I answered the question yesterday. The answer was no, the answer is still no.
I answered the question yesterday. The answer was no, the answer is still no.
Good science, bad science wrote:
I answered the question yesterday. The answer was no, the answer is still no.
That means your theory is wrong. Clearly the cardiovascular system changes dramatically with training and if it were true that efficiency becomes more important the cardio system would wane as efficiency increases.
That doesn't happen.
Bearheart wrote:
Good science, bad science wrote:I answered the question yesterday. The answer was no, the answer is still no.
That means your theory is wrong. Clearly the cardiovascular system changes dramatically with training and if it were true that efficiency becomes more important the cardio system would wane as efficiency increases.
That doesn't happen.
The trolling OP has continued to describe performance physiology as series of overly simplistic either/or arguments --it's all efficiency it's not red cells, etc with no data to support. You all should stop getting sucked in to this trash or this will go on for ever.
good bad troll science wrote:
The trolling OP has continued to describe performance physiology as series of overly simplistic either/or arguments --it's all efficiency it's not red cells, etc with no data to support. You all should stop getting sucked in to this trash or this will go on for ever.
Yeah, but it's so entertaining. Either this is an epic troll that will lead up to a memorable thread conclusion that we'll all be linking to in the years to come ... or, the OP is forging through new frontiers of stupidity, a truly pioneering effort of idiocy, and I want to see how it turns out!
If you are training properly, you adapt your training as you get fitter to maintain or even increase stimulus. Increased efficiency doesn't mean decreased stress, because you also increase your speed and/or volume.
Bearheart wrote:
Should our cardiovascular systems regress if we start training properly? After all the stress should be lowered on them as we get more biomechanically and bioenergetically efficient.
rekrunner wrote:
If you are training properly, you adapt your training as you get fitter to maintain or even increase stimulus. Increased efficiency doesn't mean decreased stress, because you also increase your speed and/or volume.
Bearheart wrote:Should our cardiovascular systems regress if we start training properly? After all the stress should be lowered on them as we get more biomechanically and bioenergetically efficient.
Which means that your cardiovascular system has to progress to keep pace.
In other words, it's every bit as important.
Maybe. I don't know about progression, but just answered why we don't observe cardiovascular regressions with improved efficiency -- because we assumed a proper training.
Bearheart wrote:
rekrunner wrote:If you are training properly, you adapt your training as you get fitter to maintain or even increase stimulus. Increased efficiency doesn't mean decreased stress, because you also increase your speed and/or volume.
Which means that your cardiovascular system has to progress to keep pace.
In other words, it's every bit as important.
I'm encouraged by your quest for "good science", and for "ex phys people" to consider the "full range of ex phys subjects". At the risk of appealing to wikipedia for confirmation, I would agree that "An exercise physiologist's area of study may include but is not limited to biochemistry, bioenergetics, cardiopulmonary function, hematology, biomechanics, skeletal muscle physiology, neuroendocrine function, and central and peripheral nervous system function. Furthermore, exercise physiologists range from basic scientists, to clinical researchers, to clinicians, to sports trainers."http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exercise_physiologyIt's clearly a mistake to represent "aerobic development" as the complete picture. By the same token, it's a mistake to claim "biomechanical and bioergenetic efficiency" are the only things that improve. It's even worse to suggest we must chose one over the other, rather than putting both subjects (and others) in proper perspective, as part of the big picture.If you are not an "ex phys person", but want to know what "basic physiology" tells us, I recommend reading Dr. Stephen Seiler explanations of how physiology is connected to endurance sports. The original website is gone, but a copy can be found here:http://www.owascoveloclub.com/Education_files/EXERCISE%20PHYSIOLOGY.pdfIt's a collection of subjects (so the chapters don't always flow in one coherent presentation), and sometimes focuses more on rowing, on the effects of aging, and even cycling, but it includes a broad range of factors besides that involve both the heart, the lungs, the muscles, the nerves, and the brain.I particularly recommend:- the Performance model presented on page 3 and 4. It can be accused of being too complex, and yet, also over-simplified, but at the very least, we should be able to reject false dichotomies that attempt to chose among simpler, competing models.- Chapter 6, which describes "three waves of change", and how they progress over different timescales: short, medium, and longIn all of your writings, you seem to be concerned only with the "long term" changes, either ignoring, or taking for granted, the short and medium term changes.
Good science, bad science wrote:
...
I also think that exerxcise physiology has been derailed by a lack of attention to neuroscience by the most well known ex phys people, who lack a truly full knowledge of the full range of ex phys subjects.
...
The concept of 'aerobic development' is false, our cardiovascular systems don't improve in the way most people believe. What improves is the ability to run with more biomechanical and bioenergetic efficiency, i.e. more speed for the same effort and more endurance.
"Good science" -- can you elaborate how "Paula Radcliffe's tests by Professor Andy Jones show this"?You didn't present us a link, so forgive me if my conclusions are from the wrong source, but if you are referring to this paper:https://www.exeter.ac.uk/media/universityofexeter/internationalexeter/documents/iss/paula_ijssc_paper.pdfthere is nothing I can find about glycogen usage, nor efficiency, let alone addressing any potential points of using drugs.As an aside, important in a thread emphasizing the merits of "good science", Andrew Jones published Paula's Running Economy (RE), pretty much ignoring "Efficiency":1) Efficiency measures the percentage of total energy produced/consumed, versus energy actually used for the desired work (i.e. producing propulsive power at the feet)2) Economy measures how the total energy produced/consumed translates to the desired running speedWith respect to glycogen, although glycogen usage goes down, for a fixed speed, Paula also tended to run faster, so it's possible the rate of glycogen usage stayed the same, or even increased. Drugs and procedures targeting improved oxygen delivery, and/or utilization, could still be relevant, despite a demonstrated increased running economy (or presumed efficiency). Drugs also have other mechanisms not connected to oxygen (e.g. protective and improved recovery benefits), bringing potential points of utility not raised by Andrew Jones, nor discussions about glycogen or oxygen uptake.With respect to Andrew Jones' paper, what surprises me is how little we can use the presented data to determine the causes of Paula's improved speed. None of the other measurements correlate with the progression of improved speed. It's not wrong to paraphrase, "in the 12 years of extensive measurements in this longitudinal case study, Paula runs faster, but we just don't really know why, because we didn't make the right measurements."This isn't just my conclusion, because in the Discussion section, Andrew Jones seems to agree:"The physiological mechanisms responsible for the remarkable improvements in the parameters of aerobic fitness over a 12-year period in this exceptional athlete can only be speculated upon." "it appears that enhanced exercise economy is central to the continued improvements in endurance exercise performance noted in elite athletes [37, 38]. However, because exercise economy is itself influenced by a wide variety of factors [12, 14, 15], it is very difficult to pinpoint the mechanism responsible for the improved RE reported herein for (Paula Radcliffe)." The rest of the discussion speculates about 10 possible areas where studies support improvements in economy might have occurred.Similarly, the paper provides no data that suggests her improvements were due to "better training" rather than "blood boosting".
Good science, bad science wrote:
Elite athletes use less glycogen to run or ride a bike a given pace. Less glycogen mean less oxygen. The concept of a higher oxygen uptake or more efficient oxygen uptake as a result of blood boosting is just plain bad science.
Paula Radcliffe's tests by Professor Andy Jones show this; she was super efficient at 2.15 marathon pace, using less glycogen, less oxygen. The result of better training, not blood boosting.
There's so much wrong with OP's claims that I'm not sure if he's serious... It's like he doesn't know the basics of physiology.
But some facts:
1) Lactate curves are not measures of "efficiency", or running economy. Economy describes the speed at a given O2 uptake, and lactate curves describe the contribution anaerobic energy production at increasing workloads. They are two totally different concepts.
2) Oxidation of glycogen is more economical than the oxidation of fat. Saving glycogen during marathon is essential, yes, but using more fat will on the other hand increase the O2 demand, which means worse economy. Again, you're talking about two different things.
3) Increasing oxygen uptake OR running economy OR both will increase performance. There are more than one parameter affecting running speed, you know.
Cardio disciple: "To run a fast 5k you need to work at V02 max pace and the best way to do that is km repeats at 5k race pace. "
Efficiency disciple: " To run a fast 5k you need to practice efficient race specific strides and the best way to do that is km repeats at 5 k race pace."
Then they argue on the internet as to who is right.
I don't know where to start wrote:
3) Increasing oxygen uptake OR running economy OR both will increase performance.
Let me demonstrate this for you. Let's say I'm a runner with a VO2max of 70 ml/min/kg and running economy at 210 ml/km/kg.
When running at a effort of 90% VO2max, that would be 0.9 * 70 ml/min/kg = 63 ml/min/kg.
Speed at that effort? Because I need 210 ml of O2 per km per kg body weight, the resulting speed is
v1 = 63 ml/min/kg : 210 ml/km/kg = 0,300 km/min = 18 km/h
Now, if my running economy stays the same, but I manage to improve my VO2max by 10% up to 77 ml/min/kg, my speed at the same 90% effort level will be
v2 = 69,3 ml/min/kg : 210 ml/km/kg = 0,330 km/min = 19,8 km/h
Or, if my VO2max stays at 70 but I manage to improve my running economy 10% down to 189 ml/km/kg, the resulting speed at the same 90% effort will be
v3 = 63 ml/min/kg : 189 ml/km/kg = 0,333... km/min = 20 km/h
See how this works? Both VO2max AND running economy contribute to the speed which the runner can sustain at a given effort level.
To be fair to "good science", I gather (my assumptions) his main claims are:1) There is so much potential improvement to be gained from improving running economy (after VO2max has maxed, and LT has been pushed as high as it goes), that talented athletes will continue to improve without doping, so long as they manage to get their training right. This might be possible only if we are aware that potential gains in "efficiency" and "economy" exist.2) In the last few decades, "ex phys" scientists have focused so much on aerobic development research, that "real" "ex phys" research, has been derailed -- stagnating for decades, ignoring the research involving muscle tension, stiffness, .... This also creates a "knock-on" effect that "amateur" coaches relying in science, only focus on "aerobic" science. And "amateur" cheaters look for drugs that purportedly improve "aerobic" development.
I don't know where to start wrote:
There's so much wrong with OP's claims that I'm not sure if he's serious... It's like he doesn't know the basics of physiology.
But some facts:
1) Lactate curves are not measures of "efficiency", or running economy. Economy describes the speed at a given O2 uptake, and lactate curves describe the contribution anaerobic energy production at increasing workloads. They are two totally different concepts.
2) Oxidation of glycogen is more economical than the oxidation of fat. Saving glycogen during marathon is essential, yes, but using more fat will on the other hand increase the O2 demand, which means worse economy. Again, you're talking about two different things.
3) Increasing oxygen uptake OR running economy OR both will increase performance. There are more than one parameter affecting running speed, you know.
I'm intrigued by your thoughts that "ex phys" has been derailed, and ignoring neuroscience (and perhaps other subjects).If I wanted to investigate existing research, who are the "good scientists" that looked at, or are still looking at all the other non-"aerobic development" "ex phys" subjects like neuroscience, bio-mechanics, and bio-energetics? What keywords would produce a good "google" result of material?Who are the "bad scientists" whose research we should be more skeptical of?If I run a 10K time trial, what would I have to measure, to gauge my current level of efficiency? economy?, if I wanted to track these things over the years?
Good science, bad science wrote:
I also think that exerxcise physiology has been derailed by a lack of attention to neuroscience by the most well known ex phys people, who lack a truly full knowledge of the full range of ex phys subjects.
The article mentions a 15% improvement in oxygen economy. Paula's training is well documented. Lactate curves show this improvement. Where does the improvement come from? It's clearly not an increase in oxygen uptake is it.?
I don't know where to start wrote:
There's so much wrong with OP's claims that I'm not sure if he's serious... It's like he doesn't know the basics of physiology.
But some facts:
1) Lactate curves are not measures of "efficiency", or running economy. Economy describes the speed at a given O2 uptake, and lactate curves describe the contribution anaerobic energy production at increasing workloads. They are two totally different concepts.
2) Oxidation of glycogen is more economical than the oxidation of fat. Saving glycogen during marathon is essential, yes, but using more fat will on the other hand increase the O2 demand, which means worse economy. Again, you're talking about two different things.
3) Increasing oxygen uptake OR running economy OR both will increase performance. There are more than one parameter affecting running speed, you know.
Do you know what lactate is? Yes it's produced anaerobically, but it is an essential part of glycogen metabolism, both aerobic and anaerobic.
Fat does not use more oxygen. That is a common misconception.
So called running economy only refers to oxygen economy and ignores the anaerobic contribution. Elite runners aren't increasing oxygen consumption, they are already at their gentic limit.
I don't need lectures on basic phsyiology from someone who doesn't know the basics.
rekrunner wrote:
To be fair to "good science", I gather (my assumptions) his main claims are:
1) There is so much potential improvement to be gained from improving running economy (after VO2max has maxed, and LT has been pushed as high as it goes), that talented athletes will continue to improve without doping, so long as they manage to get their training right. This might be possible only if we are aware that potential gains in "efficiency" and "economy" exist.
2) In the last few decades, "ex phys" scientists have focused so much on aerobic development research, that "real" "ex phys" research, has been derailed -- stagnating for decades, ignoring the research involving muscle tension, stiffness, .... This also creates a "knock-on" effect that "amateur" coaches relying in science, only focus on "aerobic" science. And "amateur" cheaters look for drugs that purportedly improve "aerobic" development.
I don't know where to start wrote:There's so much wrong with OP's claims that I'm not sure if he's serious... It's like he doesn't know the basics of physiology.
But some facts:
1) Lactate curves are not measures of "efficiency", or running economy. Economy describes the speed at a given O2 uptake, and lactate curves describe the contribution anaerobic energy production at increasing workloads. They are two totally different concepts.
2) Oxidation of glycogen is more economical than the oxidation of fat. Saving glycogen during marathon is essential, yes, but using more fat will on the other hand increase the O2 demand, which means worse economy. Again, you're talking about two different things.
3) Increasing oxygen uptake OR running economy OR both will increase performance. There are more than one parameter affecting running speed, you know.
Yes, rekrunner, that is a good summary. Just one point I need to correct. What people refer to as lactate threshold is of course very vague. Ventilatory threshold is a real an actual threshold where breathing begins to become less efficient.
The concept of 'increasing lactate threshold' is the vaguest of the vague. It is much better to simply refer to improved efficiency, which is clearly shown by lactate curves, although that requires too much intervention for general training purposes. You should know when you are more efficient because you can run your interval training efforts at a faster pace, or need less recovery between efforts.
It is not a good idea to rely on the 4 mmol lactate measurement that ex phys geeks are so fond of in the belief that it refers to half marathon pace, because the top runners are probably running a 10k at that lactate level. This should be the aim of serious distance runners, racing at a lower glycogen uptake/lactate level for most of the race, but still be at or near the front of the race and having greater reserves to finish fast.
Bear in mind that at altitude, lactate levels are lower because oxygen levels are lower, the top guys who run fast efforts at 6000-8000 feet are running as fast or faster in each effort than lesser runners but using less glycogen/oxygen. When they get to sea level, they can run super fast times with the same lactate level, lower than less well trained athletes.
This is not the only way to do it of course. As Jack Daniels says " altitude training is just another form of training" That's a very good point.
I just know that people that take epo run faster than people that do not. People that have taken the drug report that they're running became very easy and they felt fresh towards the end of marathons.
The real performance enhancers are adrenalin and noradrenalin. There is no superior performance without the help of these hormone/neurotransmitters.
I want to get the basic physiology across and point out the insanity and bad science of the drug dogma. People will make all sorts of claims about all sorts of substances won't they? It's an obsession.
Efficiency means less oxygen/glycogen uptake for a given pace, that is what is required for future world records, using less energy to race faster.
SlackJawedYokle wrote:
I just know that people that take epo run faster than people that do not. People that have taken the drug report that they're running became very easy and they felt fresh towards the end of marathons.
People who eat cherries run even faster then that.
I even wrote about this, in a previous message.