El Guerrouj 2k WR - Incredible 3:49 Mile pace

Shopping hour wrote:

Maybe don't argue until you have done some "self directed" reading?

I love that goalpost shuffle btw. Classic rekrunner.

Seems like Jon Orange is off doing some "self directed' reading. One can hope.

There is no maybe. As a matter of fact, I did not argue at all.

I simply, and repeatedly, asked for an authoritative reference that talks about breathing the same way.

This was the only goalpost, and Armstronglivs did not score the goal.

Ah, you have your own definition for arguing. Surprise!

Be more "self" directed and break free from trying to get everyone else to do the work for you.

rekrunner wrote:

Shopping hour wrote:

Maybe don't argue until you have done some "self directed" reading?

I love that goalpost shuffle btw. Classic rekrunner.

Seems like Jon Orange is off doing some "self directed' reading. One can hope.

There is no maybe. As a matter of fact, I did not argue at all.

I simply, and repeatedly, asked for an authoritative reference that talks about breathing the same way.

This was the only goalpost, and Armstronglivs did not score the goal.

There isn't a citation for basic human biology. It simply involves a visit to a library. But if you did some "self-directed" reading on the subject, rather than requiring to be spoon-fed, it may surprise you how much your knowledge - thin as it is - will improve.

Shopping hour wrote:

Ah, you have your own definition for arguing. Surprise!

Be more "self" directed and break free from trying to get everyone else to do the work for you.

Every argument - oh dear, wrong word there! - with rekrunner devolves to an exercise in semantics - he always meant something different from what you thought he meant; it is the only way he can avoid being shown to be wrong. He has as much horror of being in error as Trump has of being labelled a loser. The truth is intolerable - for both of them.

Shopping hour wrote:

Ah, you have your own definition for arguing. Surprise!

Be more "self" directed and break free from trying to get everyone else to do the work for you.

Mine is the standard definition found in American and English dictionaries.

I was self-directed before, and will continue to be self-directed, not content to be a lemming who believes what he reads on the internet in anonymous forums.

"the work" in this case is for Armstronglivs to support his statements about breathing and EPO.

It is not my burden to look if authoritative support exists for his currently unsupported claims.

rekrunner wrote:

Shopping hour wrote:

Ah, you have your own definition for arguing. Surprise!

Be more "self" directed and break free from trying to get everyone else to do the work for you.

Mine is the standard definition found in American and English dictionaries.

I was self-directed before, and will continue to be self-directed, not content to be a lemming who believes what he reads on the internet in anonymous forums.

"the work" in this case is for Armstronglivs to support his statements about breathing and EPO.

It is not my burden to look if authoritative support exists for his currently unsupported claims.

Yet a large part of your life is devoted to being a person who dispenses lemming fodder?

What is the official definition of '"top athlete" now that we're using official definitions instead of your personal one. lol

Armstronglivs wrote:

There isn't a citation for basic human biology. It simply involves a visit to a library. But if you did some "self-directed" reading on the subject, rather than requiring to be spoon-fed, it may surprise you how much your knowledge - thin as it is - will improve.

There are no citations for basic biology? Ok.

You made some specific claims about more EPO, more RBCs, higher oxygen throughput, accompanied by less breathing.

I didn't ask you to spoon feed me, but to support your claims and provide authoritative references saying the same thing.

Armstronglivs wrote:

Shopping hour wrote:

Ah, you have your own definition for arguing. Surprise!

Be more "self" directed and break free from trying to get everyone else to do the work for you.

Every argument - oh dear, wrong word there! - with rekrunner devolves to an exercise in semantics - he always meant something different from what you thought he meant; it is the only way he can avoid being shown to be wrong. He has as much horror of being in error as Trump has of being labelled a loser. The truth is intolerable - for both of them.

Maybe you can remind me which arguments I have raised? Exactly what did I say about EPO and breathing that is wrong?

I do recall saying higher oxygen throughput with less breathing seems counter-intuitive, when you called it logical -- maybe this is better explained in some of the references you've read but refuse to specify.

Shopping hour wrote:

Yet a large part of your life is devoted to being a person who dispenses lemming fodder?

What is the official definition of '"top athlete" now that we're using official definitions instead of your personal one. lol

You seem unusually committed to throwing up distractions to help mask Armstronglivs failure to support his own claims.

Maybe you can help Armstronglivs with some of these remaining open points with respect to this inverse relation of breathing with more red blood cells:

- does "scarcely breathing" indicate "EPO is a powerful drug"?

- was El G's breathing unusually low?

- was El G's red blood cell count high?

- if so, was the high red blood cell count due to EPO?

- does any expert in the field share any of these views?

- have any experts in the field performed controlled observations, and published their data and conclusions, or otherwise provided a detailed discussion with basis?

You seem unusually committed to distractions to avoid self directed learning.

There is plenty of research (or self directed learning) showing that EPO INCREASES breathing rates in certain conditions. You should be all over that.

I said 4.44 for 2000m shows EPO is a powerful drug. Understanding what someone says is not a strong point of yours.

I did not say that "scarcely breathing" proves EPO use, even if it may suggest it, but that EPO enables greater aerobic fitness, and this is characterised by superior performance with less effort. But that takes us into biology, which is a foreign country to you.

The point you are obsessed with is my comment that a higher red blood cell count (which EPO may enable) can ensure a greater transfer of oxygen for each breath. You need a citation for that? Of course you do.

Shopping hour wrote:

You seem unusually committed to distractions to avoid self directed learning.

There is plenty of research (or self directed learning) showing that EPO INCREASES breathing rates in certain conditions. You should be all over that.

His determination is to hold to his view - backed by studies, sources, citations etc - that EPO in fact makes no difference to top athletes. Yet, strangely, they continue to use it.

Now now, Ramzi and Sumgong are not top athletes. Haven't we been over this?

Only two top athletes have ever been busted for EPO,, I think. Boulami and Kiptum.

rekrunner wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

Every argument - oh dear, wrong word there! - with rekrunner devolves to an exercise in semantics - he always meant something different from what you thought he meant; it is the only way he can avoid being shown to be wrong. He has as much horror of being in error as Trump has of being labelled a loser. The truth is intolerable - for both of them.

Maybe you can remind me which arguments I have raised? Exactly what did I say about EPO and breathing that is wrong?

I do recall saying higher oxygen throughput with less breathing seems counter-intuitive, when you called it logical -- maybe this is better explained in some of the references you've read but refuse to specify.

I didn't say higher oxygen throughput is achieved with less breathing, but that a higher RBC enables a greater transfer of oxygen for each breath, a distinction that eludes you. The reason behind that is quite simply there are more oxygen carriers in the bloodstream.

Breathing is part of aerobic performance, but so, too, is increased cardiac capacity - to efficiently pump the blood around the body so that oxygen utilisation is maximized. However, what we don't see in athletes with a high aerobic capacity is their gasping for air, and that is because the transfer of oxygen has both been increased and made more efficient in its delivery.

Shopping hour wrote:

Now now, Ramzi and Sumgong are not top athletes. Haven't we been over this?

Only two top athletes have ever been busted for EPO,, I think. Boulami and Kiptum.

Kiprop, surely.

So I said "indicate" and your response is to deny saying it "proves" it, but "may suggest it"? I confess that is challenging to understand exactly where you stand now.

If you never claimed any relation between breathing and EPO, seems like you could have said that 14 pages ago.

If you do claim a relationship, and claim that it is the result of reading several sources, I just wonder what prevented you from responding to the request 14 pages ago.

Armstronglivs wrote:

Shopping hour wrote:

Now now, Ramzi and Sumgong are not top athletes. Haven't we been over this?

Only two top athletes have ever been busted for EPO,, I think. Boulami and Kiptum.

Kiprop, surely.

It only counts if they are busted while setting a record. Try to keep up with the goalposts.

Shopping hour wrote:

You seem unusually committed to distractions to avoid self directed learning.

There is plenty of research (or self directed learning) showing that EPO INCREASES breathing rates in certain conditions. You should be all over that.

You presume too much. I did look some time ago, and found a few seeming contradictions.

But I wanted to give Armstronglivs a chance to defend his comments.

It is not my goal to spoon feed him or you.

Shopping hour wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

Kiprop, surely.

It only counts if they are busted while setting a record. Try to keep up with the goalposts.

Did we change the subject?

Is this another diversion?