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.
Was that when you were doped or not doped?
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.
Was that when you were doped or not doped?
My summary equation is for running efficiency including both the aerobic and anaerobic components.
Running Efficiency = SL x SR x E
Being efficient for short periods is possible for an untrained runner, but they can't sustain it.
You are using economy and efficiency interchangeably, but that doesn't work, because 'running economy' refers only to the aerobic component, whereas true efficiency has both aerobic and anaerobic components, with other variables too such as environmental conditions, shoes, running surface etc.
It's difficult to reply to you when you are trying to impose your ideas onto me and asking whether or not I agree with your very limited summary. How is this discussion between us going to progress? With thousands of words passing to and fro which no-one can follow?
Read what I wroe in my reply to you and think about it. If you don't put some serious thought into the fact that we are constantly bombarded with the so called 'PED' rhetoric and dogma, then we can't have a reasonble discussion. This has to be the starting point.
Jon Orange wrote:
fred wrote:George ran 2:12 and the U.S. 10 mile record, Jonnyboy.
Was that when you were doped or not doped?
Who cares, dope doesn't work according to you. You support Lance, support George too.
That formula only includes the aerobic component of energy production in running, oxygen uptake only, so it can't measure efficiency. It's relatively easy to measure oxygen uptake, whereas the anaerobic component is not.
That's why I gave a much simpler summary equation for efficiency. What is much more relevant and important here is to work out what improves efficiency. This problem can't be solved with numbers, they can only measure it.
Jon Orange wrote:
It's difficult to reply to you when you are trying to impose your ideas onto me and asking whether or not I agree with your very limited summary. How is this discussion between us going to progress? With thousands of words passing to and fro which no-one can follow?
.
You think he doesn't have the same problem?
George Frederick Handle?
That's very good but I prefer Georg Friedrich Händel
You can't handle the truth.
If you are using a nonstandard definition of "economy" you really should have made that clear unless you were looking for confusion, consternation and ultimately anger.
What is E ?
E = endurance.
Jon Orange wrote:
fred wrote:George ran 2:12 and the U.S. 10 mile record, Jonnyboy.
Was that when you were doped or not doped?
Okay I was doped of course.
E=Moron squared wrote:
E = endurance.
is E the amount of time that a runner can sustain that combination of stride rate and stride length?
Historically it was harder to measure anaerobic energy usage so they neglected it. That works okay for longish track distances...but I'm not trying to defend that equation. I'm merely trying to establish some piece of common ground to build from. When scientists talk about efficiency, that's what they are talking about unless it is stated otherwise and it's what I thought we were talking about.
test2 wrote:
E=Moron squared wrote:E = endurance.
is E the amount of time that a runner can sustain that combination of stride rate and stride length?
Beats the heck out of me, this is Jon's equation that tries to combine numbers and bright colors.
jeff tallon wrote:
http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/stepanov-doping-the-national-1.3402916this is interesting,an interview with yulia stepanova of russia.she mentions what the drugs did for her.made her so much stronger,and faster.so yes,the drugs work,extremely well.
Sorry, Jon can't have a conversation with you unless you believe what he believes.
test2 wrote:
E=Moron squared wrote:E = endurance.
is E the amount of time that a runner can sustain that combination of stride rate and stride length?
E = units of EPO
E= erythrocyte count when doped to the gills.
"Russian pharmaceutical outlets sold 78,300 boxes of meldonium between March 7 and 13, 2016, 220 per cent more than in the previous week"
A couple hundred positives, and sales go up.
That's believing in the concept of Performance Enhancing Drugs, eh Jonny?
No question that if Jonny doped he would have been as fast as a Russian woman.
Sorry, that was only 99 positives.
The Independent:
"“When using Grindeks’s mildronate, one can feel a toning effect, one’s memory improves, thinking becomes faster, your movements become more dexterous, and your body becomes more able to defend itself against adverse conditions,†according to the Latvian-language description of the drug on the manufacturer’s website."
It looks like they are saying it improves neuromuscular function, which according to Jon, would improve your efficiency.
1:49.84 - 800m Freshmen National Record - Cooper Lutkenhaus (check this kick out!!)
Emma Coburn to miss Olympic Trials after breaking ankle in Suzhou
Jakob on Oly 1500- “Walk in the park if I don’t get injured or sick”
VALBY has graduated (w/ honors) from Florida, will she go to grad school??
Men who run twice a day and the women who love/put up with them