Thermo dino wrote:
how does that work? wrote:
How does having a higher aerobic capacity reduce the ventilation rate?
Do you even understand the question?
Evidently not.
Because elites don't suck wind like hobbyjoggers.
Not necessarily. Are you familiar with the term ventilatory threshold?
how does that work? wrote:
Thermo dino wrote:
Because elites don't suck wind like hobbyjoggers.
Not necessarily. Are you familiar with the term ventilatory threshold?
Yes.
Armstronglivs wrote:
What a relief that an ancient astronomer has assured you the earth isn't flat. You would never have known otherwise.
But in respect of "the earth isn't flat" observations I made about breathing being related to a higher RBC and improved aerobic capacity the only alternative position, if you dispute that relationship, is to accept the propositions in the questions I posed above. Logically you are required to maintain the converse of what I argued. So - go ahead and prove it.
I will remind you what my questions were.
- How does a higher RBC not mean that more oxygen can be carried for each breath?
- How does an improved aerobic capacity require a runner to breath harder for the same effort than when they had lesser aerobic capacity?
What is more important than my being assured the earth is flat, is that you don't need to rely on my representations, which may be distorted by my own personal bias, as I have given you an original source, and the means to evaluate, and to verify, or falsify, the claim, for yourself. You do not need to agree or disagree with me to determine for yourself if the Islamic astronomer was correct.
It is shallow thinking, to attempt to reduce this ventilatory exchange into the false dichotomy that by not accepting your statements at face value, I am denying them, and/or maintaining "the converse of what (you) argued. To be clear, you have not argued anything, but have simply given your own personal interpretation of something, or some things you may have, or may not have, read, and/or heard. With respect to breathing rate as a function of red blood cells, I have not yet established a position, in order to maintain one. I could consider your argument only after you provide something, of substance, to consider.
rekrunner wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
What a relief that an ancient astronomer has assured you the earth isn't flat. You would never have known otherwise.
But in respect of "the earth isn't flat" observations I made about breathing being related to a higher RBC and improved aerobic capacity the only alternative position, if you dispute that relationship, is to accept the propositions in the questions I posed above. Logically you are required to maintain the converse of what I argued. So - go ahead and prove it.
I will remind you what my questions were.
- How does a higher RBC not mean that more oxygen can be carried for each breath?
- How does an improved aerobic capacity require a runner to breath harder for the same effort than when they had lesser aerobic capacity?
What is more important than my being assured the earth is flat, is that you don't need to rely on my representations, which may be distorted by my own personal bias, as I have given you an original source, and the means to evaluate, and to verify, or falsify, the claim, for yourself. You do not need to agree or disagree with me to determine for yourself if the Islamic astronomer was correct.
It is shallow thinking, to attempt to reduce this ventilatory exchange into the false dichotomy that by not accepting your statements at face value, I am denying them, and/or maintaining "the converse of what (you) argued. To be clear, you have not argued anything, but have simply given your own personal interpretation of something, or some things you may have, or may not have, read, and/or heard. With respect to breathing rate as a function of red blood cells, I have not yet established a position, in order to maintain one. I could consider your argument only after you provide something, of substance, to consider.
Now that we've finally established that you don't have a position. It only took 11 pages. Perhaps you could supply a citation for having no position?
how does that work? wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
What a relief that an ancient astronomer has assured you the earth isn't flat. You would never have known otherwise.
But in respect of "the earth isn't flat" observations I made about breathing being related to a higher RBC and improved aerobic capacity the only alternative position, if you dispute that relationship, is to accept the propositions in the questions I posed above. Logically you are required to maintain the converse of what I argued. So - go ahead and prove it.
I will remind you what my questions were.
- How does a higher RBC not mean that more oxygen can be carried for each breath?
- How does an improved aerobic capacity require a runner to breath harder for the same effort than when they had lesser aerobic capacity?
How does having a higher aerobic capacity reduce the ventilation rate?
Do you even understand the question?
Evidently not.
Remember this one?
Armstronglivs wrote:
Now that we've finally established that you don't have a position. It only took 11 pages. Perhaps you could supply a citation for having no position?
We have with certainty because it was me providing the information with certainty, and not dodging the issue.
But these 11 pages were never about me, as I made no claim; I merely asked you to support yours - a basic requirement in intelligent discourse.
The only remaining open points are:
- does "scarcely breathing" indicate "EPO is a powerful drug"
- was El G's breathing unusually low?
- was El G's red blood cell count high?
- if so, was the high red blood cell count due to EPO?
- does any expert in the field share any of these view?
- have any experts in the field performed controlled observations, and published their data and conclusions, or otherwise provided a detailed discussion with basis?
rekrunner wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
Now that we've finally established that you don't have a position. It only took 11 pages. Perhaps you could supply a citation for having no position?
We have with certainty because it was me providing the information with certainty, and not dodging the issue.
But these 11 pages were never about me, as I made no claim; I merely asked you to support yours - a basic requirement in intelligent discourse.
The only remaining open points are:
- does "scarcely breathing" indicate "EPO is a powerful drug"
- was El G's breathing unusually low?
- was El G's red blood cell count high?
- if so, was the high red blood cell count due to EPO?
- does any expert in the field share any of these view?
- have any experts in the field performed controlled observations, and published their data and conclusions, or otherwise provided a detailed discussion with basis?
You're totally full of sh*t. El G wasn't the issue for 11 pages; it was your ignorant refusal to accept that a higher RBC (such as provided by EPO) enables increased transport of O2 per breath, which was stated in an article I provided (that you refused to accept because you can never admit error) and is a given in those articles that all refer to improved aerobic capacity from a higher RBC.
If a greater O2 intake is required from each breath to produce an increased aerobic performance there is no improvement in aerobic capacity - it remains the same, it merely means more of it is being utilized through greater effort, which includes breathing. The logic of that point, which is implicit in all the studies that refer to increased aerobic capacity, is beyond your grasp but fits well with your abysmal lack of knowledge of human physiology in relation to athletic endeavor.
Thermo dino wrote:
Remember this one?
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3299978/#:~:text=Erythropoietin%20(Epo)%20treatment%20has%20been,(OXPHOS)%20capacity%20in%20humans.
Very weak. Only six untrained participants and no control.
Armstronglivs wrote:
rekrunner wrote:
We have with certainty because it was me providing the information with certainty, and not dodging the issue.
But these 11 pages were never about me, as I made no claim; I merely asked you to support yours - a basic requirement in intelligent discourse.
The only remaining open points are:
- does "scarcely breathing" indicate "EPO is a powerful drug"
- was El G's breathing unusually low?
- was El G's red blood cell count high?
- if so, was the high red blood cell count due to EPO?
- does any expert in the field share any of these view?
- have any experts in the field performed controlled observations, and published their data and conclusions, or otherwise provided a detailed discussion with basis?
You're totally full of sh*t. El G wasn't the issue for 11 pages; it was your ignorant refusal to accept that a higher RBC (such as provided by EPO) enables increased transport of O2 per breath, which was stated in an article I provided (that you refused to accept because you can never admit error) and is a given in those articles that all refer to improved aerobic capacity from a higher RBC.
If a greater O2 intake is required from each breath to produce an increased aerobic performance there is no improvement in aerobic capacity - it remains the same, it merely means more of it is being utilized through greater effort, which includes breathing. The logic of that point, which is implicit in all the studies that refer to increased aerobic capacity, is beyond your grasp but fits well with your abysmal lack of knowledge of human physiology in relation to athletic endeavor.
That is not only nonsense, it was not your original premise.
You said that it was obvious he was doped on EPO because he was barely breathing.
Make your mind up.
Armstronglivs wrote:
rekrunner wrote:
We have with certainty because it was me providing the information with certainty, and not dodging the issue.
But these 11 pages were never about me, as I made no claim; I merely asked you to support yours - a basic requirement in intelligent discourse.
The only remaining open points are:
- does "scarcely breathing" indicate "EPO is a powerful drug"
- was El G's breathing unusually low?
- was El G's red blood cell count high?
- if so, was the high red blood cell count due to EPO?
- does any expert in the field share any of these view?
- have any experts in the field performed controlled observations, and published their data and conclusions, or otherwise provided a detailed discussion with basis?
You're totally full of sh*t. El G wasn't the issue for 11 pages; it was your ignorant refusal to accept that a higher RBC (such as provided by EPO) enables increased transport of O2 per breath, which was stated in an article I provided (that you refused to accept because you can never admit error) and is a given in those articles that all refer to improved aerobic capacity from a higher RBC.
If a greater O2 intake is required from each breath to produce an increased aerobic performance there is no improvement in aerobic capacity - it remains the same, it merely means more of it is being utilized through greater effort, which includes breathing. The logic of that point, which is implicit in all the studies that refer to increased aerobic capacity, is beyond your grasp but fits well with your abysmal lack of knowledge of human physiology in relation to athletic endeavor.
I didn't say that the 11 pages were about El G, but that they were never about me, as I made no claim.
I have accepted your statement -- as one lacking any authoritative foundation.
But we can add more more question you have not answered -- are the authors of your paper experts in the field of the physiology of doping and elite performance? You should have known I would ask that question, as I said so *before* you provided the reference.
While the statement does appear in the article, it is the scientific equivalent of "hearsay" -- which I have also accepted -- for what it was worth.
The phrasing is interesting too, as your article doesn't say the body absorbs more oxygen unconditionally, but describes it as a potentiality: "it *can* absorb more oxygen with every breath", as if it were an untested hypothesis.
You keep claiming I lack knowledge of human physiology -- I could gain some of that knowledge if only you provided a suitable reference of human physiology in relation to athletic endeavor, that describes in better detail the relation of breathing to the power of EPO.
how does that work? wrote:
Thermo dino wrote:
Remember this one?
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3299978/#:~:text=Erythropoietin%20(Epo)%20treatment%20has%20been,(OXPHOS)%20capacity%20in%20humans.
Very weak. Only six untrained participants and no control.
Training doesn't do anything for your oxygen consumption ability after you've done a little bit of jogging. Remember you said that?
Point is that EPO added to theirs. Convincingly.
rekrunner wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
You're totally full of sh*t. El G wasn't the issue for 11 pages; it was your ignorant refusal to accept that a higher RBC (such as provided by EPO) enables increased transport of O2 per breath, which was stated in an article I provided (that you refused to accept because you can never admit error) and is a given in those articles that all refer to improved aerobic capacity from a higher RBC.
If a greater O2 intake is required from each breath to produce an increased aerobic performance there is no improvement in aerobic capacity - it remains the same, it merely means more of it is being utilized through greater effort, which includes breathing. The logic of that point, which is implicit in all the studies that refer to increased aerobic capacity, is beyond your grasp but fits well with your abysmal lack of knowledge of human physiology in relation to athletic endeavor.
I didn't say that the 11 pages were about El G, but that they were never about me, as I made no claim.
I have accepted your statement -- as one lacking any authoritative foundation.
But we can add more more question you have not answered -- are the authors of your paper experts in the field of the physiology of doping and elite performance? You should have known I would ask that question, as I said so *before* you provided the reference.
While the statement does appear in the article, it is the scientific equivalent of "hearsay" -- which I have also accepted -- for what it was worth.
The phrasing is interesting too, as your article doesn't say the body absorbs more oxygen unconditionally, but describes it as a potentiality: "it *can* absorb more oxygen with every breath", as if it were an untested hypothesis.
You keep claiming I lack knowledge of human physiology -- I could gain some of that knowledge if only you provided a suitable reference of human physiology in relation to athletic endeavor, that describes in better detail the relation of breathing to the power of EPO.
Ask yourself why athletes of superior fitness, including those who have doped, are able to perform with less effort, and especially are not gasping for air during or after the race. If the improved RBC did not do this we would see the best athletes heaving for breath like an out-of-competition hobby jogger and succumbing to the early build up of lactic acid. But we typically see the opposite - and that is the result of their extreme aerobic fitness, achieved by the enhanced capacity of the red blood cells to transport oxygen - which blood doping and EPO lends itself to. It means an athlete can race at this level for far longer before fatigue kicks in and it may only be at the end of the race, in a final sprint, that they move into an anaerobic phase.
Your constant harping for citations you can accept on the point above shows you really don't understand what you are seeing on the track and certainly have no experience of it. You are merely an ill-informed nerd.
how does that work? wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
You're totally full of sh*t. El G wasn't the issue for 11 pages; it was your ignorant refusal to accept that a higher RBC (such as provided by EPO) enables increased transport of O2 per breath, which was stated in an article I provided (that you refused to accept because you can never admit error) and is a given in those articles that all refer to improved aerobic capacity from a higher RBC.
If a greater O2 intake is required from each breath to produce an increased aerobic performance there is no improvement in aerobic capacity - it remains the same, it merely means more of it is being utilized through greater effort, which includes breathing. The logic of that point, which is implicit in all the studies that refer to increased aerobic capacity, is beyond your grasp but fits well with your abysmal lack of knowledge of human physiology in relation to athletic endeavor.
That is not only nonsense, it was not your original premise.
You said that it was obvious he was doped on EPO because he was barely breathing.
Make your mind up.
Come back when you've understood what was written above. In the meantime time you simply embarrass yourself, Jon.
Armstronglivs wrote:
how does that work? wrote:
That is not only nonsense, it was not your original premise.
You said that it was obvious he was doped on EPO because he was barely breathing.
Make your mind up.
Come back when you've understood what was written above. In the meantime time you simply embarrass yourself, Jon.
Armstronglivs, the great Biochemist, Bioenergetics and Oxygen Kinetics guru.
Of course your words make perfect sense to you:
"If a greater O2 intake is required from each breath to produce an increased aerobic performance there is no improvement in aerobic capacity - it remains the same, it merely means more of it is being utilized through greater effort, which includes breathing. "
It's not gobbledygook at all is it? It's pure Armstronglivs genius.
Armstronglivs wrote:
Ask yourself why athletes of superior fitness, including those who have doped, are able to perform with less effort, and especially are not gasping for air during or after the race. If the improved RBC did not do this we would see the best athletes heaving for breath like an out-of-competition hobby jogger and succumbing to the early build up of lactic acid. But we typically see the opposite - and that is the result of their extreme aerobic fitness, achieved by the enhanced capacity of the red blood cells to transport oxygen - which blood doping and EPO lends itself to. It means an athlete can race at this level for far longer before fatigue kicks in and it may only be at the end of the race, in a final sprint, that they move into an anaerobic phase.
Your constant harping for citations you can accept on the point above shows you really don't understand what you are seeing on the track and certainly have no experience of it. You are merely an ill-informed nerd.
If I'm so ill-informed and don't understand what I'm seeing, probably the worst advise you could give is for me to "ask (my)self".
It would be similarly bad to ask me to accept without question the attempted explanations from an anonymous poster -- since I'm too ill-informed to be able to assess the explanation and probably would not understand it either.
Your rationalization exlcudes many other possibilities by not considering them. You could have equally said, with similar unfounded imagination, that "training is a powerful thing", or "drafting and pacing is a powerful thing" or "self-belief is a powerful thing".
The best would be to find non-anonymous external confirmation of the answers from qualified experts to these questions:
- does "scarcely breathing" indicate "EPO is a powerful drug"
- was El G's breathing unusually low?
- was El G's red blood cell count high?
- if so, was the high red blood cell count due to EPO?
- does any expert in the field share any of these views?
- have any experts in the field performed controlled observations, and published their data and conclusions, or otherwise provided a detailed discussion with basis?
You two just love a good beating, don't you?
rekrunner wrote:
My historical observation was that nobody else could touch these times even during the "doping free-for-all like the mid to late 90's". The gaps to the 2nd and 3rd best times were not fractions of a second, but several seconds.
Certainly not true with El G in the 1500m and 1 mile.
1500: -
EL G - 3:26.00 (98)
Lagat - 3:26.34 (01)
Mile: -
EL G - 3:43.13 (99)
Ngeny - 3:43.40 (99)
In both cases, (two) fifferent runners ran within a few tenths of EL G's best times.
In the 1500m the next one on the list is from the convicted doper Kiprop.
Deanouk wrote:
rekrunner wrote:
My historical observation was that nobody else could touch these times even during the "doping free-for-all like the mid to late 90's". The gaps to the 2nd and 3rd best times were not fractions of a second, but several seconds.
Certainly not true with El G in the 1500m and 1 mile.
1500: -
EL G - 3:26.00 (98)
Lagat - 3:26.34 (01)
Mile: -
EL G - 3:43.13 (99)
Ngeny - 3:43.40 (99)
In both cases, (two) fifferent runners ran within a few tenths of EL G's best times.
In the 1500m the next one on the list is from the convicted doper Kiprop.
rekrunner doesn't accept responses like that.
It's not true for Geb and Komen over 5000m either. They were fractions apart.
Deanouk wrote:
rekrunner wrote:
My historical observation was that nobody else could touch these times even during the "doping free-for-all like the mid to late 90's". The gaps to the 2nd and 3rd best times were not fractions of a second, but several seconds.
Certainly not true with El G in the 1500m and 1 mile.
1500: -
EL G - 3:26.00 (98)
Lagat - 3:26.34 (01)
Mile: -
EL G - 3:43.13 (99)
Ngeny - 3:43.40 (99)
In both cases, (two) fifferent runners ran within a few tenths of EL G's best times.
In the 1500m the next one on the list is from the convicted doper Kiprop.
Yes -- but we were not talking about the 1500m, the mile, or the 5000m.
"A few pages back, "Salvatore Stichmo" said of El G (and Komen): "nobody is touching the 4.44 from Hichem and nobody is touching the 7.20 of Komen - unless we have another doping free-for-all like the mid to late 90's""