RE: If you believe in the concept of Performance Enhancing Drugs......

Has certainly brought out the dummies.

Like you? This thread is meaningless. Are you using his theories when you walk out the door to run? If so, do they help you? Oh that's right, you don't even run do you? Look in the mirror moron, this thread is a waste.

Thread success wrote:

Has certainly brought out the dummies.

Jon Orange wrote:

The point is that elite runners aren't using more oxygen to race. The belief in so-called 'PEDs' is predicated on the bigger engine model, but the total oxygen uptake and glycogen uptake is less in any race. The bigger engine model in nonsense.

This is completely false and another example of arguing from false premises. If you said that "some PEDs" are based on the bigger engine model, then at least there would be some internal coherence to your argument. Some PEDs, notably EPO and other blood boosters, may indeed be based on a bigger engine model.

Other PEDs are not based on this model. Steroids, for example, are based on greater force production. Still other PEDs, such as insulin, cytomel, and thyroid medications, are aimed at weight loss.

We have JonO in this thread stating that losing weight is one way to increase efficiency. it appears that Jon, by pushing the efficiency model is actually serving to push some classes of PEDs over other classes of PEDs.

Jon Orange wrote:

You can't see the wood for the trees. This is my argument witth Daniels. His research is brilliant. His VDOT numbers are just silly. They confuse people like you, who really should know better, into conflating VDOT with VO2max.

If you and other posters here can be so confused about VDOT, then how the heck can others be expected to understand?

Actually you seem to be the only person confused about the VDOT numbers. I wish, for your sake, and your sake only, that Daniel's had not used any numbers, but had instead referred to the different points by labeling them according to colors on the spectrum, or letters of the Greek alphabet.

VDOT numbers do not say anything about efficiency or about VO2Max.

VDOT is a measure of pace. People with higher numbers are faster. People w/ lower numbers are slower. That's all it means.

Jon,

This is a simple yes or no question. Do you believe that VO2Max has any correlation to running performance?

Jon Orange wrote:

test2 wrote:

Then what are we arguing about? I agree with what you are saying. For a well trained adult runner, future VO2max gains are marginal at best (although if you are close enough to your goals marginal improvements may still be valuable). Training efficiency is key. I love Jack Daniels.

How the hell does any of this relate to the title of the thread?

The point is that elite runners aren't using more oxygen to race. The belief in so-called 'PEDs' is predicated on the bigger engine model, but the total oxygen uptake and glycogen uptake is less in any race. The bigger engine model in nonsense.

This is the clearest statement of your thesis I've seen. As I've said (and I think rekrunner has too), it seems to me that it is the rate of O2 usage not the total that relates to the 'size of the engine' (total is more like 'size of the gas tank') but I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree. Best of luck to you in future races.

POD!!! just run dammit!

Professors Murphy Says wrote:

No.

The oxygen based on the equivalent V02 flow rate chart equivalency is based on the exponential curve multiplied by 3.14 divided by the temperature 6 days prior to the race, therefore producing an oxygen rate that would be equivalent to a hobby jogger's 5k best time performance at the age of 33.2 years old on races held during leap year only.

Point?

Just run and forgot all of this crap that Mr. Orange thinks is important to discuss as it's meaningless at best.

Jack The Riddler wrote:

Here's another riddle for you, Jon.

Say a 2:04 guy cruises a 2:12, will he use more oxygen to do that than he would to run a 2:04?

Jon Orange wrote:

test2 the graph I provided is not quite the same as Daniels' graph is it? The numbers are slightly higher?

In my mind I have the figures of Daniels's graph as being 5% lower, can you confirm which is right please? Thanks.

Your link

shows the same figure as page 47 in Daniels' Running Formula. And yeah, those fractional utilizations are really high. I wonder whether there really do exist 3hr male marathoners who can hold 85% of their VO2max for 3 hours. I certainly don't know any but, then, they may not be 'highly trained' by Jack Daniels' definition.

Jon,

The European Journal of physiology has proven the effects of EPO on cycling performance. They took 16 well trained cyclists and injected them with EPO for 4 weeks. They had to tell all 16 that they were being injected with EPO for ethical reasons as the cyclists were well trained athletes but only 8 were actually administered EPO. The conclusion of the trial was that the group administered with EPO showed a 54% increase in performance relative to the placebo group on a trial to exhaustion.

You say that that a natural Haemocrite is the best for performance when we know this is not true in the case of cancer patients after a treatment of radiotherapy where EPO is used to treat the side effects that radiation has on RBC count. What exactly is a natural heamocrite? You also say that the extra oxygen EPO would have made available would result in higher energy costs. This is not true as lack of Oxygen has a higher energy cost (oxygen debt). The more oxygen that is availible, the less likely an athlete is going to go into oxygen debt thereby saving energy by keeping the activity aerobic. The "excess oxygen" as you call it is actually a reserve and not used until it is needed. Much like performance increase with a higher stroke volume because the heart is able to pump more oxygen rich blood more efficiently, it doesn't need to when oxygen is more abundant (in the case of EPO) in volume. An increased stroke volume is very similar and would you argue that a higher stroke volume does not aid in performance?

I'm not going to argue against the importance neuromuscular efficiency as it is no doubt a very important factor which is right up there with the above but you seem to be stuck in the idea that that is the only limiter when really, it is only one of many factors that contribute to performance.

AGREED!!!!!!!! You guys are over-thinking a very simplistic sport. What a joke!

Say no, no, no to Orange wrote:

AGREED!!!!!!!! You guys are over-thinking a very simplistic sport. What a joke!

\

It's OK to think.

It's OK to get up off your a$$ and actually do something. Try it some time.

Jack The Riddler wrote:

Say no, no, no to Orange wrote:

AGREED!!!!!!!! You guys are over-thinking a very simplistic sport. What a joke!

It's OK to think.

Surfs UP dude wrote:

It's OK to get up off your a$$ and actually do something. Try it some time.

Jack The Riddler wrote:

It's OK to think.

I ran 10 miles today among other things. You can even think WHILE you are running. Try it some time.

But obviously you're going very, very slow and your ability to think is even worse than it is when you're actually trying to think. Stick to jogging and someday you'll be able to break 3:30 for a marathon and in the process learn that what you are ATTEMPTING to think about wouldn't help you to improve 1 second on your best day. I probably lost you, but sleep on it or ask your boyfriend. Maybe together both of you can figure it out. Hurts don't it?

Jack The Riddler wrote:

Surfs UP dude wrote:

It's OK to get up off your a$$ and actually do something. Try it some time.

I ran 10 miles today among other things. You can even think WHILE you are running. Try it some time.

Surfs UP dude wrote:

But obviously you're going very, very slow and your ability to think is even worse than it is when you're actually trying to think. Stick to jogging and someday you'll be able to break 3:30 for a marathon and in the process learn that what you are ATTEMPTING to think about wouldn't help you to improve 1 second on your best day. I probably lost you, but sleep on it or ask your boyfriend. Maybe together both of you can figure it out. Hurts don't it?

Jack The Riddler wrote:

I ran 10 miles today among other things. You can even think WHILE you are running. Try it some time.

You didn't run today, did you?

Give it a rest Jack, you're sounding dumb and dumber.

Jack The Riddler wrote:

Say no, no, no to Orange wrote:

AGREED!!!!!!!! You guys are over-thinking a very simplistic sport. What a joke!

It's OK to think.

Thread success wrote:

Give it a rest Jack, you're sounding dumb and dumber.

Jack The Riddler wrote:

It's OK to think.

It's not OK for YOU to think.

It's not OK for YOU to even "think" about thinking. Ouch! Don't "think" about that one too much...conserve your limited brain cells for your boyfriend.

Jack The Riddler wrote:

Thread success wrote:

Give it a rest Jack, you're sounding dumb and dumber.

It's not OK for YOU to think.

The lost art of reading comprehension.

Spelling too. Who's?