RE: If you believe in the concept of Performance Enhancing Drugs......

Thanks. I agree I need to tell people. I think I should do some kind of presentation. There is so much dreadful BS out there and people just swallow it up. Drugs and genetics blah blah blah ad nauseum ad infinitum. Not seeing either the big picture or the basic mistakes in logic or biochemistry, biomechanics etc, missing out the fact that the nervous system controls all movement and other such obvious blunders of error or omission. And these fools are lauded as great writers, coaches or scientists.

Go for it. A disaster 13 years in the making.

Maybe JR will come to your presentation.

Jon Orange wrote:

J.R. wrote:

This deserves it's own thread / web page / web site.

Thanks. I agree I need to tell people. I think I should do some kind of presentation. There is so much dreadful BS out there and people just swallow it up. Drugs and genetics blah blah blah ad nauseum ad infinitum. Not seeing either the big picture or the basic mistakes in logic or biochemistry, biomechanics etc, missing out the fact that the nervous system controls all movement and other such obvious blunders of error or omission. And these fools are lauded as great writers, coaches or scientists.

Yes, do a presentation or even a long post. This piecemeal approach where you spar with a handful of people while trading barbs with a dozen trolls isn't convincing anyone.

There isn't enough material for a presentation or even a long post.

It's about two sentences.

Jack is wrong, I am right.

Make that one sentence.

You don't say? It was me who told you that 10 years ago.

Which I have been saying for years too.

Daniels' curve fit is a generic curve, it has both weakness and strength built into it. It does not show how a weak runner becomes a strong runner, in fact Daniels says this can't happen in that 1979 paper. He basically says that you won't make the improvements that elites have made you have to be born good and that there is no such thing as running skill. I was just amazed at his ignorance when I read that paper. He probably is too these days?

So you believe the 'bigger engine' model? It's false and I have demonstrated that a cyclist with a supposedly 'bigger engine' is a lousy runner after one year of training, who needs to make massive improvements over subsequent years to become even moderately fast.

So the women sprinters these days are slower because they can't take as much testosterone, but the men are faster because of???? What exactly?

Women sprinters are slower because they don't have the speed endurance.

Some more basic physiology for you; Maximum speed is genetically determined. The women of today have the same top speed as they ever did. Speed endurance for a 100m sprinter is what makes a faster racer. Same now as ever. A woman who is a true 100m sprinter who also runs a fast 400, will run 10.6 10.5 or even 10.4 without drugs. You stop the nonsense.

Efficiency is much less important for cycling? Good grief man, get a clue, that is just plain stupid. Are you just compulsively argumentative? I argue for a reason; against ignorance. You should know that by now? I don't know why you have so much time to argue, when you have so little respect for the subject matter? You should spend more of that time researching, then these matters might reach a swift resolution where you understand the evidence I present. It's all out there if you look for it.

So you don't think that women taking the male sex hormone will have more of a profound effect than if men take it?

Can you explain why you don't believe this please?

Or will you ignore it as per usual?

test2 wrote:

Yes, do a presentation or even a long post. This piecemeal approach where you spar with a handful of people while trading barbs with a dozen trolls isn't convincing anyone.

Thanks test2, the graph I posted is not the same one as Daniels made for time plotted against intensity. I think this graph is very good, the best thing he has done, because it is applicable since despite being generic, there is a good fit for most runners.

But I think the data is misconstrued and people don't see the worth. This is because people believe in the 'bigger engine' model of elites having super high VO2 maxes.

I think this piecemeal approach is actually very worthwhile because I get to put my points across one by one and try to find a way to explain them, whilst getting used to the insults that will be inevitable. If I can't deal with internet trolls, I won't get far.

trollism wrote:

So you don't think that women taking the male sex hormone will have more of a profound effect than if men take it?

Can you explain why you don't believe this please?

Or will you ignore it as per usual?

I don't believe in taking any steroid as being beneficial at all. All that does is reduce natural testosterone. You have to realize that these are young women and men being exploited by drug dealers and by coaches who only know one way of coaching.

The womens' world records are the same percentage behind the men as in other sports. The genetic difference is apparent with or without steroids.

No sprinter can go faster in maximum velocity with drugs. The only way to go faster is to run downhill or with a strong following wind. Faster races come from better speed endurance. Both Flo Jo and Bolt were very good 400m runners, that's why they pulled away from their rivals.

Thanks test2, the graph I posted is not the same one as Daniels made for time plotted against intensity. I think this graph is very good, the best thing he has done, because it is applicable since despite being generic, there is a good fit for most runners.

But I think the data is misconstrued and people don't see the worth. This is because people believe in the 'bigger engine' model of elites having super high VO2 maxes.

Whatever floats your boat.

Just my 2cents but I think you are a little too stuck on refuting this 'bigger engine' thing. If you drop that and the PEDs thing, I think you have a lot to contribute.

Look at the table in malmo's diatribe that you reposted. Those are all the elite guys VO2maxes he could find and they are all above 65. The average for a healthy untrained male is about 40. Trainability of VO2max on average is about 15% so the average guy never gets his VO2max above 50 whatever he does and because of this limited 'engine' he never reaches the elite level whatever his efficiency. If VO2max didn't matter then there would be guys on malmo's list with VO2maxes of 45, 50, 55 but there aren't. It simply doesn't happen. You need a pretty big engine to run at the highest levels.

In my opinion, the reason malmo and Tim Noakes and others hate VO2max so much is that it was oversold by the ex. phys. establishment. There was a period where every paper was about different ways to enhance VO2max because VO2max was taken as a handy stand in for performance. This was a mistake because while they do correlate about 60%, that other 40% can be a bitch. Training VO2max at the expense of lactate turnpoint or efficiency can be disastrous.

messed by the formatting of the above post. Here's how it should read:

Jon Orange wrote:

I think this piecemeal approach is actually very worthwhile because I get to put my points across one by one and try to find a way to explain them, whilst getting used to the insults that will be inevitable. If I can't deal with internet trolls, I won't get far.

Whatever floats your boat.

Jon Orange wrote:

But I think the data is misconstrued and people don't see the worth. This is because people believe in the 'bigger engine' model of elites having super high VO2 maxes.

Just my 2cents but I think you are a little too stuck on refuting this 'bigger engine' thing. If you drop that and the PEDs thing, I think you have a lot to contribute.

Look at the table in malmo's diatribe that you reposted. Those are all the elite guys VO2maxes he could find and they are all above 65. The average for a healthy untrained male is about 40. Trainability of VO2max on average is about 15% so the average guy never gets his VO2max above 50 whatever he does and because of this limited 'engine' he never reaches the elite level whatever his efficiency. If VO2max didn't matter then there would be guys on malmo's list with VO2maxes of 45, 50, 55 but there aren't. It simply doesn't happen. You need a pretty big engine to run at the highest levels.

In my opinion, the reason malmo and Tim Noakes and others hate VO2max so much is that it was oversold by the ex. phys. establishment. There was a period where every paper was about different ways to enhance VO2max because VO2max was taken as a handy stand in for performance. This was a mistake because while they do correlate about 60%, that other 40% can be a bitch. Training VO2max at the expense of lactate turnpoint or efficiency can be disastrous.

To redo the previous calcualation with Daniels' time v intensity graph which is the one I originally alluded to early in this thread:

http://s3.amazonaws.com/zanran_storage/www.canibaisereis.com/ContentPages/2466959967.pdf

79% VO2 max for a 3 hour race but only 80% for a 2 hour race.

If we compare two identical twins, one who is super elite and one who is a beginner but has good overall fitness, because they are genetically identical and both have good basic fitness, they will have the same absolute VO2 max.

The slower runner will doubtless have more body fat, perhaps 20% versus 6% for the elite runner at his skinniest.

If both runners have the same absolute VO2 max say 5 liters/minute then the 3 hour runner uses 5 x .79 = 3.95 liters x 180 = 711 liters oxygen

Elite runner uses 5x .80 = 4.0 liters x 120 = 480 liters oxygen

The difference in intensity is minimal. You assumed the fast runner has to have a massively hypertrophic heart giving him a super human VO2 max. This is the dogma, it goes back to even before you were born. Elite athletes don't have massively hypertrophic hearts.

The slower runner uses more fats and more carbs, as we all do when we run for longer periods.

Even if we use the example of two identical twins with a relatively low VO2 max, they will have genetically superior economy relative to those with a higher VO2 max. Say 4 liters/minute then the 3 hour runner uses 4 x .79 = 3.16 x 180 = 569 liters oxygen

Elite runner uses 4 x .80 = 3.20 liters x 120 = 384 liters.

So my point still stands: ELITE RUNNERS USE LESS OXYGEN, GLYCOGEN AND FATS TO RACE FASTER.

The same principle applies to runners with much smaller differences in ability.

Really, it's not hard to figure this stuff out, it's not quantum mechanics.

A VO2 max over 65 for a true distance runner with very low bodyfat is actually completely normal.

Everyone is fixated on this idea that elite have super high VO2 maxes. It's nonsense. A more fast twitch runner with high body fat will of course have a VO2 max of 40 or less.

I have to refute the bigger engine model, that's the whole point I have been arguing actually since I was 14 years old, as is the drug dogma.

There was good information available back then in the 70s that did not concur with JDs low self esteem model, which is essentially what it is, the complete opposite of the Lydiard model, which still stands and requires only moderate tweaking to be contemporary.

trollism wrote:

Jon Orange wrote:

I don't believe in taking any steroid as being beneficial at all. All that does is reduce natural testosterone. You have to realize that these are young women and men being exploited by drug dealers and by coaches who only know one way of coaching.

.

Oh I get it now. The facial hair, huge muscles and the strongly masculine features of these young women were because they took testosterone and their natural levels of T reduced.

Now that makes perfect sense, don't know why you didn't just start with that.

Are you just an idiot or a joker?

Jon Orange wrote:

trollism wrote:

Oh I get it now. The facial hair, huge muscles and the strongly masculine features of these young women were because they took testosterone and their natural levels of T reduced.

Now that makes perfect sense, don't know why you didn't just start with that.

Are you just an idiot or a joker?

Bit of both Jonny boy.

So, back to the bit where women who take testosterone don't become more masculinised.

On the subject of idiots, do you know why idiots in gyms take steroids in order to bulk up? It's because they work, along with training of course. Are you suggesting that taking anabolic agents won't help you stimulate muscle growth to a level higher than with training alone?

Jon Orange wrote:

Everyone is fixated on this idea that elite have super high VO2 maxes. It's nonsense. A more fast twitch runner with high body fat will of course have a VO2 max of 40 or less.

I think you are fixated on this idea. I haven't seen anybody else advance it.

Can you please define the term "super high VO2 maxes?" You keep using it.

This is supposed to be a discussion about the science, so it is important to use terms precisely.

I know how idiotic body builders are. I talked to them to find out. They will take anything.

Extra steroid induced muscle mass is not a help. Mass specific force is reduced. In other words, sprinters should not have too much muscle mass, it slows them down.

As for training harder, see my previous calculations, they apply to sprinters too. Faster runners use less energy. So they recover faster too.

Jon Orange wrote:

I know how idiotic body builders are. I talked to them to find out. They will take anything.

Extra steroid induced muscle mass is not a help. Mass specific force is reduced. In other words, sprinters should not have too much muscle mass, it slows them down.

As for training harder, see my previous calculations, they apply to sprinters too. Faster runners use less energy. So they recover faster too.

But you say PEDs don't work, but now you're saying PEDs work if you're looking to bulk up.

So PEDs work for some things?

J.R. is going to hate you.

Jon, their hearts aren't "hypertrophic" they are already genetically larger andor wired differently.

Bigger and better pumps.

It's like you don't understand how a motor vehicle works.

You have believed this for 39 years and only reached the level you did? Wow.

If you had said you found out too late to max out your theories you might have had more cred.

Geez.......39 freaking years of practice and 2:03 800 - 2:29 Marathon.