Completed.
Completed.
Done.
Hope to see how this turns out.
Took care of the questionnaire. Hope it produces some useful information.
Done. Let us know where to find the results.
Questionnaire complete. Good luck, brotha.
Dude: Best of luck with this. I know how hard it is to get folks to fill out questionnaires (psychology student).
I filled out what I could.
Filled it out. Been a coach a while. Still pretty tough.
Best....
I hope my comments are worthwhile. Best of luck with your analysis.
AR13
Done.
Done
Doc,
Just finished the survey. Interesting. Two questions, if you can help:
1 - Isn't it nearly impossible to assess running economy visually - that is, there are too many other factors that go into how much 02 is being used? I don't have a source, I just remember reading that at one point...
2 - Doesn't RE change with pace? That is, runner A might have relatively better RE than runner B at 8 min/mile, but runner B might have relatively better RE at 6 min/mile?
I'm hoping you can help clear some things up about RE for me here; not trying to challenge your work...
Thanks!
DocRun wrote:
Hey there. Great post. Trust me, I have read nearly every article on running economy since the 1950's. I will attempt to address each of your points without going into too much detail.
#1 Multiple authors have addressed running economy to be one of the most useful determinants of distance running performance. Emphasis on "one of" including Jack Daniels. I am not advocating anything related to Jack D.; I mention it because so many runners/coaches utilize his training concepts. Right or wrong, you cannot argue with the sheer number of runners utilizing his information
#2 VO2 peak and a submaximal/steady state run are far different measures. For one, at steady state and at the same speed no two runners will vary by 20 ml/kg/min; even when comparing two runners of vastly different fitness. How do I know this? Because I have spent well over 100 hours in the lab testing that very question. Data will be provided when this research is formally presented.
#3 each runner was actually allowed to accommodate to the speed and then reach a steady state. Yes, VO2 does drift a bit - up and down - during the course of a run. Hence, we took an average measure over the course of the latter portion of the run and not the single highest or lowest measure. This is a basic concept learned in most chemistry/math classes.
#4 I do not believe my particular post mentioned anything about fuel and how it affects running economy (that is a whole other conversation). Therefore, I am not certain how this applies here.
#5 Yes, muscle fiber type can affect running economy. However, again, we took an average measure over the course of a run rather than simply a very early measure or a very late measure. Regardless, if a sprinter decides he/she wants to run 5 miles, there economy is what it is; in spite of the fact they may be highly fast twitch.
#6 Allometric scaling is not "silly" and actually fairly complicated. Some believe it is better to utilize, some do not; that is science and there is always more than one valid opinion as long as everyone is doing their homework and conducting valid/moral research.
From the standpoint of this study, we did not use allometric scaling for our running economy measures, though it was discussed....hence, and again...how does this apply to my post?
#7 Not arguing for or against your comment concerning Mitochondria. However, it is one of many components of distance running performance.
Finally, Your comment about relative costs versus absolute costs (point #2) and allometric scaling (point #6) contradict each other. Relative costs are related to bodyweight; absolute costs are not. Further, allometric scaling is not simply dividing bodyweight by VO2. Thus, regardless of one's opinion concerning allometric scaling of VO2, your discussion of it is incorrect.
I hope this covers it all. Again, I am not arguing with you, just getting some information out there.
I really do appreciate your post.
I have read literally 90% of the research regarding running economy that is available; including the two articles posted. Two articles out of the 100+ that are available do not replace the importance of the other 98.
Finally, the current post says nothing about whether or not the poster (me) believes running economy is inherently useful.. I am simply attempting to add to the literature out there in hopes of helping us all out.
The best way to do that is to complete the questionnaire and leave useful comments and/or ask a question that can be addressed by myself or someone else.
Seriously though, thank you for your post. Very helpful.
You are talking specifically about oxygen economy. What about the anaerobic contribution to running? You can't just ignore it.
That's why the best researchers talk about efficiency not 'running economy' which is a bogus concept.
Hey there. I truly appreciate your post and unlike many, I enjoy criticism as long as it is constructive.
As far as your point, yes, many physiologist refer to an anaerobic component and there is also a muscle fiber type component (as discussed earlier). However, the runners tested all ran at a submaximal pace, and most were in a fairly easy "aerobic" state. Thus, the anaerobic contribution was minimal.
You can call it efficiency or economy...whatever helps you, myself, or someone else sleep, but regardless....it all refers to the ease of which one runs at a certain pace...yes?
The majority of research in the area still refers to "economy" and that is why I refer to it. In 5 to 10 years, when more research refers to "efficiency" then I and others will likely begin to refer to it as efficiency. It takes about that long for a new scientific concept to take hold.
Again, back to the constructive criticism part....
To say one researcher is better than another is not a valid statement. As long as each researcher performs his due diligence with data collection and reviewing the available literature, then he/she can only build off of what has been done previously.
To say that running economy measured via oxygen consumption is "bogus" is in itself, "bogus." I am only arguing with your terminology, not the essence of your statement (which I appreciate).
However, we have to breathe, no? Do we not breathe when we run? Does our ventilation and rate of respiration not increase as we run harder? Hence, oxygen consumption is a very true and valid measure at 'stable' and submaximal speeds. However, as stated before, it is just one component that contributes to a runner,s overall economy (this was stated in a previous post). Other factors begin to play more of a role as speeds and efforts are increased.
Therefore, please....please...please remember that I am not stating that oxygen consumption is THE only way to measure running economy, OR EVEN THE BEST, but it is useful and it is how we measured it DURING THIS OCCASION. It is simple, easy, and still very useful for submaximal efforts.
Please keep the comments coming. I enjoy clarifying when/if I can. Hopefully I do not sound combative. I only wish to retort via the information available.
Thank you.
Very hard to tell who had better economy in those videos.
Good test.
Thanks for the reply. Have you ever noticed sometimes we can run very fast with a low ventilation rate?
The aerobic contribution is somewhat higher than most researchers believe at sub max paces, because lactate is always the end product of glycogenolysis and glycolysis not and with it, the extra ATP produced anaerobically is phosphorylated imediately.
Hey there. Great questions and comments. Really appreciate it.
1) As far as I know (and I have read a lot of papers), the question of whether running economy can be assessed visually has not been addressed. Hence, one point of this analysis is to determine if the trained eye can assess economy. If it can, then what particulars are looked for? Anecdotally, it may appear that we cannot visually assess running economy. However, anecdotally is another term for the gym-associated, "bro-science" that so often plagues our training atmosphere. Often the 'bro-science' is actually very valid; however it is also often not useful at all. I just want to find out for sure.
Anyhow, see my previous reply concerning the components contributing to oxygen cost. You are correct in that many factors affect one's economy. Oxygen consumption is just one way and I am not promoting the way we measured it as the only and/or best way...in any way.
Further, regardless of the factors involved, up to a certain point O2 consumption will increase/decrease based on someone's work rate. That is a factor that one cannot get around (unfortunately). We work harder, we breathe harder. Period...no matter how we got there. Perfusion comes into play but that is more difficult to measure and applies more to harder efforts, not steady-state aerobic work.
2) I can tell you that one of the only research articles I have found concerning variation in running economy states that economy does not change considerably between 60 and 90% of VO2 max. This was in well-trained distance runners, so I cannot attest to the average runner. I have pasted the citation to the article at the bottom of this reply.
Lastly, by all means...challenge away. In the grand scheme of things, I only seek answers as well. I hope to take these findings and apply it to a much larger project that is more practically useful for the average runner.
Here is the article citation:
Helgerud, J., Storen, O., & Hoff, J. (2010). Are there differences in running economy at different velocities for well-trained distance runners? European Journal of Applied Physiology, 108, 1099-1105.
Enjoy!!
Thanks again!
Hey, thank you for your comments. Did you mean the "anaerobic" contribution is somewhat higher, or the "aerobic" as was stated in your post?
Regardless, really what we are/were attempting to assess is work rate (to a certain extent). Perhaps I should clarify with that rather than utilizing polarizing terms such as economy or efficiency.
It seems that I breathe hard no matter how fast or slow I am going...ha!
Seriously, though, thank you to each of you for your comments. All were terrific and for the most part conducive to the whole discussion/topic.
I agree, definitely tough to distinguish just by watching the videos. Is this even possible? Hopefully this will help you find out.
Based on the characteristics presented by good runners (i.e., similar running patterns), it could be possible. If not, then we will know and can move on to other questions surrounding the topic.