Future World Records without drugs

If only I get some sense into rojo's head, he might join in the discussion with some real insight?

Looks like nobody took the bite. I'll offer a couple of thoughts to kickstart the controversy.

Don't you know that Einstein disproved that old Newtonian dogma. You need to drag yourself forward to the 20th century, and beyond. But let's ignore that for now.

Newton also says that F=1/2m*v^2. Does that mean that running performance is limited ultimately by bone strength? Wouldn't higher acceleration and higher velocities lead to larger forces, causing stress fractures and breaks?

Running performance is the end result of a system which combines many factors that need to work together. It's not ALL about oxygen uptake, but oxygen uptake is one of the important pieces. If oxygen uptake is low, then increasing uptake by training, or by external means, should always improve system performance.

Running out of energy quicker isn't a problem for races up to half marathons. But somewhere between the half and full marathons, energy management becomes a major factor.

Newton's (or rather Hooke's)second law is appropriate to earth bound running, which is what concerns me.

Our bones will cope with the larger forces by accomodating them in the natural spring action that we are developing with better tecnique. I have tested this hypothesis with extreme downhill running...result, no stress fractures.

We only need our natural oxygen uptake from a healthy cardidovascular system. Any more O2 uptake would use up too much fuel and be less efficient. Where our improvement lies, as you mentioned in another post is in increased efficiency. This is definitely a problem in races shorter than half marathon, because of the heat dissipation issue.

How to develop technique? This is something I tried to address back in 2009 when replying to you. To push off or not to push off, that is the question. There is disagreement on what constitutes better technique and control of ground force reaction. A debate worth ten times more than discussing the 'aerobic, anaerobic development' issue.

Interesting you mention Hooke's law, because it aptly illustrates the limitations of energy we can expect from springs. Hooke's law starts to make less sense as the force increases. There is a limit to how much you can physically compress springs, and how much you can stretch it before it deforms, resulting in permanent damage. This suggests there is an upper limit to the force you can store, in the elasticity of your muscles and tendons to spring you forward.Can you explain a little bit further why an increase in O2 uptake would use up "too much" fuel and be less efficient? I get why you use fuel more quickly, but why is that less efficient?Not sure what you want to say with races shorter than half marathon and the heat dissipation issue. You said a higher O2 uptake would consume fuel too quickly. I thought the issue was running out of fuel, not accumulating too much heat. Surely running out of fuel is not an issue for races less than 90 minutes. If your body temperature is rising too quickly, you will also tend to slow down, which also slows down the rate of consumption of fuel, suggesting that consuming fuel too quickly is self correcting. But heat accumulation is more a question of optimal pacing, rather than rate of fuel consumption, or fuel management.I'm all for a discussion on improving technique, efficiency, and running economy. Once you've developed a high aerobic capacity, then extended your stamina by developing a high lactate threshold, the remaining benefits will come from improvements in form, and long term improvements in things like neuro-muscular coordination. I've already mentioned a book (Matt Fitzgeralds' Brain Training) that I thought was a good starting point, for a description of a good form, and techniques to obtain it, but you never seemed that interested in reading or commenting it.

I don't think any runner will get anywhere near the limit of tendon elasticity in one race. Of course runners sometimes have problems with so called achiles tendonitis, but 'itis' suffix is a misnomer since tendons don't inlflame as they have no blood supply. The problem is really one of overuse at the musculotendinous junction.

My point about 'extra oxygen uptake' (the supposed benefit of blood manipulation)is that to go beyond the normal oxygen uptake would require more glycogen, more lactate producion and thus more heat producion. Thus it would be inneficient.

One of the limiting factors in how fast we can run is of course heat production/dissipation. So if you try to run at the same pace in a 10k race on a hot day versus a cool day, you will not be able to maintain the pace, just as you have stated above. Well the same priciple has to apply to oxygen uptake as it is reliant on glycogen breakdown and heat production is a by-producto of this.

Does Matt Fitzgerald's book address the point I am making about extra foot and ankle flexibility as well as Lydiard for example. Is there really anything in the book that I haven't addressed before?

I agree with most of this:

http://www.championseverywhere.com/lydiardonbarefootandnaturaltrunning

I'm not sure about the "pull off" what does the author mean? What did the Arthur mean? Hopefully nothing like the Pose method, where Romanov tried to re-invent the wheel.

I still don't follow your last step, how the extra heat production leads to greater inefficiency. Why isn't it possible for oxygen uptake to increase at the same rate as heat production, while efficiency remains constant? Heat is a performance limiter, but wouldn't that also reduce oxygen/fuel consumption? Why wouldn't they increase/decrease at the same rate, with constant efficiency?I think you oversimplify the "supposed benefit of blood manipulation", as if there is only one. While extra red blood cells and extra oxygen carrying capacity is certainly one benefit, I think it's not the only benefit, in the way you imply. I can see for short races, like 5K or less, where you are close to a maximal aerobic effort, how the extra capacity could benefit directly, during the intense activity. But "blood manipulation" is presumed to have some benefit in marathons, and grand tours, where much or all of the time and effort is spent well below maximum capacity, and wouldn't require any higher rate of oxygen carrying capacity. There must be other benefits, for example during "off-time" like improved recovery, or perhaps synergy with other drugs, or some protective quality that prolongs destruction of red blood cells (or as we recently saw, protects the nerves).While you touch on several subjects one at a time, over time, in short sound bites, the advantage of a book with multiple chapters (describing stretching, drills, mental cues, the brain, the nervous system, etc.) is the possibility of coverage that is comprehensive, with greater breadth and depth, and coherency, all in one concentrated place.The book mentions many things you haven't. For example, related to the technique of running skill, I haven't seen you address characteristics of a good form, or list mental cues to develop good form, or attempt to list modern causes of bad form and how to counteract them.

I would agree to to most of this. At least the parts about minimal shoes, and relaxing and finding the good technique and not sitting with the hips (in addition, or as a prerequisite, to the energy related periodization he is known for).Looks like Arthur meant and said "push-off".But the author (Rene) clarifies that although it looks like a powerful push-off, in reality, we know today it is a bounce, (and that natural running requires a "pull" or "lift").The "push" and "bounce" sound OK, but "pull" or "lift" sounds strikingly similar to what POSE tries to teach.I won't comment on the right or wrong of it, but that's how I interpret the article.

jono wrote:

I agree with most of this:

http://www.championseverywhere.com/lydiardonbarefootandnaturaltrunning

I'm not sure about the "pull off" what does the author mean? What did the Arthur mean? Hopefully nothing like the Pose method, where Romanov tried to re-invent the wheel.

Why are you looking at this from the "there must be other benefits" point of view? You are trying to rationalize something which is completely irrational; an obsession with chemically altered states for supposed performance enhancement.

You are also trying to rationalize your anti Lance stance, when all you have to say was that he was a bully.

Look at it from my perspective, I agree with Dave Brailsford, those performances will be eclipsed by non-drugged cyclists. Maybe not 7 Tours, but that is because we won't see another Lance for a long time, drugs or no drugs. Was Anquetil a lesser rider because he was doped? Well JFK was doped to the gills on the same stuff as Anquetil. It was what many people did back then.

EPO was a fad. The same with blood transfusions, it's a form of doctoring. Do you see my point, or are you too much in the thrall of the druggie dogma to ever understand the philosophy that as another poster said "anyone who believes that they need drugs to perform at their best is a brainwashed fool"?

About the heat accumulation point; it's basic physiology; you can't run a 10k at 5k intensity because of heat accumulation. It's the principle of thermoregulation, heat dissipation is a limiting factor in distance racing. Whenver lactate is produced, about 7% of the energy from that production is released as heat. This has advantages in thermorgulation, allowing muscle efficiency, and disadvantages in thermoregulation when lactate accumulates for over several minutes. Oxygen uptake in a such races is dependent on lactate production and complete oxidation, that is to say the complete oxidative process of carbohydrate metabolism.

This is basic physiology, but it is beyond the knowledge of 99.9999% of runners, cyclists, coaches, writers, and indeed exercize physiologists.

rekrunner wrote:

I would agree to to most of this. At least the parts about minimal shoes, and relaxing and finding the good technique and not sitting with the hips (in addition, or as a prerequisite, to the energy related periodization he is known for).

Looks like Arthur meant and said "push-off".

But the author (Rene) clarifies that although it looks like a powerful push-off, in reality, we know today it is a bounce, (and that natural running requires a "pull" or "lift").

The "push" and "bounce" sound OK, but "pull" or "lift" sounds strikingly similar to what POSE tries to teach.

I won't comment on the right or wrong of it, but that's how I interpret the article.

I agree with your interpretation of the article. As I said back in 2009 the bounce should have an extra push very similar to jumping on the spot. We can run with or without this extra push. I think this is what Lydiard was trying to teach. I think we also shared the same philosophy on the drugs issue. HRE thinks that he was naïve but I think that drug belief is the real naïveté.

You should be able to set a world record for a jerk then

Maybe I'm not getting what you mean by "druggie dogma". It sounds like you want to be in the same drug denial camp as JR. Or maybe you are just trying to change the subject so we stop talking about drugs at all.I mention other benefits, because you are saying things like "it's not about oxygen uptake (the supposed benefit of blood manipulation)" as if that was the only thing that "blood manipulation" could improve. You want to deny all drugs, by implying there is only one supposed benefit, and then calling that "propagating aerobic dogma". Drugs can provide many benefits, so in order to deny the relevancy of drugs, you have to deny ALL the benefits, not just the one you chose.I'm not sure what you want to say about my "anti-Lance" stance. With Lance, I do what I always try to do -- add clarity to help see through the propoganda. Lance was a bully, but also a cheater, a liar, and a drug pusher.It doesn't make for good science, but I think we have a lot of anecdotal data that shows an undeniable cause-effect relationship of drug cocktails and grand tour cycling performance in the 90's and 2000's.Regarding drugs, I agree with Canova. Some drugs, like steroids, can provide a super-human capability. This is especially true for women, with normally naturally low levels of male hormones. Other drugs, like EPO, will not take you to a level (significantly) higher than you could achieve naturally, for example with hi-lo altitude training, and the right mental attitude. That's just my belief, so I'm always open to corrections.And regarding heat accumulation, sorry to be so repetitive, but I see "performance limiting" and "inefficiency" as potentially independent things. I can understand heat is performance limiting, but then you flow directly to inefficiency, in the same breath, as if that follows directly. Maybe it's my own lack of basic physiological knowledge. Inefficiency means to me that somehow the oxygen cost (or fuel cost) of producing the same energy has increased, or that the energy has dropped for the same oxygen cost (or fuel cost). This is the connection you are not making. Why are we consuming more oxygen (or fuel) per unit of energy at the feet, with higher body temperatures? Because of lactate accumulation? I understood (from Noakes) that higher temperatures eventually result in the brain telling fewer muscle fibers to work. This seems to be purely electrical, and independent of relatively increased rates of oxygen (or fuel) consumption.

What I mean by druggie dogma is the belief in the pseudoscience of the 'performance enhancing drugs' concept. It's nonsense and it's crazy. It's also heretical of me to say this isn't it? That's how ingrained the PED concept is. This applies equally to EPO or steroids or stimulants. Your body is an amazing piece of kit, which can't be improved with drugs unless you have a deficiency. Most of us don't have such a deficiency.J.R. is right when he says:

J.R. wrote:

Anyone who thinks you need drugs to perform your best, is a brainwashed fool.

That is a very proufoundly intelligent statement.

My point about heat accumulation is very simple, I don't see why you can't grasp it; Oxygen demand drives glycogen demand which incurs heat production. There is a right level of both for the distance you are racing. Go beyond that and you accumulate heat too quickly and can't maintain the pace.

About the Lance thing. You seem to take the view that he let you and the sport down, as though he was the man in charge of the whole drugs thing. That just isn't realistic. He came into the sport as a very young pro, at a time when EPO use was beginning to reach epidemic proportions. He was part the system, he wasn't the system itself. You and others need to move on from this and accept things as they really happened, not how you wished they could have been. Until people face up to this the same nonsense continues.

I am in agreement with Dave Brailsford, the man behind the enormous success of British cycling in recent years. He says that he expects performance levels to increase without drugs.

Can we get back to the phsyics now, so that you can explain how Einstein disproved the old Newtonian dogma please?

I think the main problem I have with your "druggie dogma" stance is the contradiction with observable and measurable reality. What does Dave Brailsford say about women's strength, sprint, and middle distance world records? When these start going down, I'll take everything back. I can understand if you are a high school coach attempting to encourage a good mindset for impressionable children. Intense activities create huge imbalances and temporary deficiencies.

I don't see why can't grasp my question about "efficiency". All your explanations about heat accumulation and performance limiters don't explain why you use the term "inefficient".

And the Lance thing? Like you, I'm only ever responding to myths, in order to replace misunderstandings or misperceptions, with facts. Myths like "Lance never tested positive", "it was an even playing field", "everyone was doing it so why single out one guy", "disgruntled employees", and "everyone is jealous". Lance may have fell victim to the system, but then he took the system to a new level. Lance had a better doctor, with a more sophisticated "training" program. Lance bullied other cyclists into silence. Lance smeared former American hero Lemond, and destroyed his business. Lance not only took drugs, Lance formed a team and forced his soldiers to see the same doctor. After the 1998 Festina scandal, 1999 was supposed to be a clean start -- Lance didn't get that memo, and delayed that for a decade. Did Jan Ulrich do all these things? Pantani? Indurain? Eddy Merckx? Anyone? In another thread, someone wants to compare Lance to Bernard Lagat, based on one EPO test which wasn't confirmed. How ridiculous is that? Did Lagat form an army and force others to take drugs? Did Lagat smear other athletes, or ridicule them into silence? I accept all these things as they really happened -- why don't you?

Newton's big mistake was assuming time was absolute.

rekrunner wrote:

I still don't follow your last step, how the extra heat production leads to greater inefficiency. Why isn't it possible for oxygen uptake to increase at the same rate as heat production, while efficiency remains constant? Heat is a performance limiter, but wouldn't that also reduce oxygen/fuel consumption? Why wouldn't they increase/decrease at the same rate, with constant efficiency?

In a short race, heat production and oxygen consumption both rise constantly. In longer races, too much heat production/dissipation will slow you down. You won't be able to maintain force production and the elastic return that is so beneficial to maintaining pace. This actually does happen at the end of a long sprint finish in distance races and 800m races too.

My point about oxygen uptake and heat production being tightly linked is basic physiology, it's easy to understand, but you have to want to understand it, which is not possible in your state of mind which is one of general disbelief in natural physiology and a very strong belief in the supposed efficacy of EPO.

Dave Brailsford works with female sprinters and the cycling equivalent of middle distance athletes, and has done for many years. You are laboring under the misconception that extra muscle mass from steroid use gives better sprint performance. This myth has been debunked by Peter Weyand and his analysis of the physics involved, you know Newton's mathematical equations for his second law of motion based on Hooke's hypotheses. This is refered to in the literature as Mass Specific Force.

You despise Lance Armstrong, I get it, but I don't, I despise the druggie dogma which has always been around.

Anyway, back to physics. So the main difference between Newton and Einstein is the Theory of General Relatvity?

jono wrote:

What I mean by druggie dogma is the belief in the pseudoscience of the 'performance enhancing drugs' concept. It's nonsense and it's crazy. It's also heretical of me to say this isn't it? That's how ingrained the PED concept is. This applies equally to EPO or steroids or stimulants. Your body is an amazing piece of kit, which can't be improved with drugs unless you have a deficiency. Most of us don't have such a deficiency.

J.R. is right when he says:

J.R. wrote:

Anyone who thinks you need drugs to perform your best, is a brainwashed fool.

That is a very proufoundly intelligent statement.

Jono and J.R are the same person, plenty of examples on other threads, best to ignore and not respond to either of them.

It's True wrote:

Jono and J.R are the same person, plenty of examples on other threads, best to ignore and not respond to either of them.

looks that way - letsrun 'jono J.R.' search:

I highly doubt it."jono" respects "JR" for some reason, but they are both crazy in different, clearly identifiable, ways.

It's True wrote:

Jono and J.R are the same person, plenty of examples on other threads, best to ignore and not respond to either of them.

You are giving a bunch of great answers, but still not bridging the chasm between increased oxygen uptake and any possible link to less efficiency. I can't imagine it, but maybe I'm not being clear enough with my question. You used the physiological term "efficiency". It's a well defined term. I know you are a master of physiology, so you don't use physiological terms lightly. To me, this well defined term simply seems disconnected with the rest of your discussion. My basic physiological understanding is that "efficiency" is a ratio percentage of two energy values: propulsion energy / total energywhere "total energy = propulsion energy + wasted energy"When you say that increased oxygen uptake would use up too much fuel and be less efficient, I take this to mean you are talking about THE RATIO decreasing. That is, wasted energy INCREASES when compared to respective changes in propulsion energy. You are only giving partial answers. It's not enough to say heat accumulation is a performance limiter, and oxygen uptake is tightly linked to heat production. To support a claim of less EFFICIENCY, I'm expecting you to compare the different quantities of energies, and explain why the RATIO is changing. Why is it that heat accumulation (or whatever) leads to a smaller percentage of the total energy consumed providing less propulsion in a forward direction? What changes so that our "amazing piece of kit" starts consuming EXCESS energy, only to be wasted before it reaches our feet? A complete answer has to talk about how the relative magnitudes of all the energies involved change.I'm not clear how "elastic return" fits into the discussion either, since that seems to enter the discussion only after efficiency is resolved. Your ability to actively apply forces into the ground can only come from the "propulsion" energy.I completely understand your answers. They answer many questions, but simply don't answer my question. I believe in natural physiology. I also believe in unnatural physiology. I don't talk about EPO specifically, but generally about known "performance enhancing drugs". I don't know why you don't know this already, but I'm actually quite skeptical about the alleged efficacy of EPO, and the alleged reasons for its efficacy. You want to tightly link EPO to oxygen uptake, in order to say oxygen uptake is BS, and therefore EPO is BS. I could agree increased oxygen uptake is BS. But I think you make a mistake to say EPO is only about oxygen uptake. You must already know that my opinion about the efficacy of EPO (for grand tour cyclists) is not about increasing maximum oxygen uptake during exercise (VO2max lasts for 11 minutes, not 3 weeks!), but about faster recovery between exercise. Like the 800m, the 3 week grand tours aren't about doing superhuman things at every stage, but about slowing down the least in the third week, compared to your rivals in the instant tour. And the great cycling experiment of the 1990's and 2000's tells us very little about the direct effects of EPO, despite EPO getting much of the credit, since the cyclists were combining it with everything they believed, or were told, would work. We would need more "controlled" experiments to rule out contributions of other drugs, synergies, and placebo effect. Furthermore, if you want more insight into my beliefs, I think EPO cannot work for marathons, precisely for the reason you claim: it would consume glycogen too quickly. Marathons are in big part about glycogen management. EPO can't help if you only hit the wall sooner. I think EPO can work for 10Ks and 5Ks, but I have faith in Canova that for all these distance events, whatever EPO can do, proper training could do too, at least in large part.I am not laboring under misconceptions about extra muscle mass. You talk about "world records without drugs". Tell me when that's going to happen again for women in 100m, 100m hurdles, 200m, 400m, 800m, 1500m, 3000m, 10000m, long jump, shot put, and discus. Could these same women "perform at their best" without drugs and achieve the same results in "ideal" conditions? Help me understand how all these best performances were possible by these women 20-30 years ago, but not since by any other women?I wouldn't say I despise Lance Armstrong as much as I despise the propaganda. I'm more a champion of truth than a disgruntled cycling fan.Regarding Newton and Einstein, the main difference is there understanding of time. Newton thought it was fixed, while Einstein understood that it depends. Time does funny things at near light speed, or near large masses. Another main difference is era. Einstein is 20th century while Newton was 17th century. I thought this should impress you, as one who wants to drag us forward from 1920 to 1970 physiology into the modern era.