rekrunner wrote:
Agreed. That is one reason why looking at fastest performances seems more relevant than changes in VO2max, or LT, or peak power, or time to exhaustion.
That's exactly what we've been saying about the WW years and the current 1500-10 records
Data.
physics defiant wrote:
rekrunner wrote:
Even including these athletes, it remains speculation without basis.
Nope, there's plenty of basis.
I think you've lost sight of the original claim.
If there is so much basis, can you provide some of the best examples, and their basis?
physics defiant wrote:
rekrunner wrote:
Agreed. That is one reason why looking at fastest performances seems more relevant than changes in VO2max, or LT, or peak power, or time to exhaustion.
That's exactly what we've been saying about the WW years and the current 1500-10 records
Data.
The performance data is there.
rekrunner wrote:
physics defiant wrote:
Nope, there's plenty of basis.
I think you've lost sight of the original claim.
If there is so much basis, can you provide some of the best examples, and their basis?
One more time s l o w l y. T h e W W y e a r s a n d t h e c u r r e n t r e c o r d s. T h e s l o w i n g d o w n w h e n t e s t s g o t b e t t e r.
I was right -- you have lost sight of the original claim.
Correct. More blood equals a 2-4 % improvement. Oh, wait, that amounts to the same thing as the WW years.
Such a coincidence.
Yesterday we were talking about the "recovery hypothesis".
You said many athletes could tell me the basis for this hypothesis.
rekrunner wrote:
Yesterday we were talking about the "recovery hypothesis".
You said many athletes could tell me the basis for this hypothesis.
They can. Go and ask them.
rekrunner wrote:
Yesterday we were talking about the "recovery hypothesis".
You said many athletes could tell me the basis for this hypothesis.
You're on the wrong thread. You need to be over on a COVID-19 thread, arguing that it's the common cold. You probably are.
Armstronglivs wrote:
rekrunner wrote:
Yesterday we were talking about the "recovery hypothesis".
You said many athletes could tell me the basis for this hypothesis.
You're on the wrong thread. You need to be over on a COVID-19 thread, arguing that it's the common cold. You probably are.
+1
He seems to be using quite a few different usernames there.
physics defiant wrote:
rekrunner wrote:
Yesterday we were talking about the "recovery hypothesis".
You said many athletes could tell me the basis for this hypothesis.
They can. Go and ask them.
Your claim -- your burden. Until then, it is just more speculation with no basis.
rekrunner wrote:
physics defiant wrote:
They can. Go and ask them.
Your claim -- your burden. Until then, it is just more speculation with no basis.
Nope. Your lack of knowledge and gumption to go and get it.
I have zero burden.
If you are not committed to your ideas, I'm not either.
rekrunner wrote:
If you are not committed to your ideas, I'm not either.
In time, you will be committed.
rekrunner wrote:
If you are not committed to your ideas, I'm not either.
You can lead a horse to water....
physics defiant wrote:
You can lead a horse to water....
This shows the same pattern. You start a thought, but don't complete it nor support it.
Your use of "..." similarly raises many unanswered questions, as you leave everything open to the interpretation and imagination of the reader.
Have you led the horse to water? Or was the trough dry?
Did the horse drink? Why or why not? You must show your work for credit.
Did it help? Why or why not? You must show your work for credit. You must also define "help" in this context.
Are you leading a horse, or are you the blind leading (or following) the blind, judging the one that sees things differently?
physics defiant wrote:
Correct. More blood equals a 2-4 % improvement. Oh, wait, that amounts to the same thing as the WW years.
Such a coincidence.
But do you realise that the claim that there is some additional long term training benefit with transfusion/rHuEPO is a non sequitur even if you could prove an a 20 % boost in speed whem Hct is elevated?
rekrunner wrote:
physics defiant wrote:
You can lead a horse to water....
This shows the same pattern. You start a thought, but don't complete it nor support it.
Your use of "..." similarly raises many unanswered questions, as you leave everything open to the interpretation and imagination of the reader.
Have you led the horse to water? Or was the trough dry?
Did the horse drink? Why or why not? You must show your work for credit.
Did it help? Why or why not? You must show your work for credit. You must also define "help" in this context.
Are you leading a horse, or are you the blind leading (or following) the blind, judging the one that sees things differently?
Are you sane? Or are you just pretending to be? Do you have any "data" that establishes it or are you depending on "faith" and "belief"? Like you say, so many unanswered questions.
Aragon wrote:
physics defiant wrote:
Correct. More blood equals a 2-4 % improvement. Oh, wait, that amounts to the same thing as the WW years.
Such a coincidence.
But do you realise that the claim that there is some additional long term training benefit with transfusion/rHuEPO is a non sequitur even if you could prove an a 20 % boost in speed whem Hct is elevated?
The one thing I find particularly reassuring about discussions such as these is how irrelevant they are. Blood doping has been illegal for years. That will not change despite pseudo-scientific arguments here about whether it confers any real benefit.
If you knew from the title of the thread that it was 100 % about estimating the performance boost, why don't just ignore thread altogether in the first place?