The importance of running economy is vastly underestimated!' But subject line would never launch a 800+ post thread.
That said ... I don't your quote above is very clear.
1. "Learning to use [something] ... for longer." We don't 'learn' to do things for longer; we 'train' to. Tomayto/tomahto? Or do you mean something else.
2. "the natural movements of running" ... do you mean an individual's natural movements, ie the way they already run? Or do you mean proper, ideal economical movements, ie the 'natural' way for any human to run optimally?
these guys ... wrote:
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.
NOW I get it.
Saying 'PEDs doesn't work!!!' is clickbait. You main point is actually 'The importance of running economy is vastly underestimated!' But subject line would never launch a 800+ post thread.
That said ... I don't your quote above is very clear.
1. "Learning to use [something] ... for longer." We don't 'learn' to do things for longer; we 'train' to. Tomayto/tomahto? Or do you mean something else.
2. "the natural movements of running" ... do you mean an individual's natural movements, ie the way they already run? Or do you mean proper, ideal economical movements, ie the 'natural' way for any human to run optimally?
Clearly not since his favorite source says "training and other interventions".
1 Correct, we train to extend something we already know how to do. It's not a new movement.
2. Jon's source already says that there is no one way or it certainly has not as yet been identified.
His source already says that what may be economical for one runner may be detrimental to the economy of another.
So saying that foot and ankle power is the key for everyone is ludicrous.
Don't you think it's a bit strange that a guy who thinks he has the answer has such spotty performances?
No speed and poor translation of his speed over longer distances?
dope works wrote:
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.
Which Drug'jo are you.
fred wrote:
Jon, there are hundreds of drugs that target neural signalling, and modify efficiency through interaction at the synapse.
Your belief is based on pure ignorance.
And here's the other one.
Any idea proposing truth as solution, is immediately shot down by the idiots.
dope works wrote:
So saying that foot and ankle power is the key for everyone is ludicrous.
Don't you think it's a bit strange that a guy who thinks he has the answer has such spotty performances?
No speed and poor translation of his speed over longer distances?
I actually don't know anything about his performances ... other than I think I read that he broke 4'00 for the first time at 40+, and I consider that impressive ... even if the lack of other impressive achievements to go along with it, is unimpressive.
Here's my POV. Since we've begun recording impressive performances, if you look at everyone who's ever put up an impressive performance, they've probably at some point gotten a belief into their head; they've believed the crap out of that belief; they've trained like a maniac accordingly; and then they've gotten that impressive performance. And afterwards, they might attribute their success to that belief. And it might look like a convincing point.
Except people have recorded impressive performances, with all kinds of different magic beliefs. All over the map. So it would appear what you believe might be unimportant, relative to having a belief in the first place. So much so, that on some level maybe these 'believers' maybe are fibbing to themselves, because on some level, they get this.
And so, scrutinizing claims of "I did X and that's why I won!" is certainly of use in advancing knowledge. But I'm not sure it's of much use in one's own performance. At some point, don't you have to let a mad belief infect you? Is it possible to maximize your potential without one?
And I'm a doubter by nature. But that just means if I can talk to anyone faster than me for 2 minutes, I will find a few things they're 'wrong' about. So if my Knowledge is stronger, and their Belief is stronger, what does that say about which one makes you faster?
(And there are obvious parallels and subtext, regarding religion, and I suppose I mean those as well)
Yes, having a belief in training x will get you out the door while others slack off or quit. And grinding out the miles, especially if they are high end aerobic, for many years will get you to a different place than sitting on your butt.
Yep. And of the people grinding out the miles the hardest, most or all of them are motivated by deep beliefs which aren't true. And I further suspect, that some of them really really REALLY want to get faster ... and so, consciously or not, they suspend disbelief so their beliefs can fuel them to be their best. Because, consciously or not, they get how all that works.And others are just really impressionable, easily excitable, or not that bright.
fred wrote:
Yes, having a belief in training x will get you out the door while others slack off or quit. And grinding out the miles, especially if they are high end aerobic, for many years will get you to a different place than sitting on your butt.
it doesn't mean your knowledge is stronger, just that you believe it is, which doesn't make you right.
these guys ... wrote:
dope works wrote:So saying that foot and ankle power is the key for everyone is ludicrous.
Don't you think it's a bit strange that a guy who thinks he has the answer has such spotty performances?
No speed and poor translation of his speed over longer distances?
I actually don't know anything about his performances ... other than I think I read that he broke 4'00 for the first time at 40+, and I consider that impressive ... even if the lack of other impressive achievements to go along with it, is unimpressive.
Here's my POV. Since we've begun recording impressive performances, if you look at everyone who's ever put up an impressive performance, they've probably at some point gotten a belief into their head; they've believed the crap out of that belief; they've trained like a maniac accordingly; and then they've gotten that impressive performance. And afterwards, they might attribute their success to that belief. And it might look like a convincing point.
Except people have recorded impressive performances, with all kinds of different magic beliefs. All over the map. So it would appear what you believe might be unimportant, relative to having a belief in the first place. So much so, that on some level maybe these 'believers' maybe are fibbing to themselves, because on some level, they get this.
And so, scrutinizing claims of "I did X and that's why I won!" is certainly of use in advancing knowledge. But I'm not sure it's of much use in one's own performance. At some point, don't you have to let a mad belief infect you? Is it possible to maximize your potential without one?
And I'm a doubter by nature. But that just means if I can talk to anyone faster than me for 2 minutes, I will find a few things they're 'wrong' about. So if my Knowledge is stronger, and their Belief is stronger, what does that say about which one makes you faster?
(And there are obvious parallels and subtext, regarding religion, and I suppose I mean those as well)
The problem is that Jon said he knows the key and everyone else is dumb for thinking that there are dozens of factors trainable and otherwise.
But if you have the secret and tell everyone that they are only as good as their training you damned well better be running a whole heck of a lot faster than Jon ever did.
He's always ranting about people believing that their genetics ultimately limit them and then denying that this was his ultimate limiter as well.
It is a bit like climate change. 97 out of 100 scientists agree that it is real and caused by humans. The occasional one who does not was given his conclusion by the fossil fuel industry and told to make his data match.
But JO is not even the 100th scientist. He is the guy who read the BS scientist's 100 page paper and quoted 5 sentences out of context and believes that little bit and won't accept any other quote or any other scientific paper as an argument.
He's like the guy who goes to a De Grasse Tyson speech and then writes a letter to NASA telling them how to get to the next galaxy with just your average rocket.
"You just need to get someone to drop it from the edge of space onto a giant spring on a launch bad".
He's sort of like that guy ... if that guy also, with a 5th grade education and dozens of wrong ideas, managed to launch a homebrew rocket into a low Earth orbit. Or whatever the equivalent of 4'00 would be.You can learn something from a guy like that. Though not from his silly, incorrect beliefs.
letters from space wrote:
He's like the guy who goes to a De Grasse Tyson speech and then writes a letter to NASA telling them how to get to the next galaxy with just your average rocket.
"You just need to get someone to drop it from the edge of space onto a giant spring on a launch bad".
these guys ... wrote:
He's sort of like that guy ... if that guy also, with a 5th grade education and dozens of wrong ideas, managed to launch a homebrew rocket into a low Earth orbit. Or whatever the equivalent of 4'00 would be.
You can learn something from a guy like that. Though not from his silly, incorrect beliefs.
letters from space wrote:He's like the guy who goes to a De Grasse Tyson speech and then writes a letter to NASA telling them how to get to the next galaxy with just your average rocket.
"You just need to get someone to drop it from the edge of space onto a giant spring on a launch bad".
But thousands of people have done a 4:00 1500. Even girls.