RE: If you believe in the concept of Performance Enhancing Drugs......

J.R. wrote:

kjhgvkhvgb wrote:

They don't believe in drugs, but call for the repealing of bans? If drugs did nothing, they shouldn't care either way. They're trying to justify repealing the bans by saying the drugs do nothing.

Because bans are the issue, and the reason for the drug hypocrisy, not drugs themselves, which is total BS. Drugs are simply an excuse to hold up signs and get competition banned for no good reason, to decide who gets medals and who is no longer able to compete, for being too fast, or being from the wrong country, or whatever. People taking drugs are not the real culprits, though delusional like many of you, but those who push the drug issue for their personal and political gains.

But you're the nutcase that thinks drugs like anti-biotics or HIV drugs don't even work.

For Daniels, it's this curve:percent_max = 0.8 + 0.1894393 * e^(-0.012778 * time) + 0.2989558 * e^(-0.1932605 * time)Nothing in there about adjusting for a 2:12 or 3:00 marathoner.Right or wrong, 3 hours takes a certain fraction, in Daniels' model, for all runners, regardless of distance or ability.I don't say anything physiologically, but that's the equation they formed from the data of the athletes they measured.

test2 wrote:

rekrunner wrote:

That's actually not the problem. For Daniels, it is the same curve for both runners, simply being a function of time.

You are saying that physiologically, a 2:12 marathoner running a race that takes 3 hours happens to look a lot like a 3-hour marathoner running a 3-hour marathon? Just my luck. Well, evidence for it certainly doesn't come from that graph anyway.

Is this actually still going and being discussed?

Jon is like debating with a religious nut - there is no logic and reason involved. He thinks that the Soviets landed on the moon before the US.

Reminds me of that song, 'clowns to the left of me, jokers to my right'

Jon - seriously buddy, get help or get a woman into your life. This is tragic stuff and somehow I have a feeling that this thread will one day be used as defensive evidence by your lawyer when they plead that your crime was the result of diminished responsibility due to insanity.

trollism wrote:

J.R. wrote:

Because bans are the issue, and the reason for the drug hypocrisy, not drugs themselves, which is total BS. Drugs are simply an excuse to hold up signs and get competition banned for no good reason, to decide who gets medals and who is no longer able to compete, for being too fast, or being from the wrong country, or whatever. People taking drugs are not the real culprits, though delusional like many of you, but those who push the drug issue for their personal and political gains.

But you're the nutcase that thinks drugs like anti-biotics or HIV drugs don't even work.

Yup. Scientologists. Dianetics. All you need is an auditor and you can fix every problem yourself. Drugs, psychotherapy etc., none of that stuff works in their world. These people worship a religion invented by a science fiction writer who just didn't want to pay taxes. These people are dumb and crazy. It's a bad combination.

rekrunner wrote:

For Daniels, it's this curve:

percent_max = 0.8 + 0.1894393 * e^(-0.012778 * time) + 0.2989558 * e^(-0.1932605 * time)

Nothing in there about adjusting for a 2:12 or 3:00 marathoner.

Right or wrong, 3 hours takes a certain fraction, in Daniels' model, for all runners, regardless of distance or ability.

I don't say anything physiologically, but that's the equation they formed from the data of the athletes they measured.

test2 wrote:

You are saying that physiologically, a 2:12 marathoner running a race that takes 3 hours happens to look a lot like a 3-hour marathoner running a 3-hour marathon? Just my luck. Well, evidence for it certainly doesn't come from that graph anyway.

Where do you find these Daniels formulas? Are they buried somewhere in the appendix?

At age 45 Jon ran a 1500 in 4 flat, which is about a 4:18? mile, which is very, very good.

Trautmann ran a world leading 4:12 mile in the same age group. So Jonny was right up there.

Now why would he take the position that drugs have no effect on performance, when every drug alters the mind and body, if only in the smalless way.

If you pay attention, you can see how 2 cups of coffee or 2 tablets of Advil change how your body and mind work.

How would this position and utterance be related to his running attainments?

trollism wrote:

But you're the nutcase that thinks drugs like anti-biotics or HIV drugs don't even work.

Oh sure, antibiotics "work." They run down the immune system making people more susceptible to subsequent infections and aids. In fact antibiotics are probably the primary CAUSE of aids, along with HIV drugs. They "work", by deluding the people who mistakenly get treated by doctor quacks which results in their terrible conditions.

fred wrote:

Now why would he take the position that drugs have no effect on performance, when every drug alters the mind and body, if only in the smalless way.

Oh they certainly "work", the same way that other doctor quack medication formulations "work", but not in any beneficial manner.

Reverse Engineering.Just kidding.I read once a description of "Daniels Running Formula", noting that the book is about a formula that never appears in the book!It's in the appendix of an earlier book "Oxygen Power".See: http://s3.amazonaws.com/zanran_storage/www.canibaisereis.com/ContentPages/2466959967.pdf

test2 wrote:

Where do you find these Daniels formulas? Are they buried somewhere in the appendix?

fred wrote:

At age 45 Jon ran a 1500 in 4 flat, which is about a 4:18? mile, which is very, very good.

Trautmann ran a world leading 4:12 mile in the same age group. So Jonny was right up there.

Now why would he take the position that drugs have no effect on performance, when every drug alters the mind and body, if only in the smalless way.

If you pay attention, you can see how 2 cups of coffee or 2 tablets of Advil change how your body and mind work.

How would this position and utterance be related to his running attainments?

No he didn't. Closer to 4:05. His "health" and spring became sub par despite knowing how to train properly.

fred wrote:

At age 45 Jon ran a 1500 in 4 flat, which is about a 4:18? mile, which is very, very good.

Trautmann ran a world leading 4:12 mile in the same age group. So Jonny was right up there.

Now why would he take the position that drugs have no effect on performance, when every drug alters the mind and body, if only in the smalless way.

If you pay attention, you can see how 2 cups of coffee or 2 tablets of Advil change how your body and mind work.

How would this position and utterance be related to his running attainments?

Snap! I'm glad you said this. I keep thinking the man has an agenda here, and I thought exactly this. It seemed very much to me that he has a vested interest in wanting people to believe that athletes who use PEDS would have achieved the same result regardless of their use of PEDS, and therefore, they are not really cheaters. There achievements are just down to their own hard work. Why on earth would someone be so damn interested in making people think this? Especially when it's so totally insane. Self interest is the logical answer.

Jon knows that he could have gone sub 4 with drugs and it is eating him up inside that he missed his opportunity.

Actually he could probably still do it now as he just mentioned that docs are coming up with newer and better stuff.

Dope works for me! But I only use "legal" drugs :wink:

Jon O doped during his PRs.

Dude I have used a PED called caffeine numerous times and it works, end of thread.

Steelers Wheel wrote:

Is this actually still going and being discussed?

Jon is like debating with a religious nut - there is no logic and reason involved. He thinks that the Soviets landed on the moon before the US.

Reminds me of that song, 'clowns to the left of me, jokers to my right'

Jon - seriously buddy, get help or get a woman into your life. This is tragic stuff and somehow I have a feeling that this thread will one day be used as defensive evidence by your lawyer when they plead that your crime was the result of diminished responsibility due to insanity.

Jon - Don't listen to the haters! I love this thread, classic letsrun. It would be boring if we all agreed.

No I don't imagine anything so nefarious with Jon. I don't doubt his intentions, his integrity, or his honesty. I'm sure with his training and racing, he practices the techniques and approach that he preaches, like he says, since 2001. I don't doubt his intentions or his training or his performance, but his science, math, and ability to coherently express his ideas to the public.He wants you, and everyone, to replace the mindset of "I, and everyone, can only improve with drugs" with "I can always improve by developing a more efficient and economical technique". The "drug only" mindset is a poisonous one, for athletes and fans alike. It's not the only way, and not always the most effective way.VO2max maxes quite quickly (I say ~1-2 years). LT threshold will also plateau, but less quickly (I say ~5 years). Thereafter, long term improvements can still come basically for the rest of your career, from "non-oxygen" sources. This is the point where oxygen vector drugs have much less effect, if any at all. Luckily these improvements come anyway, without changing training drastically, or being aware that the source of improvement is no longer connected to oxygen.If you waste a lot of energy with a bad technique, then improving technique, eliminating the waste, brings faster times at no extra energy cost.If you leverage the natural elasticity in tendons and muscles, loading energy with downward ground contact, rotating, and releasing the energy in a forward/upward direction, this is "free" passive energy.And finally, the body simply gets better at what you do a lot. Running involves millions and millions of synchronized nerve impulses to contract and extend as many muscle fibers. Inexperienced runners have a lot of destructive interference, while highly seasoned runners have gradually learned and fine tuned these to bring more harmony, and effortless speed. (This is the high school band versus symphony orchestra analogy -- no I don't think I got this from "malmo").Jon mentioned before, a kind of whipping motion with the foot. He no doubt has dozens of tricks and drills and training that he has developed with this approach in mind. Not to excessively promote Matt Fitzgerald, but just to give a similar example, with better explanations, Matt wrote a book "Brain Training", which details different "cross-training" techniques (proprioceptive cues) you can focus on, to improve and perfect your technique, to become faster without extra energy cost.

While caffeine has a known ergogenic effect, apparently coffee doesn't. Something in coffee cancels the beneficial effect of caffeine.

Bad Wigins wrote:

Dude I have used a PED called caffeine numerous times and it works, end of thread.

Not having followed this thread too closely, to the defence of J.O. it must be said, that there is definitely more than something in the notion that most improvements of endurance athletes after a few years of exercise do come from non-oxygen uptake related factors.

There is a plenty of evidence for this. Perhaps for most LR-readers this is old (revised?) information, but most of the improvement of Paula Radcliffe came from this non oxygen delivery source. Here is an interesting quotation from a 2006 research paper on the master runner: