physics defiant wrote:
Africans definitely discovered secret training techniques in the 90s but unfortunately they forgot to write then down and they are lost.
Westerners were never able to figure them out so their times have only dropped by about 5 seconds over 5k in the last 38 years. In the same time East Africans dropped about 25 seconds. With the loss of knowledge they are back to being about 10 seconds faster.
They are not lost -- you can find the best runners on the roads.
Again, you don't take the point of the assertions I Always did in LR.
There is no difference in physiology among human beings, when the basic conditions are the same. So, African people have the same behavior of European, American, Australian and New Zealand people.
Everybody, at the same conditions, has the same answer to blood manipulation, the difference is the percentage of improvement between responders (4-6%) and not responders (2-4%).
But there are factors that can change the BASIC CONDITION, putting people in different categories.
1) The natural talent. Natural talent for running depends on the possibility to own a circulatory system able to contain till 20% of total volume of blood more than usual. We know, through several physiological studies, that the Aerobic Training (also if not really intensive), can increase the total volume of blood till 5-7% in every human. The difference between this percentage and the percentage reachable by the top runners in the world is very high, and this is one of the reason of top performances, compared with the performances of medium level of normal athletes.
2) The level of training. Since with blood manipulation we want to improve the ability of transporting Oxygen, and with intense aerobic training the same, it's clear that there is an individual limit at the development of that characteristics, and, because of the balance inside our body, when we overtake the limit, some other characteristics connected with the possibility to achieve the best performance start to reduce the effect of the transport. In other words, it's not true that, continuing to enhance the level of Hb and Hct, athletes can run faster in indefinite way, so top athletes, with proper maximal training, can reach the limit which can't be overtaked with any other method, legal or illegal, because is the higher possibility for the body to work in balance with the other functions connected with the performance.
3) How is possible to reach that maximal limit ? With very hard training of Aerobic Power in altitude, having the goal to reach the maximal personal LT (lactic threshold) and to extend the ability running so fast, improving the ability to remove lactate from the muscle fibers. In order to achieve this goal, athletes need to improve the cell membrane permeability (or permeation), so the product of the intensity can be removed in shorter time, and this means that also the recovery from lactic training can happen in shorter time.
4) This physiological result is not connected with the color of the skin or the original of the athlete, but with different characteristics of DNA. So, we don't have to ask "why Kenyan and Ethiopian runners are faster than White runners ?", but, for example, "why, also with my maximal training, I'm very far from the possibility of running fast like Julien Wanders or Sondre Moen, who are European and White like me ?".
5) The same athletes who can't have any benefit from blood manipulation at the peak of their shape, can have some advantage when the shape is still poor, because their training at the moment was not strong enough (not volume and not specific intensity enough), or because they couldn't have effective training after some injury. In this case, blood manipulation can represent a "shortcut" for reaching again, in short time (shorter than with training only) an Aerobic Level at the base of the development of their specific training.
At the end of every thing, the same athlete can benefit from blood manipulation in different percentage, depending on the level of training, till when, able to do again the most hard and effective training, there is no further advantage with any external help (don't forget we speak about blood manipulation only : if some athlete at his best wants to take steroids, this situation can produce a further advantage, but the action on the body is in another direction, and this is the case of doping for cyclists).
So, training (that everybody seems to forget) is at the base of every physiological evolution in every human body. The level of benefit for performances of the human body depending on the blood manipulation can't be evaluated without knowing the training of the athlete and its effect.
All the other thinks are only speculations, and every generalization is a big physiological mistake.
rekrunner wrote:
rekrunner is a liar wrote:
Yet you conclude that doping is ineffective for non Africans, which is definitely cause and effect, based on the very same data and the same absences of data.
So either you are being disingenuous or you need to rethink the whole thing.
I've rethought and arrived at the same conclusions.
What I observed for non-Africans was comparatively ineffective performances on a global scale over the course of the last three decades. While I lack individual doping data, I do have some general prevalence data available by country to show that non-African doping prevalence was not zero.
That's awesome, although your re-thinker appears to be stuck.
Since non-Africans had ineffective performances and therefore doping does not work for them (without regard to any other confounding factors) the, necessarily:
Africans had comparatively effective performances, their doping prevalence was also not zero and so we must also disregard any potential confounders and attribute the effective performances to doping.
Either that or we discuss confounding factors both ways...
Armstronglivs wrote:
But not as odd as your being "motivated to look for non-doping" explanations for performance in a sport known to be rife with dopers. I'm sure you would expect to discover virginity in a bordello. Your "data" would confirm it - but I'd never suggest that you would depend on experience.
What seems odd is that "rife with doping" is not limited to East and North Africans, while the fastest performances are. This suggests a weak correlation.
rekrunner is a liar wrote:
Since non-Africans had ineffective performances and therefore doping does not work for them (without regard to any other confounding factors) the, necessarily:
Africans had comparatively effective performances, their doping prevalence was also not zero and so we must also disregard any potential confounders and attribute the effective performances to doping.
Either that or we discuss confounding factors both ways...
By all means -- we need to discuss other contributors to performance than doping.
rekrunner wrote:
rekrunner is a liar wrote:
Since non-Africans had ineffective performances and therefore doping does not work for them (without regard to any other confounding factors) the, necessarily:
Africans had comparatively effective performances, their doping prevalence was also not zero and so we must also disregard any potential confounders and attribute the effective performances to doping.
Either that or we discuss confounding factors both ways...
By all means -- we need to discuss other contributors to performance than doping.
But then, since you cannot study and isolate those in a comprehensive and scientific way, you are totally unable to draw any conclusions at all.
Which seems about the right conclusion for your "method"
rekrunner wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
But not as odd as your being "motivated to look for non-doping" explanations for performance in a sport known to be rife with dopers. I'm sure you would expect to discover virginity in a bordello. Your "data" would confirm it - but I'd never suggest that you would depend on experience.
What seems odd is that "rife with doping" is not limited to East and North Africans, while the fastest performances are. This suggests a weak correlation.
Only to a weak mind. Africa = more rife with doping.
Armstronglivs wrote:
Only to a weak mind. Africa = more rife with doping.
We do not see this in recent blood doping prevalence figures by country.
rekrunner wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
Only to a weak mind. Africa = more rife with doping.
We do not see this in recent blood doping prevalence figures by country.
No, we see it in the parade of doping busts and significant absence of anti-doping. But you will keep not seeing what you don't want to see. Data can be useful for that.
rekrunner is a liar wrote:
But then, since you cannot study and isolate those in a comprehensive and scientific way, you are totally unable to draw any conclusions at all.
Which seems about the right conclusion for your "method"
Science doesn't always arrive at conclusions in a quick way.
Yet there are ways to establish correlations that are more convincing than faith and fallacy, and the data would be easier to gather when it is not against the rules.
Look how quickly this was done with 4% shoes.
Armstronglivs wrote:
rekrunner wrote:
We do not see this in recent blood doping prevalence figures by country.
No, we see it in the parade of doping busts and significant absence of anti-doping. But you will keep not seeing what you don't want to see. Data can be useful for that.
Can you convert "parade of doping busts" into a percentage? Given the large number of East African athletes, I am not convinced that the prevalence is unusually high.
rekrunner wrote:
rekrunner is a liar wrote:
But then, since you cannot study and isolate those in a comprehensive and scientific way, you are totally unable to draw any conclusions at all.
Which seems about the right conclusion for your "method"
Science doesn't always arrive at conclusions in a quick way.
Yet there are ways to establish correlations that are more convincing than faith and fallacy, and the data would be easier to gather when it is not against the rules.
Look how quickly this was done with 4% shoes.
So why did you ignore that and adopt faith and fallacy to argue that doping does not work with non Africans without and discussion, and absolutely no documented studies about confounders in non-Africans?
rekrunner wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
No, we see it in the parade of doping busts and significant absence of anti-doping. But you will keep not seeing what you don't want to see. Data can be useful for that.
Can you convert "parade of doping busts" into a percentage? Given the large number of East African athletes, I am not convinced that the prevalence is unusually high.
I am not interested in what you are convinced by and I can't be a*rsed pointing out the blindingly obvious to you - not to mention what has been reported on a near weekly basis for several years. You might choose to leave your cellar some time.
rekrunner wrote:
physics defiant wrote:
But you do between Russian women and Male Racewalkers and everyone else.
I don't understand your posts. They always seem to be non-sequiturs.
With respect to doping response, I do not distinguish Russian women from other women.
With respect to doping response, I do not distinguish male racewalkers from ? other male racewalkers?
As you can see in my posts above, my ideas of where doping helps are a function of dope, event, gender, talent, fitness, and weakness.
In previous discussions, when my comments and observations were limited to male distance runners, I often had to remind others that such conclusions did not apply to Russian women or male race-walkers, and sometimes male cyclists, because they are not male distance runners.
If you look up that word you'll find : non sequitur see Garry/rekrunner.
You can tell the talent and fitness and weakness of individuals? Cool. You should bet the ponies.
rekrunner wrote:
physics defiant wrote:
Africans definitely discovered secret training techniques in the 90s but unfortunately they forgot to write then down and they are lost.
Westerners were never able to figure them out so their times have only dropped by about 5 seconds over 5k in the last 38 years. In the same time East Africans dropped about 25 seconds. With the loss of knowledge they are back to being about 10 seconds faster.
They are not lost -- you can find the best runners on the roads.
They should just be able to drop in on the track championships and knock off the chumps there with 1995 times if true.
rekrunner is a liar wrote:
So why did you ignore that and adopt faith and fallacy to argue that doping does not work with non Africans without and discussion, and absolutely no documented studies about confounders in non-Africans?
In a discussion of cause and effect, it is necessary to have both cause and effect.
When there is no effect, discussing various causes isn't necessary.
My observation was that, despite doping being a global phenomena, non-Africans are unable to produce the same quality and quantity of results that Africans have for the last three decades.
rekrunner wrote:
rekrunner is a liar wrote:
So why did you ignore that and adopt faith and fallacy to argue that doping does not work with non Africans without and discussion, and absolutely no documented studies about confounders in non-Africans?
In a discussion of cause and effect, it is necessary to have both cause and effect.
When there is no effect, discussing various causes isn't necessary.
My observation was that, despite doping being a global phenomena, non-Africans are unable to produce the same quality and quantity of results that Africans have for the last three decades.
Because it is quite possible that more Africans dope than anyone else and they dope more. It's called a confounder.
physics defiant wrote:
They are not lost -- you can find the best runners on the roads.
They should just be able to drop in on the track championships and knock off the chumps there with 1995 times if true.[/quote]
Well they would have to train specifically for that, and need the right incentive.
We have seen events, like France Diamond League 2012, and Bruxelles 2018 where a handful of Ethiopians and Kenyans did just that.
Armstronglivs wrote:
Because it is quite possible that more Africans dope than anyone else and they dope more. It's called a confounder.
That's what you would need to believe to perpetuate the myth.
Now, how would you proceed to show that?
rekrunner wrote:
rekrunner is a liar wrote:
So why did you ignore that and adopt faith and fallacy to argue that doping does not work with non Africans without and discussion, and absolutely no documented studies about confounders in non-Africans?
In a discussion of cause and effect, it is necessary to have both cause and effect.
When there is no effect, discussing various causes isn't necessary.
My observation was that, despite doping being a global phenomena, non-Africans are unable to produce the same quality and quantity of results that Africans have for the last three decades.
What's the percentage of Africans trying to be elite runners versus other countries?
Following the idea that they don't dope more as a percentage, there's just more of them.