Shopping hour wrote:
rekrunner wrote:
I realized they also played on a different field with different goalposts.
Same field, same players.
Sorry -- I did not define the goalposts, and restricted my comments to the original statement, which was limited to 2000m and 3000m and El G and Komen.
Whatever you want to say about other events has nothing to do with anything I said, nor the original statement.
Shopping hour wrote:
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?
Go on then explain how the extra RBCs extract more oxygen from the same volume of air?
Do you even understand the question?
rekrunner wrote:
Shopping hour wrote:
Same field, same players.
Sorry -- I did not define the goalposts, and restricted my comments to the original statement, which was limited to 2000m and 3000m and El G and Komen.
Whatever you want to say about other events has nothing to do with anything I said, nor the original statement.
You are assuming that what you say - about anything - has some relevance. It doesnt.
rekrunner wrote:
Shopping hour wrote:
Same field, same players.
Sorry -- I did not define the goalposts, and restricted my comments to the original statement, which was limited to 2000m and 3000m and El G and Komen.
Whatever you want to say about other events has nothing to do with anything I said, nor the original statement.
That's what I said. Komen and El G in the 2000 and 3000. We can look at how they both did in those events and then use a little bit of logic and bring in their shorter and longer races to look for trends.
Wouldn't want to use limited examples to draw a conclusion as you are so fond of saying.
citric acid cyclist wrote:
Shopping hour wrote:
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?
Go on then explain how the extra RBCs extract more oxygen from the same volume of air?
Do you even understand the question?
Again? You didn't understand the first hundred times and you won't this time either.
Yes.
Armstronglivs wrote:
rekrunner wrote:
Sorry -- I did not define the goalposts, and restricted my comments to the original statement, which was limited to 2000m and 3000m and El G and Komen.
Whatever you want to say about other events has nothing to do with anything I said, nor the original statement.
You are assuming that what you say - about anything - has some relevance. It doesnt.
You are just unable to grasp it.
Shopping hour wrote:
That's what I said. Komen and El G in the 2000 and 3000. We can look at how they both did in those events and then use a little bit of logic and bring in their shorter and longer races to look for trends.
Wouldn't want to use limited examples to draw a conclusion as you are so fond of saying.
We can always speculate about what could have been.
My conclusion wasn't a conclusion so much as a statement of historical fact based on the complete set of examples.
rekrunner wrote:
Shopping hour wrote:
That's what I said. Komen and El G in the 2000 and 3000. We can look at how they both did in those events and then use a little bit of logic and bring in their shorter and longer races to look for trends.
Wouldn't want to use limited examples to draw a conclusion as you are so fond of saying.
We can always speculate about what could have been.
My conclusion wasn't a conclusion so much as a statement of historical fact based on the complete set of examples.
We're not speculating on what could have been. We are strictly using what happened.
Our statement was based on a complete set of examples of their races over that range of distances.
It's more meaningful.
My favorite race was the one where they both jogged a mile in 3:45 and 3:46 .
EPO guaranteed.
Shopping hour wrote:
citric acid cyclist wrote:
Go on then explain how the extra RBCs extract more oxygen from the same volume of air?
Do you even understand the question?
Again? You didn't understand the first hundred times and you won't this time either.
Yes.
What is the volume of oxygen in one litre of air?
Give the answer in millilitres.
Shopping hour wrote:
citric acid cyclist wrote:
Go on then explain how the extra RBCs extract more oxygen from the same volume of air?
Do you even understand the question?
Again? You didn't understand the first hundred times and you won't this time either.
Yes.
What is the volume of oxygen in one litre of air?
Give the answer in millilitres.
citric acid cyclist wrote:
Shopping hour wrote:
Again? You didn't understand the first hundred times and you won't this time either.
Yes.
What is the volume of oxygen in one litre of air?
Give the answer in millilitres.
No.
citric acid cyclist wrote:
Shopping hour wrote:
Again? You didn't understand the first hundred times and you won't this time either.
Yes.
What is the volume of oxygen in one litre of air?
Give the answer in millilitres.
No.
Shopping hour wrote:
rekrunner wrote:
We can always speculate about what could have been.
My conclusion wasn't a conclusion so much as a statement of historical fact based on the complete set of examples.
We're not speculating on what could have been. We are strictly using what happened.
Our statement was based on a complete set of examples of their races over that range of distances.
It's more meaningful.
My favorite race was the one where they both jogged a mile in 3:45 and 3:46 .
It would be meaningful if all the athletes involved tried the same for all the events from 1500m to the 5000m.
What happened is, in the '90s, excluding El G and Komen, the next best was Morcelli, 3.08 seconds slower in the 2000m with 4:47.88, and Geb in 3000m, 4.42 seconds slower with 7:25.09.
Could Geb have run faster in the 1500m, mile, 2000m, and 3000m? Maybe. Speculation.
Could Lagat and Ngeny run faster in the 2000m? Probably. But speculation.
Could Lagat and Ngeny run faster in the 3000m? Probably not as fast as Komen. But again, speculation.
Shopping hour wrote:
citric acid cyclist wrote:
What is the volume of oxygen in one litre of air?
Give the answer in millilitres.
No.
What are you afraid of?
rekrunner wrote:
It would be meaningful if all the athletes involved tried the same for all the events from 1500m to the 5000m.
What happened is, in the '90s, excluding El G and Komen, the next best was Morcelli, 3.08 seconds slower in the 2000m with 4:47.88, and Geb in 3000m, 4.42 seconds slower with 7:25.09.
Could Geb have run faster in the 1500m, mile, 2000m, and 3000m? Maybe. Speculation.
Could Lagat and Ngeny run faster in the 2000m? Probably. But speculation.
Could Lagat and Ngeny run faster in the 3000m? Probably not as fast as Komen. But again, speculation.
Of course, and all racing against each other each time. With blood tests.
You have proof?
citric acid cyclist wrote:
Shopping hour wrote:
No.
What are you afraid of?
Sharks and bears.
rekrunner wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
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.
Each red blood cell contains haemoglobin, which enables the transport of oxygen to the body. The maximum number of oxygen molecules that each haemoglobin molecule can carry is 4. So what happens if you have more red blood cells - as EPO and blood doping provide? You can transport more oxygen - for each breath. What happens when you have fewer red blood cells - as with the anaemic and the unfit? You run out of oxygen earlier, and consequently experience breathlessness and fatigue generally. This is basic biology - something that your education apparently by-passed. Not all learning is obtained through a citation. You confuse pedantry with knowledge. In all things.
Armstronglivs wrote:
Each red blood cell contains haemoglobin, which enables the transport of oxygen to the body. The maximum number of oxygen molecules that each haemoglobin molecule can carry is 4. So what happens if you have more red blood cells - as EPO and blood doping provide? You can transport more oxygen - for each breath. What happens when you have fewer red blood cells - as with the anaemic and the unfit? You run out of oxygen earlier, and consequently experience breathlessness and fatigue generally. This is basic biology - something that your education apparently by-passed. Not all learning is obtained through a citation. You confuse pedantry with knowledge. In all things.
You are under the mistaken illusion that your words are relevant to the discussion.
Your words cannot cure your failure to find an authority who tells us that what you say "can" happen actually does happen in the extreme setting of a 2000m world record, from an athlete who may or may not have elevated RBC, which may or may not have been elevated by EPO.
This failure is not a problem you can solve on your own, by repeatedly citing yourself as an original source -- that is the flat-earther approach, self-pretending that you are a worthy scientific authority, making rationalizations based on partial truths and faulty observations.
This failure is also not one that can be cured by throwing stones from within your glass house, or playing the role of the pot. (I hope these subtle references are within your ability to grasp.)