The 'Performance Enhancing Drug' concept goes against the laws of physics

Velonews:

"

Di Luca won all three Ardennes classics, a Giro, and stages in the Vuelta a España: “Doping improves your performance between 5 and 7 percent, and maybe 10 to 12 percent when you are in a peak shape. If I had never doped, I wouldn’t have ever won.” He rode for teams including Saeco, Liquigas, LPR, Katusha: “Doping is not addictive, but it is an instrument of power: Who wins brings in the money to himself, to the team and the sponsors.”

He indicated he used some form of doping his entire career: “But I only started the serious stuff in 2001.”

His 2013 Giro preparation: “It included doping and non-doping substances: vitamins, amino acids, supplements, protein, EPO, cortisone, hormones of various types, corticosteroids, testosterone.”

Yeah but Jon wrote an article claiming drugs do not work about 25 years ago which gives him a quarter century of credibility.

Or so he believes.

The point Jon is that lesser athletes can't burn those lesser amounts of energy AS FAST as an elite.

Why can't you get that?

Yeah but Jon wrote an article claiming drugs do not work about 25 years ago which gives him a quarter century of credibility.

Or so he believes.

The point Jon is that lesser athletes can't burn those lesser amounts of energy AS FAST as an elite.

Why can't you get that?

race cars are much thirstier than regular cars. they use far more energy.

so you are wrong.

Whether or not you believe that Bolt is "enhanced," you will note the analysis in the link below about his use of force against the ground, which disputes your simple-minded view about PEDs and your alternative universe where the laws of physics are suspended.

(I'm aware that I'm feeding the troll)

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/08/15/sports/olympics/usain-bolt-mens-100-meters-final.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=photo-spot-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=2

Jon Orange wrote:

nto here.

kvothe, are you an engineer?

In running, we run faster with more efficiency by decelerating less on landing and accelerating more on take off. Calculating the forces involved would need some extremely detailed analysis.

So lets look at what happens in cycling. An elite cyclist racing faster than his previous time in identical conditons, producing more power in watts will use less total energy because (the general trend) is that the increase in power is proportionally less than the decrease in time. That is the wonder of biomechanics.

So Chris Froome climbing Mont Ventoux in 60 minutes using an average of 380 watts 5.67 watt/kilogram (67 kg 6% body fat) is using 1368000 joules to complete the climb.

A well trained cyclist using 4 watts per kilo (75 kg 16% body fat) climbing in 1.30 is using 1620000 joules to complete the climb.[/quote]

thats actually completely wrong. The increase in power is proportionally more than the increase in time. This is why the progress of records tapers off. Its friggin hard to generate the massive power output required. A cyclist riding faster uses more energy, which is the general trend.

Try it yourself with a power meter.

The exception is the untrained athlete or the hobby/weekend warrior type who may actually be able to ride faster, at first due to increased form (efficiency -which is not a mechanical term), but we don't care about that in elite sports, we assume every athlete is elite, not a high schooler starting out or a couch potato.

No well trained cyclist has 16% body fat and its easy to see why a heavier person uses more energy for the same task. This does not occur because Froome is more efficient, rather because he is LIGHTER. What you need to do is compare Froome completing the climb in 60 mins to Froome completing the climb in 90 minutes. You'll see much less power is generated at the slower pace and that the energy requirement is lower, which makes sense.

Lots of well trained cyclists have 16% body fat, including Froome himself when he was tested back in 2007 and his power outputs were even higher. Even with the same body fat the point still stands about efficiency for the reasons I stated.

Citizen Runner wrote:

Jon Orange wrote:

If you had a bicycle with a power meter and you timed yourself going up a hill, you will find that if you multiply your power output, by your total time, the faster you go, the less total energy you are expending.

There's at least two things that bother me about this statement.

1) In the absence of evidence to the contrary, I don't think it's true or consistent with basic physics. In an (idealized) frictionless case the total energy should be the same independent of how long it takes to get up the hill. In cycling, aerodynamic drag is usually the dominant energy loss term and it's roughly quadratic with velocity, so the faster rider would require more net energy.

2) Even if the example as stated were correct, a bicycle power meter doesn't measure the efficiency of the rider's power generation.

We're back to what I called the 'efficiency conundrum' again. Yes, in running and in cycling wind resistance requires more energy use to overcome the resistance, so if you run an 8 minute mile then race a 4 minute mile, the energy use in the race is more, with a much greater anearobic component.

But to improve your races times beyond your previous season (assuming you reached a decent peak) you have to be more energy efficient. So we see Kenenisa Bekele running his 10000m world record at 63 seconds a lap, a pace that a less well trained runner uses a lot more energy to run compared to his 10000m pace. And a decent level would be that pace for 1500; 3.56.

However to show your point about two different cycling time trials by the same rider using the same amount of joules

The same principle applies in cycling, but with much greater wind resistance. For example; Bradley Wiggins at his best help 440 watts for one hour, 440 x 3600 = 1584000 joules.

To use your example of the same total power output 1584000 joules at 430 watts = 3683 seconds, and for Wiggo to have lost a time trial by 1 minute and 23 seconds would have been a big loss to him.

So yes, your statement about the same energy in joles stands in that calculation, and you're second statement about power output not measuring the efficiency of power input is correct because we don't know the energy input. The best way to measure this is the use oxygen uptake. My point here is that the oxygen uptake could be a tiny bit less in liters per minute not as big as the 2% difference in time. If it was, then the fitness would be the same and efficiency would be the same, but tired legs caused an inferior performance.

fred wrote:

Velonews:

"

Di Luca won all three Ardennes classics, a Giro, and stages in the Vuelta a España: “Doping improves your performance between 5 and 7 percent, and maybe 10 to 12 percent when you are in a peak shape. If I had never doped, I wouldn’t have ever won.” He rode for teams including Saeco, Liquigas, LPR, Katusha: “Doping is not addictive, but it is an instrument of power: Who wins brings in the money to himself, to the team and the sponsors.”

He indicated he used some form of doping his entire career: “But I only started the serious stuff in 2001.”

His 2013 Giro preparation: “It included doping and non-doping substances: vitamins, amino acids, supplements, protein, EPO, cortisone, hormones of various types, corticosteroids, testosterone.”

I've already debunked this nonsens on another thread, where I showed Tyler Hamilton's power outuputs were not increased with EPO.

Tyler Hamilton's Time trials up the Col de la Madone tested by Michele Ferrari

Tyler Hamilton's improvement in power of 5.66% post EPO, where he rode his Madone time triall 10.8% faster, he was actually using more energy in the slower time trial.

802473 joules for 36.03 minutes in the pre EPO TT

765184J joules for 32.32 minutes in the post EPO TT

4.9% more energy without EPO.

His weight was 139 before the first test and 134 before the second

3.7% difference.

Adding bike, shoes, clothing, 20 pounds total 3.2% difference.

He rode harder, but used less energy, partly because the increase in effort shortened the effort by a greater margin and partly because he was lighter.

Yes, it's I was using 32.02, instead of 32.32

Yes we don't know how much energy input there was in each test, neither does he, neither does Ferrari.

We know his wattage, approximate heart rates and percentage of VO2 max power in the second test.

6.45 W/kg / 6.9 W/kg = 93.5% and somewhat less maybe 5% or so for the first TT

But an improvement of 10.8% in speed.

This is how WebMD describes anabolic steroids:

Anabolic steroids work by helping the body's muscle cells produce more protein which, as long as the athletes works out, leads to increased muscle size and strength and, at the same time, also allows the body to produce more ATP, the "fuel" muscles need to move.

And blood doping:

In many cases, blood doping increases the amount of hemoglobin in the bloodstream. Hemoglobin is an oxygen-carrying protein in the blood. So increasing hemoglobin allows higher amounts of oxygen to reach and fuel an athlete's muscles. This can improve stamina and performance, particularly in long-distance events, such as running and cycling.

Yes I'm aware of the pseudoscience about so called PEDs. Don't you think I learned that years ago?

Use a bit of common sense will you?

Read my posts above, you're not even trying. I can't have an intelligent debate with dogmatic posters can I? You have to make some effort to understand this problem.

You're losing this one to, Jon. You REALLY need some more material than your own dogma. It's just not working.

Jon Orange wrote:

But to improve your races times beyond your previous season (assuming you reached a decent peak) you have to be more energy efficient.

No, you have to increase the rate of energy (power) effectively propelling you forward.

While this can be achieved by improvements in efficiency it can also be the product of increased power generation without necessitating an improvement in efficiency. THIS is according to the laws of physics. To suggest otherwise is simply nonsense.

And you increase your power generation by improving your fitness right?

But as I'm sure you are aware from previous discussion, your aerobic and anearobic capacities have a genetic ceiling which is easily achieved. You did get that point? Or do we have to go over it again?

Now the prevailig dogma is that you can go over that genetic ceiling with drugs, such as EPO suppoesedly increasing oxygen uptake. Well look at my posts above. This is another piece of mythology. Look at Tyer Hamiliton's numbers.

What's the standard error of your measurements?

AAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA stupid troll

Weldon, what is the average number of troll names you post under per day?

Weldon's not here man

theJefff wrote:

Weldon's not here man

It makes you wonder if he's ever been here or if he even exists.

Jon Orange is dumb enough he MIGHT be a long lost brojo.