it's 2018 not 1998 wrote:
The 'drug problem' in sport is a social construct...
Interesting that Bruce Jenner cut off some of his social constructs of another sort. I guess that makes sense if you classify human conception as a social construct.
it's 2018 not 1998 wrote:
The 'drug problem' in sport is a social construct...
Interesting that Bruce Jenner cut off some of his social constructs of another sort. I guess that makes sense if you classify human conception as a social construct.
ex-runner wrote:
it's 2018 not 1998 wrote:
He needs to drag his head out of the 90s EPO is not a performance enhancer. The idea that any drug or blood manipulation can give you more energy or allow your body to produce more energy is just plain nonsense.
What the world of sports science needs is a bioenergetics model, based on actual real science to demonstrate the principle of homeostasis. We all have a limited energy expenditure, beyond which iit is impossible to go. Doing so would lead to catastrophic failure and so the body has many mechanisms in place to prevent this. This folks is basic physiology and has been known since before blood manipulation started 50 years ago.
Expecting exercise physiologists to climb of the drug obsessed band wagon is unrealistic. Try talking to them about this issue and you will find that most of them have absolutely no clue about bioenergetics, even the one who have published papers on such issues as oxygen kinetics.
I'm really not sure why you think 'producing more energy' would be performance enhancing. I'm not following why you think you need 'more energy' to run faster.
I don't. That's the point I'm making.
ex-runner wrote:
it's 2018 not 1998 wrote:
He needs to drag his head out of the 90s EPO is not a performance enhancer. The idea that any drug or blood manipulation can give you more energy or allow your body to produce more energy is just plain nonsense.
What the world of sports science needs is a bioenergetics model, based on actual real science to demonstrate the principle of homeostasis. We all have a limited energy expenditure, beyond which iit is impossible to go. Doing so would lead to catastrophic failure and so the body has many mechanisms in place to prevent this. This folks is basic physiology and has been known since before blood manipulation started 50 years ago.
Expecting exercise physiologists to climb of the drug obsessed band wagon is unrealistic. Try talking to them about this issue and you will find that most of them have absolutely no clue about bioenergetics, even the one who have published papers on such issues as oxygen kinetics.
I'm really not sure why you think 'producing more energy' would be performance enhancing. I'm not following why you think you need 'more energy' to run faster.
Not more but at a faster rate. Jon keeps overlooking that.
Duly noted. I've filed this in my notes under "appeal to false authority".
Now That's Telling It Like It Is wrote:
At last, an honest commentator telling it like it is. wrote:
Former international distance runner and commentator Tim Hutchings during the London Grand Prix 5k on Eurosport talking about previous fast times and how nobody had run below 13 minutes this year:
"Those times seem a thing of the past...a bygone era, I never thought I'd hear myself say that, but sub 12.50 times now seem like science fiction almost. With the drug testing that goes on has nailed down so much of the activity in the sport of track and field, athletic standards have dropped dramatically to perhaps more natural levels over this past two or three years."
Well done Tim, hopefully more will come out, we might even get a few athletes admitting to it.
rekrunner pay attention to this (drum roll).
it's 2018 not 1998 wrote:
but Luv2Run will never discuss anything, just make statements. This is how most sports scientists operate. They won't get involved in any discussion that goes against the current dogma. So my ad hominem to them is that they are part of the doping culture despite their moralizing.
Um all you do is make the same statement and provide no actual science beyond wild speculation.
ex-runner wrote:
it's 2018 not 1998 wrote:
Sad, but true. A supposedly impossible barrier has been put in place in the minds of those who are supposed to 'coach' women in the 100, 200, 400, 800 and 1500 meter races. The barrier is mental not physical.
Yes 47.6 is super fast, and yes I believe she used steroids. If we use the simplistic 10% rule it's the equivalent of 43.27 for a man, super fast but not superhuman.
If she used steroids like you have said, that's why she is faster than the women of today.
One of the major factors that makes women and men have different levels of physical strength and therefore speed is differing testosterone levels. Testosterone is an anabolic steroid. Synthetic steroids mimic testosterone. Women that take them produce facial hair, increased strength, voices get deeper, have shrinking breasts, enlarged clitorises - essentially they start to turn into men.
How do you not understand this?
Because it's a simplistic argument. If testosterone could bridge the 10% performance gap between men and women, we would see this statistically, but we don't. It's still around 10%. So it appear that testosterone, although it can make women look more like men, it is not capable of making anything near a superhuman performance. Neither does it do this in men. Our top speed is both genetics and training, but no-one here expected Usain Bolt to dominate the 100. No-one saw that coming, not one person posting here in early 2007 had any clue about what he was about to unleash on the world. Sprint coaches like to pretend they know, but they spend too much time gossiping to actually figure out how to put the sprint component together.
Fact is, Bolt had superior speed endurance. partly from running 200 and 400 from a young age and partly becuase a large athlete has an aerodynamic advantage due to a lower surface area to volume ratio. This I think also expains why smaller athletes lean more when they run, to compensate for their aero disadvantage.
But when Bolt learned how to start, he was unbeatable.
Hood scoop for more Oxygen burning wrote:
it's 2018 not 1998 wrote:
but Luv2Run will never discuss anything, just make statements. This is how most sports scientists operate. They won't get involved in any discussion that goes against the current dogma. So my ad hominem to them is that they are part of the doping culture despite their moralizing.
Um all you do is make the same statement and provide no actual science beyond wild speculation.
Watch some videos of Lance Armstrong in the Tour de France. The current dogma, which Luv2run clings to is that he was producing 7 watts per kilo on Alpe d'Huez. A more realistic figure is 6 watts per kilo.
That is the difference between what people believe and what is actually going on biomechanically. To keep the PED construct going, numbers are invented. Ross Tucker should stop doing this too. He does a mixture of reasonable numeration and pepetuating the mythology of higher numbers. This is because he is corresponding so much that he gets pulled in both directions from rational thought to the superhuman construct.
Even if I could have a reasonable discussion with him, he would soon be pulled the other way. A lot of this comes down to the fact that sports scientists have an inferiority complex about their own physicality which they project onto everyone else. Journalists do this a lot too as do many coaches, parents, other athletes ect. It all harks back to that ancient superstituous belief of magic potions that give superhuman strength. This social construct is still very much alive today. But when it is enforced as a rule of how we must think act and believe, we have a quasi religious dogma ruling the sport. I guess some people like it that way and they can gain power, influence and money from perpetuating the system?
10l per minute beats 9.5 litres per 90s wrote:
ex-runner wrote:
I'm really not sure why you think 'producing more energy' would be performance enhancing. I'm not following why you think you need 'more energy' to run faster.
Not more but at a faster rate. Jon keeps overlooking that.
Thermoregulatory impossiblity. Homeostasis. Look it up.
it's 2018 not 1998 wrote:
ex-runner wrote:
If she used steroids like you have said, that's why she is faster than the women of today.
One of the major factors that makes women and men have different levels of physical strength and therefore speed is differing testosterone levels. Testosterone is an anabolic steroid. Synthetic steroids mimic testosterone. Women that take them produce facial hair, increased strength, voices get deeper, have shrinking breasts, enlarged clitorises - essentially they start to turn into men.
How do you not understand this?
Because it's a simplistic argument. If testosterone could bridge the 10% performance gap between men and women, we would see this statistically, but we don't. It's still around 10%. So it appear that testosterone, although it can make women look more like men, it is not capable of making anything near a superhuman performance. Neither does it do this in men. Our top speed is both genetics and training, but no-one here expected Usain Bolt to dominate the 100. No-one saw that coming, not one person posting here in early 2007 had any clue about what he was about to unleash on the world. Sprint coaches like to pretend they know, but they spend too much time gossiping to actually figure out how to put the sprint component together.
Fact is, Bolt had superior speed endurance. partly from running 200 and 400 from a young age and partly becuase a large athlete has an aerodynamic advantage due to a lower surface area to volume ratio. This I think also expains why smaller athletes lean more when they run, to compensate for their aero disadvantage.
But when Bolt learned how to start, he was unbeatable.
It wouldn't fully bridge the gap because the female has developed through puberty as a female. She is not literally a man. Taking testosterone won't fully undo her development into a woman, in fact it doesn't come close.
A man who has been through puberty will develop with more muscle fibres than a woman could get, higher bone density, larger stronger hearts and other cardiovascular effects that one can't just get overnight.
It requires the process of growing up through puberty with the chromosomes telling your body what to do and what to make.
Testosterone starts to push her that way in allowing for more muscle mass and stronger muscles and therefore times that only a man can run clean start to become attainable for doping women. Stronger legs = bigger stride length and faster turnover = increased speed.
I'm not one of those that thinks drugs help by 10% or crazy numbers thrown around by people here. But 1 or 2% is realistic. Steroids DO increase strength it's proven beyond doubt. Ask sprinters why they do strength training.
rekrunner wrote:
Duly noted. I've filed this in my notes under "appeal to false authority"
Didn't take you long to home in one that one. Lol.
Hey...your ally, Jon Orange, is back to remind us of the myth & fallacy of PEDs with athletes. Now only if you two could get the steroid thing worked out you guys could have a pretty entertaining act. Lol.
I thought Hutchings was talking about the men's 5000m -- not sure what that has to do with women's 400m.
ex-runner wrote:
it's 2018 not 1998 wrote:
Because it's a simplistic argument. If testosterone could bridge the 10% performance gap between men and women, we would see this statistically, but we don't. It's still around 10%. So it appear that testosterone, although it can make women look more like men, it is not capable of making anything near a superhuman performance. Neither does it do this in men. Our top speed is both genetics and training, but no-one here expected Usain Bolt to dominate the 100. No-one saw that coming, not one person posting here in early 2007 had any clue about what he was about to unleash on the world. Sprint coaches like to pretend they know, but they spend too much time gossiping to actually figure out how to put the sprint component together.
Fact is, Bolt had superior speed endurance. partly from running 200 and 400 from a young age and partly becuase a large athlete has an aerodynamic advantage due to a lower surface area to volume ratio. This I think also expains why smaller athletes lean more when they run, to compensate for their aero disadvantage.
But when Bolt learned how to start, he was unbeatable.
It wouldn't fully bridge the gap because the female has developed through puberty as a female. She is not literally a man. Taking testosterone won't fully undo her development into a woman, in fact it doesn't come close.
A man who has been through puberty will develop with more muscle fibres than a woman could get, higher bone density, larger stronger hearts and other cardiovascular effects that one can't just get overnight.
It requires the process of growing up through puberty with the chromosomes telling your body what to do and what to make.
Testosterone starts to push her that way in allowing for more muscle mass and stronger muscles and therefore times that only a man can run clean start to become attainable for doping women. Stronger legs = bigger stride length and faster turnover = increased speed.
I'm not one of those that thinks drugs help by 10% or crazy numbers thrown around by people here. But 1 or 2% is realistic. Steroids DO increase strength it's proven beyond doubt. Ask sprinters why they do strength training.
In every case the difference between the men and women is 10% or so in the record books. Even the supposedly superhuman exploits of Flo Jo.
I don't accept that Exogenous Testosterone is a performance enhancer for either men or women. Injecting test for a man reduces his natural production.
Anyone who's a drug believer is absolutely a drug user.
However, anyone who thinks drugs are required to run is delusional, and is certainly not being honest.
Because that is totally wrong and misleading.
Cottonshirt, address the issue of bioenergetics...
I'm not sure I understand what you mean by, "the issue of bioenergetics."
bioenergetics is just a subject within biochemistry. it deals with the way energy is used and released by the making and breaking of chemical bonds.
Get away from the dogma and address the fact that we don't have a correct bioenergetic model.
okay, you keep saying this but you have so far delivered nothing. are you able to explain the following:
1. what you think the current "bioenergetic model" is ?
2. what is wrong with it.
3. what your version of the correct "bioenergetic model" is
4. why yours is correct.
cheers.
Cottonshirt wrote:
Cottonshirt, address the issue of bioenergetics...
I'm not sure I understand what you mean by, "the issue of bioenergetics."
bioenergetics is just a subject within biochemistry. it deals with the way energy is used and released by the making and breaking of chemical bonds.
Get away from the dogma and address the fact that we don't have a correct bioenergetic model.
okay, you keep saying this but you have so far delivered nothing. are you able to explain the following:
1. what you think the current "bioenergetic model" is ?
2. what is wrong with it.
3. what your version of the correct "bioenergetic model" is
4. why yours is correct.
cheers.
I've already explained it to you. Don't do a rekrunner on me and keep asking the same question overn and over and over.
yyy wrote:
correct, but there is nothing that indicates they would be able to run sub 12:50. Kamworor who probably is the best
track runner has not broken 13.
Det er ikke riktig.
Kamworor ran 12:59.98 two years ago in Eugene.
Sorry about the 2/100. My point still stands though.
it's 2018 not 1998 wrote:
Cottonshirt wrote:
I'm not sure I understand what you mean by, "the issue of bioenergetics."
bioenergetics is just a subject within biochemistry. it deals with the way energy is used and released by the making and breaking of chemical bonds.
okay, you keep saying this but you have so far delivered nothing. are you able to explain the following:
1. what you think the current "bioenergetic model" is ?
2. what is wrong with it.
3. what your version of the correct "bioenergetic model" is
4. why yours is correct.
cheers.
I've already explained it to you. Don't do a rekrunner on me and keep asking the same question overn and over and over.
Funny Jon! ?
it's 2018 not 1998 wrote:
ex-runner wrote:
It wouldn't fully bridge the gap because the female has developed through puberty as a female. She is not literally a man. Taking testosterone won't fully undo her development into a woman, in fact it doesn't come close.
A man who has been through puberty will develop with more muscle fibres than a woman could get, higher bone density, larger stronger hearts and other cardiovascular effects that one can't just get overnight.
It requires the process of growing up through puberty with the chromosomes telling your body what to do and what to make.
Testosterone starts to push her that way in allowing for more muscle mass and stronger muscles and therefore times that only a man can run clean start to become attainable for doping women. Stronger legs = bigger stride length and faster turnover = increased speed.
I'm not one of those that thinks drugs help by 10% or crazy numbers thrown around by people here. But 1 or 2% is realistic. Steroids DO increase strength it's proven beyond doubt. Ask sprinters why they do strength training.
In every case the difference between the men and women is 10% or so in the record books. Even the supposedly superhuman exploits of Flo Jo.
I don't accept that Exogenous Testosterone is a performance enhancer for either men or women. Injecting test for a man reduces his natural production.
You deny the known scientific fact that testosterone increases muscle mass and strength? You deny that testosterone is the major difference between men and women's strength?
I get how the superhuman times are really suspicious, but I can't bring myself to 100% believe that Kenenisa Bekele and Haile Gebrselassie were taking EPO.
There was a lot of EPO in the 90's, but Kenenisa Bekele's career really started around 1999-2000. Haile Gebrselassie was consistently putting down fast times far after the 90's; Haile set the Marathon WR in 2008 and continued running fast until 2012, while Bekele kept eventually ran a 2:03 marathon in 2016.
People knew that Bekele was a special talent for a long time (
http://www.letsrun.com/forum/flat_read.php?thread=58776
), and even in 2002 people doubted his ability to break records after the EPO era (look at 1st reply).
If people could only get away with EPO in the 1990's and 2000's, how were both Bekele and Gebrselassie still able to run so fast 20 years into their career, after the EPO era? It's this that I don't understand.