Lance Armstrong on Joe Rogan's Podcast

yawn wrote:

What you're saying doesn't make any sense. Think about it. If they were using more oxygen, then they would be using more glycogen too, so they would get tired quicker, they would not be able to produce high power outputs for longer.

What you're saying is the same old ridiculous nonsense that everyone has been saying for years, without even thinking logically. They just repeat the same stupid $hit over and over.

The reality of physiology is that elite athletes are more energy efficient. They produce either more power for the same amount of fuel, or use less fuel including oxygen for the same pace. Ultimately over the course of a race they use less glycogen and less oxygen than slower athletes and so they alos recover faster.

This should be common knowledge. But what passes for knowledge in the sport if very far from it.

That doesn't make sense. Why would getting tired quicker mean they couldn't produce higher power outputs for longer? Cyclists can refuel during the tour and they have plenty of body fat to supply energy. There is a lot of energy in fat. You're not really thinking completely about this.

yawn wrote:

yawn wrote:

Power outputs in 2011, same as when Lance was riding in the EPO era:

http://sportsscientists.com/2011/07/the-tour-de-france-power-2011-outputs-from-the-outside-in/

So why does everyone say that power outputs were higher then? They weren't.

Nobody interested in discussing this?

Why the wilful ignorance? Why don't people want to learn how to really improve the sport without drugs?

I just don't get it? There must be some posters out there who want to know?

So you're going to share the secret of how to compete with and or beat athletes who are dirty??? Brilliant!! Let's hear it!!! No willful ignorance here, I want to know. After you share this with us it would be great to know your past experience and hands on knowledge of this. You have competed in the Tour? I hope so, because you're talking a lot of smack and I hope your not just regurgitating what you read because you're a wannbe athlete.

We're waiting!!!!

Barry Badrinath wrote:

Lance Armstrong appeared on Joe Rogan's podcast last week and had a frank and honest discussion about his drug use and deception. I had not expected such candor from him about it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rEfSdPz1WtA

Here's what I find truly ****ed up about the Lance Armstrong situation.

By all accounts, Lance is (or at least was) a bad guy. He admits it himself. Even if you excuse the drug use, he treated people like pawns on a chess board. That's the mentality of a sociopath.

But in the dumbed-down, over politically correct society we live in, Armstrong is in some ways more of a hero in 2015 than he was in 2003. At the end of the day, he wasn't just cheating his sport -- he was cheating the puppeteers who dumb down our culture.

Without drugs, Armstrong would have been delivering the mail for US Postal Service, rather than getting paid big $$$ to put their logo on his shirt while he rode a bike. We wouldn't know his name. We wouldn't now cringe every time he's brought up in a conversation.

But instead, the exact opposite happened. Armstrong became the puppeteer, stringing along major corporations and the laughable 21st century media. When the truth surfaced about his drug use, every company who paid to be seen with Armstrong was exposed as fake. Every reporter who lauded Armstrong's bravery and heroism was exposed as incompetent. Every person who put their hopes on the back of Armstrong's bike saw what a fictionalized reality we live in.

And all of this was because Armstrong refused to accept the dull, mediocre 9-5 lifestyle our system demands of us.

Very interesting to hear him talk off-the-cuff. Get a much better feel for the kind of dude he is. He sounds like such a sociopath.

Rogan is such a meathead, but i love it. His blunt questions actually make for good pod.

yawn wrote:

More idiocy from the drug religion maniacs.

Any of you guys want to know how to produce high power outputs naturally?

No?????

Why not? Afraid that your sacred beliefs will be challenged?

Everyone here already knows how to do that. They just don't want to have to go up against guys supplementing with suoernatural stuff. Not hard to figure out.

Well it is for you Yawny. O.

Jonny, you're like a missionary that tries to convert a tribe of cannibals, fails and then circles back to the same village and acts surprised that the same guys don't want to buy what you're selling.

Have you considered becoming a Mormon?

yawn wrote:

No, some take them because they don't know any better, just like you.

I asked if you want me to show you how to produce high power outputs naturally?

I knew that you wouldn't want to know. Because you are a drug obsessed fool. But you think you know what it's all about. You have no clue.

I think you're either stupid or trolling. Are you really tha wilfully ignorant that you have no intereste in learning about physiology?

Hello JonOrange/jono/wellnow/yawn,

I see that you have now resorted to personal insults. the refuge of people who know that their arguments lack any merit. I prefer not to respond in kind.

You and I have had many exchanges about your ideas on physiology. Some of them are interesting, even if they end up being a bit reductionistic. Anyway, we have had these discussions and it seems pretty clear that neither you or I will convince each other. given that I prefer to focus our discussion narrowly on the evidence you have given.

Is it your contention that none of the people in the 2011 sample are on PEDs generally or on EPO specifically? On what basis would you claim that? Because that would be a remarkable claim that is well beyond what Ross Tucker is claiming for it.

He was an awesome competitor, but he has every reason to believe that drugs played a significant role in his (and many other pro cyclists') success. You may want to note that he was also a very knowledgeable competitor - likely far more knowledgeable about the performance-enhancing effects of PEDs that 99.99% of us on these message boards.Here's another Science of Sport link you might have used:http://sportsscientists.com/2007/11/the-effect-of-epo-on-performance/Huge increases in performance indicators as a result of EPO use.

yawn wrote:

I didn't post it. But I did see some of it yesterday. I think he was a fantastic athlete. To me the biggest shame, is the obsession everyone had and still has with drugs. So stupid. He was an awesome competitor. I am glad that people are starting to realise that.

Lance is still a seven time tour winner for the same reason Argentina is still the 1986 World Cup winner even though Maradonna scored a goal with an intentional hand ball. It's too late to change the results once it's over.

Maradonna was old school badass. Doing lines of coke as a PED.

Bobby1 wrote:

Lance is still a seven time tour winner for the same reason Argentina is still the 1986 World Cup winner even though Maradonna scored a goal with an intentional hand ball. It's too late to change the results once it's over.

Bobby1 wrote:

Lance is still a seven time tour winner for the same reason Argentina is still the 1986 World Cup winner even though Maradonna scored a goal with an intentional hand ball. It's too late to change the results once it's over.

They did change the Tour results and stripped Lance of his titles.

He never competed as far as I'm concerned.

Once a cheater always a cheater!!!

Hot take right here

Oh Baby Oh Baby wrote:

Maradonna was old school badass. Doing lines of coke as a PED.

Bobby1 wrote:

Lance is still a seven time tour winner for the same reason Argentina is still the 1986 World Cup winner even though Maradonna scored a goal with an intentional hand ball. It's too late to change the results once it's over.

Maradonna was an inspiring hero. Lance was a nasty self-centered pr_ck destroyed people. They were pretty much opposites.

But this thread is cluttered up with drug apologists. I guess this is just another negative effect of Lance Armstrong's name--it brings the sick drug apologists out of the closet to support their freaky sociopathic hero...

Did Reddit or Gawker teach you that term?

bad guy wrote:

I think something that people are missing here is what Lance did to other cyclists and reporters who were whistle-blowers or who did not agree with the doping. Through lies and slander he DESTROYED their careers and their reputations. He kept up those lies for a decade. More than anything else this makes me sick. He gets no excuses for that, I don't care how great an athlete he is/was or the argument about other people using PEDs too. He was a terrible person and got exactly what he deserved.

Yes. I wish Rogan had actually done some homework and could have grilled him a little on this point. For Lance to do what he did to Greg Lemond, Frankie and Betsy Andreau, and surely countless others is unforgivable. The guy is a borderline sociopath.

Frankie and Betsy rode the dope train pretty hard.

Yawn, we had this conversation in the "EPO is a placebo" thread and you have no idea. As I have already mentioned, I was a pro Cyclist whom experimented with drugs and went into a research field on the very subject when I retired. What you are saying is not true, having more oxygen rich cells does not increase glycogen usage at the same intensity. All of our energy systems are controlled by oxygen and if we increase the amount of oxygen rich blood cells, we also increase our AeT and AnT which means we can ride/run much faster and longer while retaining fuel efficiency, the intensity does not change but EPO makes the pace at that intensity much quicker. Intensity is what determines fuel efficiency and not speed which is a pretty basic concept. Adding oxygen rich red blood cells also helps your body to recover faster because there is more oxygen available for cells to be as efficient as possible and get to work on recovering.

We can see this in people who suffer from anaemia, they cannot get enough oxygen to cells which comprimises their immune system which is the ability to fight off infection and their body's ability to recover as the cells are inefficient due to poor oxygen uptake. Anaemia also affects performance because of the lack of oxygen availible for use, the cells have to work harder to mantain the pace they had when healthy through lack of oxygen which has a knock on effect of poor fuel efficiency at old pace and not the other way around. Their thresholds have have got slower/lower w/kg by having less available oxygen.

In the case of EPO, more oxygen rich cells will improve their thresholds which will result in faster and more fuel efficient performance at certain pace but the fuel efficiency and intensity of an non-doped and doped athlete will remain the same and all that will change is how fast they are riding.

EPO is not like a sugar pill and although any drug taken will have a placebo effect to a certain extent, EPO and all other blood boosters have a huge physiological effect on performance. Lab trials on mice with HIF stabilisers(a drug similar to high altitude training) have shown just how effective blood boosting drugs are on endurance and mice do not know what drugs they are taking.

This last part is just my opinion but to think that drugs like EPO etc. do not exist in cycling and sport anymore would be narrowminded, doping culture has existed for as long as sport has, it will never disappear and will always be part of the game and training, it is too big and important in the formula for winning to be avoided. Those who lust after winning which every athlete does as that mindset of competitiveness has to exist to get there in the first place meaning some will take the risk and others will have to follow if they want it, it is a vicious circle that will never be stamped out even if all the athletes want it to be, keeping up with joneses. Winning to a competitive athlete is like throwing a million dollar briefcase into the middle of a ghetto, they will do anything it takes to get it. Armstrong was just another doper who happened to win big, the only part that changed his story was his atitude in getting caught, doping did not die with his career. Sadly, this is the way it is and only those strong enough to resist temptation will ever get out but the cost is their lifelong dream.

More oxygen efficiency? What the heck is that supposed to mean?

It's basic physiology. Fitter athletes are more energy efficient, they use less oxygen for the same pace, or go faster with the same amount of oxygen/glycogen.