rekrunner wrote:
Aaah, the psychological and placebo effects...
Lombardy wrote:"For Lombard, the expected EPO benefit is at best a minor factor".
It was 100% responsible for him being able and inspired to train better.
Real
rekrunner wrote:
Aaah, the psychological and placebo effects...
Lombardy wrote:"For Lombard, the expected EPO benefit is at best a minor factor".
It was 100% responsible for him being able and inspired to train better.
Real
Prove that proper training is not also just a placebo effect.
placebo mandingo wrote:
Prove that proper training is not also just a placebo effect.
Easy. Just take the physiologic parameters after rich training , and you will see the enhance of that values, what leads to performance improve.
António Cabral wrote:
placebo mandingo wrote:Prove that proper training is not also just a placebo effect.
Easy. Just take the physiologic parameters after rich training , and you will see the enhance of that values, what leads to performance improve.
That doesn't prove it was the training, maybe the person just believed that there would be an enhancement because their coach sold them on the idea.
nouse4aname wrote:
Good science, bad science wrote:Efficiecy is defined as the amount of work completed devided by the amount of energy required to do that work.
Firstly, please stop using the term "efficiency" when you are talking about "economy". They are not the same thing! Andrew Jones was measuring running economy in Paula Radcliffe, and never mentioned metabolic efficiency at any point. In fact he only mentioned glycogen once in his entire discussion..
Here is a link to the article for those in doubt:
Jones (2006) The physiology of the world record holder for the women's marathon. Int J Sports Sci Coach, 1 (2); 101 - 116
https://www.exeter.ac.uk/media/universityofexeter/internationalexeter/documents/iss/paula_ijssc_paper.pdfGood science, bad science wrote:.
Yes Paula was using less oxygen. Less glycogen does mean less oxgyen
Please stop saying that!!! The statement is absolutely false! It was false in your initial post and it is still false. Fat requires more oxygen to burn than glycogen. That is a measurable fact!
The oxidation of 1 mol of glucose requires 6 mol of O2, generating 38 mol of ATP. That equates to 6.3 mol ATP per mol of O2.
The oxidation of 1 mol of palmitate (16-C fatty acid chain) requires 31 mol of O2, generating 129 mol of ATP. That equates to 4.1 mol ATP per mol of O2.
Once again, here's a reference for those that doubt what i'm saying:
Kessler & Friedman (1998) Metabolism of fatty acids and glucose. Circulation, 98; 1350a - 1353
http://circ.ahajournals.org/content/98/13/1350a.fullGood science, bad science wrote:
fat is more energy efficient, 21.1 kj per liter of oxygen vs 19.6 for glycogen
Dear God man!!!! You do realise you have those numbers backwards, right?
Fat is 19.6 kj/L and glucose is 21.1 kj/L. And you think my biochemistry is bad?
Once again, an article for those that doubt what i'm saying:
http://www.asep.org/asep/asep/ScottJEPonlineAugust2008.pdfGood science, bad science wrote:
Yes Paula was using less oxygen. Less glycogen does mean less oxgyen also. Yes her fat burning percentage was higher, but fat is more energy efficient, 21.1 kj per liter of oxygen vs 19.6 for glycogen, so at a lower lactate level with less glycogen and more fat, she is more using less oxygen than her drug accusers realize. Which was my reason for starting this thread.
As you said yourself, you started this thread based on a theory that Paula Radcliffe is burning less O2 therefore using less glycogen. That statement is factually incorrect. You have your numbers backwards and don't know what you're talking about...
One final article to prove my point that improved running economy is not related to a decrease in glycogen metabolism. Saunders et al. (2004) suggested that increased glucose metabolism due to altitude exposure was the likely explanation for decreased oxygen consumption which they saw in elite runners. So more glucose, less oxygen burned. That conclusion is the exact opposite of what you stated.
Here is a link to the Saunders article:
Saunders et al. (2004). Improved running economy in elite runners after 20 days of simulated moderate-altitude exposure. J Appl Physiol, 96; 931 - 937
http://www.sportingedgeuk.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/Saunders-running-economy-JAP-2004.pdfGood science, bad science wrote:
Don't presume to lecture me on bioenergetics or biochemistry, you are very lacking in knowledge.
Once again, thanks for that critical evaluation. Coming from the guy who has his basic biochemistry ass backward, you'll forgive me if i ignore your opinion...
Yes, I got the heat production values back to front, just like you did with the two examples of two runners'. Those figures relate to relative heat production values.
I am working with different figures to calculate the oxygen uptake of fat metabolism than the ones you quote. I have 34 ATP for aerobic respiration of glucose for 6 02 molecules (2 or 3 ATP provided anaerobically) 5.66 ATP per 02 molecule and 26 molecules of 02 providing 147 of ATP 5.7 per 02 02molecule. This is for our fat metabolism not palmitate.
At altitude, we use less glycogen not more, this is knows as the glucose/lacate paradox, that is what leads to better economy for altitude trained runners.
DukeBoss wrote:
So OP ??? "Lactate curves of elite athletes show that EPO/ Blood boosting is pointless."
Where is the double blinded clinical trial?
If you cannot provide such info your point is weak.
Eltie runners use less oxygen than sub elites. A typical value for a non elite might be 210 ml of oxyge per kg of bodyweight per kilometer run and for elites it might be 190ml/kg/km
http://sportsscientists.com/2007/12/running-economy-part-i/The figure for Zarsenay Tadese has obviously been miscalculated but the principle stil remains relevant to this discussion.
So the fitter you are, the less oxygen you use to race, and the less energy too.
This is the oposite of conventional wisdom, which mythologizes the concept of 'aerobic development'.
Good Science -
Dude, by your premise, oxygen uptake could go to zero, and the athlete would be able to perform just fine.
Do you want to learn this or just be an ass?
Why would he want to learn something that is wrong?
It's not wrong, it's basic physiology. If you read through what nouse4aname is writing, you will see how desperately confused he is. How much pseudosicentific nonsense he is writing and how much he is contradicting himself. Even in some posts agreeing with my basic premise.
Again, this is basic physiology, this stuff has been known for decades. Somone has to point out the insanity of saying one thing and then completely contradicting that point, which exercize physiologists do constantly.
You still haven't answered any questions regarding what you consider proper training.
Gary Oldman wrote:
You still haven't answered any questions regarding what you consider proper training.
I would like to see some clarification on his training ideas as well, but in this thread I think that he has alluded that a Lydiard-type approach is a solid one and is generally in line with his principles.
rekrunner wrote:
"Good science" -- can you elaborate how "Paula Radcliffe's tests by Professor Andy Jones show this"?
You didn't present us a link, so forgive me if my conclusions are from the wrong source, but if you are referring to this paper:
https://www.exeter.ac.uk/media/universityofexeter/internationalexeter/documents/iss/paula_ijssc_paper.pdfthere is nothing I can find about glycogen usage, nor efficiency, let alone addressing any potential points of using drugs.
As an aside, important in a thread emphasizing the merits of "good science", Andrew Jones published Paula's Running Economy (RE), pretty much ignoring "Efficiency":
1) Efficiency measures the percentage of total energy produced/consumed, versus energy actually used for the desired work (i.e. producing propulsive power at the feet)
2) Economy measures how the total energy produced/consumed translates to the desired running speed
With respect to glycogen, although glycogen usage goes down, for a fixed speed, Paula also tended to run faster, so it's possible the rate of glycogen usage stayed the same, or even increased. Drugs and procedures targeting improved oxygen delivery, and/or utilization, could still be relevant, despite a demonstrated increased running economy (or presumed efficiency). Drugs also have other mechanisms not connected to oxygen (e.g. protective and improved recovery benefits), bringing potential points of utility not raised by Andrew Jones, nor discussions about glycogen or oxygen uptake.
With respect to Andrew Jones' paper, what surprises me is how little we can use the presented data to determine the causes of Paula's improved speed. None of the other measurements correlate with the progression of improved speed. It's not wrong to paraphrase, "in the 12 years of extensive measurements in this longitudinal case study, Paula runs faster, but we just don't really know why, because we didn't make the right measurements."
This isn't just my conclusion, because in the Discussion section, Andrew Jones seems to agree:
"The physiological mechanisms responsible for the remarkable improvements in the parameters of aerobic fitness over a 12-year period in this exceptional athlete can only be speculated upon." "it appears that enhanced exercise economy is central to the continued improvements in endurance exercise performance noted in elite athletes [37, 38]. However, because exercise economy is itself influenced by a wide variety of factors [12, 14, 15], it is very difficult to pinpoint the mechanism responsible for the improved RE reported herein for (Paula Radcliffe)." The rest of the discussion speculates about 10 possible areas where studies support improvements in economy might have occurred.
Similarly, the paper provides no data that suggests her improvements were due to "better training" rather than "blood boosting".
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.
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.
In the article, Jones refers to 'running economy' which really means oxygen economy, but is obviously relevant to distance running. He also mentions fractional utilization which is another way of saying the same thing. He also says that these factors are linked to lactate accumulation in blood and muscle.
He also mentions the expression of the value of running economy that I refered to yesterday: oxygen uptake measured in terms of milliliters of oxygen per kilogram of bodyweight per kilometer run and that a value of 200 ml/kg/min is average and that values above and below this value represent superior or inferior economy, how this relates to glycogen utilisation and how this is related to biomechanical factors.
He then goes on to say how a right shift in the lactate curve is indicative of an improvement in endurance fitness, and then to show Paula Radcliffe's amazing progression from World Class junior to beyond what the typical letsrun idiot poster can accept as possible without drugs. But he shows that this is due to improvement in running economy, not oxygen uptake. He shows how Paula's blood lacate measurement even at 20km/hour and beyong are still below the accepted 'lactate threshold measurement' of 4mmols.
So even though she was supposedly 'super human' she was actually using less oxygen, and less glycogen and producing less lactate than what is supposedly expected for 'normal' runners. This was due to fitness, not blood boosting methods which are purported to increase oxygen uptake.
Gary Oldman wrote:
You still haven't answered any questions regarding what you consider proper training.
Yes I have.
want to learn wrote:
Gary Oldman wrote:You still haven't answered any questions regarding what you consider proper training.
I would like to see some clarification on his training ideas as well, but in this thread I think that he has alluded that a Lydiard-type approach is a solid one and is generally in line with his principles.
I agree with the Lydiard philosophy. I went further than that to say that I don't think other so called 'Lydiardists' understand that true Lydiardism acknowledges that drugs are not the way. Yes he had to mention drugs in some way or another in his writing (the one with Baumann on the cover) surely his publishers and readers would expect this? But I'm sure his philosophy was that the human body cannot be improved by so called 'performance enhancing drugs'.
It is very important to recognize how many exercize phsyiologists have either a drug obsession or they have a vested interest in getting results published which purportedly show an improvement due to thes drug interventions. Don't be Naïeve enough to trust these researchers, who get more funding and recognition if they can show an improvement in performance from these drugs, and none if they don't. Look carefully at the data and see the contradictions.
mo'pak wrote:
I am not sure whether or not everyone realises that Renato Canova has stated on this forum that EPO WILL improve African elites at 5000 and 10000m. I specifically asked him whether Geb would be advantaged by it in such events and he said yes.
I asked him on this forum about Haile about 10 years ago and he said the opposite, that Haile had a normal hematocrit of 41.
Oh, so cardio based just like everyone already knows.
BTW, Why don't you know how to spell exercise?
Good science, bad science wrote:
mo'pak wrote:I am not sure whether or not everyone realises that Renato Canova has stated on this forum that EPO WILL improve African elites at 5000 and 10000m. I specifically asked him whether Geb would be advantaged by it in such events and he said yes.
I asked him on this forum about Haile about 10 years ago and he said the opposite, that Haile had a normal hematocrit of 41.
And I asked him on this forum more recenty and he said Haile would benefit at 5000m (but not in a marathon).
Curious how he would have accurate data on Haile's hematocrit anyway.
I have good first hand knowledge of horse racing and have seen quite obvious improvement in racehorse performance when given "blood boosting" agents. I suspect these horses aren"t falling for the placebo effect so I think it is the EPO or the blood bags or the Blue Magic that is doing it.
rekrunner wrote:
I get the point, but can you double check your math, and your runners?
Well spotted! It should read the following:
Runner 1 has an RER of 0.92. They are burning less oxygen (2.5 L/min) but more glycogen. They are less efficient.
Runner 2 has an RER of 0.81. They are burning more oxygen (2.6 L/min) but less glycogen. They are more efficient.
In any case, the principle remains the same; lower oxygen consumption does not mean lower glycogen metabolism. Carbon for carbon, it requires less O2 to burn glycogen than it does to burn fat. That is a measurable fact! I cannot understand "bad science's" refusal to accept this point. Despite being provided ample evidence, he continues to make the same false statement that "less oxygen means less glycogen breakdown". Ignoring measurable facts is something insane people do and it is impossible to argue with an insane person...