RE: If you believe in the concept of Performance Enhancing Drugs......

Mr. Obvious wrote:

test2 wrote:

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.

Thank you. This is very helpful. I am a concrete thinker. I think I was fully on to this concept, although I was struggling to put it together into a forumula.

My concern at this point is to look at what factors we are controlling and therefore what point the equations are making.

So, for multiple well trained runners at the same v (velocity), the f(T) will be the same. and the e and VO2max are inversely related. This is perhaps what Jon is meaning when he states the efficiency and VO2max are inversely related. They are, but only when you control for velocity (so the V is the same) and also assume these are well trained runners (so the f(T) is the same).

So, I don't disagree with any of that. It just means that you can get to a time by being a larger engine and smaller efficiency or large efficiency and small engine (since they are inversely related). I guess I am underwhelmed at what that "proves." I'm more interested to figure out how these equations would model what actually happens with fewer controlled variables.

I think the next step for me is to try to figure out what it means and how you get to a higher velocity. Since the whole goal is to run faster. If you increase your f(T), your velocity goes up, since that is a multiplier. I am guessing in the Daniel's universe the fractional utilization can't advance past that point (I guess that is the Daniel's line). That is the 80% for a 2:05 hour marathoner, etc. that we have been using in our equation.

So, to take our two marathoners earlier (from Jon's example):

Runner A is a 2:05 marathon runner

Runner B is a 2:05 marathon runner

We found using the Daniel's chart runner A is running at 80% fractional utilization and B is running at 79.5% fractional utilization.

A given was that they had the same VO2. Jon used absolute VO2. You use relative. Using relative VO2 is really kind of a way to bake efficiency in there twice, right? So we can't really tell from the givens if they are the same weight but let's assume they are--we could convert this or not, it is just a little simpler to keep it absolute, but maybe I'm making a technical error here?

V=4:46/mile. I think this is often converted to m/s, but this is the common way to think about it. at some point maybe you can tell me if there is a "best units" for all of these, but at this point I just want to get concept.

f(t)=80

VO2=5l/min

economy=c/5l/

So runner A= 4:46= 80*5L*c/5l

Runner B= 5:09= 79.5*5L*c/5l

Hmmm, maybe you could confirm I"m on the right track so far...Don't want to type out too much and have it be totally off base.

Other side O' the coin wrote:

it doesn't mean your knowledge is stronger, just that you believe it is, which doesn't make you right.

these guys ... wrote:

I actually don't know anything about his performances ... other than I think I read that he broke 4'00 for the first time at 40+, and I consider that impressive ... even if the lack of other impressive achievements to go along with it, is unimpressive.

Here's my POV. Since we've begun recording impressive performances, if you look at everyone who's ever put up an impressive performance, they've probably at some point gotten a belief into their head; they've believed the crap out of that belief; they've trained like a maniac accordingly; and then they've gotten that impressive performance. And afterwards, they might attribute their success to that belief. And it might look like a convincing point.

Except people have recorded impressive performances, with all kinds of different magic beliefs. All over the map. So it would appear what you believe might be unimportant, relative to having a belief in the first place. So much so, that on some level maybe these 'believers' maybe are fibbing to themselves, because on some level, they get this.

And so, scrutinizing claims of "I did X and that's why I won!" is certainly of use in advancing knowledge. But I'm not sure it's of much use in one's own performance. At some point, don't you have to let a mad belief infect you? Is it possible to maximize your potential without one?

And I'm a doubter by nature. But that just means if I can talk to anyone faster than me for 2 minutes, I will find a few things they're 'wrong' about. So if my Knowledge is stronger, and their Belief is stronger, what does that say about which one makes you faster?

(And there are obvious parallels and subtext, regarding religion, and I suppose I mean those as well)

test2 wrote:

Mr. Obvious wrote:

Thank you. This is very helpful. I am a concrete thinker. I think I was fully on to this concept, although I was struggling to put it together into a forumula.

My concern at this point is to look at what factors we are controlling and therefore what point the equations are making.

So, for multiple well trained runners at the same v (velocity), the f(T) will be the same. and the e and VO2max are inversely related. This is perhaps what Jon is meaning when he states the efficiency and VO2max are inversely related. They are, but only when you control for velocity (so the V is the same) and also assume these are well trained runners (so the f(T) is the same).

So, I don't disagree with any of that. It just means that you can get to a time by being a larger engine and smaller efficiency or large efficiency and small engine (since they are inversely related). I guess I am underwhelmed at what that "proves." I'm more interested to figure out how these equations would model what actually happens with fewer controlled variables.

I think the next step for me is to try to figure out what it means and how you get to a higher velocity. Since the whole goal is to run faster. If you increase your f(T), your velocity goes up, since that is a multiplier. I am guessing in the Daniel's universe the fractional utilization can't advance past that point (I guess that is the Daniel's line). That is the 80% for a 2:05 hour marathoner, etc. that we have been using in our equation.

So, to take our two marathoners earlier (from Jon's example):

Runner A is a 2:05 marathon runner

Runner B is a 2:05 marathon runner

We found using the Daniel's chart runner A is running at 80% fractional utilization and B is running at 79.5% fractional utilization.

A given was that they had the same VO2. Jon used absolute VO2. You use relative. Using relative VO2 is really kind of a way to bake efficiency in there twice, right? So we can't really tell from the givens if they are the same weight but let's assume they are--we could convert this or not, it is just a little simpler to keep it absolute, but maybe I'm making a technical error here?

V=4:46/mile. I think this is often converted to m/s, but this is the common way to think about it. at some point maybe you can tell me if there is a "best units" for all of these, but at this point I just want to get concept.

f(t)=80

VO2=5l/min

economy=c/5l/

So runner A= 4:46= 80*5L*c/5l

Runner B= 5:09= 79.5*5L*c/5l

Hmmm, maybe you could confirm I"m on the right track so far...Don't want to type out too much and have it be totally off base.

Yeah, I dunno where Jon Orange's reasoning goes from where I stopped. I'd greatly appreciate it if he'd try to work his statement that 'elite runners use less oxygen' into equation form. In particularly

As a starting point, let's split the relative VO2max into absolute VO2max, VO2max_abs and mass. Then for a 'well trained' runner, we have (let's call this equation 1)

v = f(T) * e * VO2max_abs / mass (Equ. 1)

where,

v = speed [units: meter/min]

T = race duration [units: min]

VO2max_abs = maximal rate of total oxygen usage [units: mL/ min]

f(T) = fractional utilization [units: dimensionless]

-Daniels' has a functional form for this for a 'well trained' runner

e = efficiency [units: meter * kg / mL]

mass = body weight of runner [units: kg]

I think Jon would argue that after fractional utilization, absolute VO2max is the most trainable variable and that we should just assume that after 2 or 3 years of training it reaches a peak level. That leaves body mass and efficiency, e, as the only remaining variables. Is that what you are saying Jon?

Mr. Obvious wrote:

test2 wrote:

Yeah, I dunno where Jon Orange's reasoning goes from where I stopped. I'd greatly appreciate it if he'd try to work his statement that 'elite runners use less oxygen' into equation form. In particularly

As a starting point, let's split the relative VO2max into absolute VO2max, VO2max_abs and mass. Then for a 'well trained' runner, we have (let's call this equation 1)

v = f(T) * e * VO2max_abs / mass (Equ. 1)

where,

v = speed [units: meter/min]

T = race duration [units: min]

VO2max_abs = maximal rate of total oxygen usage [units: mL/ min]

f(T) = fractional utilization [units: dimensionless]

-Daniels' has a functional form for this for a 'well trained' runner

e = efficiency [units: meter * kg / mL]

mass = body weight of runner [units: kg]

I think Jon would argue that after fractional utilization, absolute VO2max is the most trainable variable and that we should just assume that after 2 or 3 years of training it reaches a peak level. That leaves body mass and efficiency, e, as the only remaining variables. Is that what you are saying Jon?

So, if we are going back to this equation:

V=f(t)*e*VO2max_abs / mass

We said up above that e was some function of c/VO2max/abs/mass where c equals a constant. So efficiency and VO2 are inversely related?

Is this only true if v is equal for two runners? Do we do away with that relationship when v is not a given?

Is the c the same for every runner, or is it individual? What is the value of c, do we know that or could we figure it out?

Thanks for the explanations, this is very helpful

Mr. Obvious wrote:

test2 wrote:

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.

Thank you. This is very helpful. I am a concrete thinker. I think I was fully on to this concept, although I was struggling to put it together into a forumula.

My concern at this point is to look at what factors we are controlling and therefore what point the equations are making.

So, for multiple well trained runners at the same v (velocity), the f(T) will be the same. and the e and VO2max are inversely related. This is perhaps what Jon is meaning when he states the efficiency and VO2max are inversely related. They are, but only when you control for velocity (so the V is the same) and also assume these are well trained runners (so the f(T) is the same).

So, I don't disagree with any of that. It just means that you can get to a time by being a larger engine and smaller efficiency or large efficiency and small engine (since they are inversely related). I guess I am underwhelmed at what that "proves." I'm more interested to figure out how these equations would model what actually happens with fewer controlled variables.

I think the next step for me is to try to figure out what it means and how you get to a higher velocity. Since the whole goal is to run faster. If you increase your f(T), your velocity goes up, since that is a multiplier. I am guessing in the Daniel's universe the fractional utilization can't advance past that point (I guess that is the Daniel's line). That is the 80% for a 2:05 hour marathoner, etc. that we have been using in our equation.

So, to take our two marathoners earlier (from Jon's example):

Runner A is a 2:05 marathon runner

Runner B is a 2:15 marathon runner

We found using the Daniel's chart runner A is running at 80% fractional utilization and B is running at 79.5% fractional utilization.

A given was that they had the same VO2. Jon used absolute VO2. You use relative. Using relative VO2 is really kind of a way to bake efficiency in there twice, right? So we can't really tell from the givens if they are the same weight but let's assume they are--we could convert this or not, it is just a little simpler to keep it absolute, but maybe I'm making a technical error here?

V=4:46/mile. I think this is often converted to m/s, but this is the common way to think about it. at some point maybe you can tell me if there is a "best units" for all of these, but at this point I just want to get concept.

f(t)=80

VO2=5l/min

economy=c/5l/

So runner A= 4:46= 80*5L*c/5l

Runner B= 5:09= 79.5*5L*c/5l

Hmmm, maybe you could confirm I"m on the right track so far...Don't want to type out too much and have it be totally off base.

test2 wrote:

Mr. Obvious wrote:

Thank you. This is very helpful. I am a concrete thinker. I think I was fully on to this concept, although I was struggling to put it together into a forumula.

My concern at this point is to look at what factors we are controlling and therefore what point the equations are making.

So, for multiple well trained runners at the same v (velocity), the f(T) will be the same. and the e and VO2max are inversely related. This is perhaps what Jon is meaning when he states the efficiency and VO2max are inversely related. They are, but only when you control for velocity (so the V is the same) and also assume these are well trained runners (so the f(T) is the same).

So, I don't disagree with any of that. It just means that you can get to a time by being a larger engine and smaller efficiency or large efficiency and small engine (since they are inversely related). I guess I am underwhelmed at what that "proves." I'm more interested to figure out how these equations would model what actually happens with fewer controlled variables.

I think the next step for me is to try to figure out what it means and how you get to a higher velocity. Since the whole goal is to run faster. If you increase your f(T), your velocity goes up, since that is a multiplier. I am guessing in the Daniel's universe the fractional utilization can't advance past that point (I guess that is the Daniel's line). That is the 80% for a 2:05 hour marathoner, etc. that we have been using in our equation.

So, to take our two marathoners earlier (from Jon's example):

Runner A is a 2:05 marathon runner

Runner B is a 2:05 marathon runner

We found using the Daniel's chart runner A is running at 80% fractional utilization and B is running at 79.5% fractional utilization.

A given was that they had the same VO2. Jon used absolute VO2. You use relative. Using relative VO2 is really kind of a way to bake efficiency in there twice, right? So we can't really tell from the givens if they are the same weight but let's assume they are--we could convert this or not, it is just a little simpler to keep it absolute, but maybe I'm making a technical error here?

V=4:46/mile. I think this is often converted to m/s, but this is the common way to think about it. at some point maybe you can tell me if there is a "best units" for all of these, but at this point I just want to get concept.

f(t)=80

VO2=5l/min

economy=c/5l/

So runner A= 4:46= 80*5L*c/5l

Runner B= 5:09= 79.5*5L*c/5l

Hmmm, maybe you could confirm I"m on the right track so far...Don't want to type out too much and have it be totally off base.

Yeah, I dunno where Jon Orange's reasoning goes from where I stopped. I'd greatly appreciate it if he'd try to work his statement that 'elite runners use less oxygen' into equation form. In particularly

As a starting point, let's split the relative VO2max into absolute VO2max, VO2max_abs and mass. Then for a 'well trained' runner, we have (let's call this equation 1)

v = f(T) * e * VO2max_abs / mass (Equ. 1)

where,

v = speed [units: meter/min]

T = race duration [units: min]

VO2max_abs = maximal rate of total oxygen usage [units: mL/ min]

f(T) = fractional utilization [units: dimensionless]

-Daniels' has a functional form for this for a 'well trained' runner

e = efficiency [units: meter * kg / mL]

mass = body weight of runner [units: kg]

I think Jon would argue that after fractional utilization, absolute VO2max is the most trainable variable and that we should just assume that after 2 or 3 years of training it reaches a peak level. That leaves body mass and efficiency, e, as the only remaining variables. Is that what you are saying Jon?

Jon Orange wrote:

Mr. Obvious wrote:

Thank you. This is very helpful. I am a concrete thinker. I think I was fully on to this concept, although I was struggling to put it together into a forumula.

My concern at this point is to look at what factors we are controlling and therefore what point the equations are making.

So, for multiple well trained runners at the same v (velocity), the f(T) will be the same. and the e and VO2max are inversely related. This is perhaps what Jon is meaning when he states the efficiency and VO2max are inversely related. They are, but only when you control for velocity (so the V is the same) and also assume these are well trained runners (so the f(T) is the same).

So, I don't disagree with any of that. It just means that you can get to a time by being a larger engine and smaller efficiency or large efficiency and small engine (since they are inversely related). I guess I am underwhelmed at what that "proves." I'm more interested to figure out how these equations would model what actually happens with fewer controlled variables.

I think the next step for me is to try to figure out what it means and how you get to a higher velocity. Since the whole goal is to run faster. If you increase your f(T), your velocity goes up, since that is a multiplier. I am guessing in the Daniel's universe the fractional utilization can't advance past that point (I guess that is the Daniel's line). That is the 80% for a 2:05 hour marathoner, etc. that we have been using in our equation.

So, to take our two marathoners earlier (from Jon's example):

Runner A is a 2:05 marathon runner

Runner B is a 2:15 marathon runner

We found using the Daniel's chart runner A is running at 80% fractional utilization and B is running at 79.5% fractional utilization.

A given was that they had the same VO2. Jon used absolute VO2. You use relative. Using relative VO2 is really kind of a way to bake efficiency in there twice, right? So we can't really tell from the givens if they are the same weight but let's assume they are--we could convert this or not, it is just a little simpler to keep it absolute, but maybe I'm making a technical error here?

V=4:46/mile. I think this is often converted to m/s, but this is the common way to think about it. at some point maybe you can tell me if there is a "best units" for all of these, but at this point I just want to get concept.

f(t)=80

VO2=5l/min

economy=c/5l/

So runner A= 4:46= 80*5L*c/5l

Runner B= 5:09= 79.5*5L*c/5l

Hmmm, maybe you could confirm I"m on the right track so far...Don't want to type out too much and have it be totally off base.

How to get to the faster time? Apart from reduced body fat which is not applicable in the above scenario, to improve the biomechanical efficiency runner B needs to produce more sustained power through the feet/ankles/achilles, since all of the metabolic adaptions are already in place.

It is impossible to go faster without doing this, there is simply no way around it. The feet ankles and achilles need to be adapted to sustaining a greater range of movement during a race. There is no drug that can do this for runner B, it has to be practised and learned.

Jon Orange wrote:

test2 wrote:

Yeah, I dunno where Jon Orange's reasoning goes from where I stopped. I'd greatly appreciate it if he'd try to work his statement that 'elite runners use less oxygen' into equation form. In particularly

As a starting point, let's split the relative VO2max into absolute VO2max, VO2max_abs and mass. Then for a 'well trained' runner, we have (let's call this equation 1)

v = f(T) * e * VO2max_abs / mass (Equ. 1)

where,

v = speed [units: meter/min]

T = race duration [units: min]

VO2max_abs = maximal rate of total oxygen usage [units: mL/ min]

f(T) = fractional utilization [units: dimensionless]

-Daniels' has a functional form for this for a 'well trained' runner

e = efficiency [units: meter * kg / mL]

mass = body weight of runner [units: kg]

I think Jon would argue that after fractional utilization, absolute VO2max is the most trainable variable and that we should just assume that after 2 or 3 years of training it reaches a peak level. That leaves body mass and efficiency, e, as the only remaining variables. Is that what you are saying Jon?

No, that's not what I'm saying. Absolute VO2 max is genetic, it just needs maintaining.

Fractional utilization of oxygen and oxyen economy (so called running economy) is the same thing. It is related to body mass (ideal body fat for example) but it is also related to how efficiently you can use your feet as levers to gain a longer stride/faster stride rate.

Jon Orange wrote:

dope works wrote:

"The energy cost of running reflects the sum of both aerobic and anaerobic metabolism, and the aerobic demand, measured by the VO2 in L.min−1 at a given speed does not necessarily account for the energy cost of running, which is measured in joules, kilojoules, calories or kilocalories of work done "

Your simple oxygen model that you've been ranting about for 900 plus posts doesn't prove that elites use less glycogen and fats.

You really need to find better sources. Just because you interpret a paper in your own special way does not mean you get it.

No, you're missing the point, over and over and over. I wrote about genetics, you claim I didn't. I wrote about effiency including the anearobic cost, you claim I didn't

etc etc etc. Either you are deliberately trolling which I strongly suspect, or you are just very good at missing the point over and over and over.