It's not a contradiction. There is an inverse relationship genetically between oxygen economy and oxygen uptake in runners. But what is important to each runner to improve race performance is to improve their own personal economy.
It's not a contradiction. There is an inverse relationship genetically between oxygen economy and oxygen uptake in runners. But what is important to each runner to improve race performance is to improve their own personal economy.
Nope, you can still get better without improving your actual mechanical economy/ efficiency.
By improving all of those factors other than mechanical efficiency.
Like the paper says.
Think of an elite runner running in ridiculously inefficient fashion. With clown shoes and flapping his arms like a bird. He's still going to kick your a*s because all of those other factors are what separates him from you, not just a bit of mechanical running economy.
I can run backwards faster than many people can run forwards and it's not because of mechanical economy.
mouth breathers wrote:
The Dro'jos wrote:We know it's wrong, but we're going to keep promoting them anyway.
Of course it's wrong to cheat. That's why we support drug discussion.
Well it's wrong to not believe in the drugs, and that's why we keep promoting them. We'll discuss, as long as you believe in the drugs and keep them at the forefront of athletics, but will keep trolling anyone who doesn't believe in them.
Mars bar brain wrote:
What does the brain run on, Jon?
Illogical concepts and booze
In your case wrote:
Mars bar brain wrote:What does the brain run on, Jon?
Illogical concepts and booze
The concepts are from Jon's source. All of them.
Jon Orange wrote:
Well then, I suggest you go and enjoy that life away from the letsrun message board, and stop being so obsessed with me.
But you can't can you?
Women don't like me and you're cute.
dope works wrote:
Jon Orange wrote:Well then, I suggest you go and enjoy that life away from the letsrun message board, and stop being so obsessed with me.
But you can't can you?
Women don't like me and you're cute.
You know even Jon will be able to figure out the handle thief is at it again but thanks for doing your best to contribute!
dope works wrote:
Jon Orange wrote:Well then, I suggest you go and enjoy that life away from the letsrun message board, and stop being so obsessed with me.
But you can't can you?
Women don't like me and you're cute.
I know and I know.
Jon Orange wrote:
dope works wrote:Women don't like me and you're cute.
I know and I know.
I guess not. No wonder you couldn't decipher your source.
Mars bar brain wrote:
Jon Orange wrote:I know and I know.
I guess not. No wonder you couldn't decipher your source.
Encryptogramology. mmmm nice.
Actually you didn't even need to read between the lines of your source but you did and filled it up with erroneous conclusions.
tsk tsk
Jon Orange wrote:
Mars bar brain wrote:Do you use more when you concentrate really hard for a long time?
You go "into the zone" Ever run a marathon George? Yes you have, but you tended to lose concentration didn't you?
George ran 2:12 and the U.S. 10 mile record, Jonnyboy.
fred wrote:
Jon Orange wrote:You go "into the zone" Ever run a marathon George? Yes you have, but you tended to lose concentration didn't you?
George ran 2:12 and the U.S. 10 mile record, Jonnyboy.
He was also in the best shape of his life after wrecking one of his springs which eliminated some elastic recoil. He still improved despite that.
Mars bar brain wrote:
Actually you didn't even need to read between the lines of your source but you did and filled it up with erroneous conclusions.
tsk tsk
I'm confusing myself.
Mars bar brain wrote:
Mars bar brain wrote:Actually you didn't even need to read between the lines of your source but you did and filled it up with erroneous conclusions.
tsk tsk
I'm confusing myself.
Yes Jon, you are.
Jon Orange wrote:
test2 wrote:This is where Jon's argument gets hazy for me. If two guys run the same time, then v and T are the same and if you add in Jack Daniels' "well trained" fractional utilization assumption, then f(T) is also the same for them. That means that the following combination of efficiency, absolute VO2max and body mass has to be equal for the two guys:
e_1 * VO2max_abs_1 / mass_1 = e_2 * VO2max_abs_2 / mass_2
for guy 1 and guy 2.
This is strictly true only for two guys with the same race time. I think Jon would like to say something stronger, however, I'm not clear on what exactly.
Hazy? Your think equation is much simpler?
Here's a summary equation for you:
E=mc^2
See how nice and simple it is?
Here's another one that I did:
SL x SR x E
Stride Length x Stride Rate x Endurance. You can also use T for Time instead of E for Endurance, but I prefer E because like SL and SR it is a skill.
It is a summary equation for running performance incorporating all the stuff we should be talking about.
Are you saying this is your e=m c^2, your unifying equation?
Jon Orange wrote:
SL x SR x E
Then I'm sorry to point out that it isn't an equation. You have to set that thing equal to something for it to have any meaning at all. Typo maybe?
If you are agreeable, I suggest we procede on two fronts. Can you expand/edit your equation while I ask whether we can agree at least on the following equation:
v = e * f * abs_VO2max / mass
because that's the equation that defines efficiency, e, in the scientific literature (everything else in that equation is measured directly). Every paper that has been cited on this thread that refers to efficiency means e in that equation. So (and I hesitate to even ask this both because it's pedantic and also because I'm afraid of the answer) but is that e the efficiency you've been talking about in all of this thread?
"endurance is a skill"
The epitaph of Jon Orange.
I've reincarnated myself.
Gosh, Jon. #2 did say "includes but is not limited to". Of course you would disagree with #4 based on 100s of posts, but are you saying you agree with 1,2,3, but training of the neurological system should be added to #2? Or #2 should ONLY be neurological system adaptions. Or #1 ONLY neurological system training is required, no other numbers needed. My point here is to keep things simple with just a few brief points about how running performance occurs. Then get an understanding of where your thought progression diverges from this conventional thinking. I'm attempting to give you a bit of an argument road map to help us understand your logic. But you continue to leave the map quadrant. Please just give us your changes to the 4 points, in order. It will help you explain your viewpoint to us. I might be the only one here really trying to understand you and not throwing insults at you. Help me out here.Thanks.
Jon Orange wrote:
OverSimple wrote:Jon, you skipped right over 1, 2, 3. So your answer is:
1. Anybody can be a competitive distance runner if they are efficient enough even without training.
2. These named adaptations are a fantasy.
3. See answer #1.
4. There is no such thing as a Performance Enhancing Drug. But it sounds like this is a terminology issue for you. What if we called it a "Drug intended to aid bodily function which may or may not work"?
Correct me if I have misinterpreted your answer.
You missed out one very important factor, the nervous system, which controls all movement. Why? Because that's what almost everyone does isn't it? And you wonder why I can't take you seriously?