Salazar, Farah, talk about use of L-carnitine, a legal supplement with 11% performance gains

Ostrich wrote:

what it is wrote:

I'm not the one looking for a smoking gun. I am more concerned with something much more important. Something rojo and wejo should be doing; trying to build confidence in young ambitious runners to have more self belief.

They don't need drugs to be the best in the World, the human body (in case you didn't know) produces a vast range of performance enhancing chemicals naturally.

Journalists are a big part of the drug problem they pretend to be so intent on stamping out.

Great, lets all just stick our heads in the sand, just like the idiots who actually believed Lance (and others) achieved all he did drug free. Look what cycling went through (and is still going through) because of the ostrich attitude.

The first time I ever posted a message on the internet, was back in July 1999. I said that Lance was lying when he was confronted by the Channel 4 reporter, he looked like Clinton denying the Lewinsky affair.

You're missing the point. The obsession with drugs is like a religion. Not everyone is a believer. And young athletes should be educated in the fact that they don't need drugs to be the best in the World.

You can't do that. That's a job for people like me.

Transparency wrote:

what it is wrote:

Talking pseudoscience will not lead to more transparency. Do I really have to explain that?

Thanks, you've just explained and confirmed that you're an idiot.

You are willfully ignorant.

The supplement biz is 100% about money and 0% about any real gains in performance.

Supplementation of amino acids will have no effect on those who are not deficient. So if you are eating right there is no reason to supplement. Take a look at the studies and you find many results both pro and con.

Follow the money. Does Nike have any sort of relationship with a supplement company? I'm sure they do.

There are very few supplements with proven time and again results. Creatine is one. Beta-alanine is the other.

Alan

Alan

Maybe he's missing the point, because that wasn't the point of this thread. He didn't understand you weren't debating an existing point, but changing the subject.What separates drugs from religion, is that at its base, there are repeatable, real world observations linking drug use to improved performance. Not for all drugs, in all circumstances, but many drugs have shown performance improvements in scientific and athletic real world settings. The drugs/supplement market is exaggerated for many bad human reasons, but at its base, there are reasons to believe that some drugs can improve performance.Who hired you for this job? As I have expressed many times:- you are a bad messenger: Your high opinion of yourself might be correct -- I don't want to discuss the real level or depth of your knowledge -- but judging by your posts in this forum, you simply don't know how to engage with people, and the near universal reaction is that you come across as an "idiot", because seemingly you have misinterpreted something, or misstated something. Again, whether you are an idiot or not is beside the point, that's just what seems to be the near universal reaction. This often decays into personal attacks both ways, which, I guess, is not part of the job description.- you don't provide sufficient data: How can you educate without providing relevant references to support your "unpopular" conclusions? Often you provide no link, or the link you provide falls short. When pressed to elaborate, you ultimately assign the burden of proof on others to do the research needed to figure out what you are saying, pointing us to the very texts that show what you are trying to debunk.- whether or not the fault lies in everyone else, you need to change your approach, if you want to effectively deliver your message. It's not enough that you have educated yourself, but for "this job", you need to capture the attention of others, establish your credentials and credibility, and then connect your conclusions to the real world.Why do you beat up Wejo for something Craig Virgin said? They were both talking about transparency, and not physiology. (This makes it look like you don't always understand what you read.) If Alberto is giving thyroid and carnitine (both legal substances not requiring any TUE or special permission from USATF/USADA/IAAF/WADA), other athletes/fans want full transparency. Craig Virgin dared to mention "lactic acid metabolism" as his reason for wanting transparency. Do you think that means the call for transparency is "stupid"? It would make sense to callout Craig Virgin for his layman understanding of physiology. But instead, you skip many steps and simply call the brojos "shameless" and "stupid". This is not a desirable qualification of an educator of young athletes.You need to look up the word disingenuous. It sounds like you believe the brojos know more about lactate metabolism than they are revealing. It seems an odd usage of the word. (Again see above, this fits under "bad messenger".)

what it is wrote:

You're missing the point. The obsession with drugs is like a religion. Not everyone is a believer. And young athletes should be educated in the fact that they don't need drugs to be the best in the World.

You can't do that. That's a job for people like me.

wejo wrote:

Do you really think a coach who experimented with prednisone on himself, took Prozac to compete better, experiments with injecting his assistant coach with l-carnitine, and orders thousands of dollars of a supplement right when it comes out really believes all you need is iron, vitamin D, and an amino acid? Or do you think he is looking for the next grea thing constantly. I've told Alberto on a few occasions he can't have it both ways. Just say "We have no qualms about it. We do everything within the legal limits to be the best and that includes taking supplements others may not have."

.

Additionally Alberto was a BALCO client, saying he was only sending urine samples to Conte to analyze. Conte is not a scientist, nor has he ever had a medical lab. Salazar's claim that "everyone was doing it is just a flat out lie.

Why is it that everything Alberto involves himself in is shady?

rekrunner, this is the letsrun.com message board. In case you haven't noticed, most threads are full of misinformation and people really don't care whether or not they are writing or talking total BS or not?

Brojos, and especially rojo, are obsessed with looking for this smoking gun with regards to Salazar. What is the real motive? Have you ever wondered?

wejo says that no-one criticizes Ryan Hall for his thyroid issues, but then goes on to criticize Salazar for taking Prednisone and Prozac, neither of which can be considered performance enhancers. I am also quite certain that brojos know nothing about lactate metabolism. Do they even know what lactate is? Do you?

You seem to expect me to write an entire book for you. Are you going to publish all my information under your own name without paying me? What is your name anyway? You know who I am, who are you? Why are you so afraid of your identity being revealed?

The poster who is spreading the greatest amount of misinformation is "what it is." He is the world's leading expert on drugs, and supplements, that work and do not work. Every other performance expert is a clueless fool. Only "what it is" can be trusted.

what it is wrote:You're missing the point. The obsession with drugs is like a religion. Not everyone is a believer. And young athletes should be educated in the fact that they don't need drugs to be the best in the World.

You can't do that. That's a job for people like me.

Ok, so the federation selling "never tested positives" is just nonsense then? How about athletic federations hiding positives?

JADCO scandal?

IAAF scandal?

USATF hiding positives?

Nike's long history of sponsoring and associating with dopers.

Salazar's long history of doing "anything it takes."

Are there clean elite athletes? Absolutely. Should the sport be relatively safe from uncontrolled human experimentation? Absolutely.

But, the sport's administrators are okay with the doping.

runningart2004 wrote:

The supplement biz is 100% about money and 0% about any real gains in performance.

Supplementation of amino acids will have no effect on those who are not deficient. So if you are eating right there is no reason to supplement. Take a look at the studies and you find many results both pro and con.

Follow the money. Does Nike have any sort of relationship with a supplement company? I'm sure they do.

There are very few supplements with proven time and again results. Creatine is one. Beta-alanine is the other.

Alan

Alan

So you're saying that the supplement biz is 0% about performance, then you say creatine and beta-alanine works? And then you say supplementation of amino acids has no effect on those who are not deficient but isn't beta alanine an amino acid?

Dude, get your story straight.

runDirtyrun wrote:

what it is wrote:You're missing the point. The obsession with drugs is like a religion. Not everyone is a believer. And young athletes should be educated in the fact that they don't need drugs to be the best in the World.

You can't do that. That's a job for people like me.

Ok, so the federation selling "never tested positives" is just nonsense then? How about athletic federations hiding positives?

JADCO scandal?

IAAF scandal?

USATF hiding positives?

Nike's long history of sponsoring and associating with dopers.

Salazar's long history of doing "anything it takes."

Are there clean elite athletes? Absolutely. Should the sport be relatively safe from uncontrolled human experimentation? Absolutely.

But, the sport's administrators are okay with the doping.

I think that drug testing is a sham, a joke, a farce, a politcal tool and a moneymaking enterprise.

I also don't believe in the concept of so called 'performance enhancing drugs'

Our bodies produce all the performance enhancers we need, naturally.

Of course I understand that I'm just boring you with real science, and you would much rather have the more newsworthy stuff about drugs.

You don't need to tell me -- all the more reason to provide external references, to help separate the BS from the rest.

No. What do you think the real motive is? Fabricated scandals mean more hits?

I learned a little bit about lactate, up to a point where I don't care to know more, because it doesn't matter much for the coach/athlete.

For me, lactate threshold is 1 hour race pace, or about 156-162 HR, if I'm in shape. That's enough for me to develop and maintain my stamina.

I don't want you to write a book, and I promise I will not publish a book with your information without your permission. I only ever ask you for things you've read that others have already written.

If I told you my name, it would mean as much to you as "rekrunner" -- I always felt the "Message" field is more important than the "Name" field. There is no added value for you, or anyone here, to know my real name. On the contrary, it might artifically add, or take away, credibility, from my posts, and I expect my words to have the strength to stand alone. Imagine the bias if everyone knew my name was "Armstrong" or "Conte", or alternatively "Ryun", or "Spivey", or "Rodgers". My fears are general internet fears, like identity theft, credit card theft, privacy issues, data-mining, third party selling of personal information, harrassment, etc.

I provided plenty references over the years. Did anyone follow them up? I doubt it. I often get the feeling that I'm the only poster here who really wants to study every chapter in those ex phys textbooks.

Lactate is the end product of glycolysis, which is blood glucose breakdown, and glycogenolysis which is muscle glycogen breakdown. Blood glucose goes all around the body, not just to the muscles. Actually it probably an advantage to have more glucose going to the brain and less to the muscles, because that is going to cause an increase in muscle acidity with a decrease in running skill.

Now that is a worthwhile hypothesis for ya.

Discuss.

I followed up many, but must admit my interest waned after having read the Lore of Running. Nothing seemed to break my old models.

How would I direct more blood glucose to the brain?

My training these days attempts to maximize fat burning -- I wonder how much L-Carnitine is in my protein powder mix...

Just bought some liquid l-carnatine. Will see if it works.

Pal, no one cares about your "hypothesis" re lactate and no one on LR, except you, considers it worthwhile. If you get a hard on from studying it, good luck to you but come back to us when you can come up with a sensibly "hypothesis" that can be implemented in the real world.

He doesn't, he's an idiot who does a lot of reading which he thinks he understands.

ofsaa silver wrote:

Just bought some liquid l-carnatine. Will see if it works.

Ummm, you need to know the secret NOP method of ingestion/injection: how often, how much, under what conditions, what do you do before, what do you do after. You might have to setup an slow drip, and run on a treadmill during this phase. You probably have to prepare by taking special "vitamins" before, and after, the l-carnitine threadmill drip.

Cyclists are using this. For all we know, could it be a masking agent? Much we don't know.

LRC, you should tweet to @theraceradio.

Plant Sterols is where you get the real gains.

I do love how every athlete will always say when outed, "I saw no performance gains so I stopped." Well, what if you did? Would you keep it quiet? I wonder how much they do take that they do find performance gains. And if it didn't work, why explore? What's going on with that mindset?