You're right, tigger, for a "power runner" Dick has very little grasp of power, about the same level as he showed in statistics the last go-around.
Quote Dick:
"Applied to the bigger picture (which is the most practical and useful way for runners to think about power, IMO, rather than instantaneous power output), running a fixed distance (say 5k) in a shorter amount of time means power output has increased. It takes more force to run faster, and it takes less time to run that 5k, and since there is no change in distance, power output has increased. Running 5k faster than you did before = increased power output. Do you see anything wrong with that logic in relation to total power output over a fixed running distance?"
Dick, you use "total output of power by the muscles" and "power output applied to the ground to propel in the horizontal direction" interchangeably. For someone who claims to be some sort of physiology guru, this is a terribly simple concept that you should understand in your sleep.
Total power output by the running muscles = A(Horizontal power) + B(vertical power) + C(energy lost to heat that could have been power) +D(muscle oscillation power) + E + F + etc.
Any increase in efficiency, defined as energy lost to the none-desired variables (all but A) could be applied to A to increase pace without any increase in total energy usage. As I said, the fact that it takes more power to run at a faster pace(force)*D,(distance) so P = (F*D)/T. If you move X mass Y feet, F*D will stay the same but T will decrease because you're covering D faster. Decreasing mass helps this equation since W for given D would be lower as less F would be required to move the mass.
Running faster requires more power, DUH. However this power could be gained from energy gained through either increased efficency, or greater ability to produce energy (that nast aerobic respiration you don't like). The laws of physics dictate that you can't magically create greater power without consuming more energy per unit time. Power is a RATE, it is a time-dependent variable. It is simply the RATE at which work is done, and hence greater power = greater energy consumption per unit time.
It doesn't matter how fast your muscles can output power in the long term if your body can't keep supplying ATP at the rate it is being used. This is why strength/power training is incorporated in the peaking phase...you maximize the amount of energy the body can provide, per unit time, during the race, THEN you maximize your potential by increasing the rate at which this energy can be used (power). Increasing power without an aerobic base is like dropping a race car engine in a compact car, but not increasing the size of the fuel pump. You may go fast for 50 yards, but your fuel supply will then choke.
If you think your fast twitch muscles can are somehow of much greater efficiency than slow twitch, show us the proof. Then explain why animals with great need for endurance havev a predominance of slow twitch fibers, and why good distance runners have increased the predominance of slow twitch fibers in their muscles.
As for this balony about O2 never being limiting, that has been thoroughly debunked here in the past. For one thing, the study you used to support that said, BY THE AUTHORS, that the results were questionable and should be taken with caution as they were the single exception to a body of work to the contrary. I also explained why the measuring method they used was flawed. In typical fashion, however, a year later you still run with it like fact. If oxygen were not limiting, why do we not breath less than we do? Why do we increase capillarization as a result of training? All of the physiological changes that happen as the result of aerobic training contradict your "theory".
You're also incorrect stating that mitochondria are now postulated as a limiting factor. The limiting factor is the transfer of oxygen outside the blood vessel and into the cells and mitochondria.
Now answer this question, and don't dodge it: If you can't understand the simple concept of power, and how total power goes to several variables and efficiency can effect speed without increasing total power output, and you base your whole website and ridiculous theories off of power, why should anyone take you seriously? After all, YOU are the one who started a thread to talk about efficiency and you can't even keep that concept straight.
http://This message has been edited by AndyHass (edited Dec-01-2007).
