No this thread is not seriously discussing it.But an interesting question is which PEDs work, and for whom, under which conditions? Where are the gaps in your mountains of evidence? That would make a long thread.
Metric Miler wrote:
Is this thread seriously discussing whether PEDs work? Mountains of studies, a wealth of empirical and anecdotal evidence means nothing to some people?
rekrunner wrote:
No this thread is not seriously discussing it.
But an interesting question is which PEDs work, and for whom, under which conditions? Where are the gaps in your mountains of evidence? That would make a long thread.
Metric Miler wrote:Is this thread seriously discussing whether PEDs work? Mountains of studies, a wealth of empirical and anecdotal evidence means nothing to some people?
Even if mountains of evidence is gathered on this thread a couple of fools will just counter with "no they don't" and repeat that endlessly. Occasionally throwing "self belief" and "the body is amazing".
But a 2:29 is not really that remarkable, is it?
I think this thread was more to highlight economy factors can also improve performance. Maybe PEDs are not necessary for an athlete looking to move to the next level. Or more strongly, PEDs that target oxygen miss the point, and will not bring the expected improvements. That's my take, but it's not my thread despite some lengthy contributions.If we understood better the answers to which PEDs, and for whom, and when, then we wouldn't need to draw conclusions from projections from cycling to running, or from amateurs to elites.
Gene Summons wrote:
rekrunner wrote:No this thread is not seriously discussing it.
But an interesting question is which PEDs work, and for whom, under which conditions? Where are the gaps in your mountains of evidence? That would make a long thread.
Even if mountains of evidence is gathered on this thread a couple of fools will just counter with "no they don't" and repeat that endlessly. Occasionally throwing "self belief" and "the body is amazing".
But a 2:29 is not really that remarkable, is it?
I know 13 guys that have broken 2:30, and not by just 8 seconds. This thread is not important to them and they are laughing at it (we just worked out this morning at the Creek). This guy is a real joke. I gave it a chance and did read more than enough to form a fair opinion. I've never read so much fluff in one place. Is this what LetsRun has come to?
Gene Summons wrote:
rekrunner wrote:No this thread is not seriously discussing it.
But an interesting question is which PEDs work, and for whom, under which conditions? Where are the gaps in your mountains of evidence? That would make a long thread.
Even if mountains of evidence is gathered on this thread a couple of fools will just counter with "no they don't" and repeat that endlessly. Occasionally throwing "self belief" and "the body is amazing".
But a 2:29 is not really that remarkable, is it?
fred wrote:
Jon ran 1500 in 4:00.xx at age 45.
"1500 meter Run - M 45 - 49 - World Rankings
Mark
Athlete
Nation
DOB Venue Date
3:48.53 Jesus Borrego Llamas ESP 16.07.1961 Monterrey 20.06.2008
3:54.28 David Heath GBR 22.05.1965 Carcassonne 27.06.2010
3:56.39 John Hinton USA 01.05.1962 Durham 06.05.2007
3:57.91 i Tony Young USA 12.04.1962 Boston 01.03.2009
3:58.3 Peter Molloy GBR 08.01.1949 Watford 09.08.1995
3:59.22 Wilfried Dubois BEL 01.09.1959 Oordegem 02.07.2005
3:59.24 Ken Sparks USA 25.01.1945 New York 29.07.1990
3:59.90 James McNamara IRL 17.04.1939 Dublin 27.05.1984
3:59.95 Tony McManaus NZL 02.10.1949 Christchurch 10.02.1995
3:59.97
Wieslaw Pietka
POL
19.10.1965 Sosnowiec
03.09.2011
(10)
4:00.14 Benjamin Romkes NED 05.02.1965 Oordegem 05.06.2010
4:00.2 Robert Schwerkolt AUS 11.12.1965 Melbourne 15.03.2011
4:00.43
Glen Grant GBR 16.07.1953 Otaniemi
21.07.1999
4:00.93 Peter Magill USA 19.06.1961 Los Angeles 09.07.2006
4:01.21 Rod Dixon NZL 13.07.1950 Buffalo 22.07.1995"
Which puts him ahead of Rod Dixon for age 45. I'll give him credit for that. And Dixon has world class genes which Jon doesn't believe in.
Fred he was 43 when he ran that time and therefore in the V40 age group.
http://www.powerof10.info/rankings/rankinglist.aspx?event=1500&agegroup=V40&sex=M&year=2006He is therefore slower than the great Rod Dixon at V45.
ARE YOU KIDDING, HE'S 53!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! and he is still dreaming of being an elite or mad that he didn't make it. I thought this guy was current? Go out and run dude and stop being such a damn stubborn bloke! It's over, you weren't good enough, move on and do something else.
poweroften wrote:
fred wrote:Jon ran 1500 in 4:00.xx at age 45.
"1500 meter Run - M 45 - 49 - World Rankings
Mark
Athlete
Nation
DOB Venue Date
3:48.53 Jesus Borrego Llamas ESP 16.07.1961 Monterrey 20.06.2008
3:54.28 David Heath GBR 22.05.1965 Carcassonne 27.06.2010
3:56.39 John Hinton USA 01.05.1962 Durham 06.05.2007
3:57.91 i Tony Young USA 12.04.1962 Boston 01.03.2009
3:58.3 Peter Molloy GBR 08.01.1949 Watford 09.08.1995
3:59.22 Wilfried Dubois BEL 01.09.1959 Oordegem 02.07.2005
3:59.24 Ken Sparks USA 25.01.1945 New York 29.07.1990
3:59.90 James McNamara IRL 17.04.1939 Dublin 27.05.1984
3:59.95 Tony McManaus NZL 02.10.1949 Christchurch 10.02.1995
3:59.97
Wieslaw Pietka
POL
19.10.1965 Sosnowiec
03.09.2011
(10)
4:00.14 Benjamin Romkes NED 05.02.1965 Oordegem 05.06.2010
4:00.2 Robert Schwerkolt AUS 11.12.1965 Melbourne 15.03.2011
4:00.43
Glen Grant GBR 16.07.1953 Otaniemi
21.07.1999
4:00.93 Peter Magill USA 19.06.1961 Los Angeles 09.07.2006
4:01.21 Rod Dixon NZL 13.07.1950 Buffalo 22.07.1995"
Which puts him ahead of Rod Dixon for age 45. I'll give him credit for that. And Dixon has world class genes which Jon doesn't believe in.
Fred he was 43 when he ran that time and therefore in the V40 age group.
http://www.powerof10.info/rankings/rankinglist.aspx?event=1500&agegroup=V40&sex=M&year=2006He is therefore slower than the great Rod Dixon at V45.
rekrunner wrote:
I think this thread was more to highlight economy factors can also improve performance. Maybe PEDs are not necessary for an athlete looking to move to the next level. Or more strongly, PEDs that target oxygen miss the point, and will not bring the expected improvements. That's my take, but it's not my thread despite some lengthy contributions.
If we understood better the answers to which PEDs, and for whom, and when, then we wouldn't need to draw conclusions from projections from cycling to running, or from amateurs to elites.
Gene Summons wrote:[quote]rekrunner wrote:
No this thread is not seriously discussing it.
But an interesting question is which PEDs work, and for whom, under which conditions? Where are the gaps in your mountains of evidence? That would make a long thread.
How PEDs work.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lWzqfiWRE9Qfred wrote:
rekrunner wrote:I think this thread was more to highlight economy factors can also improve performance. Maybe PEDs are not necessary for an athlete looking to move to the next level. Or more strongly, PEDs that target oxygen miss the point, and will not bring the expected improvements. That's my take, but it's not my thread despite some lengthy contributions.
If we understood better the answers to which PEDs, and for whom, and when, then we wouldn't need to draw conclusions from projections from cycling to running, or from amateurs to elites.
How PEDs work.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lWzqfiWRE9Q
You could see Aregawi have that "damn there is better stuff out there" moment with about 50 to go.
She got her hands on it later.
Uceny is currently looking for a drug that enhances balance.
https://twitter.com/stevemagness/status/706469852316209152/photo/1?ref_src=twsrc%5EtfwGene Summons wrote:
fred wrote:How PEDs work.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lWzqfiWRE9QYou could see Aregawi have that "damn there is better stuff out there" moment with about 50 to go.
She got her hands on it later.
Uceny is currently looking for a drug that enhances balance.
rekrunner wrote:
OK Jon,
Here's the friendly advice. You are working hard to convince us something, yet you are not gaining any traction, so far as I can see, with anyone.
It's on the same stupid people that don't get it, i.e. fred Obvious, and his multiple pseudonyms. Everyone can see he's a fool, and I doubt Jon is trying to convince him of anything..
4:00 flat at 53 is quite good, surely better than anyone else on this thread.
Okay he's not run 2:04 for a marathon but neither has anyone else on this thread, and the stupid trolls who believe in drug use are just idiots.
Correction, 4:00 flat at age 43 is quite exceptional, surely better than anyone else on this thread.
Ummmm....you don't know that and it has nothing to do with the context of his claims.
Stupid trolls wrote:
Correction, 4:00 flat at age 43 is quite exceptional, surely better than anyone else on this thread.
Stupid Brainless Posters wrote:
Ummmm....you don't know that and it has nothing to do with the context of his claims.
Except you were claiming the opposite.
Mr. Obvious wrote:
Hi Jono/wellnow/J.R.!
He sure made a fool of you wrote:
Stupid Brainless Posters wrote:Ummmm....you don't know that and it has nothing to do with the context of his claims.
Except you were claiming the opposite.
Hi Jon!
Jono Vision wrote:
Hi Jon!
What a sad, needy person you are.
No I wasn't.
He sure made a fool of you wrote:
Stupid Brainless Posters wrote:Ummmm....you don't know that and it has nothing to do with the context of his claims.
Except you were claiming the opposite.
Poor baby wrote:
Jono Vision wrote:Hi Jon!
What a sad, needy person you are.
Thanks for caring, Jon!
This thread makes me want to dope like crazy and see what the limits are.
I know the stuff works but now I realize how WELL it works.