El Guerrouj 2k WR - Incredible 3:49 Mile pace

They are experts, you are not. You presented a poor view of how a study should be viewed. I doubt you did more than skim the study or you would have caught that line and not looked like such a fool scrambling all over the place trying to minimize your glaring error.

You're no stranger to gymnastics though.

Shopping hour wrote:

"and whatever you do, don't be so stupid as to project these findings onto elite athletes in competition."

In your selected quote, your experts referred to (Birkeland et al. 2000).

Some selected quotes:

"We did not include time trials in this experiment to determine whether the improvement in maximal oxygen uptake would translate into actual improvement in performance in the field and across different sporting disciplines."

"In a previous study by one of the authors (15), an altitude-induced (4 wk at 2500 m) increase in hematocrit of less than half the magnitude observed in this study conferred a 1.5% improvement in 5000-m time trial performance lasting at least 3 wk after return from altitude."

(15) Benjamin D. Levine, and James Stray-Gundersen, “Living high-training low”: effect of moderate-altitude acclimatization with low-altitude training on performance

The 1997 Levine and Stray-Gundersen altitude study is one of my favorite studies, showing the benefit of hi-lo training, on 17-minute (male) 5K runners and 19-minute (female) 5K runners.

These participants are far from elite, and the 5000m is not the same as the 1500m.

So the 3-second for 1500m elite translation comes equating the increase in hematocrit to amateur participants in an altitude study running 5000m time trials.

In this study, the hi-lo group did improve about 1.5% (actually 1.33%).

In the same study, the hi-hi group, with similar hematocrit increase, and similar VO2max increase, actually regressed 0.35%, running slower after 4 weeks at altitude

So this raises an interesting question. If hematocrit is the link, why equate an EPO group with the hi-lo group of a study, and not the hi-hi group, with similar hematocrit changes?

If we compare to the hi-hi group, then the translation becomes "0.7 seconds slower for an elite 1500m runner".

rekrunner wrote:

I tried to setup an airtight defense? What does that even mean?

.

It means you thought that the "good" studies agree with your vague kinda sorta maybe conclusions and presented your ideal disclaimer in your imagined words from the view of a researcher.

Except you forgot to read everything they actually said.

You're always telling us to cite the experts.

You seem unclear as to who to refer to and are doing your usual scrambling in all directions.

Shopping hour wrote:

They are experts, you are not. You presented a poor view of how a study should be viewed. I doubt you did more than skim the study or you would have caught that line and not looked like such a fool scrambling all over the place trying to minimize your glaring error.

You're no stranger to gymnastics though.

They are experts who have not observed or measured the effect of EPO on elite 1500m runners.

We see, not from me, but from experts "Hopkins et al" that it is "stupid" to equate different events and to equate amateur subjects with elite athletes.

We can now see the source of this 3s estimate, not from me, but from the experts that were referenced: "Birkeland et al", and we see how to evaluate it from experts that were referenced: "Hopkins et. al"

The 3s estimate comes from an altitude study -- the only one that did a time trial -- and it was a 5000m time trial of amateurs. (See "Hopkins" again)

None of these studies observed or measured the effect of EPO on any runner.

You also chopped the quote: Note the expert opinion at the end. They sure don't like to follow your ideas.

We did not include time trials in this experiment to determine whether the improvement in maximal oxygen uptake would translate into actual improvement in performance in the field and across different sporting disciplines. However, we did observe a 10% improvement in time to exhaustion on the cycle ergometer. In a previous study by one of the authors (15), an altitude-induced (4 wk at 2500 m) increase in hematocrit of less than half the magnitude observed in this study conferred a 1.5% improvement in 5000-m time trial performance lasting at least 3 wk after return from altitude. Even if the degree of improvement in performance were similar to the effect obtained from altitude exposure, it would clearly make the difference between winning a medal or not in international level competition.

Shopping hour wrote:

rekrunner wrote:

I tried to setup an airtight defense? What does that even mean?

.

It means you thought that the "good" studies agree with your vague kinda sorta maybe conclusions and presented your ideal disclaimer in your imagined words from the view of a researcher.

Except you forgot to read everything they actually said.

You're always telling us to cite the experts.

Again, you are twisting how it played out and what I said.

I didn't say good studies agree with me or my conclusions, but that I agreed with experts when they discuss limitations of their findings, in contrast to your question as to whether I agree with some unconditional conclusion without context.

I came up with this example "disclaimer" independently of the VO2 study -- there is no connection.

You are placing a great deal of importance on a line that is not a hypothesis, observation, finding or conclusion. How did you put it -- you present a poor view of how a study should be viewed.

I tell you to cite experts to give them credit for their ideas, and to give you more credibility, by showing that your ideas are shared by experts.

My interest in experts is not because they are experts, per se, but because they are more likely to describe the basis that helped them form their opinions. This is typically not the case with anonymous non-experts. But experts can say things without basis, e.g. 3s for 1500m.

Shopping hour wrote:

You also chopped the quote: Note the expert opinion at the end. They sure don't like to follow your ideas.

We did not include time trials in this experiment to determine whether the improvement in maximal oxygen uptake would translate into actual improvement in performance in the field and across different sporting disciplines. However, we did observe a 10% improvement in time to exhaustion on the cycle ergometer. In a previous study by one of the authors (15), an altitude-induced (4 wk at 2500 m) increase in hematocrit of less than half the magnitude observed in this study conferred a 1.5% improvement in 5000-m time trial performance lasting at least 3 wk after return from altitude. Even if the degree of improvement in performance were similar to the effect obtained from altitude exposure, it would clearly make the difference between winning a medal or not in international level competition.

Opinions that start with "even if" are not opinions, but speculation of a relation that may or may not exist.

I showed you that the "effect obtained from altitude exposure" ranged from -0.35% to 1.33%.

And I showed you experts that say you cannot use 17:00-19:00 5000m runners to predict elite 1500m performance.

They have basis. They are experts. A remarkable number of them think EPO works, even if they don't fully understand how.

Also worth mentioning that top level elite athletes are unlikely to deliberately sacrifice their career to participate in an EPO study.

Since that won't happen, we let the experts come up with an alternate conclusion using their uh, expertise.

rekrunner wrote:

Opinions that start with "even if" are not opinions, but speculation of a relation that may or may not exist.

There you go again with your famous word contortions. Opinions that start with are not opinions.

That's just your opinion.

Shopping hour wrote:

You seem unclear as to who to refer to and are doing your usual scrambling in all directions.

You are deceived by appearances.

I just followed the studies used to support the 3s for 1500m estimate, one of which gives us many reasons why we should treat 3s for 1500m with caution and skepticism.

This is a normal process when investigating claims, and experts make this possible by citing their sources.

Shopping hour wrote:

They have basis. They are experts. A remarkable number of them think EPO works, even if they don't fully understand how.

Also worth mentioning that top level elite athletes are unlikely to deliberately sacrifice their career to participate in an EPO study.

Since that won't happen, we let the experts come up with an alternate conclusion using their uh, expertise.

They have shown no basis for their statements about elite performance.

It doesn't matter what they think if they cannot show it. What they think can actually inject bias into their conclusions, not supported by the study.

Just because elite athletes won't do EPO studies doesn't mean we can ignore scientific standards.

They could participate in altitude studies, like the 1997 Levine and Stray-Gundersen hi-lo study, given that that was the source for the 3s for 1500m estimate.

Shopping hour wrote:

rekrunner wrote:

Opinions that start with "even if" are not opinions, but speculation of a relation that may or may not exist.

There you go again with your famous word contortions. Opinions that start with are not opinions.

That's just your opinion.

For the opinion to have any value, we would first need to determine "if the degree of improvement in performance were similar ..."

We know from other experts that this is not certain when one group is 5000m amateurs, and the other is 1500m elites.

And we shouldn't forget that other competitors are altitude trained, with a similar degree of improvement, reducing any differences.

rekrunner wrote:

Shopping hour wrote:

You seem unclear as to who to refer to and are doing your usual scrambling in all directions.

You are deceived by appearances.

I just followed the studies used to support the 3s for 1500m estimate, one of which gives us many reasons why we should treat 3s for 1500m with caution and skepticism.

This is a normal process when investigating claims, and experts make this possible by citing their sources.

The only rational point you have made in 30 pages is that everything you say should be treated with skepticism and caution. No citation is need. It is entirely self-evident.

The irony is that rekrunner offers proof that the opinions of experts aren't necessary to understand that which can be arrived at through observation. With every utterance he reveals exactly what he is - no studies are needed to confirm this and no citations are necessary. So it is with observing athletes - they show us a lot of who and what they are. Part of his condition - and it is a condition - is that rekrunner has no awareness of this, hence he similarly knows nothing about the world (or indeed himself) through personal observation - he depends entirely on his "studies". Thus he can always be guaranteed not to see what others can.

Armstronglivs wrote:

The only rational point you have made in 30 pages is that everything you say should be treated with skepticism and caution. No citation is need. It is entirely self-evident.

That is one more point than I set out to make, so I guess that is not too bad.

I initially just asked if any experts shared your non-expert views.

Armstronglivs wrote:

The irony is that rekrunner offers proof that the opinions of experts aren't necessary to understand that which can be arrived at through observation. With every utterance he reveals exactly what he is - no studies are needed to confirm this and no citations are necessary. So it is with observing athletes - they show us a lot of who and what they are. Part of his condition - and it is a condition - is that rekrunner has no awareness of this, hence he similarly knows nothing about the world (or indeed himself) through personal observation - he depends entirely on his "studies". Thus he can always be guaranteed not to see what others can.

I ironically offered proof that expert opinions aren't necessary, and secondary to the personal observations of non-experts? It's the second time in this thread that I've doubted that you understand what a proof is. Does "proof" have a different meaning in your country? Is it urban slang?

You remind me of the flat-earther who rejects the experts in favor of his personal observation combined with a personal misunderstanding of selected science. Just look around, everyone can see the flatness for themselves.

I try to use the scientific method to arrive at conclusions of substance and value through iteration and scientific challenge and refinement. "Studies" can be a part of that, to the extent they also conform to the scientific method. I rely in part on studies in conjunction with data, observations, bases, logic and reason.

rekrunner wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

The only rational point you have made in 30 pages is that everything you say should be treated with skepticism and caution. No citation is need. It is entirely self-evident.

That is one more point than I set out to make, so I guess that is not too bad.

I initially just asked if any experts shared your non-expert views.

"One more point than (you) set out to make" - so you had nothing to say, and yet have persisted for 30 pages? You clearly made no progress beyond what you "initially asked". The most candid admission of wasting everyone's time that I've yet seen (but entirely evident to anyone else).

You are proof that expert opinion is unnecessary to confirm that you have nothing of any substance to offer. The more you say the more evident that is. Except to you. Your professed attachment to the "scientific method" doesn't cure that. You will still find a way to come to the wrong conclusions. An indelible part of your unfortunate nature.