Future World Records without drugs

As discussed earlier, the main efficiency area for runners is increased elastic return, more spring from your stride, saving energy.

With regards to the supposed increase in oxygen uptake from EPO, as I have said over and over, this would produce extra heat over and above what we can dissipate. An excess of heat production is inneficient and cannot be maintained. It forces you to slow down. I don't see why you keep arguing the point?

I don't agree with your point about EPO 'improving recovery' I don't why you would believe that?

I think the women's world records for 400, 800 and 1500 are weak. I don't know why, but maybe it has a lot to do with the way they are raced?

What I wanted to discuss about the physics is the elastic return of muscle and tendon, which is the area where we gain improvement, longer stride, higher stride rate, and yes better recovery.

You should not be calling me crazy for wanting to separate bad science from good science, which is exactly what I am doing. As someone with a science background, you should respect that. And you should also no that I am not an anonymous coward, but someone who stands up for what he believes and doesn't take any nonsense.

well known fact epo improves recovery

sprinters take epo for this very reason

Do believe any old druggie BS?

Jon Orange wrote:

I am not an anonymous coward,

????????????????????

I don't think I was arguing any point, but just asking for clarification of one aspect -- but let's drop it.

My point about EPO "improving recovery" is that recovery seems to be a known benefit, and there must be something else besides "peak oxygen delivery" that provides a sustained benefit for 3 weeks. If we accept the popular observation that "EPO was a game changer" in cycling (something you don't seem to accept, but I haven't yet discounted), the reason has to be something else besides more blood cells deliver more oxygen providing more peak power. This is why I keep suggesting other benefits, like recovery, synergy with other drugs, (or that power/recovery simply came from other drugs), and quite possibly psychological and placebo effects.

I called you crazy, but I only meant it in a nice way -- don't take any offense. However, even scientists can become mad. And yes, I already knew your name, and your passion for myth busting.

As my penance, I'll come back to you about the physics of elastic return. It can get rather complicated as we need to talk about optimal angles and vectors and natural harmonic frequencies. I don't think I will go into these things, since it will be complex to give it proper treatment. My initial questions are 1) how can we isolate and measure elastic return to know that it is increasing, and 2) what can we do to make muscles and tendons more elastic (or alternatively is that even a goal?) and 3) assuming that our muscles and tendons don't provide 100% elastic return -- if we apply more force into the ground, isn't there an inefficiency there too? Also, two more questions 4) how high can the stride rate go? shouldn't we talk instead about an optimal stride rate?, and 5) how does elasticity improve recovery?

You say drugs don't help us unless we have a deficiency.

So... wouldn't drugs then help all elite athletes?

Don't worry rekrunner, I haven't taken any offense. I value your input. I will be seen as a heretic, not quite in the way Galileo was, but I can compare the belief in the concept of so called 'performance enhancing drugs' to a belief that the Sun goes round the Earth. Everyone knew that Galileo was a fool, they just had to look up to the sky and see the Sun going round the Earth didn't they? Anyway it said in the Bible etc etc. The drug belief is a similar kind of religious zeal, and for me to say to someone "Do you believe in the PED concept?" is probably seen by most people as such a bizarre question; why would I even ask such a thing?

Galileo was not some kind of scientific martyr as the legend says, he actually had freinds in the Roman Catholic Church who valued his scientific research very highly and protected him from persectuion. I don't see myself as some kind of revealer of hidden truths, just someone who asks intelligent questions and gives intelligent replies. Galileo was obviously a genius, I'm just very interested in sports science and its application. I think racing and training are more important than the science though.

Was EPO a huge game changer in the Peloton in the 90's? Well I belived so in 1992. I recall a conversation with a pro cyclist about how I was depressed about it. I couldn't see a future for myself as a cycling reporter unless I wrote exposés which would not have been a happy experience.

EPO was a game changer in as much as so many cyclists injected the drug regularly. Performance enhancer? Producer of greater power output? No, to get more power you have to either use more fuel or be more economical, that's basic physiology. To apply more force to the pedals by more economical means, you have to throw your body weight over the pedals in a very subtle way. As you mentioned, angles and vectors, and some elastic return, but not as much as in running, but then again cyclists can keep going at high power output for longer than runners.

Back to running, and to answer your questions

1) how can we isolate and measure elastic return to know that it is increasing?

I wouldn't care to attempt to measure it directly, but by improvement in feel, that is a more powerful stride that can be maintained for the duration of normal interval training and tempo run sessions without getting into breathing difficulty. What we are trying to do, and the purpose of this thread is to improve running economy; same pace with less fuel or faster pace.

2) what can we do to make muscles and tendons more elastic (or alternatively is that even a goal?

We can't make tendons more elastic, but obviously we can use muscle and tendon elasticity more with practice.

As I mentioned in previous thread on this subject in 2009, I believe in jumping on the spot, pushing off and landing with both feet for several minutes at a time, and getting a feel for this elasticity. It's a great way to train and doesn't take much effort. I do it barefoot on a hard surface for more effect. The same day or next day I can run tempo and feel an advantage in my stride.

3) assuming that our muscles and tendons don't provide 100% elastic return -- if we apply more force into the ground, isn't there an inefficiency there too?

Yes, the Earth moves slightly, wasting some of our energy input. Also there must be more friction involved in our actions, but the gains must outweigh the losses if our technique is good and we are making stead improvement.

4) how high can the stride rate go? shouldn't we talk instead about an optimal stride rate?

I don't know but both stride rate and stride length should be improving, more in the way of stride length than rate. However our ground contact time is partly dependent on the weight, flexibility and the surface area of our shoes, so in my opinion we should use racing shoes to do the fastest training so that we get used to the feel.

Optimal stride rate and length? I think the very idea is a false concept. You should do what feels right rather than trying to artificially alter one or the other variable or both to suit some imaginary optimal number.

5) how does elasticity improve recovery?

When we do more of this springing type of work which involves eccentric muscle contraction, we get used to it. This is the type of work that makes muscles sore after a fast race or long fast workout. What I haven't mentioned so far is that greater muscle tension gives more spring in the muscles and saves energy. This is controlled by our nervous system. This control is developed with practice, so that after a few weeks, we can cope with a long fast downhill run (for example) without getting sore muscles.

Well, it depends on the drug, the athlete, the event, and the deficiency -- you weren't very specific, but as a general statement, no, drugs would not then help ALL elite athletes.But did I say that? I think "jono" said it, and also said "Most of us don't have such a deficiency."I wouldn't go so far as to say "most of us", but would say elite athletes are elite because they have fewer and smaller weaknesses. I guess for many drugs, if there is a large effect for amateurs, the effect becomes smaller, marginal, or insignificant for elites.

chupa wrote:

You say drugs don't help us unless we have a deficiency.

So... wouldn't drugs then help all elite athletes?

Elite atheletes are elite because they want to be elite. Just like some young person says "I'm going to be a lawyer" or "I'm going to be a doctor" or whatever, it's self belief, if they are dedicated, they will do it.

The letsrun collective wisdom is that elites have some great phsical strengths that most runners don't have. It's mythology, they have to build their fitness gradually just like anyone else. Speed endurance is something most runners can keep improving with the right approach, but most runners put mental barriers up and don't let their natural talent flow progressively.

I'm going to try and limit my responses as much as I can to the interesting subjects of efficiency and economy. While I have some unambiguous opinions that Galileo was unquestionably screwed by the church, and I consider the question of geocentricity versus heliocentricity merely a question of choosing convenient mathematical coordinates (both are correct if you are prepared to do the math, and both are wrong when you look at an even bigger picture), and that the question of the efficacy of drugs is one that can be supported, or denied, by measurable observations, rather than appealing to faith, I don't want to discuss these things.

I'm not sure why you keep talking to me about EPO as a performance and power enhancer in a context of cyclng grand tours. Given my stated opinion that any possible "oxygen uptake" benefit of EPO for grand tours that last longer than 11 minutes must be from "another benefit of EPO", (either during training, and/or during the event itself), I don't know how to respond to "more power requires more fuel" arguments. I don't think that the grand tours have demonstrated "more power" in any absolute sense. It's more a question (like the final 200m of an 800m race) of how much these cyclists' performance degrades in the latter stages, rather than finding absolute sources of peak power.

Some reactions to your answers:

1) Without isolating and measuring, the way you describe it, the powerful stride without breathing difficulty could be explained as well by massive increases in VO2max and lactate threshold.

Side note: I don't want to split hairs, but pay attention to the difference between efficiency (energy loss) and economy (speed per energy). Now you say the purpose of the thread is "to improve running economy", but as a matter of fact, it's the first time you mentioned economy.

4) I only asked about stride rate -- I guess the stride length will be a result of your fitness, and perhaps improved technique. You said improving elastic return would lead to "a higher stride rate", but that presumes that for most people, the stride rate is too low. I don't imagine shooting from some arbitrary number, but rather that an optimal rate is defined by elastic properties of your muscles and tendons. It's an interesting topic for me, as in high school, I learned by experience that I was trying too hard to create powerful steps, and that when I increased my stride rate, my speed increased. Yet still, compared to my training partners, despite my shorter legs, my steps are still more powerful, and I have a lower stride rate (and hence more stride length) than my "teammates".

I don't.

Which is opinion I am challenging with basic physiology vis-à-vis fuel economy.

Grand Tour performances have demonstrated huge power outputs over extended periods such as climbing l'Alpe d'Huez in very fast times at the end of long stages. This superior power can only come from superior fuel economy, since 'aerobic development' in the accepted sense of cardiovascular development is the norm amongst the millions of healthy cyclists the world over.

And what is 'lactate threshold' but a measure of economy?

I haven't mentioned economy yet because I had to respond to your questions. I would have mentioned it a week ago if I had time. The difference between efficiency (energy loss) and economy (speed per energy)? This comes back mostly to heat dissipation does it not?

I make no claims about runners having too low a stride rate or length other than in relation to the increase in pace they could have with better training. Stride rates vary a lot even in individuals. Consider the current world record holder in the 800 whose stride rate falls from about 220 to 180 during the race. And consider how much longer a runner's stride will be in an 800m race compared to a marathon? A very big difference.

I agree that runners can make huge gains in efficiency and economy, by reducing wasted motions, improving their technique, and long term adaptations that improve overall "system" coordination. An important source of improvement has to do with leveraging elasticity in tendons and muscles.

However, this is not true for cyclists. There is no "elastic" property when cycling. There are no huge performance gains in cycling, like in running, coming from efficiency. Any superior power observed during climbs cannot be explained at all (let alone "only") by superior fuel economy. The cyclists produced more power, consumed more fuel/oxygen, then recovered again to compete the next day.

How does "lactate threshold" measure economy? I think I need a better explanation of that. Improvements in lactate threshold results in improved stamina: the ability to sustain higher power outputs for longer durations. We have an improved capability to achieve higher energy production, higher oxygen/fuel consumption, for longer periods of time. How is this higher volume of energy consumption linked to economy? How does a measure of blood lactate concentration tell me anything about the total energy, and/or the final speed?

Regarding stride rates, as a matter of fact, you said "elastic return ... is the area where we gain ... higher stride rate ...". I'm just saying that "higher" is a poor choice of word, and is surely not always the case (and you seem to agree).

Cyclists do indeed get huge performance gains from better economy, how could you possibly believe otherwise? They get it from better technique just as runners do. In cycling they get less elastic return but they still get some. Most of the gains in power and economy come from learning to apply more body weight onto the pedals, either with or without getting out of the saddle. I already said this in a previous post.

High energy production is not necessarily the same has higher oxygen/fuel consumption. This is the whole point of this thread. To point that this should be the aim of training and to point out the fact that this is possible to any level without drugs.

Higher stride rate and longer stride.

I'm sorry, but I can't make any sense of this.How does the difference between efficiency (energy loss) and economy (speed per energy) come back mostly to heat dissipation?

jono wrote:

The difference between efficiency (energy loss) and economy (speed per energy)? This comes back mostly to heat dissipation does it not?

I don't understand why you can't make sense of my posts?

It seems to me that you are overthinking everything I write, whilst I am trying to simplify it.

Let me try to summarize. The supposed benefits of injecting EPO is an increase in oxygen uptake, but this would increase heat production because it would increase gycogen uptake.

The real benefits of better training for runners comes not from pushing oxygen uptake beyond normal means, but from better elastic return, which is more efficient running.

This documentary has an interesting section about how the foot should land for better energy return, which seems to be along the same line as Jon Orange's thinking.

http://www.allthingsgym.com/the-price-of-gold-documentary/

This documentary has an interesting section about how the foot should land for better energy return, which seems to be along the same line as Jon Orange's thinking.

http://www.allthingsgym.com/the-price-of-gold-documentary/

It's not clear to me we are working from the same definitions.How can I verify your ideas about cyclists gaining superior power only from superior fuel economy?For efforts lasting longer than 90 seconds, how can you produce higher energy without consuming more oxygen/fuel?I'm OK with longer stride. It's your claim of "higher stride rate" that could be rephrased to become more accurate.

jono wrote:

Cyclists do indeed get huge performance gains from better economy, how could you possibly believe otherwise? They get it from better technique just as runners do. In cycling they get less elastic return but they still get some. Most of the gains in power and economy come from learning to apply more body weight onto the pedals, either with or without getting out of the saddle. I already said this in a previous post.

...

High energy production is not necessarily the same has higher oxygen/fuel consumption. This is the whole point of this thread. To point that this should be the aim of training and to point out the fact that this is possible to any level without drugs.

Higher stride rate and longer stride.

I can only guess because we are working with different definitions of efficiency and economy.It's not clear how a higher heat production -- even excess, performance limiting heat production exceeding heat dissipation -- and increased glycogen uptake would produce changes in measured efficiency and economy.You could argue that EPO is ineffective because performance would be limited by excess heat production. I could see the logic in that. But you said that heat accumulation causes inefficiency, without explaining why the ratio of energy lost increases.

jono wrote:

I don't understand why you can't make sense of my posts?

It seems to me that you are overthinking everything I write, whilst I am trying to simplify it.

Let me try to summarize. The supposed benefits of injecting EPO is an increase in oxygen uptake, but this would increase heat production because it would increase gycogen uptake.

The real benefits of better training for runners comes not from pushing oxygen uptake beyond normal means, but from better elastic return, which is more efficient running.