Respected commentator Tim Hutchings calls out times from past drug era, says more natural levels now.

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?

I'm saying that when we are healthy, as I am 99.9% of the time and hopefully you are too, we improve through better biomechanical efficiency.

It is absoutely NOT about more red blood cells. That is a complete red herring. Normal blood counts and normal oxygen delivery are essential for cell respiration, whether you are in the shape of your life or not.

it's 2018 not 1998 wrote:

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.

Americans are brainwashed by drugs.

ex-runner wrote:

This guy literally said that steroids won't improve shotput performance.

Steroids are part of shotputting culture and gym culture since the 1960s

But what makes you believe unconditionally that a shot putter needs a boost of exogenous testosterone to produce the perfect technique?

That's not rational thought dude, that's a belief implanted in your brain by the drug culture.

it's 2018 not 1998 wrote:

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?

I'm saying that when we are healthy, as I am 99.9% of the time and hopefully you are too, we improve through better biomechanical efficiency.

It is absoutely NOT about more red blood cells. That is a complete red herring. Normal blood counts and normal oxygen delivery are essential for cell respiration, whether you are in the shape of your life or not.

That makes some sense. Do you think that increasing oxygen carrying capacity to the muscles can make them more efficient by allowing them to produce more energy through aerobic rather than anaerobic mechanisms?

it's 2018 not 1998 wrote:

ex-runner wrote:

This guy literally said that steroids won't improve shotput performance.

Steroids are part of shotputting culture and gym culture since the 1960s

But what makes you believe unconditionally that a shot putter needs a boost of exogenous testosterone to produce the perfect technique?

That's not rational thought dude, that's a belief implanted in your brain by the drug culture.

So in your mind shotput performance has no correlation with maximal force output. Interesting "theory"

it's 2018 not 1998 wrote:

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?

I'm saying that when we are healthy, as I am 99.9% of the time and hopefully you are too, we improve through better biomechanical efficiency.

It is absoutely NOT about more red blood cells. That is a complete red herring. Normal blood counts and normal oxygen delivery are essential for cell respiration, whether you are in the shape of your life or not.

What? Biomechanical improvements play their part but have you not read up on cardiovascular adaptations to exercise in the slightest?

Increased vascularisation etc etc. It's all about getting more oxygen to the working muscles.

over road wrote:

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.

It's basic physiology. Science is dsyfunctional in the way that money can influence what people believe, when it should be impartial investigation.

strength? wrote:

it's 2018 not 1998 wrote:

Steroids are part of shotputting culture and gym culture since the 1960s

But what makes you believe unconditionally that a shot putter needs a boost of exogenous testosterone to produce the perfect technique?

That's not rational thought dude, that's a belief implanted in your brain by the drug culture.

So in your mind shotput performance has no correlation with maximal force output. Interesting "theory"

Totally loony. Why does this guy think that shotputters are built like a proverbial brick house? Is it just the fashion?

Haha.

Perfect technique isn't going to get you ANYWHERE in shotput if you aren't huge and strong. Has this guy ever lifted up a shot? They weigh about 8kg it's not a tennis ball.

it's 2018 not 1998 wrote:

over road wrote:

You're the only person who's talking about over-riding thermoregulatory limits. I haven't seen anyone else suggest that.

It's basic physiology. Science is dsyfunctional in the way that money can influence what people believe, when it should be impartial investigation.

Show me some research that shows that the ultimate limiting factor in middle distance events is the heat output of the body.

You are suggesting that a guy who runs 3:40 and is exhausted, who then undergoes a period of intense training and doping and then runs 3:30, has increased his performance by increasing his thermal ceiling?

Do you believe that in the Arctic one would run world records, as cooling is much easier?

This is the most bizzare theory ever. Evidence shows that in the middle distance events runners are FASTER in more moderate temperatures Vs the cold.

it's 2018 not 1998 wrote:

over road wrote:

You're the only person who's talking about over-riding thermoregulatory limits. I haven't seen anyone else suggest that.

It's basic physiology. Science is dsyfunctional in the way that money can influence what people believe, when it should be impartial investigation.

What is "basic physiology?" What are you referring to with this post? Your writing is very difficult to follow when you're so vague.

Unless this guy can produce even one piece of evidence backing his own theories we need to disregard him as a troll.

ex-runner wrote:

it's 2018 not 1998 wrote:

I'm saying that when we are healthy, as I am 99.9% of the time and hopefully you are too, we improve through better biomechanical efficiency.

It is absoutely NOT about more red blood cells. That is a complete red herring. Normal blood counts and normal oxygen delivery are essential for cell respiration, whether you are in the shape of your life or not.

What? Biomechanical improvements play their part but have you not read up on cardiovascular adaptations to exercise in the slightest?

Increased vascularisation etc etc. It's all about getting more oxygen to the working muscles.

No, it's not about getting more oxygen to the working muscles, but the right amount. Increased vascularization is another red herring. It increases as we age naturally to maintain, not to increase oxygen delivery.

It's NOT about MORE oxygen delivery, that is dogma, a red herring. Normal oxygen delivery and improved energy efficiency is where your improvement comes from. Maximal oxygen uptake levels are stable not widely variable as the conventional wisdom will have you believe.

Just because everyone goes on about 'aerobic development' doesn't mean they know anything about the subject. It's just something people say.

Stable VO2 max is essential for basic heath. If it really went down significantly when you didn't train, you would be in serious trouble. Stroke volume is what is variable, dependent on th the vagus nerve response to increased plasma volume, but this happens naturally in just a few day or weeks of increased training volume. It doesn't increase VO2 max but it does give more endurance because you can sweat more.

This stuff has been know for decades. It's nothing new.

it's 2018 not 1998 wrote:

Normal oxygen delivery and improved energy efficiency is where your improvement comes from. Maximal oxygen uptake levels are stable not widely variable as the conventional wisdom will have you believe.

Show evidence for this claim.

red blood cells wrote:

it's 2018 not 1998 wrote:

I'm saying that when we are healthy, as I am 99.9% of the time and hopefully you are too, we improve through better biomechanical efficiency.

It is absoutely NOT about more red blood cells. That is a complete red herring. Normal blood counts and normal oxygen delivery are essential for cell respiration, whether you are in the shape of your life or not.

That makes some sense. Do you think that increasing oxygen carrying capacity to the muscles can make them more efficient by allowing them to produce more energy through aerobic rather than anaerobic mechanisms?

No. Beyond normal healthy oxygen delivery, no. When your oxygen uptake goes up, so does your anaerobic energy contribution.

However, when you run more efficiently you use energy more efficiently. That's one reason why you recover faster as you get fitter.

A healthy body is just a wonder of nature. People lose sight of this. When you see a young athlete running amazing times, if you think it's not natural, you have lost the plot. Lots of people have lost the plot. Twitter, it seems to me is even worse than letsrun for the ways in which the anti drug crusaders preach a message which does nothing but inflame the suspicion and the belief in so called PEDs and degrades and debases the idea that a healthy body can't be improved in efficiency to the highest level of sport. Do you think that I could discuss this with Tim Hutchings? I doubt that very much. However I could discuss it with some athletes I know from his era who were better than him.

No it increases as a direct result of aerobic training. Not because of age. It also decreases when you stop training. Stroke volume also increases with training and thus resting heart rate often decreases. Stroke volume = more oxygenated blood to working muscles faster.

I'm not 'most people'. I've no need to throw around terms because I've had a good education.

I asked you for evidence. In the absence of evidence for your crazy claims there is little to discuss. You are one step from stating we don't need oxygen for sustained exercise.

Of course heat loss is one limiting factor in performance of some endurance events, particularly in warm weather,, butere is no evidence that it is the absolute limiting factor.

However there is plenty of evidence that oxygen delivery is a limiting factor, with blood pH falling during extended exercise being the most obvious demonstration of one of the observed side effects. Increased oxygen uptake after a period of training is a MEASURABLE metric which is correlated with increased performance.

So you only think improving biomechanical efficiency is relevant, but not improving efficiency on a cellular level? How do you reconcile the contradiction in the fact that 1) anaerobic energy production is less efficient than aerobic energy production and 2) increasing oxygen delivery to the muscles would allow for increased rates of aerobic vs. anaerobic energy production? I agree that improving biomechanical efficiency is beneficial, but it's overly simplistic to assume that it's the only factor to be considered.

Not sure what provoked the rambling in the rest of your post...

proof? wrote:

it's 2018 not 1998 wrote:

Normal oxygen delivery and improved energy efficiency is where your improvement comes from. Maximal oxygen uptake levels are stable not widely variable as the conventional wisdom will have you believe.

Show evidence for this claim.

Here's a start:

You will find variation in VO2 max tests. Steve Magness tries to explain some of these anomalies. Basically the test has to be done to your requirements not the lab technicians. If you overheat, you won't reach VO2 max because lots of blood gets redirected to the skin for sweating. And if your arousal level (adrenaline level) is not optimal, neither will your oxygen uptake level be. And neither will your oxygen economy be optimal, which makes you work harder and fatigue too early.

All of this stuff you know by feel. It's best to demonstrate it with a good workout, where you get faster through the session without unnecessary fatigue.

All you need to do is go to high altitude where partial pressure limits oxygen uptake to understand that oxygen delivery is a limiting factor in running performance.

it's 2018 not 1998 wrote:

proof? wrote:

Show evidence for this claim.

Here's a start:

https://www.scienceofrunning.com/2009/12/fallacy-of-vo2max-and-vo2max.html?v=79cba1185463

You will find variation in VO2 max tests. Steve Magness tries to explain some of these anomalies. Basically the test has to be done to your requirements not the lab technicians. If you overheat, you won't reach VO2 max because lots of blood gets redirected to the skin for sweating. And if your arousal level (adrenaline level) is not optimal, neither will your oxygen uptake level be. And neither will your oxygen economy be optimal, which makes you work harder and fatigue too early.

All of this stuff you know by feel. It's best to demonstrate it with a good workout, where you get faster through the session without unnecessary fatigue.

At no point in that article do I find support for this claim: "Normal oxygen delivery and improved energy efficiency is where your improvement comes from. "

Can you be more specific?