El Guerrouj 2k WR - Incredible 3:49 Mile pace

citric acid cyclist wrote:

Shopping hour wrote:

How did that capillary thing work for you Jon?

Stay in your lane.

What is that supposed to mean?

It means you were wrong and you shouldn't argue things that you only think you know.

citric acid cyclist wrote:

Shopping hour wrote:

EPO moves the goalposts of Bioenergetics, Homeostasis and Thermoregulation.

Fact.

You don't know anything about Bioenergetics, Homeostasis or Thermoregulation.

Nor do you have any interest.

And you don't know how EPO works, nor do you have any interest.

Shopping hour wrote:

Yep. For every question that's answered, ten more pop up. Goalposts.

Who are the experts of better studies?

Did they meet all your question criteria?

You didn't really clear up any vagueness with your answers.

For example, in response to "What did they say, exactly?", you gave me your words again, not theirs.

The questions all arise from your vagueness.

This is your goalpost, and I would need more information about what I'm supposed to be agreeing with, or not.

When you have a study, such as an EPO study where performance gains were observed, these questions don't arise, because the authors are listed, have a history that can be looked up, and their exact words are written and peer-reviewed and available for public viewing.

So yes, the level of detail required for peer reviewed publications would meet my question criteria by providing the answers. Most specifically, the study would tell me "what they said, exactly", and it would describe the subjects, and the methods. You have much more than "an expert says it works".

When you have a study that also admits their limitations of their findings, they are not just saying "it works", but they are saying something much more limited and qualified: "it worked for us this time under these conditions for these athletes, but it might have worked for other reasons we didn't measure or control, and whatever you do, don't be so stupid as to project these findings onto elite athletes in competition".

Who are these experts of the better studies? They are the ones that remind us in peer-reviewed words, of the limitations of what they observed and found. These limitations expressed by these experts are something I can agree with.

But who are they and which articles are they? You have to cite them, remember?

rekrunner wrote:

When you have a study that also admits their limitations of their findings, they are not just saying "it works", but they are saying something much more limited and qualified: "it worked for us this time under these conditions for these athletes, but it might have worked for other reasons we didn't measure or control, and whatever you do, don't be so stupid as to project these findings onto elite athletes in competition".

.

There is a study that follows your requests. Except for the last part.

"To our knowledge, this is the first study to investigate the influence of RhEPO treatment on exercise performance. In addition to the ∼7% improvement in V˙O2,peak and peak power output attained on the ramp incremental test, the time to exhaustion during severe exercise (∼105% V˙O2,peak) was extended by 35 s (or 22%) following RhEPO treatment, an effect that was associated with the attainment of a higher V˙O2 at the end of exercise. A 22% increase in time to exhaustion at a constant work rate is equivalent to a ∼1–2% improvement in time trial performance over an equivalent distance (Hopkins et al. 1999). This is similar to the effect predicted by Birkeland et al. (2000) and translates into a reduction in the time to run 1500 m of ∼3 s in an elite athlete, an effect that is certainly likely to be meaningful."

rekrunner wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

Altitude studies and EPO studies do not show similar gains in performance. The experts say EPO is significantly greater. The rest of your comment is the usual semantic drivel.

Once again, you say "the experts say" -- without specificity.

It's very convenient.

I guess we'll just have to take you at your word.

You could always read more widely and not just to reinforce your confirmation bias.

rekrunner wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

Consistent? How so? If that is true then other "extremely talented, well-trained sea-level runners" would have achieved similar performances. None of them - and not even those who may have doped- have got close in over 20 years. Another ludicrous and unsupported assertion.

For someone who says he was never interested in my view you have spent 26 pages doing little else but dispute it.

It's even more consistent, as extreme talent properly trained is sparsely distributed, while EPO abuse was world-wide for decades. Clean athletes and dopers are the same in that respect -- never getting close in over 20 years.

What you are "unable to grasp", is that I spent 26 pages asking you if any export support exists for "your view", and defending myself against slurs. I neither disputed, nor accepted, your words, as that phase is still premature.

Once again, mere unsupported assertion on your part about "the sparseness of properly trained talent". If that were true then it means doping is the norm - at the top as well. How to shoot yourself in the foot.

So you have neither "disputed nor accepted" my words for 26 pages, but have been simply "asking if any support exists for my view". Yet this is from someone who declares he isn't interested in what I think - who is also incapable of researching it for himself. I doubt you have researched anything - it is clearly not within your capacity.

As is your study.

Meanwhile, countless athletes continue to find reason to dope. It's called results.

I have had this experience before, of someone on my doorstep trying to explain that Noah's Ark existed and the world was made in 7 days. But they were more scintillating than you - even if just as absorbed in their delusions.

How inconvenient. But despite running significantly faster were they breathing harder - indeed were they breathing at all - the question that has been unresolved for our resident nutjob over 26 pages.

The funny thing is that the rest of the study seems more intent on proving that EPO doesn't work and it's full of all sorts of contorting that would make ol' rekrunner squirm with delight.

Yet they still added that paragraph because they have some sense of reason and logic

GOOOOOOAAAAALLLLLL!

Shopping hour wrote:

But who are they and which articles are they? You have to cite them, remember?

You only need to cite ideas that are not originally yours, to give others proper credit and to lend authority to your statement.

When the statement is "I agree with ..." the best and only authority to cite is me.

I am the ultimate expert and supreme authority on the things that "I agree with".

This is different than non experts making statements outside of their domain.

What is the significance of this "exception"?

They studied "Sixteen healthy young subjects (who) were all recreationally active".

"Competitive athletes were strictly excluded from participation in the study."

In this study "works" means: increased VO2peak, increased peak power in incremental ramp test, and increased time to exhaustion.

So with these definitions, I agree that EPO "works" for healthy recreationally active subjects.

This study did not observe elite athletes running 1500m, so any statement about elite athletes running 1500m remains an unsupported hypothesis. This is why they uses words like "similar to", "translates", "predicts", and "likely to be".

Armstronglivs wrote:

You could always read more widely and not just to reinforce your confirmation bias.

I just did, and you didn't like the result, because it highlighted the incompleteness of your previous explanation that ignored the muscles.

I have read both altitude studies and EPO studies finding not seeing your alleged "significantly greater" difference.

I will ask once again -- do you have any suggestions for reading that show the expected improvements for high altitude versus EPO?

This would solve any suggestion of confirmation bias on my part.

rekrunner wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

You could always read more widely and not just to reinforce your confirmation bias.

I just did, and you didn't like the result, because it highlighted the incompleteness of your previous explanation that ignored the muscles.

I have read both altitude studies and EPO studies finding not seeing your alleged "significantly greater" difference.

I will ask once again -- do you have any suggestions for reading that show the expected improvements for high altitude versus EPO?

This would solve any suggestion of confirmation bias on my part.

I have read these studies but I dont keep a record of them to assist someone who is too lazy to get off his backside and read this material for himself. We are not your personal researchers here. But not that it would make any difference. You will never depart from your little lunacies.

Shopping hour wrote:

The funny thing is that the rest of the study seems more intent on proving that EPO doesn't work and it's full of all sorts of contorting that would make ol' rekrunner squirm with delight.

Yet they still added that paragraph because they have some sense of reason and logic

GOOOOOOAAAAALLLLLL!

The suggested improvement of 3s for an elite athlete over 1500m would convert El G's 3.26 wr to about 3.29. Or his 4.44 time over 2k to about 4.48. Pretty much on the money, I would say.

If the study didn't include elite athletes you are unable to claim they wouldn't have benefited. Shoot yourself in the foot again. I'll go with the fact that they continue to use EPO as well as anything else that's available.

rekrunner wrote:

Shopping hour wrote:

But who are they and which articles are they? You have to cite them, remember?

You only need to cite ideas that are not originally yours, to give others proper credit and to lend authority to your statement.

When the statement is "I agree with ..." the best and only authority to cite is me.

I am the ultimate expert and supreme authority on the things that "I agree with".

This is different than non experts making statements outside of their domain.

The only thing you are expert in is in your being a non-expert making statements outside of your domain.

Armstronglivs wrote:

Once again, mere unsupported assertion on your part about "the sparseness of properly trained talent". If that were true then it means doping is the norm - at the top as well. How to shoot yourself in the foot.

So you have neither "disputed nor accepted" my words for 26 pages, but have been simply "asking if any support exists for my view". Yet this is from someone who declares he isn't interested in what I think - who is also incapable of researching it for himself. I doubt you have researched anything - it is clearly not within your capacity.

You doubt the sparseness of elite results? I think one only needs to graph all time results to observe a normal distribution which decreases as results get faster. This observation is universal.

I'm not quite sure what "doping is the norm" means to you, or why you have connected talent distribution with a norm of doping, but I have often agreed that doping is widespread, even at the top. How is that shooting myself in the foot? With your un-shot feet, the next step is to show how doping at the top impacts performance at the top.

Asking "what do experts think" is highly consistent with a lack of interest in "what does Armstronglivs think". It only becomes interesting when experts are saying the same thing.

You are still under some self-delusion and denial that I have not read research or lack the capacity, despite the clear evidence before you of providing many quotes from the research that I must have had the capacity to read.

This is quite ironic considering you have never demonstrated this capacity or capability.

This is some kind of autonomous reflex for you (reflex here means signals that bypass the brain).