Read this and research ARD television. Doping is a major issue:
Read this and research ARD television. Doping is a major issue:
They run fast because they are super fit athletes. It has nothing to do with drugs. That really is superstitious nonsense. If the drugs are so good how come so many of the womens' old records are still unbroken? How much faster would Ben Johnson have been without that extra steroid bulk?
You obviousl don't understand the concept of oxygen economy. I don't think anyone here really does. It's so simple: when you are running efficiently you are using less oxygen than normal, you have a reserve which you don't need to use. But because the drug dogma is so ingrained in your brain you just can't rationalize the principle of efficiency clearly. That is superstition. An irrational belief in something that is pretend science.
Athletics Illustrated wrote:
Read this and research ARD television. Doping is a major issue:
http://athleticsillustrated.com/editorial/is-the-sport-of-athletics-at-great-risk-citing-the-latest-apparent-daming-evidence-of-extortion-bribery-peds-and-cover-ups/
Doping is a major issue for drug doctors, drug dealers, some coaches and athletes who are obsessed with drugs, journalists, and the politicians of drug testing. Yes it's a major issue all right. But I'm not expecting a really intelligent debate on running or cycling efficiency any time soon.
In the 13 years I have been posting here I have not seen one exercise physiologist posting information about the subject that I could really respect. They all have huge gaps in their knowledge, which they refuse to recognise.
You have it backwards my friend. You cant make something out of nothing. Your body can never get the same power output with less oxygen. But what it can do is adapt to use MORE of the oxygen you breath in. even at high altitude your body is more the adequately saturated with O2, but how much o2 your body can use at a given time and at what rate it can is the fitness factor.
Its what yyour body can do with 1 molecule of o2,
Its how much o2 you can use at once.
yes, but wrote:
You obviousl don't understand the concept of oxygen economy. I don't think anyone here really does. It's so simple: when you are running efficiently you are using less oxygen than normal, you have a reserve which you don't need to use. But because the drug dogma is so ingrained in your brain you just can't rationalize the principle of efficiency clearly. That is superstition. An irrational belief in something that is pretend science.
I'll bite. Please can you give us a concise, one sentence definition of oxygen economy, including units.
yes, but:
Are you "good science, bad science" = J.O.?
think wrote:
You have it backwards my friend. You cant make something out of nothing. Your body can never get the same power output with less oxygen. But what it can do is adapt to use MORE of the oxygen you breath in. even at high altitude your body is more the adequately saturated with O2, but how much o2 your body can use at a given time and at what rate it can is the fitness factor.
Its what yyour body can do with 1 molecule of o2,
Its how much o2 you can use at once.
Wrong. Look up running (oxygen) economy.
In running physiology, it is refered to as running economy, but I don't like that term because it is too narrow. But here is the wikipedia page for running economy:
Thank you I know how to use google and am not entirely uneducated in this subject.
You have made several references to "oxygen economy" and so I am simply asking you define this quantity and the units it is measured in. This is to establish whether you are someone with ideas worth listening to or not.
You've now stated that you do not like the definition of running economy. That's fine. Here is your chance to present us with what you think is a more useful model.
Pace or distance per unit of oxygen uptake
ml/kg/km
Isn't the CO2 production from O2 consumption?
Limey UK Runner wrote:
yes, but wrote:Everyone seems to ignore this point. Endless BS about EPO supposedly increasing oxygen supply also ignores this point.
This is a bit outside my comfort zone but my two bits is that you are right to call BS on the performance benefit of EPO being down to enhanced oxygen supply. It seems much more likely to me that it is due to enhanced CO2 extraction or some other effect you get as a result of having more young red blood cells.
There was another thread around that subject recently but I didn't get much past the first page because of the pissing contest that quickly developed.
mmm.... wrote:
Isn't the CO2 production from O2 consumption?
That is what I would call overly-reductionist.
CO2 is an output from Kreb's. O2 is an input into the ETC. These systems are linked but to say that Kreb's is limited by O2 availability to ETC alone is incorrect.
http://rockmartcrossroads.net/photosynthesis-and-respiration-flow-chart-38.jpg(random link from google images)
But what do I know? This is not my original field so if I have it wrong then please correct me.
yes, but wrote:
Pace or distance per unit of oxygen uptake
ml/kg/km
I appreciate your response, but your units do not fit with your definition.
Pace or distance per unit of oxygen uptake would be:
km/s/ml/s (pace per O2/sec), or km/ml/s (distance per O2/sec)
This suggests to me that as I suspected you are not from a scientific background, or perhaps you are still quite young. If I'm wrong or not that's fine, it doesn't mean that you don't have valuable ideas.
The starting point I was kind of hoping you would post was a similar but subtly different "oxygen uptake per unit pace", [ml/s/m/s]
Because as I suspect you know, distance per O2 uptake is not of great interest since that would be higher if you are walking. The interesting quantity is what happens when you want to cover a distance in less time. At the moment I'm considering what happens when you think down those lines. Please do throw down your ideas. There is nothing to lose here.
Disclaimer: I have a day off tomorrow so this Limey is on the vino, hence if there are errors above I admit to giving very few rat's arses.
Whatever chains you refer to, isn't the overall reaction 6O2+.... -> 6CO2 +... ?
Limey UK Runner wrote:
mmm.... wrote:Isn't the CO2 production from O2 consumption?
That is what I would call overly-reductionist.
CO2 is an output from Kreb's. O2 is an input into the ETC. These systems are linked but to say that Kreb's is limited by O2 availability to ETC alone is incorrect.
http://rockmartcrossroads.net/photosynthesis-and-respiration-flow-chart-38.jpg(random link from google images)
But what do I know? This is not my original field so if I have it wrong then please correct me.
Hi Rexing.
I appreciate that you want to score internet points but please, contribute something or contribute nothing.
Regards.
Do you understand the chart you posted ? (Please read the 1st line on the first line)Do you have any idea what you are/were talking about?BTW, I'm no Rexing.
Limey UK Runner wrote:
Hi Rexing.
I appreciate that you want to score internet points but please, contribute something or contribute nothing.
Regards.
Not from fat... Consumes O2, without producing CO2.
mmm.... wrote:
Whatever chains you refer to, isn't the overall reaction 6O2+.... -> 6CO2 +... ?
Limey UK Runner wrote:That is what I would call overly-reductionist.
CO2 is an output from Kreb's. O2 is an input into the ETC. These systems are linked but to say that Kreb's is limited by O2 availability to ETC alone is incorrect.
http://rockmartcrossroads.net/photosynthesis-and-respiration-flow-chart-38.jpg(random link from google images)
But what do I know? This is not my original field so if I have it wrong then please correct me.
mmm.... wrote:
Do you understand the chart you posted ? (Please read the 1st line on the first line)
Do you have any idea what you are/were talking about?
BTW, I'm no Rexing.
I understand everything. Except yo momma.
Any questions please post them up. Thanks.
I started a productive and informative thread :)
My only question is with your use of enhanced CO2 extraction. How does that benefit performance?If you were referring to the aerobic metabolism (BTW, fat metabolism is aerobic, that's why you don't stop breathing while sitting there doing nothing), CO2 is one of the final products (waste) of the processes. If you're referring to the anaerobic metabolism, for distance running I would assume you're talking about the lactate process which does NOT produce CO2 at all.I am just not sure what you were mumbling about, besides throwing around the jargons.
Limey UK Runner wrote:
mmm.... wrote:Do you understand the chart you posted ? (Please read the 1st line on the first line)
Do you have any idea what you are/were talking about?
BTW, I'm no Rexing.
I understand everything. Except yo momma.
Any questions please post them up. Thanks.
