Shopping hour wrote:
rekrunner doesn't accept responses like that.
It's not true for Geb and Komen over 5000m either. They were fractions apart.
I can accept that it had nothing to do with the 2000m and 3000m times.
Shopping hour wrote:
rekrunner doesn't accept responses like that.
It's not true for Geb and Komen over 5000m either. They were fractions apart.
I can accept that it had nothing to do with the 2000m and 3000m times.
rekrunner wrote:
Deanouk wrote:
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""
"We" are talking about what we are talking about. The subject can change. You are free to talk about anything you choose. You usually do. "We" are not talking about an event but a runner. His name is El Guerrouj, and he happens to be the same guy who owns the 2000m record as the 1500m/mile records. I don't expect you to have realised that, as your inability to grasp the fundamentals of oxygen transfer to the muscles has also shown.
Armstronglivs wrote:
rekrunner wrote:
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""
"We" are talking about what we are talking about. The subject can change. You are free to talk about anything you choose. You usually do. "We" are not talking about an event but a runner. His name is El Guerrouj, and he happens to be the same guy who owns the 2000m record as the 1500m/mile records. I don't expect you to have realised that, as your inability to grasp the fundamentals of oxygen transfer to the muscles has also shown.
"DeanoUK" responded to me, who responded to "Salvatore Stichmo's" comments on 2000m and 3000m times.
"DeanoUK" is correct when he says "Certainly not true with El G in the 1500m and 1 mile".
I'm just making it clear to him, and/or everyone else, that the subject has changed.
Once again, I can "grasp" your stories of oxygen transfer from the lungs to the blood. But because of your failure to find an authoritative description from an expert in the field, whose ideas will ideally be backed up by data from controlled observations, what I cannot determine is whether your stories are fact or fiction. Because of your failure, you resort to suggesting it is my "inability to grasp", to mask that the true failure here lies with how you gullibly form your ideas.
Another desperate shuffling of the goalposts.
Yeah, the 2000 and 3000 are such common events. Let's desperately pounce on them to show a trend.
Shouldn't you be doing a lengthy statistical analysis of all the 2000 and 3000 m races done between 95 and 99 before you arrive at your conclusion?
How does the 1500 and mile and 5000 not have anything to do with the 2000 and 3000, Didn't Komen run them all?
Armstronglivs wrote:
rekrunner wrote:
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""
"We" are talking about what we are talking about. The subject can change. You are free to talk about anything you choose. You usually do. "We" are not talking about an event but a runner. His name is El Guerrouj, and he happens to be the same guy who owns the 2000m record as the 1500m/mile records. I don't expect you to have realised that, as your inability to grasp the fundamentals of oxygen transfer to the muscles has also shown.
You still haven't explained how he was breathing less but delivering more oxygen.
Number 25 wrote:
Another desperate shuffling of the goalposts.
Yeah, the 2000 and 3000 are such common events. Let's desperately pounce on them to show a trend.
Shouldn't you be doing a lengthy statistical analysis of all the 2000 and 3000 m races done between 95 and 99 before you arrive at your conclusion?
How does the 1500 and mile and 5000 not have anything to do with the 2000 and 3000, Didn't Komen run them all?
The goalposts were shuffled, but not by me.
"Salvatore Stichmo" constructed these goalposts, and I only commented on his goals.
The 1500m and 5000m are different goalposts -- I have offered no comment other than that they are not the same goalposts.
I have already done the analysis on all the 2000m and 3000m races between 1995 and 1999, and provided my conclusions based on the results.
how does that work? wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
"We" are talking about what we are talking about. The subject can change. You are free to talk about anything you choose. You usually do. "We" are not talking about an event but a runner. His name is El Guerrouj, and he happens to be the same guy who owns the 2000m record as the 1500m/mile records. I don't expect you to have realised that, as your inability to grasp the fundamentals of oxygen transfer to the muscles has also shown.
You still haven't explained how he was breathing less but delivering more oxygen.
Clearly you're never going to understand.
rekrunner wrote:
Number 25 wrote:
Another desperate shuffling of the goalposts.
Yeah, the 2000 and 3000 are such common events. Let's desperately pounce on them to show a trend.
Shouldn't you be doing a lengthy statistical analysis of all the 2000 and 3000 m races done between 95 and 99 before you arrive at your conclusion?
How does the 1500 and mile and 5000 not have anything to do with the 2000 and 3000, Didn't Komen run them all?
The goalposts were shuffled, but not by me.
"Salvatore Stichmo" constructed these goalposts, and I only commented on his goals.
The 1500m and 5000m are different goalposts -- I have offered no comment other than that they are not the same goalposts.
I have already done the analysis on all the 2000m and 3000m races between 1995 and 1999, and provided my conclusions based on the results.
You must not have realized that the same guys (ElG and Komen)were playing.
Shopping hour wrote:
You must not have realized that the same guys (ElG and Komen)were playing.
I realized they also played on a different field with different goalposts.
how does that work? wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
"We" are talking about what we are talking about. The subject can change. You are free to talk about anything you choose. You usually do. "We" are not talking about an event but a runner. His name is El Guerrouj, and he happens to be the same guy who owns the 2000m record as the 1500m/mile records. I don't expect you to have realised that, as your inability to grasp the fundamentals of oxygen transfer to the muscles has also shown.
You still haven't explained how he was breathing less but delivering more oxygen.
I did 11 pages back but your mind never progressed beyond your question. It never will.
rekrunner wrote:
Shopping hour wrote:
You must not have realized that the same guys (ElG and Komen)were playing.
I realized they also played on a different field with different goalposts.
Same field, same players.
Shopping hour wrote:
how does that work? wrote:
You still haven't explained how he was breathing less but delivering more oxygen.
Clearly you're never going to understand.
Clearly you think you are some kind of expert on oxygen kinetics.
Armstronglivs wrote:
how does that work? wrote:
You still haven't explained how he was breathing less but delivering more oxygen.
I did 11 pages back but your mind never progressed beyond your question. It never will.
No, you invented a scenario where the volume of oxygen in the air was different to the actual figure of 21% but only when you have 20-25 more red blood cells.
How does that work?
rekrunner wrote:
what I cannot determine is whether your stories are fact or fiction.
Youre not capable of determining whether anything is fact or fiction. It doesn't matter how many pages there are in the thread - you will leave it as ignorant as when you arrived.
how does that work? wrote:
Shopping hour wrote:
Clearly you're never going to understand.
Clearly you think you are some kind of expert on oxygen kinetics.
Back atcha.
how does that work? wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
I did 11 pages back but your mind never progressed beyond your question. It never will.
No, you invented a scenario where the volume of oxygen in the air was different to the actual figure of 21% but only when you have 20-25 more red blood cells.
How does that work?
You made that up. False premise.
how does that work? wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
I did 11 pages back but your mind never progressed beyond your question. It never will.
No, you invented a scenario where the volume of oxygen in the air was different to the actual figure of 21% but only when you have 20-25 more red blood cells.
How does that work?
I invented no scenario. That is all your own work. But, as I said, your mind cannot progress beyond your question. Clearly, the absence of a cerebral cortex.
Armstronglivs wrote:
how does that work? wrote:
No, you invented a scenario where the volume of oxygen in the air was different to the actual figure of 21% but only when you have 20-25 more red blood cells.
How does that work?
I invented no scenario. That is all your own work. But, as I said, your mind cannot progress beyond your question. Clearly, the absence of a cerebral cortex.
So how does EPO extract a greater volume of oxygen from the same volume of air?
Do you even understand what the figures are?
Armstronglivs wrote:
rekrunner wrote:
what I cannot determine is whether your stories are fact or fiction.
Youre not capable of determining whether anything is fact or fiction. It doesn't matter how many pages there are in the thread - you will leave it as ignorant as when you arrived.
Independent of my capabilities, you have completely failed to provide an authoritative reference to support why you believe what you say, let alone why I should believe it.
To recap, you have provided:
- a sports science blog covering a cycling study which did not mention breathing, where Ross Tucker expressed at least 4 reasons why you should exercise caution when trying to interpret that study
- an opinion paper written by an ethics chair and two child researchers, with no obvious credentials to explain the relation between doping and the breathing of elite athletes, arguing to legalize drugs for athletes, in favor of health (which BTW contradicts something you argued in another thread), which happened to repeat a statement about extracting more oxygen from one breath, without any data or citation. (I should note that athletes take more than one breath during and after intense exercise). It's almost as if you just googled "red blood cells" and "breath", and that was the best reference you could find.
citric acid cyclist wrote:
So how does EPO extract a greater volume of oxygen from the same volume of air?
Do you even understand what the figures are?
False premise that you just made up.
It's the rbcs that do the extracting. not the EPO.
Have you studied how those extra rbcs work? Do you understand the figures?
I mean you admit EPO causes an increase in rbcs. Are they inactive?