What about this guy though?
"How I became a drug cheat athlete to test the system
By Mark Daly BBC Scotland Investigations Correspondent "
What about this guy though?
"How I became a drug cheat athlete to test the system
By Mark Daly BBC Scotland Investigations Correspondent "
Jon Orange wrote:
That's completely illogical. If you have a normal number of red blood cells, that is the amount you need to perform at your best.
If more was better, then why doesn't the body produce more?
Nice to see you here again.
Homeostatis: the tendency of a system, especially the physiological system of higher animals, to maintain internal stability, owing to the coordinated response of its parts to any situation or stimulus that would tend to disturb its normal condition or function.
The body always strives to reach homeostasis. The best that drugs can do in a healthy body is to NOT interfere with homeostasis. With no interference, the performance will be no different than without. However, the greater the interference, then the lower the performance.
In non healthy bodies, then many natural means can help much more than drugs. For example food helps a starving person more than drugs, water helps a dehydrated person more than drugs, sleep helps a sleep deprived person more than drugs, and so on. Giving drugs to a sleep deprived person, while depriving them of sleep would be disastrous, and the same for anything else.
How to advance effectively wrote:
Jon Orange, you clearly have a strong viewpoint (not exactly founded in science, but a viewpoint none the less) or an agenda to push.
Actually Jon Orange's viewpoint is firmly based on science, the science of homeostasis.
What is not based on science, and is psuedo science, is that drugs would
help performance in highly trained athletes, which they don't. Such a philosophy is total hogwash.
"The body always strives to reach homeostasis. The best that drugs can do in a healthy body is to NOT interfere with homeostasis. With no interference, the performance will be no different than without. However, the greater the interference, then the lower the performance."
So are you saying that no PED could ever help an athlete improve their performance? If so, an awful lot of money has been wasted - think how much the East Europeans invested in this sort of thing back in the Cold War days - and a great deal of scientific research is now invalid. All because of something called "homeostasis" , a concept I'm not sure I understand, nor am I sure that it is a valid scientific concept.
mark b wrote:
So are you saying that no PED could ever help an athlete improve their performance?
Exactly. I'm saying that no supposed PED could ever help an athlete, especially not a highly trained athlete, any more than simple everyday natural means.
If so, an awful lot of money has been wasted - think how much the East Europeans invested in this sort of thing back in the Cold War days - and a great deal of scientific research is now invalid.
Big Pharma makes huge amounts of money by putting out the false studies and getting people to believe in the drugs. Therefore of course many people BELIEVE in the drugs, even though they are not actually helped by them, and all of the drug induced performances have all been beaten by clean athletes.
All because of something called "homeostasis" , a concept I'm not sure I understand, nor am I sure that it is a valid scientific concept.
That's very funny hahaha.
It's almost like there is another person who shares Jon's view. Except of course it's just Jon posting under another handle to generate support for himself.
In Cognito wrote:
It's almost like there is another person who shares Jon's view. Except of course it's just Jon posting under another handle to generate support for himself.
Oh no, I am not Jon, and he doesn't even know who I am, though he might guess my forum persona.
Besides that, more than one person in the world can be right on this issue.
In fact there are many of us, anyone who is open minded and willing to look at the issue in a critical manner.
Jon Orange wrote:
The common misconception is that elite athletes use more energy to race faster, when the reality is the exact opposite. This should be obvious to any exercise physiologist who knows their stuff. Unfortunately, such people seem to be extremely hard to find.
If you actually look at the power output numbers and the oxygen uptake numbers, you should see how you have been indoctrinated with this pseudoscience. You should, but only if you are sane, rational and logical.
Ok, let's look at those power numbers. In the Tour, cyclists routinely hold 350 watts for hours. That's more than twice as much power as an amateur competitive cyclist can output for that time, and about 3 times as much as an everyday bicycle commuter can handle.
How exactly is it, according to you, that Chris Froome can average 350 watts with 1000 watt bursts while "using less energy [than an everyday person] to race faster"?
There's no explanation because it's simply not true. Well-trained cyclists - hell, any kind of trained cyclist - have the ability to expend more energy and produce more power to the pedals. You're spewing a heap of bullcrap - admit it.
Hey, my friend wrote:
Jon Orange wrote:That's completely illogical. If you have a normal number of red blood cells, that is the amount you need to perform at your best.
If more was better, then why doesn't the body produce more?
Nice to see you here again.
Homeostatis: the tendency of a system, especially the physiological system of higher animals, to maintain internal stability, owing to the coordinated response of its parts to any situation or stimulus that would tend to disturb its normal condition or function.
The body always strives to reach homeostasis. The best that drugs can do in a healthy body is to NOT interfere with homeostasis. With no interference, the performance will be no different than without. However, the greater the interference, then the lower the performance.
In non healthy bodies, then many natural means can help much more than drugs. For example food helps a starving person more than drugs, water helps a dehydrated person more than drugs, sleep helps a sleep deprived person more than drugs, and so on. Giving drugs to a sleep deprived person, while depriving them of sleep would be disastrous, and the same for anything else.
This is epic bull.
Yeah, homeostasis. When you're running, you're falling out of homeostasis. As you approach VO2 max and go faster than 10K race pace, you're getting way out of homeostasis. That's what makes you slow down. If 1500m pace magically kept your body in homeostasis, then nobody would ever slow down, and people would be running 1:30 marathons.
Yeah, the body strives to achieve homeostasis. No shit. That's a good reason for the body to shut down when you're 4.5K into a 5K race, and not let you push it into an even higher gear and build up even more byproducts of near-maximal aerobic/anaerobic metabolism.
Certain drugs can help athletes maintain homeostasis under slightly more duress or for slightly longer periods of time. EPO is released in non-drugged athletes too, obviously. So obviously the body adapts its resting state in response to occasional stimuli (exercise) that bring it out of homeostasis. Externally administered EPO can ensure a maximal rate of adaptation, as your body's response is naturally conservative.
disgraceful_admin wrote:
Certain drugs can help athletes maintain homeostasis
You're trying to explain this, and you don't even know what it is.
You are stupid wrote:
disgraceful_admin wrote:Certain drugs can help athletes maintain homeostasis
You're trying to explain this, and you don't even know what it is.
You're a presumptive moron. I just didn't want to go into specifics because it didn't add to the discussion. EPO would be one of those drugs. If you want to learn how it works, read some papers or Wikipedia if your peanut brain struggles with comprehension.
You are stupid wrote:
disgraceful_admin wrote:Certain drugs can help athletes maintain homeostasis
You're trying to explain this, and you don't even know what it is.
Also, I'm surprised nobody mentioned that the "training period" used in the study was only 8 weeks long.
8 weeks = 56 days!
It takes at least 10 days for the very first "net extra" RBCs created due to the first external EPO application to form. It's as if they expected some sort of magical instant result.
Jon Orange wrote:
That's completely illogical. If you have a normal number of red blood cells, that is the amount you need to perform at your best.
If more was better, then why doesn't the body produce more?
Because the body has to maintain homeostasis. And one of the mechanisms of this is thermoregulation. If you use more oxygen, you produce more heat. You will also run out of glycogen sooner.
The common misconception is that elite athletes use more energy to race faster, when the reality is the exact opposite. This should be obvious to any exercise physiologist who knows their stuff. Unfortunately, such people seem to be extremely hard to find.
Why people are prepared to believe in drug aided performance rather than nature is one of those bizarre things in life. People have strange ideas which they desperately cling to. Belief in so called 'Performance Enhancing Drugs' is a kind of religion. It doesn't matter how illogical the belief, it is just accepted as fact unquestioningly.
If you actually look at the power output numbers and the oxygen uptake numbers, you should see how you have been indoctrinated with this pseudoscience. You should, but only if you are sane, rational and logical.
Yay.
Just read all the personal accounts of PED users describe in vivid detail how amazing they felt using PEDS, while their times dropped and dropped. Athletes are great testers for drugs because most are very in tune with every tiny change in their body and performance. There is no placebo effect to match that repeatedly and consistently.
Oxygen efficiency is the key for endurance athletes, and you just can't fake the body on numerous chemical processes. Boost your oxygen efficiency in the blood and you're going to perform better.
Jonny's Back wrote:
Jon Orange wrote:That's completely illogical. If you have a normal number of red blood cells, that is the amount you need to perform at your best.
If more was better, then why doesn't the body produce more?
Because the body has to maintain homeostasis. And one of the mechanisms of this is thermoregulation. If you use more oxygen, you produce more heat. You will also run out of glycogen sooner.
The common misconception is that elite athletes use more energy to race faster, when the reality is the exact opposite. This should be obvious to any exercise physiologist who knows their stuff. Unfortunately, such people seem to be extremely hard to find.
Why people are prepared to believe in drug aided performance rather than nature is one of those bizarre things in life. People have strange ideas which they desperately cling to. Belief in so called 'Performance Enhancing Drugs' is a kind of religion. It doesn't matter how illogical the belief, it is just accepted as fact unquestioningly.
If you actually look at the power output numbers and the oxygen uptake numbers, you should see how you have been indoctrinated with this pseudoscience. You should, but only if you are sane, rational and logical.
Yay.
You won't be running out of glycogen in a 5K. Though I wouldn't be surprised if it takes you hours to "run" one.
Nor is overheating a relevant issue in a 5K.
You say that using more oxygen means producing more heat. Let's look at a given speed - say 5:00/mile. The higher percentage anaerobic means are used to run that pace, the more heat is produced. If you can run that pace using the most efficient aerobic pathways, you'll produce less heat. If you take EPO which gives you greater capillarization, more efficient hemoglobin, and more RBCs, then it reasonably follows that you'll utilize more aerobic pathways at that pace. So you'll use more oxygen, but you'll produce less heat at that pace than you would have before doping.
disgraceful_admin wrote:
You won't be running out of glycogen in a 5K. Though I wouldn't be surprised if it takes you hours to "run" one.
Nor is overheating a relevant issue in a 5K.
Hello, my friend wrote:
In Cognito wrote:It's almost like there is another person who shares Jon's view. Except of course it's just Jon posting under another handle to generate support for himself.
Oh no, I am not Jon, and he doesn't even know who I am, though he might guess my forum persona.
Besides that, more than one person in the world can be right on this issue.
In fact there are many of us, anyone who is open minded and willing to look at the issue in a critical manner.
Sounds convincing, Jon.
Retard Alert wrote:
disgraceful_admin wrote:You won't be running out of glycogen in a 5K. Though I wouldn't be surprised if it takes you hours to "run" one.
Nor is overheating a relevant issue in a 5K.
To summarize, exogenous EPO should help at 1500m-10K distances for various reasons.
Performance Enhancing Drugs part IV
http://www.letsrun.com/forum/flat_read.php?thread=7047695&page=53
In Cognito wrote:
Sounds convincing, Jon.
Not you again, Netanyahu.
RIP: D3 All-American Frank Csorba - who ran 13:56 in March - dead
RENATO can you talk about the preparation of Emile Cairess 2:06
Running for Bowerman Track Club used to be cool now its embarrassing
Great interview with Steve Cram - says Jakob has no chance of WRs this year
Hats off to my dad. He just ran a 1:42 Half Marathon and turns 75 in 2 months!