Respected commentator Tim Hutchings calls out times from past drug era, says more natural levels now.

If you think EPO is old fashioned medieval technology then I suggest you read how Actovegin is made.

Quote:

Actovegin is a highly filtered extract obtained from calf blood which enhances aerobic oxidation in mammals.[1] This improves absorption of glucose and oxygen uptake in tissue,[1] which may enhance physical performance and stamina.

ex-runner wrote:

You deny the known scientific fact that testosterone increases muscle mass and strength? You deny that testosterone is the major difference between men and women's strength?[/quote]

I don't deny it increases muscle mass that is measurable. I do deny it increases strength. Define strength anyway? We are back into bioenergetics/biomechanics territory. What is the relationship between the two in improving performance? Remember my point about mass specific force. And also apply this to weightlifting and shot putting too, because they require extremely finely tuned spatial and motor skills which can be applied to endurance sports also.

The difference between men and women in strenght can't be explained by just testosterone. As you say the morphology is different between the sexes, and what makes a man a man and a woman a woman is also what helps a man improve and a woman improve performance. A woman's improvement is very specific to her own hormone profile. Introduction exogenous testosterone to the mix is a Frankenstein experiment, as is all hormone doping including exogenous EPO.

We could go on like this forever with you and others trying to convince me that the PED construct is an improvment on a billion years of evolution. I can keep explaining to you why this is not sane and rational thinking. But at the end of the day it comes down to how society has programmed this belief into your way of thinking and it has done for thousands of years. You are being manipulated by nothing more than shamanism, which has always been disguised as superior knowledge, but is really just superstition. It just looks like science froma 2018 perspective because scientists believe it also and can continually blind you with data and conclusions.

So, back to basics; a bioenergetics model showing how normal energy output levels plus superior biomechanical efficiency is what has given us a continuum of faster times over more than 100 years of the sport.

In other words, the energy output that athletes had 100 years ago is, as a group, the same as today's top athletes, because the correct bioenegetics model incorporates the physical reality of whole body thermoregulation, which the PED construct supposedly over rides. This construct is an biological impossibilty. There are no performance enhancing drugs, the whole concept is pure fantasy built on pretend science.

A 17 year old running 3.31 should give you a clue that maybe you should re-think the concept? I really hope he doesn't get brainwashed the same way as everyone else, but I fear the PED religion is too powerful, persuasive and pervasive for young athletes to counter in speech if not thought?

I make a plea to any journalist reading this to re-think your attitude to the problem and stop making it worse than it is. When journalists continually say that Lance Armsrong's power output was 10-15% higher than it really was, you're just repeating Michele Ferrari's misinformation. Ferrari has the real figures of Lance's power outputs, and they were in the normal range. But you're dealing here with someone who has a manipulative personality disorder and he has certainly been part of the misinformation and disinformation about EPO over the last 30 years.

And now we are at the 20th aniversary of Marco Pantani's incredible Tour de France win. He won because he made the others crack mentally. A superior performance and amazing rider. Shame he had to go with the system..... Needle and the damage done....

This is another example of the general population not being educated. You are all seeing a correlation but there’s no causation. Yes, times have slowed in recent years as drug testing has been better. But there’s many other reasons. Here’s a few:

1) East Africans are chasing marathon money so the best talent does not run track,

2) Training groups focus on winning not fast times,

3) Athletes focus on winning not fast times during the race.

Sure, may drug testing play a role? Most likely but to say it’s the only reason is probably false. It’s probably only a very small piece of the pie.

Tell that to Cathal Lombard.

it's 2018 not 1998 wrote:

He needs to drag his head out of the 90s EPO is not a performance enhancer.

yyy wrote:

Kamworor who probably is the best track runner has not broken 13.

he has

it's 2018 not 1998 wrote:

damage done....

Watch out, this guy is off his meds again and posting to doping threads. Did you even graduate high school?

it's 2018 not 1998 wrote: I don't accept that Exogenous Testosterone is a performance enhancer for either men or women. Injecting test for a man reduces his natural production.

actually, it depends which type of exogenous testosterone you use.

men who naturally produce low levels of testosterone, or who have a history of steroid abuse, have been treated with low dose hCG with exogenous testosterone. this has been shown to suppress production of intratesticular testosterone, which is itself a prerequisite for normal sperm production. which means that exogenous testosterone in this form adversely affects sperm production, and, agreed, it lowers overall testosterone levels.

however, there is another therapy, for injecting what is called serum testosterone, or intramuscular testosterone (ITT), and here is a direct quote from a study of it's effects. I've bolded the bit you need to take on board...

"Intramuscular testosterone enanthate (200 mg/week) with low dose hCG can preserve ITT and serum testosterone levels (24). In a 3 week study of normal men, Coviello et al. administered low doses of hCG (0, 125, 250, or 500 IU every other day) and measured serum and ITT levels (Figure 7). The addition of low dose hCG maintained ITT levels while the administration of testosterone alone resulted in profound decreases in ITT concentration. Although serum T increased (80-fold higher) from baseline in all groups, ITT remained significantly higher in all four groups after treatment (24). Despite clinical doses of exogenous testosterone, low-dose hCG can maintain high levels of ITT."

and, as you know, because you've read up on it, testosterone affects bone mass, fat distribution, muscle mass and strength, and the production of red blood cells. more red blood cells means you can carry more haemoglobin which means you can transport more oxygen and CO2 in the blood. more muscle mass, supported by greater bone mass, with more oxygen capacity and enhanced CO2 exhaust mean more power, more strength, and greater endurance. why any sane person doesn't think this leads to an enhanced performance is a mystery.

cheers.

Jon Orange, the man, the myth.... the idiot. Let's go back to the early 2000's. I raced a lot against Cathay Lombard, a classic example of a 'good standard club runner' churning out 14.20/30.00 5k, 10k. Suddenly he has a breakthrough run, 13.40's, then, as if by magic he runs 28 flat. He doesn't stop there he goes right down to sub 13.20 sub 27.40.

This was all because of reduced mileage and calesthenics.

Do you remember him giving Tergat a good race at the Manchester 10k?

So what was this sudden improvement caused by? Was it the change in training or the refrigerated packages arriving through the post containing EPO?

Let's look at Italy, do you remember a period around 86/87 Italy were a real distance running force. Why was that? Could it be anything to do with institutional doping?

Fast forward Spain and early 90's, suddenly Spain have lots and lots of great distance runners, is it the paella? No it's probably the institutionalised doping.

Funny how once these groups are broken up the athletes never get near the level again?

Go back to giving your Jack Buckner life size cut out a cuddle.

it's 2018 not 1998 wrote:

ex-runner wrote:

You deny the known scientific fact that testosterone increases muscle mass and strength? You deny that testosterone is the major difference between men and women's strength?

I don't deny it increases muscle mass that is measurable. I do deny it increases strength. Define strength anyway? We are back into bioenergetics/biomechanics territory. What is the relationship between the two in improving performance? Remember my point about mass specific force. And also apply this to weightlifting and shot putting too, because they require extremely finely tuned spatial and motor skills which can be applied to endurance sports also.

The difference between men and women in strenght can't be explained by just testosterone. As you say the morphology is different between the sexes, and what makes a man a man and a woman a woman is also what helps a man improve and a woman improve performance. A woman's improvement is very specific to her own hormone profile. Introduction exogenous testosterone to the mix is a Frankenstein experiment, as is all hormone doping including exogenous EPO.

We could go on like this forever with you and others trying to convince me that the PED construct is an improvment on a billion years of evolution. I can keep explaining to you why this is not sane and rational thinking. But at the end of the day it comes down to how society has programmed this belief into your way of thinking and it has done for thousands of years. You are being manipulated by nothing more than shamanism, which has always been disguised as superior knowledge, but is really just superstition. It just looks like science froma 2018 perspective because scientists believe it also and can continually blind you with data and conclusions.

So, back to basics; a bioenergetics model showing how normal energy output levels plus superior biomechanical efficiency is what has given us a continuum of faster times over more than 100 years of the sport.

In other words, the energy output that athletes had 100 years ago is, as a group, the same as today's top athletes, because the correct bioenegetics model incorporates the physical reality of whole body thermoregulation, which the PED construct supposedly over rides. This construct is an biological impossibilty. There are no performance enhancing drugs, the whole concept is pure fantasy built on pretend science.

A 17 year old running 3.31 should give you a clue that maybe you should re-think the concept? I really hope he doesn't get brainwashed the same way as everyone else, but I fear the PED religion is too powerful, persuasive and pervasive for young athletes to counter in speech if not thought?

I make a plea to any journalist reading this to re-think your attitude to the problem and stop making it worse than it is. When journalists continually say that Lance Armsrong's power output was 10-15% higher than it really was, you're just repeating Michele Ferrari's misinformation. Ferrari has the real figures of Lance's power outputs, and they were in the normal range. But you're dealing here with someone who has a manipulative personality disorder and he has certainly been part of the misinformation and disinformation about EPO over the last 30 years.

And now we are at the 20th aniversary of Marco Pantani's incredible Tour de France win. He won because he made the others crack mentally. A superior performance and amazing rider. Shame he had to go with the system..... Needle and the damage done....[/quote]

Goodness. You doubt testosterone increases strength or can even give headroom for increased strength.

Won't even accept how it can improve the shotput?! Tell me why shot putter don't look like Mo Farah if it's just about speed and strength doesn't matter.

I think I'm finished with you lol. Total loony.

Judas Priest wrote:

ex-runner wrote:

If you think EPO is old fashioned medieval technology then I suggest you read how Actovegin is made.

Quote:

Actovegin is a highly filtered extract obtained from calf blood which enhances aerobic oxidation in mammals.[1] This improves absorption of glucose and oxygen uptake in tissue,[1] which may enhance physical performance and stamina.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Actovegin

Yeah. It's calf blood. It's not a special wonder substance. It's calf blood put through the centrifuge and then injected into you, and it's reported benefits aren't fully understood and nobody can tell you what exactly in the mixture of proteins and hormones etcetera has any effect or what does what. EPO is far more powerful and more of a measured science.

It's the most bogus science I've ever set eyes on. It MAY help with healing muscle tears but that's it. Not even the marketing department for the stuff can claim it will improve aerobic output. It's a mixture of literally God knows what and nobody knows how or if it works.

I always gathered that the real advantage to steroids was the enhanced recovery.

It allows an athlete to handle a volume of intense training which would otherwise be impossible without injury.

It’s not going to produce world records for just anyone, but for those who are at that level already, it can help them move forward with their careers while keeping them from early retirement.

Horses run faster on drugs, proven fact. Do they also get faster because of a placebo to which they have no conscious understanding of?

sbeefyk2 wrote:

This is another example of the general population not being educated. You are all seeing a correlation but there’s no causation. Yes, times have slowed in recent years as drug testing has been better. But there’s many other reasons. Here’s a few:

1) East Africans are chasing marathon money so the best talent does not run track,

2) Training groups focus on winning not fast times,

3) Athletes focus on winning not fast times during the race.

Sure, may drug testing play a role? Most likely but to say it’s the only reason is probably false. It’s probably only a very small piece of the pie.

1 - The population of East Africa has doubled since those WRs were set. There should be more than enough talent left from the roads to be getting near those times. Not to mention 20 years of little improvements in training knowledge, tracks, shoes. The GDP of East Africa has more than doubled as well. Furthermore, I don't see too many Moroccans dominating the roads, yet their times have slowed even more than the Kenyans.

2 - Pure speculation on your part.

3 - Athletes who could get near the WRs would be set for life. Mo Farah focused on winning because his strength was his kick and he knew he couldn't get near the EPO records either. He made plenty of attempts on soft records such as the two mile WR, and Cram's 30 year old 1500m British record.

More importantly, it now seems clear that Hutchings reads LR.

What I would like to know is whether he posts or not

If so, under which name?

Jsnkeke wrote:

...it now seems clear that Hutchings reads LR.

Is it, why?

People here suggested that he stop referring to Mo and he did

We had a thread about the demise of the 5000/10000 and a few days later he mentions it

He keeps referring to “message boards”

I mean, it makes sense. If I was going to be speaking about a topic to a wide TV audience, I would keep in touch with what people care about.

Hdjdjdjdj wrote:

People here suggested that he stop referring to Mo and he did

We had a thread about the demise of the 5000/10000 and a few days later he mentions it

He keeps referring to “message boards”

I mean, it makes sense. If I was going to be speaking about a topic to a wide TV audience, I would keep in touch with what people care about.

Yes he certainly reads them for research, but I doubt he posts.

ex-runner wrote:

Yes he certainly reads them for research, but I doubt he posts.

He's Coevett.