http://www.letsrun.com/forum/flat_read.php?thread=8893081Subway Surfers wrote:
Or sub 3:30 times away from Monaco.
:)
http://www.letsrun.com/forum/flat_read.php?thread=8893081Subway Surfers wrote:
Or sub 3:30 times away from Monaco.
:)
Yes one, my point made. Thank you.
ex-runner wrote:
Coevett wrote:
So basically all Kenyan success at running can be attributed to the good luck of being born at altitude? They can't even learn to jump over a hurdle correctly. It's no wonder they can't even compete at any other sport.
What is this pointless insult of the Kenyan people as a collective for? 'They can't even learn to hurdle'? Get a life you absolute loser.
Emma Coburn ran 8:48 for the 3k flat in 2017 and she also ran her steeple PB of 9:02. 14 second difference. Muir's PB is 8:26 so add 14s and she could potentially run 8:40 for the steeple.
The truth is that steeple is run by B grade women. That's both Kenyans and Europeans.
Until Beatrice had a go.
Subway Surfers wrote:
Is it still humanly possible to run 7:27 or better for 3,000m?
Or sub 3:30 times away from Monaco.
Is that a serious question?
Hutchings proves that El Guerrouj was clean.. .dude never sub-12:50 in his career.
Kooks wrote:
There's no evidence that heat is the limiting factor in middle distance running. Times in 90F are the same if not faster than times at 50F in the 800 and 1500.
Not in short races, but that doesn't mean that anyone can exceed their thermoregulatory limits without problems. After racing in those conditions, the athletes will begin sweating profusely the moment they stop running. We can store heat for a short while and realease it, when the temperature gradient is amenable.
But heat production is always one of the limiting factors in cell respiration beyond a certain point. Up to that point it will be an advantage.
The blood boosting/ped dogma is really saying that cell respiration can be enhanced with more red blood cells, implying that the human body doesn't produce enough for endurance races. This is beyond bad science, it's weird cult belief. Exercise physiologists are expected to go along with this craziness and not question it. But that's how science works... dysfunctionally.
LM wrote:
We have the present data from today. We know that guys are going up climbs like Alp D'Huez at 6w/kg.
If Lance and Pantani were also producing 6w/kg then how were they going up Alp D'Huez 10-15% faster than today's current riders?
Where are you getting 10-15 % faster from. In 2003 when Lance went up L'Alpe d'Huez in a similar race in similar conditons, his time was exactly the same as Bardet last week, 41.23
Lance's 2001 time was more than 3 minutes faster because it was perfect condtions and he had been itching to destroy Ulrich for days. He took 2 minutes out of Jan and they were both on the same drugs weren't they?
Pantani was possibly the greatest climber that cycling has ever seen? I think so, don't you?
Subway Surfers wrote:
Yes one, my point made. Thank you.
One so far.
And what point do you mean?
You seemed to be asking a question.
El Keniano wrote:
ex-runner wrote:
What is this pointless insult of the Kenyan people as a collective for? 'They can't even learn to hurdle'? Get a life you absolute loser.
Emma Coburn ran 8:48 for the 3k flat in 2017 and she also ran her steeple PB of 9:02. 14 second difference. Muir's PB is 8:26 so add 14s and she could potentially run 8:40 for the steeple.
The truth is that steeple is run by B grade women. That's both Kenyans and Europeans.
Until Beatrice had a go.
Correct.
GTFO here with "thermoregulatroy" limits. You clearly don't know what you are talking about.
it's 2018 not 1998 wrote:
Kooks wrote:
There's no evidence that heat is the limiting factor in middle distance running. Times in 90F are the same if not faster than times at 50F in the 800 and 1500.
Not in short races, but that doesn't mean that anyone can exceed their thermoregulatory limits without problems. After racing in those conditions, the athletes will begin sweating profusely the moment they stop running. We can store heat for a short while and realease it, when the temperature gradient is amenable.
But heat production is always one of the limiting factors in cell respiration beyond a certain point. Up to that point it will be an advantage.
The blood boosting/ped dogma is really saying that cell respiration can be enhanced with more red blood cells, implying that the human body doesn't produce enough for endurance races. This is beyond bad science, it's weird cult belief. Exercise physiologists are expected to go along with this craziness and not question it. But that's how science works... dysfunctionally.
Are you aware that training can increase the number of red blood cells? Why would it be surprising that an artificial, drug-induced increase in red blood cell product would mimic the effect of a training adaption and increase performance?
Red blood cells wrote:
it's 2018 not 1998 wrote:
Not in short races, but that doesn't mean that anyone can exceed their thermoregulatory limits without problems. After racing in those conditions, the athletes will begin sweating profusely the moment they stop running. We can store heat for a short while and realease it, when the temperature gradient is amenable.
But heat production is always one of the limiting factors in cell respiration beyond a certain point. Up to that point it will be an advantage.
The blood boosting/ped dogma is really saying that cell respiration can be enhanced with more red blood cells, implying that the human body doesn't produce enough for endurance races. This is beyond bad science, it's weird cult belief. Exercise physiologists are expected to go along with this craziness and not question it. But that's how science works... dysfunctionally.
Are you aware that training can increase the number of red blood cells? Why would it be surprising that an artificial, drug-induced increase in red blood cell product would mimic the effect of a training adaption and increase performance?
We have a natural level of red blood cell production when we are healthy. That is all the body needs to compete at any level.
There is a lot of mythologizing about oxygen uptake. Again we have a normal healthy level beyond which we don't go or need to go. When people talk about improving aerobic capacity or aerobic development etc they are talking nonsense. But it's part of the culture to repeat this nonsense without questioning it.
https://www.scienceofrunning.com/2009/12/fallacy-of-vo2max-and-vo2max.html?v=79cba1185463pretend science wrote:
GTFO here with "thermoregulatroy" limits. You clearly don't know what you are talking about.
If the concept of over heating is over your head, then.... well what can I say?
it's 2018 not 1998 wrote:
LM wrote:
We have the present data from today. We know that guys are going up climbs like Alp D'Huez at 6w/kg.
If Lance and Pantani were also producing 6w/kg then how were they going up Alp D'Huez 10-15% faster than today's current riders?
Where are you getting 10-15 % faster from. In 2003 when Lance went up L'Alpe d'Huez in a similar race in similar conditons, his time was exactly the same as Bardet last week, 41.23
Lance's 2001 time was more than 3 minutes faster because it was perfect condtions and he had been itching to destroy Ulrich for days. He took 2 minutes out of Jan and they were both on the same drugs weren't they?
Pantani was possibly the greatest climber that cycling has ever seen? I think so, don't you?
What's your point Jon? Btw, you're not telling the whole story.
2003 was Armstrong's worst Tour barely holding on to beat an also doped up Ulrich. Armstrong said he was sick & dehydrated during a lot of the Tour that year (one of the hottest on record). There's also speculation that he got an infection from one of his BBs he transfused.
You're right - LA smoked the 01 Alpe d'Huez setting the 6th fastest time ever. In 03 he had a bad climb finishing a couple minutes off of Iban Mayo's winning time. In 04 he smoked it again (rare TT course), setting the 4th fastest time ever (behind Pantani's top 3).
When Mayo, who's a confirmed doper (EPO), won it 03 over LA, he set the 17th fastest time and finished 6th OA in the Tour. So, one doper was on his game that day and one doper wasn't. ?
http://www.climbing-records.com/2015/07/three-riders-make-it-into-alpe-dhuez.html?m=1it's 2018 not 1998 wrote:
pretend science wrote:
GTFO here with "thermoregulatroy" limits. You clearly don't know what you are talking about.
If the concept of over heating is over your head, then.... well what can I say?
No one can help you if you think over heating means that doping doesn't work. A drug that increases red blood cell count and oxygen transport doesn't work because ... (wait for it) ... over heating. GTFO.
Yes that's correct we have thermoregulatory limits. The idea that you can over ride them to produce more energy is pure pseudoscience.
it's 2018 not 1998 wrote:
Red blood cells wrote:
Are you aware that training can increase the number of red blood cells? Why would it be surprising that an artificial, drug-induced increase in red blood cell product would mimic the effect of a training adaption and increase performance?
We have a natural level of red blood cell production when we are healthy. That is all the body needs to compete at any level.
There is a lot of mythologizing about oxygen uptake. Again we have a normal healthy level beyond which we don't go or need to go. When people talk about improving aerobic capacity or aerobic development etc they are talking nonsense. But it's part of the culture to repeat this nonsense without questioning it.
https://www.scienceofrunning.com/2009/12/fallacy-of-vo2max-and-vo2max.html?v=79cba1185463
I'm having trouble understanding what your theory is. Are you advocating for the central governor theory? I'm basing that guess from the link you posted. What adaptions do you think training confers that are beneficial in improving race times?
it's 2018 not 1998 wrote:
Yes that's correct we have thermoregulatory limits. The idea that you can over ride them to produce more energy is pure pseudoscience.
You're the only person who's talking about over-riding thermoregulatory limits. I haven't seen anyone else suggest that.
red blood cells wrote:
I'm having trouble understanding what your theory is. Are you advocating for the central governor theory? I'm basing that guess from the link you posted. What adaptions do you think training confers that are beneficial in improving race times?
His "theory" if it can even be called that, is ankle flexion is responsible for speed. He has no demonstrated expertise or experience, has never conducted any experiment, is incapable of performing basic math related to running, and responds to any challenges by name-calling. Yet he claims that he knows better than all of the exercise physiologists in the world.
search Jon Orange and you can read a long history of him posting his nonsense on here. It is not a worthwhile rabbit-hole to go down.
Red blood cells wrote:
it's 2018 not 1998 wrote:
Not in short races, but that doesn't mean that anyone can exceed their thermoregulatory limits without problems. After racing in those conditions, the athletes will begin sweating profusely the moment they stop running. We can store heat for a short while and realease it, when the temperature gradient is amenable.
But heat production is always one of the limiting factors in cell respiration beyond a certain point. Up to that point it will be an advantage.
The blood boosting/ped dogma is really saying that cell respiration can be enhanced with more red blood cells, implying that the human body doesn't produce enough for endurance races. This is beyond bad science, it's weird cult belief. Exercise physiologists are expected to go along with this craziness and not question it. But that's how science works... dysfunctionally.
Are you aware that training can increase the number of red blood cells? Why would it be surprising that an artificial, drug-induced increase in red blood cell product would mimic the effect of a training adaption and increase performance?
He's not aware.
This guy literally said that steroids won't improve shotput performance.