fred wrote:
Jon Orange wrote:You go "into the zone" Ever run a marathon George? Yes you have, but you tended to lose concentration didn't you?
George ran 2:12 and the U.S. 10 mile record, Jonnyboy.
Was that when you were doped or not doped?
fred wrote:
Jon Orange wrote:You go "into the zone" Ever run a marathon George? Yes you have, but you tended to lose concentration didn't you?
George ran 2:12 and the U.S. 10 mile record, Jonnyboy.
Was that when you were doped or not doped?
test2 wrote:
Jon Orange wrote:Hazy? Your think equation is much simpler?
Here's a summary equation for you:
E=mc^2
See how nice and simple it is?
Here's another one that I did:
SL x SR x E
Stride Length x Stride Rate x Endurance. You can also use T for Time instead of E for Endurance, but I prefer E because like SL and SR it is a skill.
It is a summary equation for running performance incorporating all the stuff we should be talking about.
Are you saying this is your e=m c^2, your unifying equation?
Jon Orange wrote:
SL x SR x E
Then I'm sorry to point out that it isn't an equation. You have to set that thing equal to something for it to have any meaning at all. Typo maybe?
If you are agreeable, I suggest we procede on two fronts. Can you expand/edit your equation while I ask whether we can agree at least on the following equation:
v = e * f * abs_VO2max / mass
because that's the equation that defines efficiency, e, in the scientific literature (everything else in that equation is measured directly). Every paper that has been cited on this thread that refers to efficiency means e in that equation. So (and I hesitate to even ask this both because it's pedantic and also because I'm afraid of the answer) but is that e the efficiency you've been talking about in all of this thread?
My summary equation is for running efficiency including both the aerobic and anaerobic components.
Running Efficiency = SL x SR x E
Being efficient for short periods is possible for an untrained runner, but they can't sustain it.
You are using economy and efficiency interchangeably, but that doesn't work, because 'running economy' refers only to the aerobic component, whereas true efficiency has both aerobic and anaerobic components, with other variables too such as environmental conditions, shoes, running surface etc.
OverSimple wrote:
Gosh, Jon. #2 did say "includes but is not limited to". Of course you would disagree with #4 based on 100s of posts, but are you saying you agree with 1,2,3, but training of the neurological system should be added to #2? Or #2 should ONLY be neurological system adaptions. Or #1 ONLY neurological system training is required, no other numbers needed.
My point here is to keep things simple with just a few brief points about how running performance occurs. Then get an understanding of where your thought progression diverges from this conventional thinking. I'm attempting to give you a bit of an argument road map to help us understand your logic. But you continue to leave the map quadrant. Please just give us your changes to the 4 points, in order. It will help you explain your viewpoint to us.
I might be the only one here really trying to understand you and not throwing insults at you. Help me out here.
Thanks.
Jon Orange wrote:You missed out one very important factor, the nervous system, which controls all movement. Why? Because that's what almost everyone does isn't it? And you wonder why I can't take you seriously?
It's difficult to reply to you when you are trying to impose your ideas onto me and asking whether or not I agree with your very limited summary. How is this discussion between us going to progress? With thousands of words passing to and fro which no-one can follow?
Read what I wroe in my reply to you and think about it. If you don't put some serious thought into the fact that we are constantly bombarded with the so called 'PED' rhetoric and dogma, then we can't have a reasonble discussion. This has to be the starting point.
Jon Orange wrote:
fred wrote:George ran 2:12 and the U.S. 10 mile record, Jonnyboy.
Was that when you were doped or not doped?
Who cares, dope doesn't work according to you. You support Lance, support George too.
test2 wrote:
This is where Jon's argument gets hazy for me. If two guys run the same time, then v and T are the same and if you add in Jack Daniels' "well trained" fractional utilization assumption, then f(T) is also the same for them. That means that the following combination of efficiency, absolute VO2max and body mass has to be equal for the two guys:
e_1 * VO2max_abs_1 / mass_1 = e_2 * VO2max_abs_2 / mass_2
If you are agreeable, I suggest we procede on two fronts. Can you expand/edit your equation while I ask whether we can agree at least on the following equation:
v = e * f * abs_VO2max / mass
because that's the equation that defines efficiency, e, in the scientific literature (everything else in that equation is measured directly). Every paper that has been cited on this thread that refers to efficiency means e in that equation. So (and I hesitate to even ask this both because it's pedantic and also because I'm afraid of the answer) but is that e the efficiency you've been talking about in all of this thread?
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.
That formula only includes the aerobic component of energy production in running, oxygen uptake only, so it can't measure efficiency. It's relatively easy to measure oxygen uptake, whereas the anaerobic component is not.
That's why I gave a much simpler summary equation for efficiency. What is much more relevant and important here is to work out what improves efficiency. This problem can't be solved with numbers, they can only measure it.
Jon Orange wrote:
It's difficult to reply to you when you are trying to impose your ideas onto me and asking whether or not I agree with your very limited summary. How is this discussion between us going to progress? With thousands of words passing to and fro which no-one can follow?
.
You think he doesn't have the same problem?
George Frederick Handle?
That's very good but I prefer Georg Friedrich Händel
You can't handle the truth.
Jon Orange wrote:
test2 wrote:Are you saying this is your e=m c^2, your unifying equation?
Then I'm sorry to point out that it isn't an equation. You have to set that thing equal to something for it to have any meaning at all. Typo maybe?
If you are agreeable, I suggest we procede on two fronts. Can you expand/edit your equation while I ask whether we can agree at least on the following equation:
v = e * f * abs_VO2max / mass
because that's the equation that defines efficiency, e, in the scientific literature (everything else in that equation is measured directly). Every paper that has been cited on this thread that refers to efficiency means e in that equation. So (and I hesitate to even ask this both because it's pedantic and also because I'm afraid of the answer) but is that e the efficiency you've been talking about in all of this thread?
My summary equation is for running efficiency including both the aerobic and anaerobic components.
Running Efficiency = SL x SR x E
Being efficient for short periods is possible for an untrained runner, but they can't sustain it.
You are using economy and efficiency interchangeably, but that doesn't work, because 'running economy' refers only to the aerobic component, whereas true efficiency has both aerobic and anaerobic components, with other variables too such as environmental conditions, shoes, running surface etc.
If you are using a nonstandard definition of "economy" you really should have made that clear unless you were looking for confusion, consternation and ultimately anger.
What is E ?
E = endurance.
Jon Orange wrote:
fred wrote:George ran 2:12 and the U.S. 10 mile record, Jonnyboy.
Was that when you were doped or not doped?
Okay I was doped of course.
E=Moron squared wrote:
E = endurance.
is E the amount of time that a runner can sustain that combination of stride rate and stride length?
Jon Orange wrote:
test2 wrote:This is where Jon's argument gets hazy for me. If two guys run the same time, then v and T are the same and if you add in Jack Daniels' "well trained" fractional utilization assumption, then f(T) is also the same for them. That means that the following combination of efficiency, absolute VO2max and body mass has to be equal for the two guys:
e_1 * VO2max_abs_1 / mass_1 = e_2 * VO2max_abs_2 / mass_2
If you are agreeable, I suggest we procede on two fronts. Can you expand/edit your equation while I ask whether we can agree at least on the following equation:
v = e * f * abs_VO2max / mass
because that's the equation that defines efficiency, e, in the scientific literature (everything else in that equation is measured directly). Every paper that has been cited on this thread that refers to efficiency means e in that equation. So (and I hesitate to even ask this both because it's pedantic and also because I'm afraid of the answer) but is that e the efficiency you've been talking about in all of this thread?
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.
That formula only includes the aerobic component of energy production in running, oxygen uptake only, so it can't measure efficiency. It's relatively easy to measure oxygen uptake, whereas the anaerobic component is not.
That's why I gave a much simpler summary equation for efficiency. What is much more relevant and important here is to work out what improves efficiency. This problem can't be solved with numbers, they can only measure it.
Historically it was harder to measure anaerobic energy usage so they neglected it. That works okay for longish track distances...but I'm not trying to defend that equation. I'm merely trying to establish some piece of common ground to build from. When scientists talk about efficiency, that's what they are talking about unless it is stated otherwise and it's what I thought we were talking about.
test2 wrote:
E=Moron squared wrote:E = endurance.
is E the amount of time that a runner can sustain that combination of stride rate and stride length?
Beats the heck out of me, this is Jon's equation that tries to combine numbers and bright colors.
jeff tallon wrote:
http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/stepanov-doping-the-national-1.3402916this is interesting,an interview with yulia stepanova of russia.she mentions what the drugs did for her.made her so much stronger,and faster.so yes,the drugs work,extremely well.
Sorry, Jon can't have a conversation with you unless you believe what he believes.
test2 wrote:
E=Moron squared wrote:E = endurance.
is E the amount of time that a runner can sustain that combination of stride rate and stride length?
E = units of EPO
E= erythrocyte count when doped to the gills.
"Russian pharmaceutical outlets sold 78,300 boxes of meldonium between March 7 and 13, 2016, 220 per cent more than in the previous week"
A couple hundred positives, and sales go up.
That's believing in the concept of Performance Enhancing Drugs, eh Jonny?
No question that if Jonny doped he would have been as fast as a Russian woman.
Sorry, that was only 99 positives.
The Independent:
"“When using Grindeks’s mildronate, one can feel a toning effect, one’s memory improves, thinking becomes faster, your movements become more dexterous, and your body becomes more able to defend itself against adverse conditions,†according to the Latvian-language description of the drug on the manufacturer’s website."
It looks like they are saying it improves neuromuscular function, which according to Jon, would improve your efficiency.