Says the guy who thought cross-training meant running on a treadmill, who can't write times or decades, who thought the Tokyo Olympics took place in 2020, who said Jakob would never get the 3,000m WR...
It’s all a smoke screen for what’s really happening…
it was “turtle blood and caterpillar fungus” in the 90s.
Posters go on about it here because they are desperate to find a legitimate cause for highly suspect performances. Sure, it's performance enhancing - like clean air or a glass of water.
You are a science denier. There are scientific studies showing the performance enhancing effects of bicarb. You are an ignoramus.
Says the guy who thought cross-training meant running on a treadmill, who can't write times or decades, who thought the Tokyo Olympics took place in 2020, who said Jakob would never get the 3,000m WR...
Yes, you are an ignoramus.
Bicarb is not a drug. You are dismissed.
Try reading the name of the substance, "bicarbonate", and ask yourself is that a chemical - which is what a drug also is. And the actually description for a banned drug is a prohibited SUBSTANCE. Is bicarb not a "substance"? Do you have any kind of substance between your ears?
Posters go on about it here because they are desperate to find a legitimate cause for highly suspect performances. Sure, it's performance enhancing - like clean air or a glass of water.
You are a science denier. There are scientific studies showing the performance enhancing effects of bicarb. You are an ignoramus.
If it was of any significance, and constituted "unfair performance advantage", it would be placed on WADA'S banned list. It isn't.
This post was edited 28 seconds after it was posted.
Says the guy who thought cross-training meant running on a treadmill, who can't write times or decades, who thought the Tokyo Olympics took place in 2020, who said Jakob would never get the 3,000m WR...
Yes, you are an ignoramus.
Bicarb is not a drug. You are dismissed.
Try reading the name of the substance, "bicarbonate", and ask yourself is that a chemical - which is what a drug also is. And the actually description for a banned drug is a prohibited SUBSTANCE. Is bicarb not a "substance"? Do you have any kind of substance between your ears?
Try reading the name of the substance, "bicarbonate", and ask yourself is that a chemical - which is what a drug also is. And the actually description for a banned drug is a prohibited SUBSTANCE. Is bicarb not a "substance"? Do you have any kind of substance between your ears?
You have manure between your ears.
Sugar is a substance. Do you want to ban sugar?
You've just set a record for your own stupidity. "Substances" aren't banned because they are substances but because they fit within WADA'S criteria for a ban, of being either unfairly performance enhancing, a risk to health or against the spirit of sportsmanship. Does that sound like sugar?
Blood doping is banned. Does that mean blood is a "drug"? Yep - you've set a new record for yourself.
If it was of any significance, and constituted "unfair performance advantage", it would be placed on WADA'S banned list. It isn't.
Same as caffeine. You are too stupid to understand that you defeated your own point.
I just gave caffeine as an earlier example, you total moran. It is performance enhancing (to a lesser extent than most other drugs) but because it is typically consumed in coffee WADA decided against a ban.
You've just set a record for your own stupidity. "Substances" aren't banned because they are substances but because they fit within WADA'S criteria for a ban, of being either unfairly performance enhancing, a risk to health or against the spirit of sportsmanship. Does that sound like sugar?
Blood doping is banned. Does that mean blood is a "drug"? Yep - you've set a new record for yourself.
You've just set a record for your own stupidity. If bicarb is not banned is because it doesn't confer unfair performance advantage. Yep - you've set a new record for yourself.
You've just set a record for your own stupidity. "Substances" aren't banned because they are substances but because they fit within WADA'S criteria for a ban, of being either unfairly performance enhancing, a risk to health or against the spirit of sportsmanship. Does that sound like sugar?
Blood doping is banned. Does that mean blood is a "drug"? Yep - you've set a new record for yourself.
Sugar is performance enhancing, and long term overdosing of sugar leads to an array of health problems: obesity, insulin resistance, cardiovascular problems, blindness, and premature death.
OK, but you have to ban DHMO first. List of dangers of DHMO:
Dihydrogen monoxide: is also known as hydroxyl acid, and is the major component of acid rain. contributes to the "greenhouse effect". may cause severe burns. contributes to the erosion of our natural landscape. accelerates corrosion and rusting of many metals. may cause electrical failures and decreased effectiveness of automobile brakes. has been found in excised tumors of terminal cancer patients. Despite the danger, dihydrogen monoxide is often used: as an industrial solvent and coolant. in nuclear power plants. in the production of styrofoam. as a fire retardant. in many forms of cruel animal research. in the distribution of pesticides. Even after washing, produce remains contaminated by this chemical. as an additive in certain "junk-foods" and other food products.
Scary stuff!
Don't be fooled by the smear campaign. DHMO, also known as Hydrogen Hydroxide, is not only safe, when used properly, but essential to life. Virtually every organized road race makes it available to all participants, and no marathon runner would complete a race without it.
Hydrogen hydroxide is beneficial! -- It has been shown that hydrogen hydroxide enhances the functionality, growth, and health of many forms of life-- including humans!-- and current research suggests that it has become an integral part of our planet's ecological balance.
Hydrogen hydroxide is environmentally safe! -- Opponents of dihydrogen monoxide would have you believe that it is some kind of uber-toxin, that it wreaks caustic terror on anything it touches. This couldn't be farther from the truth; when handled properly, it enhances nature rather than destroys it, and even a worst-case scenario DHMO accident would be a trifle for the natural cycles of our world to handle.
Hydrogen hydroxide is benign! -- The Coalition and others have popularized the label "dihydrogen monoxide" over the more chemically-accurate "hydrogen hydroxide" because they know how loaded the former name is. "Monoxide" has become synonymous with pollution, toxic gases, industrial waste-- and while hydrogen hydroxide is sometimes a factor in these problems facing our world today, it is rarely the dangerous element.
Hydrogen hydroxide occurs in nature! -- To hear its naysayers' descriptions, one would think hydrogen hydroxide was solely the product of industrial technology; that it came from years of research in clandestine labs. This is not the case! Hydrogen hydroxide has been a part of nature longer than we have; what gives us the right to eliminate it? We need hydrogen hydroxide!
It's obviously not the performance enhancing drug that you think it is or it would be banned.
Why not -- it checks every one of your boxes, and all of mine too.
Coaches and athletes widely believe in it and take it for performance enhancing reasons, risking all the common and potentially embarrassing side effects -- they wouldn't do that if it didn't work -- you think athletes are stupid?
Sodium bicarbonate has been studied for 100 years for its athletic performance benefits, and the ergogenic benefits are well documented. Similar to thyroid medication, people have been advocating to ban it for decades. It is banned in horse racing.
You've just set a record for your own stupidity. "Substances" aren't banned because they are substances but because they fit within WADA'S criteria for a ban, of being either unfairly performance enhancing, a risk to health or against the spirit of sportsmanship. Does that sound like sugar?
Blood doping is banned. Does that mean blood is a "drug"? Yep - you've set a new record for yourself.
You've just set a record for your own stupidity. If bicarb is not banned is because it doesn't confer unfair performance advantage. Yep - you've set a new record for yourself.
You're slow to catch on but you've finally got it. I said at the outset that bicarb doesn't provide an unfair competitive advantage. That is why it isn't banned. It is only overrated on these threads, to avoid seeing that the true performance enhancer is at it always has been - drugs.
It's obviously not the performance enhancing drug that you think it is or it would be banned.
Why not -- it checks every one of your boxes, and all of mine too.
Coaches and athletes widely believe in it and take it for performance enhancing reasons, risking all the common and potentially embarrassing side effects -- they wouldn't do that if it didn't work -- you think athletes are stupid?
Sodium bicarbonate has been studied for 100 years for its athletic performance benefits, and the ergogenic benefits are well documented. Similar to thyroid medication, people have been advocating to ban it for decades. It is banned in horse racing.
It apparently isn't seen as a significant aid to athletes or it would have been banned.
You've just set a record for your own stupidity. "Substances" aren't banned because they are substances but because they fit within WADA'S criteria for a ban, of being either unfairly performance enhancing, a risk to health or against the spirit of sportsmanship. Does that sound like sugar?
Blood doping is banned. Does that mean blood is a "drug"? Yep - you've set a new record for yourself.
Sugar is performance enhancing, and long term overdosing of sugar leads to an array of health problems: obesity, insulin resistance, cardiovascular problems, blindness, and premature death.
Sugar isn't seen as unfairly performance enhancing. Nor is it seen as risking damage to athletes' health. (Chocolate bars are banned?) Anything taken to excess can be harmful - some have died from drinking too much carrot juice. You can argue sugar should be banned but you won't get very far - and especially since you are generally wrong about everything. Not everything that is "performance enhancing" is banned - weight training (any kind of training), nutrition, hydration and rest - all performance enhancing. Another of your typically stupid arguments.
This post was edited 7 minutes after it was posted.
It apparently isn't seen as a significant aid to athletes or it would have been banned.
Performance is only one of three criteria WADA considers. It needs to be seen as harmful to health, and/or against the spirit of the sport, in order to be banned by WADA.
Yet another failed "if it were so, then ..." false choice.
Help us build the best running shoe review site for a chance to win a LetsRun t-shirt.Help us build the best running shoe review site for a chance to win one of 10 LetsRun t-shirts.