Elite athletes use less glycogen to run or ride a bike a given pace. Less glycogen mean less oxygen. The concept of a higher oxygen uptake or more efficient oxygen uptake as a result of blood boosting is just plain bad science.
Paula Radcliffe's tests by Professor Andy Jones show this; she was super efficient at 2.15 marathon pace, using less glycogen, less oxygen. The result of better training, not blood boosting.
No, no it doesn't.
Yes it does. There is no intelligent arguement you can give to support the use of blood boosting.
Good science, bad science wrote:
Yes it does. There is no intelligent arguement you can give to support the use of blood boosting.
People who blood boost are faster.
Who is giving them that EPO, blood transfusion? That's the real important issue. Who are these control freaks pimping the sport?
Lactate curves show efficiency in the most simple way. It's not hard to understand. Less fuel for the same pace = faster racing and less oxgyen uptake for a given pace, not more oxygen uptake as the manipulators will tell you.
Renato's point about Kenyans being able to run Word class times without manipulations of blood is true for everyone. It's basic physiology, you train better, you get more efficient, there is no known limit for your performance. Lydiard said that. He was right. That's why he is still relevant today.
Good science, bad science wrote:
Elite athletes use less glycogen to run or ride a bike a given pace. Less glycogen mean less oxygen.
The concept of a higher oxygen uptake or more efficient oxygen uptake as a result of blood boosting is just plain bad science.
Your grasp on logic and science is very loose. The first statement can be true while the benefits of blood doping can also be true.
The efficiency of the best athletes goes right up to the end of the race, where the pace gets faster and faster. When you are racing efficiently, you are not limited by your cardiovascular system in the way the guy behind you is.
Michael Phelps 6 mmols at the end of his best efforts. That's efficiency. He could get a much higher reading if he was less efficient.
but people to take epo run faster and aren't as tired as those that dont... so there's that.
Good science, bad science wrote:
When you are racing efficiently, you are not limited by your cardiovascular system in the way the guy behind you is.
What?
Gary, where does the efficiency come from if it's not a metabolic improvement?
It comes from your nervous system's ability to control your movement.
Exercise physiology went of the rails decades ago, when ex phys geeks started ignoring the neuroscience. Since the 80's we have had endless amount of bad science, that ignores the neural pathways which control movement.
Pick up a training book written by an ex phys PhD and then pick up an Ex Phys textbook. You will find that the text book has more than one chapter, it doesn't focus exclusively on the cardiovascular system.
zohan wrote:
but people to take epo run faster and aren't as tired as those that dont... so there's that.
So do non doped runners.
Good science, bad science--Maybe you are trolling. Your logic doesn't jive with what I believe to be true about physiology.
Try this.
EPO use has nothing to do with 'efficiency'.
At a given blood volume and HR Max, more EPO = More Red Cells and = more oxygen delivery capacity = higher VO2MAX
Higher Vo2Max means the Vo2 at a given pace is lower percentage of max and therefore 'easier'. This would be measured as a lower HR at given speed after EPO. It would also translate into shifting of 4MMol LT to a higher speed for any athlete that has an increase in red cells following EPO use.
Higher Vo2Max, all other things being equal also enables runner to run faster in training which stimulates other training adaptations (in muscle) so runner becomes more 'fit'.
Good science, bad science wrote:
Gary, where does the efficiency come from if it's not a metabolic improvement?
It comes from your nervous system's ability to control your movement.
Exercise physiology went of the rails decades ago, when ex phys geeks started ignoring the neuroscience. Since the 80's we have had endless amount of bad science, that ignores the neural pathways which control movement.
Pick up a training book written by an ex phys PhD and then pick up an Ex Phys textbook. You will find that the text book has more than one chapter, it doesn't focus exclusively on the cardiovascular system.
You said the guy behind was limited by his cardiovascular system.....
Good science, bad science wrote:The result of better training
PEDs allow for that better training. Recovery is enhanced. They are potentiators; a catalyst, a piece of the training puzzle, and something that - all other things being equal - that will always give the athlete an advantage.
half logic. Biomechanical efficiency is the issue. Where does that efficiency come from? From stiffer muscles applying the same force with less metabolic workload or a faster pace for the same metabolic workload.
The real performance enhancers are adrenalin/noradrenalin, controlling your efficiency. We are not limited by our oxygen uptake in the way that you think.
Exercise physiologists don't understand training and neither do most runners. They push the cardivascular system too hard to early in the run, not allowing for the neural efficiency to take effect.
easy weeks wrote:
Good science, bad science wrote:The result of better trainingPEDs allow for that better training. Recovery is enhanced. They are potentiators; a catalyst, a piece of the training puzzle, and something that - all other things being equal - that will always give the athlete an advantage.
You don't need drugs to train better or recover faster, you need better training. The idea that your body can be improved by doping shows a lack of self worth, self belief and a lack of respect for just how amazing your body is. Plus a large amount of gullibilty.
Gary Oldman wrote:
Good science, bad science wrote:Gary, where does the efficiency come from if it's not a metabolic improvement?
It comes from your nervous system's ability to control your movement.
Exercise physiology went of the rails decades ago, when ex phys geeks started ignoring the neuroscience. Since the 80's we have had endless amount of bad science, that ignores the neural pathways which control movement.
Pick up a training book written by an ex phys PhD and then pick up an Ex Phys textbook. You will find that the text book has more than one chapter, it doesn't focus exclusively on the cardiovascular system.
You said the guy behind was limited by his cardiovascular system.....
He has to force his cardiovascular system to the limits to try and beat you. He fails, you are running sub maximally and he is easy prey.
Good science, bad science wrote:
You don't need drugs to train better or recover faster, you need better training.
Okay, but the point is that if you perform that 'better training' and add PEDs in the mix, you will still gain an advantage.
Your argument appears to be that there is a certain level/method of training that nullifies that benefit PEDs would add if they were put in the mix. I'm of the belief that no matter what the training type/load/methodology you present, simply adding PEDs on some for or another would ALWAYS improve the said training.
Good science, bad science wrote:
You don't need drugs to train better or recover faster, you need better training. The idea that your body can be improved by doping shows a lack of self worth, self belief and a lack of respect for just how amazing your body is. Plus a large amount of gullibilty.
Plus it works.
easy weeks wrote:
Good science, bad science wrote:You don't need drugs to train better or recover faster, you need better training.
Okay, but the point is that if you perform that 'better training' and add PEDs in the mix, you will still gain an advantage.
Your argument appears to be that there is a certain level/method of training that nullifies that benefit PEDs would add if they were put in the mix. I'm of the belief that no matter what the training type/load/methodology you present, simply adding PEDs on some for or another would ALWAYS improve the said training.
I hope to steer a few people away from that mentality during the course of my lifetime. You can always train better. People will always be obsessed with substances. How many people think they can't have a good night out without alcohol?