So you don't have any actual interest in physiology, just inane posts?
Anyone out there interested in real physiolgy? Anyone understand the concept of bio-mechanical efficiency?
Because that is what makes the difference between ordinary runners and the fastest in the world.
'Performance Enhancing Drugs' is a concept, not a fact. I want you all to understand this, so the sport can really move ahead instead of going backwards.
bless you,jon ;) youre a little bit spooky,possibly socially inept,a potential serial killer,and more than a little bit bitter,but you make letsrun interesting,and im glad youre on here :) everyone on here hates you,but i dont.blessed be.
Jon Orange wrote:
So you don't have any actual interest in physiology, just inane posts?
Anyone out there interested in real physiolgy? Anyone understand the concept of bio-mechanical efficiency?
Because that is what makes the difference between ordinary runners and the fastest in the world.
'Performance Enhancing Drugs' is a concept, not a fact. I want you all to understand this, so the sport can really move ahead instead of going backwards.
Well why don't you stop with the inane posts and get on with the "real" physiology?
Pre was faster than Shorter despite being less efficient. Bigger engine.
jeff tallon wrote:
bless you,jon ;) youre a little bit spooky,possibly socially inept,a potential serial killer,and more than a little bit bitter,but you make letsrun interesting,and im glad youre on here :) everyone on here hates you,but i dont.blessed be.
Actually, Jon Orange is a great example of how society has advanced. A hundred years ago a guy like Jon Orange would have been sold to a circus as as a sideshow freak. People like him, who suffer from microcephaly were treated very poorly and generally given the stage name of "pinhead". I think all of us can feel much better about ourselves that Jon Orange is allowed to try to live a normal a life as possible, post on LRC etc., instead of being a circus freak that people point and laugh at. On that note, please try to be more kind in your responses; remember, he essentially has no brain. So while it's easy to laugh at his posts, you should be impressed that he is able to use a computer and type anything at all. It's a massive accomplishment for him. Don't expect anything intelligent to come out, that's just not possible, just appreciate what he's accomplishing with the terrible hand life dealt him.
Jon Orange wrote:
You can't answer the question.
I answered it to the best of my ability.
Are you sure you read what I wrote? I answered half directly: yes, drugs can improve your ability to run fast.
The second half, I'm not sure because I don't really know what you're asking, and honestly don't know how you want it defined.
If we develop gene therapy that let's me have the body of a cheetah for sprints, and I choose not to opt for that, am I missing out on my potential? I don't have an answer for you, because I don't know what is meant by achieving ones potential.
Jon Orange wrote:
Then do you believe that to be the best that you can be, you have to take drugs?
Yes, certain drugs will make you faster but they will also make your achievements illegitimate.
Jon Orange wrote:
test2 wrote:Really? Can you supply any evidence for this? Give me an argument why this is true.
Yes women have lower testosterone than men, but even steroid using women are/were the same 8-10 slower than men. I find it strange that many of the women's records are very old. I think there is a lack of belief that they can be beaten, which needs to be addressed.
Read more:
http://www.letsrun.com/forum/flat_read.php?thread=7035159&page=4#ixzz40ikSiSHz
Clearly self belief matters hugely and I don't take issue with athletes telling themselves that PEDs aren't an insurmountable advantage. Hell, I don't have a problem with a coach like Renato Canova telling his athletes that their world class competition isn't helped at all by EPO. Likely that is what a clean athlete needs to believe to win. At the same time, this need for self belief isn't a substitute for objective truth.
The science suggests that PEDs improves performance (I and others can provide ample citations if this point is in dispute). Mr. Canova, however, disputes the applicability of the scientific findings on EPO's efficacy to his own athletes and you, Mr. Orange, have an even more extreme view that all PEDs don't work, including testosterone for female athletes. Since your views are contrary to the scientific consensus and also contrary to the overwhelming opinion of people in the field who have experience with PEDs, if you, Mr. Canova or anyone else are going to air these views in a public forum, then the onus falls on you to provide evidence. After all, what do you hope to accomplish by withholding your evidence? Even if you are right, and the majority wrong, how likely are you to change people's minds without presenting convincing evidence?
Jon, I said that I couldnt expect you to believe me regarding Brailsford - how do I know what he thinks privately ? By talking to him. You can choose to believe me or not.
I have read the discussion paper related to the Yannis research. I am not certain which of your views it supports but it does say "running performance improved" following epo usage. Whilst the exact mechanism for the improvement might be disputed, the research clearly shows there was improvement by taking 'drugs'. I dont read anything there that supports the concept that drugs dont work. Please tell me where I have gone wrong.
Barney Castle wrote:
Jon, I said that I couldnt expect you to believe me regarding Brailsford - how do I know what he thinks privately ? By talking to him. You can choose to believe me or not.
I have read the discussion paper related to the Yannis research. I am not certain which of your views it supports but it does say "running performance improved" following epo usage. Whilst the exact mechanism for the improvement might be disputed, the research clearly shows there was improvement by taking 'drugs'. I dont read anything there that supports the concept that drugs dont work. Please tell me where I have gone wrong.
Close your eyes and your ears and you will get a feel for how Jon comes to his "conclusion".
If you have a pile of sand you can bury your head for greater effect.
Jon Orange wrote:
Then do you believe that to be the best that you can be, you have to take drugs?
I have to address this belief, it's the concept that's going to kill the sport.
Believe in human physiology people please, not pharmacology.
I am confused. If I want to be the best I can be, then it should be based on what can do without prohibited drugs.
Jon Orange wrote:
EPO Cheats Out wrote:How do you explain late stage career resurgence of Eddy H and Regina Jacobs after they started taking EPO? It was all psychological right??
Yes. How do you explain my late career surge. Must be drugs right?
Were your parents athletes? What sports did you play as a kid?
If you started running at 3 @ 7:40 at 30 plus and went to 13.1 @ 5:35,
in one year, it indicates some talent. But there's probably some guy doing 13 @ 5 after one year of training. Talent.
And even if you think it was biomechanical efficency, it takes thousands of foot falls to hone that efficiency.
How close do you live to Martin Rees.
http://www.athleticsweekly.com/0/admin/coaching/how-they-train-martin-rees/
He's running close to 1:11 at 60 and started at 37.
Jon,
The term "Performance Enhancing Drug" is vague. If we have a PED, there can be no doubt that it is both a drug, and performance enhancing. Otherwise it would not qualify as a PED, but simply PE, or D, or perhaps neither. The question lacks precision, therefore the answers will too. The only answer to your question is "it depends on the drug, and the person".
So part of your question, I guess, is "do PEDs exist?" Then, "if so, which drugs, and for whom?"
Do you honestly suggest that NO PEDs exist for anyone? Do you suggest that anyone else, outside of JR, agrees with this? Do you suggest that science generally agrees with this?
Despite the existence of bio-mechanical efficiency, performance is also partly bio-chemical.
If some imbalance or weakness exists, and a drug strengthens that weakness, bringing more balance, then performance will improve. At the top, athletes have more balance, and fewer and less severe weaknesses. Yet even top women will respond well to male hormones, for events requiring muscle strength.
This is too dumb of a topic to have made it 3 pages. Maybe next you can debate gravity, whether earth is round, if we really went to the moon..
Jon, you need to proselytize more at home and less on here.
Been there -- done that. That was last month. I left with many unanswered questions about how man-made polar and geo-synch satellites could work in a flat world without gravity, and how both the sun and the moon can go "behind" the earth, as viewed by satellites.
Ataglance wrote:
This is too dumb of a topic to have made it 3 pages. Maybe next you can debate gravity, whether earth is round, if we really went to the moon..
jeff tallon wrote:
bless you,jon ;) youre a little bit spooky,possibly socially inept,a potential serial killer,and more than a little bit bitter,but you make letsrun interesting,and im glad youre on here :) everyone on here hates you,but i dont.blessed be.
jeff. Spooky? Whatever. socially inept? I say what needs to be said. If people don't like it, that's their problem. Serial killer? I don't even hate anyone, and nobody hates me, they just hate this issue we are arguing about.
See how far out your perception is?
LM wrote:
Jon Orange wrote:You can't answer the question.
I answered it to the best of my ability.
Are you sure you read what I wrote? I answered half directly: yes, drugs can improve your ability to run fast.
The second half, I'm not sure because I don't really know what you're asking, and honestly don't know how you want it defined.
If we develop gene therapy that let's me have the body of a cheetah for sprints, and I choose not to opt for that, am I missing out on my potential? I don't have an answer for you, because I don't know what is meant by achieving ones potential.
Your posts show that you lack a thorough understanding of exercise physiology. You are making the classic mistake that almost everyone else makes, missing out the nerual componenty; bio-mechanical efficiency. That is where your performance potential is developed. Gene therapy? Please, learn some real physiology.
test2 wrote:
Jon Orange wrote:Then do you believe that to be the best that you can be, you have to take drugs?
Yes, certain drugs will make you faster but they will also make your achievements illegitimate.
Jon Orange wrote:
Yes women have lower testosterone than men, but even steroid using women are/were the same 8-10 slower than men. I find it strange that many of the women's records are very old. I think there is a lack of belief that they can be beaten, which needs to be addressed.
Read more:
http://www.letsrun.com/forum/flat_read.php?thread=7035159&page=4#ixzz40ikSiSHzClearly self belief matters hugely and I don't take issue with athletes telling themselves that PEDs aren't an insurmountable advantage. Hell, I don't have a problem with a coach like Renato Canova telling his athletes that their world class competition isn't helped at all by EPO. Likely that is what a clean athlete needs to believe to win. At the same time, this need for self belief isn't a substitute for objective truth.
The science suggests that PEDs improves performance (I and others can provide ample citations if this point is in dispute). Mr. Canova, however, disputes the applicability of the scientific findings on EPO's efficacy to his own athletes and you, Mr. Orange, have an even more extreme view that all PEDs don't work, including testosterone for female athletes. Since your views are contrary to the scientific consensus and also contrary to the overwhelming opinion of people in the field who have experience with PEDs, if you, Mr. Canova or anyone else are going to air these views in a public forum, then the onus falls on you to provide evidence. After all, what do you hope to accomplish by withholding your evidence? Even if you are right, and the majority wrong, how likely are you to change people's minds without presenting convincing evidence?
Learn your basic physiology. Bio-mechanical efficiency. Learn what it is and what it does. Above all, don't tell lecture me when you can't see the big picture.
Jon, so do your posts. But you already know that. And you're never going to change, are you?
Barney Castle wrote:
Jon, I said that I couldnt expect you to believe me regarding Brailsford - how do I know what he thinks privately ? By talking to him. You can choose to believe me or not.
I have read the discussion paper related to the Yannis research. I am not certain which of your views it supports but it does say "running performance improved" following epo usage. Whilst the exact mechanism for the improvement might be disputed, the research clearly shows there was improvement by taking 'drugs'. I dont read anything there that supports the concept that drugs dont work. Please tell me where I have gone wrong.
I'll say it again. Brailsford has to be careful what he says to whom for fear of either misinterpretation or causing offence. Next time you talk to him, ask him the question at the start of this thread. Think about it. People can't answer the question without contradicting themselves. When you get into the philosophy of it, it puts more doubts in your mind about what you are expected to believe and what you really feel deep down.
Regarding the research paper, read it again, carefully. The authors refer to the neural factors. They aren't as ignorant as others. Pitsiladis himself has asked the same questions as me, in lectures and got an intersting response.