The 'Performance Enhancing Drug' concept goes against the laws of physics

Deductive Reasoning wrote:

Jon Orange wrote:

I got the times I deserved. Didn't you?

Nice dodge of the issue.

I'm not done improving. My engine is still getting bigger.

It's not your 'engine' that you need to improve. It's your efficiency. That's the point. You cardiovascular system is not going to improve. Your skill can improve a lot.

Jon Orange wrote:

Deductive Reasoning wrote:

Nice dodge of the issue.

I'm not done improving. My engine is still getting bigger.

It's not your 'engine' that you need to improve. It's your efficiency. That's the point. You cardiovascular system is not going to improve. Your skill can improve a lot.

I had it measured. It improved just like Kastor's improved. I'm too old to learn new skills.

Deductive Reasoning wrote:

Jon Orange wrote:

So how fast would Chris Froome run a 10k off no running training?

He wouldn't break 40 minutes. He would be in agony before half way.

"

the pain is not a problem. When did you decide it was?

Read more:

http://www.letsrun.com/forum/flat_read.php?thread=7583364&page=9#ixzz4J6apdXDX

What is so special about 40 minutes in your mind?

Miss the point much? Read what I actually wrote about pain. When you are in top form it's not an issue.

Chris Froome's running agony would be his legs tightening beyond their ability to sustain 7 minute miling.

You don't believe all those steroids Marita Koch took had any effect on her athletic performance, do you?

Cuckoo.

Jon Orange wrote:

Deductive Reasoning wrote:

"

the pain is not a problem. When did you decide it was?

Read more:

http://www.letsrun.com/forum/flat_read.php?thread=7583364&page=9#ixzz4J6apdXDX

What is so special about 40 minutes in your mind?

Miss the point much? Read what I actually wrote about pain. When you are in top form it's not an issue.

Chris Froome's running agony would be his legs tightening beyond their ability to sustain 7 minute miling.

What's so special about 7 minute miles? How fast do you think he would run then?

Deductive Reasoning wrote:

Jon Orange wrote:

It's not your 'engine' that you need to improve. It's your efficiency. That's the point. You cardiovascular system is not going to improve. Your skill can improve a lot.

I had it measured. It improved just like Kastor's improved. I'm too old to learn new skills.

If you say so.

I don't believe there is anything special about a woman running 47.6 for 400m.

I think 400 coaches don't know how to coach.

Maybe in South Africa, there is a different approach.

Anyway, if you want to trade insults,you are a coward and I'm not.

Jon Orange wrote:

trollism wrote:

You don't believe all those steroids Marita Koch took had any effect on her athletic performance, do you?

Cuckoo.

I don't believe there is anything special about a woman running 47.6 for 400m.

I think 400 coaches don't know how to coach.

Maybe in South Africa, there is a different approach.

Anyway, if you want to trade insults,you are a coward and I'm not.

If you say so.

test2 wrote:

Jon Orange wrote:

Why don't you read my posts?

I have and don't understand them. I thought maybe you'd care to explain them since that's ostensibly why you bother posting. If you post for other reasons, I can't imagine what they are. Is this just exercise for your thumbs? If this is trolling why aren't you funnier? If this is science why not try to make sense?

Newton's second law of motion, force = mass x acceleration in running terms:

Your running efficiency is determined by your ability to decelerate less on landing and accelerate more on push off. Your, skill level.

So you use less energy for a given pace. Thus at race pace, you use less total energy in that race if you improve your skill.

We discussed this on another thread. You do understand it, so stop trolling.

Jon Orange wrote:

test2 wrote:

I have and don't understand them. I thought maybe you'd care to explain them since that's ostensibly why you bother posting. If you post for other reasons, I can't imagine what they are. Is this just exercise for your thumbs? If this is trolling why aren't you funnier? If this is science why not try to make sense?

Newton's second law of motion, force = mass x acceleration in running terms:

Your running efficiency is determined by your ability to decelerate less on landing and accelerate more on push off. Your, skill level.

So you use less energy for a given pace. Thus at race pace, you use less total energy in that race if you improve your skill.

We discussed this on another thread. You do understand it, so stop trolling.

You keep saying that endlessly. It's wrong.

Jon Orange wrote:

The Moronic Miler wrote:

So drugs won't improve what is humanly possible, they just help you to maximize what is possible.

And you're calling someone else crazy?

You put it better than me. I think he want to show that he believes in drugs because everyone else does and he doesn't want to stand out from the crowd and risk his oh so precious reputation, even though he's anonymous.

Isn't that how most people think? I don't know what they are scared of? Why don't the brojos post under their names on this issue? It's pathetic really. They would rather troll than confront the issue intelligently.

Jon, I am very open to any and all ideas.

I have not seen any discussion that makes any logical sense as to why PEDs don't work. Your idea about energy has no relation to sports performance whatsoever.

It assumes that every performance uses all the energy an athlete has available to them.

I am an engineer and very used to creating and following models of more complex systems. That model is completely false.

Jon Orange wrote:

Deductive Reasoning wrote:

Nice dodge of the issue.

I'm not done improving. My engine is still getting bigger.

It's not your 'engine' that you need to improve. It's your efficiency. That's the point. You cardiovascular system is not going to improve. Your skill can improve a lot.

Also I do believe in running skill, of course. Biomechanical efficiency improvements are real. But your idea that the aerobic system is not the number 1 factor in an endurance athletes performance is wrong.

One year I could not run due to a knee problem. I used the exercise bike extensively and did not run at all. After a few months of that I gave running a go and was able to better my 5k PB at a local Parkrun that weekend without having done any running specific training.

Froome would absolutely run a very decent time in the 10k. He is missing out on running practice I agree, but that would not be as drastically important as you think it is. He would smoke you that's for sure. So if you are picking numbers like 40 minutes out of the air because that's around your ability then just stop.

Sorry, but you're missing the point completely. We all have a maximum oxygen uptake that we can't go beyond. It needs nothing more than basic health and fitness to achieve this; a healthy cardiovascular/cardiopulmonary system. This is well documented from long ago, but not well known, in fact very few people know this.

You don't know this, and 99.9% of letsrun posters don't know this. What's worse is that they don't want to know. Don't be like them.

Neither do you understand the basic physics of running. Sorry, but you don't. You don't understand the absolute basic physics principle of running efficiency. It is as I have described it. Don't just post replies that it's wrong when you don't even understand it. It's basic biomechanics, look it up. Stop spouting endless opinions about things you don't understand. That's just typical internet attention seeking. Educate yourself. LOOK IT TF UP.

Deductive Reasoning wrote:

I'm too old to learn new skills.

trollism wrote:

You don't believe all those steroids Marita Koch took had any effect on her athletic performance, do you?

Cuckoo.

Magnumoran wrote:

Jon Orange wrote:

Newton's second law of motion, force = mass x acceleration in running terms:

Your running efficiency is determined by your ability to decelerate less on landing and accelerate more on push off. Your, skill level.

So you use less energy for a given pace. Thus at race pace, you use less total energy in that race if you improve your skill.

We discussed this on another thread. You do understand it, so stop trolling.

You keep saying that endlessly. It's wrong.

No, it's basic biomechanics. It's what every runner should know, but almost none of them do. And you wonder why I don't share your naive belief in so called PEDs?

Magnumoran wrote:

Jon Orange wrote:

Newton's second law of motion, force = mass x acceleration in running terms:

Your running efficiency is determined by your ability to decelerate less on landing and accelerate more on push off. Your, skill level.

So you use less energy for a given pace. Thus at race pace, you use less total energy in that race if you improve your skill.

We discussed this on another thread. You do understand it, so stop trolling.

You keep saying that endlessly. It's wrong.

This part he has right. By definition efficiency == power_out/power_in for a mechanical system.

It's his claim that natural limits to power generation can not be enhanced/exceeded by unnatural means that is not well supported and apparently counter-factual per any number of studies on PEDs.

Jon Orange wrote:

trollism wrote:

You don't believe all those steroids Marita Koch took had any effect on her athletic performance, do you?

Cuckoo.

I don't believe there is anything special about a woman running 47.6 for 400m.

I think 400 coaches don't know how to coach.

Maybe in South Africa, there is a different approach.

Anyway, if you want to trade insults,you are a coward and I'm not.

Do you think that the women's world record should be as fast as the men's world record but the difference is training?

If you don't believe this (which you might, I don't think there is a limit that can be set on how ridiculous you can be) this means that you must believe in the effects of steroids.

A sprinter or shotputter barely uses anywhere near their maximum oxygen uptake. Please explain how one person is able to outperform another in strength or speed events that do not rely on the aerobic energy systems?

Your model just has far too many holes. What exactly am I supposed to look up?

Once again, I agree that running economy is real. Biomechanical efficiency can be improved and makes a big difference. But you are treating these things as if they are the wonder ingredient the world has overlooked. You are VERY late to the party, my friend.