That all sounds reasonable except I don't see the harm in starting your own threads. There are some very knowledgable people on here would ask you serious questions--you could use that as a dry run for your experience with an editor. There are also less knowledgable people here but, honestly, if you are serious about a book that's your target audience. if you want to sell more than a few hundred copies it'd be good practice to learn to tune your arguments to experts and non experts alike.
Thanks. I will give it some thought. But this stuff is very challenging. I'm sure you are aware that I'm basically saying that there are no peformance enhancing drugs, not just in endurance sports, but sprints and other power events too. It's all about technique and efficiency used withing the athletes genetic profile and conditioning level, so that less total energy is used to race faster, lift more, throw further, than the athlete's previous best effort.
That approach invites derision which I'm obviously no stranger to, nor in fear of.
I see this approach as the true future of sport. Ross Tucker is right to remind us not to search for 'The Truth' in hypothesizing, however something approaching a mathmatical proof is a rather more reliable concept.
However vested interests in the drug problem will work against this approach. I don't see journalism as the real problem here because journalists are used to changing their minds when presented with good evidence to the contrary and with the changing attitudes, fads and fashions they report. And concept which are supposedly science based are often just that; fads and fashions.
The problem is the politicization of the drug problem and the science in general. Can I just ignore it and press on regardless?
Jon Orange wrote:
However vested interests in the drug problem will work against this approach.
I hope you don't think that when I argue with you about whether or not EPO works that I'm doing so out of a vested interest. I'm as against drugs in sport as anyone.
Jon Orange wrote:
I don't see journalism as the real problem here because journalists are used to changing their minds when presented with good evidence to the contrary and with the changing attitudes, fads and fashions they report. And concept which are supposedly science based are often just that; fads and fashions.
The problem is the politicization of the drug problem and the science in general. Can I just ignore it and press on regardless?
I've been in science long enough to know that there are fads in research topics being funded, groupthink where ideas are parroted without being challenged. politicization? I haven't seen it within my field anyway. That seems to be something that happens outside the science where some group of people will simply refuse to listen to the science. Science has its warts for sure but as a path toward objective truth it's still the best thing going.
Maybe I didn't understand you. My two cents: Ignore what you must and ignore profane trolls definitely but interspersed in there somewhere may be some points you were missing or had wrong so it would be a shame to ignore too much.
There is a lot of moralizing going on around the subject. That makes the issue inherently political. It's all very rhetorical and self righteous, just like the so called war on so called recreational drugs, where alcohol is acceptable and encouraged amongst the anti drug enforcing powers that be and their followers, but other things are not. It like arguing about religion. Some people's views are very entrenched. So even trying to make a point that you can demonstrate with reliable data is unlikely to be acceptable to someone with a fixed view point.
Jon, with all due respect(which is exactly 0). You don't have any science to back you up. Your argument carries the weight of a Jenny McCarthy blog post.
test2 wrote:
I don't see the harm in starting your own threads. There are some very knowledgable people on here would ask you serious questions--you could use that as a dry run for your experience with an editor. There are also less knowledgable people here but, honestly, if you are serious about a book that's your target audience. if you want to sell more than a few hundred copies it'd be good practice to learn to tune your arguments to experts and non experts alike.
Are you sure? I don't really think that there are more than 2 posters at any one time who have the knowledge or the interest to make such a thread worthwhile.
And there are so many idiots like the poster above, not to mention the fact that the brojos themselves are trolling endlessly here starting click bait threads. What would be the point of sharing information when almost no-one here cares about the difference between good science and bad science?
Jon Orange wrote:
test2 wrote:I don't see the harm in starting your own threads. There are some very knowledgable people on here would ask you serious questions--you could use that as a dry run for your experience with an editor. There are also less knowledgable people here but, honestly, if you are serious about a book that's your target audience. if you want to sell more than a few hundred copies it'd be good practice to learn to tune your arguments to experts and non experts alike.
Are you sure? I don't really think that there are more than 2 posters at any one time who have the knowledge or the interest to make such a thread worthwhile.
And there are so many idiots like the poster above, not to mention the fact that the brojos themselves are trolling endlessly here starting click bait threads. What would be the point of sharing information when almost no-one here cares about the difference between good science and bad science?
Then why bother posting on here at all? You are putting a fair amount of time in on here. You may as well put it best use.
Then why was my thread deleted yesterday? Because I told rojo to grow up?
You know, the one where I said that elite runners use less energy to run faster? Newton's second law of motion?
Shall I start the thread again? Will it be deleted again, because I'm not allowed to show some real physiology, some real physics?
Jon Orange is one of the few person who knows about neuromuscular coordination and running economy components. Is the best without doubt. Some don't realize because they want to continue believing their false believes. Thanks Jon! I would like to be coached by you!
TrackBot wrote:
No doping offenses found for Jon Orange
I am a bot. Info:
http://habs.sdf.org/trackbot
I love it ?
wolde wrote:
Jon Orange is one of the few person who knows about neuromuscular coordination and running economy components. Is the best without doubt. Some don't realize because they want to continue believing their false believes. Thanks Jon! I would like to be coached by you!
You're completely wrong.