The 'Performance Enhancing Drug' concept goes against the laws of physics

Which is why you're still dumb wrote:

Deductive Reasoning wrote:

I'm too old to learn new skills.

Now then Jon, what do you always say about resorting to anonymous insults? it's cowardly.

it seems weird that WVN practises a skill that isn't the same as the actual skill used in his event.

You'd almost think there was a cardio factor being enhanced.

Jon Orange wrote:

Deductive Reasoning wrote:

Nice dodge of the issue.

I'm not done improving. My engine is still getting bigger.

It's not your 'engine' that you need to improve. It's your efficiency. That's the point. You cardiovascular system is not going to improve. Your skill can improve a lot.

To all of you.....................you're fighting a losing battle. This post above is indicative of such a profound lack of knowledge its scary. So if you must, have at it. I personally prefer to debate someone who at least has a sound basis in the physiology, and in this case, bio-mechanics as well. Won't find that here :(

Look up Peter Weyand. It applies to shot putt and sprinting just as much as running and most other sports too. My model doesn't have any holes. If you even understood it you might have some interesting questions.

OLD SMTC SOB wrote:

Jon Orange wrote:

It's not your 'engine' that you need to improve. It's your efficiency. That's the point. You cardiovascular system is not going to improve. Your skill can improve a lot.

To all of you.....................you're fighting a losing battle. This post above is indicative of such a profound lack of knowledge its scary. So if you must, have at it. I personally prefer to debate someone who at least has a sound basis in the physiology, and in this case, bio-mechanics as well. Won't find that here :(

You need to learn some basic physiology mate. Get on with it. You can't increase your absolute VO2 max beyond your natural level and that natural level is achieved with very little training.

Don't preach that 'aerobic development' dogma at me it's pseudoscience.

Get to work and stop thinking you know what you understand this stuff. Get to work now. I told you to stop preaching dogma and learn some real physiology a few days ago. Get on with it.

Speed endurance. Yes the last 100m of the 400 is much more aerobic than anaerobic. However, it is the ability to maintain good technique that is important in slowing down less than your rivals, as per my original post.

Van Niekerk went through 300 in 31.0 an amazing time for a 300m race. His last 100 was 12.0

Jon is getting really dictatorial here. lol

Still wrong though.

Jon Orange wrote:

the last 100m of the 400 is much more aerobic than anaerobic.

So the big engine kicks in late for 400m athletes?

Citizen Runner wrote:

Magnumoran wrote:

You keep saying that endlessly. It's wrong.

This part he has right. By definition efficiency == power_out/power_in for a mechanical system.

It's his claim that natural limits to power generation can not be enhanced/exceeded by unnatural means that is not well supported and apparently counter-factual per any number of studies on PEDs.

Yes, that is what I'm saying. My original post applies to power generation as much as anything. I think you need to get to grips with it before you dismiss it.

The application of force to the ground is a collection of skills aided by what is going on metabolically. However I don't agree that human metabolism can be aided with any exogenous chemicals. We have enough endogenous chemical reactions and interactions going on, billions of them to help us, and we will never ever be able to understand the complexity or even map them by computer analysis. The human body is so enormously and wonderfully complex that to imagine you can 'improve' it by drugs is.....well it's just silly. I can't think of a better word. I think people need to grow up a bit.

First, learn some basic biomechanics and then some basic physiology. We have enless nonsense here about the concept of 'aerobic development' which in itself is a false concept that people use to cover up their lack or real knoweldge of exercise physiology. And that included most exercise physiologists.

So almost everyone on this website and the world over involved in endurance sport should really go back to basics and start learning all over again.

If I upset people it's because I'm pointing out that despite their belief that they are experts, they are really quite clueless about the basics. And that applies to gurus here with decades of experience. Yes they have lots of knowledge and wisdom, but it's misplaced at the most basic level.

[quote]Jon Orange wrote:

we will never ever be able to understand the complexity [quote]

And yet you "know" that PEDs don't work.

THAT is silly. I can think of a better word.

Jon, you have never said what you were lacking that prevented you from being world class.

Was your engine big enough in your opinion? What is your VO2 max?

Jon Orange wrote:

Deductive Reasoning wrote:

it seems weird that WVN practises a skill that isn't the same as the actual skill used in his event.

You'd almost think there was a cardio factor being enhanced.

Speed endurance. Yes the last 100m of the 400 is much more aerobic than anaerobic. However, it is the ability to maintain good technique that is important in slowing down less than your rivals, as per my original post.

Van Niekerk went through 300 in 31.0 an amazing time for a 300m race. His last 100 was 12.0

Yes Jonny, Wayde says he was trying not to go out so hard, but he set the record in the first 200 and hung on. So he's full of shyte.

So how many 400 guys are running 800's and 1000's for workouts.

A little inducible factor would help the mitochondria do their job in the last 50 meters.

Works for the anaerobic side as well.

fred wrote:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2140184/

Works for the anaerobic side as well.

Jon's lab has already dismissed this.

Alright, Jon.

Please fill us in on these skills that we need to develop to run. How should I be running to learn these skills? What kind of training should I be doing?

Michelle Ferrari wrote:

Jon, you have never said what you were lacking that prevented you from being world class.

He wasn't lacking anything.

Not every one of the 7 billion people in the world can be a world class runner.

Jon Orange wrote:

Metric Miler wrote:

A sprinter or shotputter barely uses anywhere near their maximum oxygen uptake. Please explain how one person is able to outperform another in strength or speed events that do not rely on the aerobic energy systems?

Your model just has far too many holes. What exactly am I supposed to look up?

Once again, I agree that running economy is real. Biomechanical efficiency can be improved and makes a big difference. But you are treating these things as if they are the wonder ingredient the world has overlooked. You are VERY late to the party, my friend.

Look up Peter Weyand. It applies to shot putt and sprinting just as much as running and most other sports too. My model doesn't have any holes. If you even understood it you might have some interesting questions.

Ok so perhaps you could explain exactly how your model disregards steroid/HGH use leading to increased strength which in turn leads to greater potential force production?

The larger the force one can produce the further a shotput can be thrown.

Once again, I don't disagree that biomechanical improvements are a key part of training.

Stupid people, dumb questions wrote:

Michelle Ferrari wrote:

Jon, you have never said what you were lacking that prevented you from being world class.

He wasn't lacking anything.

Not every one of the 7 billion people in the world can be a world class runner.

Because they must be lacking something.

Jon Orange wrote:

It's about fitness. And when you are fitter, you use less energy to race faster.

When you eventually get it, it will be a Damascene revelation to you.

Energy is in relationship with time, not with distance.

a 70kg elite consumes 1400 kcalories in 1hour, a 70kg slow amateur that goes 10km/h consumes 700kcal in 1 hour