dope works wrote:
Jon, so do your posts. But you already know that. And you're never going to change, are you?
What? I'm trying to educate you. Wake up and realise you need to learn. You don't lecture me. How can you do that when you don't understand basic physiology?
fred wrote:
Jon Orange wrote:Yes. How do you explain my late career surge. Must be drugs right?
Were your parents athletes? What sports did you play as a kid?
If you started running at 3 @ 7:40 at 30 plus and went to 13.1 @ 5:35,
in one year, it indicates some talent. But there's probably some guy doing 13 @ 5 after one year of training. Talent.
And even if you think it was biomechanical efficency, it takes thousands of foot falls to hone that efficiency.
Were Haile's parents runners? No.
His talent? He loves running, he loves winning and he loves to show off. So he is not afraid. Lack of fear. Big performance enhancer isn't it? No anxiety at the highest level of competion. The bigger the race, the more he enjoys it.
So the talent is in your head. The rest is learning the movement patterns. Yes that takes lots of footfalls, but it's millions isn't it, not thousands?
luv2run wrote:
Jon Orange wrote:Then do you believe that to be the best that you can be, you have to take drugs?
I have to address this belief, it's the concept that's going to kill the sport.
Believe in human physiology people please, not pharmacology.
I am confused. If I want to be the best I can be, then it should be based on what can do without prohibited drugs.
It's deeply philosophical isn't it? That's why you're confused.
It's a tough question. It's mean to be.
It's a British weakness wrote:
Jon, you need to proselytize more at home and less on here.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/othersports/drugsinsport/12160508/Doping-culture-that-is-threatening-to-ruin-British-amateur-sport-could-be-worse-than-anyone-realises.html
I do proselytize at home. That article is the usual journo platitudes. The kid who took EPO, said that he did so because of journalistic hype of the drug. He's not making a weak excuse. Anyone who says he is, is ignoring the real problem.
Jon Orange wrote:
dope works wrote:Jon, so do your posts. But you already know that. And you're never going to change, are you?
What? I'm trying to educate you. Wake up and realise you need to learn. You don't lecture me. How can you do that when you don't understand basic physiology?
You are a poor teacher with limited knowledge. That's why you are not a professor in a physiology field, right?
No element of physiology is basic. Start there. You're trying to pin it all on one factor when there are dozens of factors.
Jon Orange wrote:
fred wrote:Were your parents athletes? What sports did you play as a kid?
If you started running at 3 @ 7:40 at 30 plus and went to 13.1 @ 5:35,
in one year, it indicates some talent. But there's probably some guy doing 13 @ 5 after one year of training. Talent.
And even if you think it was biomechanical efficency, it takes thousands of foot falls to hone that efficiency.
Were Haile's parents runners? No.
His talent? He loves running, he loves winning and he loves to show off. So he is not afraid. Lack of fear. Big performance enhancer isn't it? No anxiety at the highest level of competion. The bigger the race, the more he enjoys it.
So the talent is in your head. The rest is learning the movement patterns. Yes that takes lots of footfalls, but it's millions isn't it, not thousands?
Kipchoge managed with far less practice. Do you realize how many footfalls aren't actually specific training for a race movement? Most of them.
Fear is a great performance enhancer. I can't believe you said that.
Jon Orange wrote:
It's a British weakness wrote:Jon, you need to proselytize more at home and less on here.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/othersports/drugsinsport/12160508/Doping-culture-that-is-threatening-to-ruin-British-amateur-sport-could-be-worse-than-anyone-realises.htmlI do proselytize at home. That article is the usual journo platitudes. The kid who took EPO, said that he did so because of journalistic hype of the drug. He's not making a weak excuse. Anyone who says he is, is ignoring the real problem.
So that's a strong excuse? Hype?
rekrunner wrote:
Jon,
The term "Performance Enhancing Drug" is vague. If we have a PED, there can be no doubt that it is both a drug, and performance enhancing. Otherwise it would not qualify as a PED, but simply PE, or D, or perhaps neither. The question lacks precision, therefore the answers will too. The only answer to your question is "it depends on the drug, and the person".
So part of your question, I guess, is "do PEDs exist?" Then, "if so, which drugs, and for whom?"
Do you honestly suggest that NO PEDs exist for anyone? Do you suggest that anyone else, outside of JR, agrees with this? Do you suggest that science generally agrees with this?
Despite the existence of bio-mechanical efficiency, performance is also partly bio-chemical.
If some imbalance or weakness exists, and a drug strengthens that weakness, bringing more balance, then performance will improve. At the top, athletes have more balance, and fewer and less severe weaknesses. Yet even top women will respond well to male hormones, for events requiring muscle strength.
Yes performance is partly bio-chemical, but what do you think that human body is lacking bio-chemically? What imbalance are you expecting? Aren't you refering to medical practice rather than 'doping'? Unlike J.R. I believe to some degree in medical practice. Why wouldn't I? If I had a tropical disease and the doctor told me I will die if I dont' take drug X, do you think I would doubt him?
A healthy body is not lacking anything bio-chemically. To suggest otherwise as the 'PED' dogma implies, is a continuation of the drug folklore, the mythology of the ages, the belief in magic potions, shamanism. Why tis witchcraft. Seriously, it is the same mentality in modern guise. A human frailty to which almost everyone is, was and forever more shall be enslaved. Isn't that why alchohol, tobacco, cocaine, ampetamines, heroin etc are all uncontrollable in society? Well the same human frailty is not just a problem for addicts is it? It's a perception to which we are all vulnerable, that things would be better with some exogenous chemical assistance.
Back to the bio-mechanical efficiency point; it determines your performance level. To run faster, or bike faster you have to output more power overall than you did before and that is controlled neurally.
Now you have read Daniels' research haven't you? Remember that graph with the oxygen uptake for marathon runners? It showed that the difference in percentage VO2 max for 2 hours or 3 hours was miniscule. Do some simple arithemtic, elite runners use less oxygen in a race, nor more. Less energy. This is the opposite of the 'Bigger Engine' concept that almost everyone believes. Therein lies the problem. It's conceptual. A wrong philosophy is prevalent.
dope works wrote:
Jon Orange wrote:What? I'm trying to educate you. Wake up and realise you need to learn. You don't lecture me. How can you do that when you don't understand basic physiology?
You are a poor teacher with limited knowledge. That's why you are not a professor in a physiology field, right?
No element of physiology is basic. Start there. You're trying to pin it all on one factor when there are dozens of factors.
Keep reading. You might get it eventually, but only if you want to learn.
perfect practice wrote:
Jon Orange wrote:Were Haile's parents runners? No.
His talent? He loves running, he loves winning and he loves to show off. So he is not afraid. Lack of fear. Big performance enhancer isn't it? No anxiety at the highest level of competion. The bigger the race, the more he enjoys it.
So the talent is in your head. The rest is learning the movement patterns. Yes that takes lots of footfalls, but it's millions isn't it, not thousands?
Kipchoge managed with far less practice. Do you realize how many footfalls aren't actually specific training for a race movement? Most of them.
Fear is a great performance enhancer. I can't believe you said that.
Slow running is relevant too. How fast can you run at 70% max heart rate? How fast can Kipchoge run at that low intensity?
Fear is a great performance enhancer? Nowhere as great as confidence. There is a big difference between performance sapping anxiety and performance enhancing adrenaline. The real performance enhancer, the natural one. We all know it, we have all felt it, we have all had bad runs and good.
So you produce more power with improved movement and it's free?
Shouldn't more efficient movement require less power to accomplish a task?
a great excuse wrote:
Jon Orange wrote:I do proselytize at home. That article is the usual journo platitudes. The kid who took EPO, said that he did so because of journalistic hype of the drug. He's not making a weak excuse. Anyone who says he is, is ignoring the real problem.
So that's a strong excuse? Hype?
He was 17. He believe the hype. Just like you do. I see him as a victim, not a criminal. The drug hype does far more harm than all of the so called 'drug cheats'. It's all hyperbole, pseudoscientific dogma and sensationalism. Common sense doth not prevail.
Rich Porter wrote:
Do you think lance Armstrong could have won his 7 TDF titles totally clean?
If everyone else was totally clean, maybe.
Jon Orange wrote:
perfect practice wrote:Kipchoge managed with far less practice. Do you realize how many footfalls aren't actually specific training for a race movement? Most of them.
Fear is a great performance enhancer. I can't believe you said that.
Slow running is relevant too. How fast can you run at 70% max heart rate? How fast can Kipchoge run at that low intensity?
Fear is a great performance enhancer? Nowhere as great as confidence. There is a big difference between performance sapping anxiety and performance enhancing adrenaline. The real performance enhancer, the natural one. We all know it, we have all felt it, we have all had bad runs and good.
Many great performances were achieved by those "running scared".
basic physiology wrote:
So you produce more power with improved movement and it's free?
Shouldn't more efficient movement require less power to accomplish a task?
Less effort for the same power output and more power for the same effort.
That's improved efficiency.
Elliott did it wrote:
Jon Orange wrote:Slow running is relevant too. How fast can you run at 70% max heart rate? How fast can Kipchoge run at that low intensity?
Fear is a great performance enhancer? Nowhere as great as confidence. There is a big difference between performance sapping anxiety and performance enhancing adrenaline. The real performance enhancer, the natural one. We all know it, we have all felt it, we have all had bad runs and good.
Many great performances were achieved by those "running scared".
Snell was better than Elliot. How did Snell run?
Elliot was coached by a loony. A good coach, but a loony. When I look at those Cerutty videos, I think, what was he on?
Snell was coached by someone with more sanity an even stronger philosophy.
Jon Orange wrote:
basic physiology wrote:So you produce more power with improved movement and it's free?
Shouldn't more efficient movement require less power to accomplish a task?
Less effort for the same power output and more power for the same effort.
That's improved efficiency.
It's still not free.
Elastic energy return is free, it has no extra metabolic cost.
Jon Orange wrote:
a great excuse wrote:So that's a strong excuse? Hype?
He was 17. He believe the hype. Just like you do. I see him as a victim, not a criminal. The drug hype does far more harm than all of the so called 'drug cheats'. It's all hyperbole, pseudoscientific dogma and sensationalism. Common sense doth not prevail.
I believe it but why do you think that means I would use it?
Jon Orange wrote:
Elastic energy return is free, it has no extra metabolic cost.
So all improvement is elastic? You are forgetting that you have to speed up the muscles attached to go faster, the elastics don't do that on their own.