We don't have a bioenergetics/biomechanics model that the general public can relate to. There are researchers who do research this and apply it, but it will not find favour with those who have a quasi religious belief in magic potions.
We don't have a bioenergetics/biomechanics model that the general public can relate to. There are researchers who do research this and apply it, but it will not find favour with those who have a quasi religious belief in magic potions.
So...…..what is the limit?
JonO. wrote:
I'm not the one denying the laws of physics. You are.
EPO is not a performance enhancer or a short cut to better performance. EPO doping is Frankenstein phsyiology and shame on those scientists who themselves think they can prove othewise and re-write the laws of physics.
We have a thermoregulatory limit to oxygen consumption. Trying to prove otherwise is ridiculous. But that's what dishonest researchers will attempt.
No scientist in the world is going to argue the point about thermoregulation, they would quickly be exposed as the charlatans they are.
EPO is a performance enhancer because helps recovery. In the EPO era of cyclists, in every stage of Tour, they go fast like it was first stage. So EPO can increase the capacity of doing more training. Obviously when you reach very top level, there are diminishing returns. Sub elite athletes can have more advantages from doping than top elites.
JonO. wrote:
We don't have a bioenergetics/biomechanics model that the general public can relate to. There are researchers who do research this and apply it, but it will not find favour with those who have a quasi religious belief in magic potions.
Let me guess, you're that '"researcher"?
Remember you're talking to a guy who equates Strava data to a mid Tour Alp climb and calls them identical.
I guess I was asking different questions, and didn't see the purpose of these answers.
So if I got you right, the false claim is me repeatedly saying that the Kenyan's were only as good as high school girls from the 70's, but in reality they were borderline elite athletes who just ran 3000m time-trials like high school girls from the 70s.
And another false claim is that the scientists didn't "consider/control" the training before and during the study, because the Kenyan training was consistent. Is that different than "requested that they continue their current training". That's not really what I meant by control.
You advised me to read the published study, where I found a pretty unambiguous description of the likely lower bound.
Well, faith and intuition combined with physical and physiological limitations, and real time trial data supporting some decline.
Your intuition is not evidence, but just another word for faith.
wow page after page after page of some of the most childish arguments
"i know you are but what am i?"
thats what it reads like to me
wow just wow
and really rek, you say if you admit what college you went to and what science degree you got would be "too much and give it away"
wtf does that even mean? you really think hiding your identity is some f*cking patriotic duty? and call me out? you call me a coward and tell me to walk the walk...ok you spineless f*ck, i will guarantee you dont have the balls, actually i know you dont have the balls.
you think that im a coward and cant admit who i am? where i graduated and what degree i got? well are you ready you self righteous pretentious prick you ready?
chad beckelhymer
BA in exercise physciology, adams state college
BS in geology, adams state college
4 time national qualifier, 1 time all american
ended with life time PRs of
10.77
21.97
47.68
1:54.04
was a two time high school state champ.
while in college i had practice daily with
1:48 guys
3:40 guys
13:20 guys
28:00 guys
and you have the arrogance to call me out, call me a coward, act as if i have something to hide, as if i have something to gain from telling you your a liar.
im not a coward, nor a liar, nor do i have some bullsh*t annoying agenda to uphold
now please shut the f*ck up and move on, or tell us all the truth who you are and end this childish annoying behavior
my bett....is you will just mock me and continue to live in your cowardice lying anonymity
oh and that goes for you two JonO...dont spout off on me with your high and mighty bullsh*t either....you act so arrogant to call me out, well i just walked the walk you little b*tches
now, lets just wait for the next EPO bust shall we
Thanks Aragon. That's a good point. While I thought that the 4.6% might surely include some non-EPO related contributions, I hadn't considered the possibility that the Kenyans simply weren't trying as hard as the Scots, especially on the first time trial.
m!ndweak wrote:
blah
The way you write is still annoying and childish as fvck, as well as aggressive, insulting and arrogant.
But I give you that, you really had the guts to tell the world who you are.
Good one.
Wow. You really misunderstood that... I did not actually say coward, but for some reason that's what you understood. You asked me to prove that I had a science degree (disprove your claim), and that that was "big talk". I only asked you to prove (your claim) that I did not have a science degree, and called that "small talk". I did not ask you to out yourself, and I don't see how it changes anything. On the one hand, you don't want me to talk at all in these threads, but with the other hand, you keep poking at me, unprovoked.
m!ndweak wrote:
...
and really rek, you say if you admit what college you went to and what science degree you got would be "too much and give it away"
wtf does that even mean? you really think hiding your identity is some f*cking patriotic duty? and call me out? you call me a coward and tell me to walk the walk...ok you spineless f*ck, i will guarantee you dont have the balls, actually i know you dont have the balls.
you think that im a coward and cant admit who i am? where i graduated and what degree i got? well are you ready you self righteous pretentious prick you ready?
...
Too bad some legitimate questions are watered down by the bickering on the message boards. If you all have questions regarding physics...why the heck don't you just ask Hutchinson since he has PhD in it? Peace out LR fart heads.
rekrunner wrote:
You advised me to read the published study, where I found a pretty unambiguous description of the likely lower bound.
Correct, but that is only a small part of that exchange. Typical rekrunner obfuscation/deflection. You even went so far to boldly yet falsely claim (and use that false claim for yet another personal attack):
rekrunner wrote:
The main message is surely NOT in the abstract, but in the paper itself. Compared to the paper it is describing, the abstract looks misleading -- just the way you like it.
And then you went on and on and on, insisting that you were right, even after it came out that you - surprise surprise - had yet to read the actual article after peer review as published in Sports Medicine.
At least back then, you looked into a preliminary draft likely later submitted to Nature and rejected there, whereas here you kept arguing based on an abstract alone.
When building your strawman, one must first grasp at straws.
Zee wrote:
Too bad some legitimate questions are watered down by the bickering on the message boards. If you all have questions regarding physics...why the heck don't you just ask Hutchinson since he has PhD in it? Peace out LR fart heads.
Pffft, Jon Orange knows WAY more about physics than Hutchinson.
Jon, Why don't you engage Hutchinson online and ask him the difficult questions and tell him he's wrong?
Do it on Sweatscience in the comments section.
Thanks!
+1
Very impressive. You're the real deal and I believe you know what you're talking about. People may not like your posting style but that's too bad. You get the science across on rEPO and endurance excercise, and explain it in a fashion that is easy to understand.
Rekrunner, OTOH, uses wordplay and psychological warfare. IMO, he's merely tring to impress everyone with his pretentious, sanctimonious, holier-than-thou attitude because he has some master degree in some undisclosed science field.
It's funny...since there's not one single study on EPO and elite runners, everyone can have an opinion on what they think the performance benefits are with EPO usage & elites. Yet rekrunner belittles & demeans some of us who think the performance benefits are in 3% - 4% specturm, but yet expects us to respect and pay homage to his opinion of a performance benefit less than 1%.
So, here's a guy who reads books on logical fallacies, uses wordplay, cherry-picks data, manipulates stats, trash talks the studies with EPO & non-elites, and expects his opinion to be the only one that counts.
Both versions explicitly said, in slightly different forms, the bias corrected result "would likely represent a lower bound for the estimated prevalence of doping at each event". This is why I cannot admit that the non-corrected UQM result is "the" likely underestimate they meant. The abstract does not seem to be completely in line with either the early draft version, nor the final version submitted. Regarding the Scot and Kenyan studies, I compared the abstracts of 2013, with 2018, repeatedly asking what is new for 2018, because the abstracts were very similar. I also compared it with Chapter 4 of Duressel's PhD thesis, again noting the similarity.
Yikes!
Wow man rek really got us both there.....guess he was all talk, but has less balls than caster.....as if admitting who you are on here is super courageous
Am I living in the twilight zone? The Boston Marathon weather was terrible!
Des Linden: "The entire sport" has changed since she first started running Boston.
Matt Choi was drinking beer halfway through the Boston Marathon
Ryan Eiler, 3rd American man at Boston, almost out of nowhere
2024 College Track & Field Open Coaching Positions Discussion