Lactate curves of elite athletes show that EPO/ Blood boosting is pointless.

That'll do Good science bad science, that'll do.

I have been through every point with you, but you can't grasp any of them. And yet you call me a troll and a fool?

I stand by every point. You have no knowledge of these things so why pretend you do.

Because you are Sir Lance a lot/Tyrannosaurus Rexing, the letsrun über troll.

So did you read Jones' review? Did you see how it shows that elite athletes use less oxygen to do their supposedly Super Human performances and not more as the drug obsessives believe?

Have any of you clowns who argue with your constant pseudoscience actually read the review?

No elite has ever been tested while running a (supposedly) superhuman performance.

Arthur Hoggett wrote:

That'll do Good science bad science, that'll do.

Do you even grasp the concept?

Try this:

Now can someonle tell me why Ross Tucker can write so well on the subject, yes still believe that EPO will benefit an elite runner? If he or she is using less

oxygen to run faster, why would they need EPO to supposedly run with more oxygen?

They don't.

Is there any chance that some more of you besided rekrunner might have a moment of Epiphany here?

Gary Oldman wrote:

No elite has ever been tested while running a (supposedly) superhuman performance.

Testing is really part of the problem more than the solution. The solution is education. Exersise Physiologists have a responsibilty here. Apart from Jones and a few others I can name, they are doing a very bad job. Part of this stems from their own lack of self esteem about their own physical potential, and they try to project this onto everyone else without realizing it.

147/26 = 5.65 (not 5.7)34/6=5.67 (not 5.66)

Good science,bad science wrote:

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.

So education without testing? Nice.

A difference of 0.02% The troll argued about metabolic efficiency and ignored the different heat production percentage of 7% and the higher carbon prodution of 40%

So fat metabolism is more efficient that carbohydrate metabolism.

100 * ((34/6) - (147/26)) / (147/26) = 0.227%

Just quoting this for posterity:

Good science, bad science wrote:

Fat does not use more oxygen. That is a common misconception.

Then about 2 days later:

Good science, bad science wrote:

You get 6 ATP per O2 for glucose metabolism and if you include glycogen then it's 6.1 ATP per O2 .

From an 18 carbon Fatty Acid 26 O2 are required to produce 147 ATP, 5.7 per O2 .

Care to comment? You can call me a names all you like. But I'm not the one contradicting themselves every other day...

Please answer this simple question so i can move on with my life: Which molecule requires more oxygen to metabolize? Fat or glycogen?

Yours sincerely,

"The troll"

I gave you the figures for oxidative metabolism and anaerobic metabolism of both glucose and glycogen and then combined them in another calculation.

Three calculations there. Too much for your brain to take in.

Have you figured out what lactate is yet?

Do elites use less oxygen the faster they go?

They use less oxygen the fitter they get.

This is measured in ml/kg/km

So your next question should be: Is VO2 max or vVO2 max a spurious concept?

You didn't answer the question.

Good science, bad science wrote:

They use less oxygen the fitter they get.

This is measured in ml/kg/km

So your next question should be: Is VO2 max or vVO2 max a spurious concept?

But more ml/kg/s which needs to be delivered somehow.

Ignoring all the contradictions and other garbage that Bad Science keeps posting for a second. His entire argument is based on the theory that running economy is what determines the winner of a marathon. Since running economy is primarily influenced by biomechanics, EPO will have no effect on running economy. This is his basic point and i would agree in so far as biomechanics are the main influence on running economy and EPO won't change that...

But his assumption that running economy is the most important factor, if not the ONLY factor to influence a marathon result is entirely flawed! Running economy is an important factor in distance running. But it is not the most important. As i said before, velocity at a lactate concentration of 2 - 2.5 mmol/L is more important and this factor is primarily influenced by our physiology which certainly has the potential to be influenced by drugs such as EPO.

Here's an example of actual test data from two elite distance runners. I tested both runners myself with the same equipment and on the same metabolic cart:

Runner 1:

VO2max: 76.1

Speed (11 mph) VO2 (53.7) RER (0.91) Lactate (1.3)

Speed (12 mph) VO2 (58.7) RER (0.95) Lactate (2.2)

Speed (13 mph) VO2 (65.6) RER (1.01) Lactate (4.3)

Runner 2:

VO2max: 77.6

Speed (11 mph) VO2 (56.1) RER (0.89) Lactate (1.0)

Speed (12 mph) VO2 (63.3) RER (0.93) Lactate (1.9)

Speed (13 mph) VO2 (70.3) RER (0.98) Lactate (3.5)

According to Bad Science's logic, Runner 1 should win the race because they have superior running economy. But the reality is that Runner 2 is the better athlete. He has superior metabolic efficiency, as indicated by the lower lactate levels and lower RER's.

The race results back up the lab data. Runner 1 has a PR of 2.14 in the marathon. Runner 2 has a PR of 2.11 and I have every expectation they will break 2.10 in the near future. So Bad Science's entire premise is flawed. Not to mention the fact that he doesn't know the difference between efficiency and economy, his biochemistry is ass-backwards and he keeps contradicting himself every other day...

Good science, bad science wrote:

I gave you the figures for oxidative metabolism and anaerobic metabolism of both glucose and glycogen and then combined them in another calculation.

Three calculations there. Too much for your brain to take in.

Have you figured out what lactate is yet?

Good science, bad science wrote:

I gave you the figures for oxidative metabolism and anaerobic metabolism of both glucose and glycogen and then combined them in another calculation.

Three calculations there. Too much for your brain to take in.

Have you figured out what lactate is yet?

Dude, your 3 calculations all contradict one another so i'm asking you again:

Which molecule requires more oxygen to burn? Fat or glycogen?

Stop being so childish and just answer the question...

GAME OVER