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

Armstronglivs wrote:

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.

In this thread, I did not purport to offer anything of substance.

On the contrary, I asked you to offer something of substance, and got insults and off-topic analogies.

I gave you many chances to help re-guide my conclusions, and you refused, resorting to more insults.

I don't mind arriving at wrong conclusions, if they are the result of the scientific method. It will correct itself in the long term.

In science, you can be wrong for centuries -- just look at Newton before Einstein corrected his math.

If you can prove me wrong using the scientific method, you have my full support.

If Shopping Hour can find contradictory evidence that I have ignored, I welcome it, and will adapt my models, or build a new one in consequence, to accomodate the new evidence with all of the old evidence.

No, you will never change. You've dug your heels in too deep.

rekrunner wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

"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 were there the whole time -- did you understand what was going on?"

Yes. I knew you were wasting everyone's time.

"That is correct" (the first honest thing you have said)

"I had nothing to say" (the second honest admission) -- only questions about the existence of any foundation for your stated opinions.[/quote]

Stuck in your loop for 30 pages.

"In this thread, I did not purport to offer anything of substance".[/quote]

A modest goal easily achieved.

Shopping hour wrote:

No, you will never change. You've dug your heels in too deep.

You didn't even try. My feet are dug into solid ground with deep foundation.

You suggested that there is contradictory evidence that I ignored, but never followed up.

I can't know what evidence you consider both contradictory and ignored by me.

I can't consider evidence that you fail to produce.

Armstronglivs wrote:

rekrunner wrote:

"You were there the whole time -- did you understand what was going on?"

Yes. I knew you were wasting everyone's time.

"That is correct" (the first honest thing you have said)

"I had nothing to say" (the second honest admission) -- only questions about the existence of any foundation for your stated opinions.

Stuck in your loop for 30 pages.

What's the deal with your inability to quote to properly edit quotes? I can understand once or twice, because of the manual editing nature of it, but you do it every time. They are like parentheses and quotation marks -- there is a tag at the beginning and another at the end, encapsulating the text in between. If you delete the markup tag at the beginning, you should delete the one at the end too -- otherwise you end up with extra floating slash-quotes in square brackets and misattributed quotes.

I can take personal responsibility for managing my time, but I do not force anyone else to come to letsrun forums and click on a thread.

If you believe you have wasted your time, don't blame me for your own personal choices. You were a frequently recurring pro-active actor in this thread, making a personal choice at every iteration.

You had the power to break the loop 30 pages ago, by providing one of the many expert opinions you said you have read that shows less breathing is the expected result of depleting the lungs of oxygen at higher rates.

Instead you chose to create a loop of personal insults. This was your personal choice.

Armstronglivs wrote:

rekrunner wrote:

"In this thread, I did not purport to offer anything of substance".

A modest goal easily achieved.

The goal was to collect any evidence of:

- inverse rate of breathing to RBC count

- El G's RBC count

- El G's elevated RBC count due to EPO

For all this talk about moving goalposts, that one is collecting dust and spiderwebs.

Shopping hour wrote:

No, you will never change. You've dug your heels in too deep.

I do want to take a moment to say I appreciate your role in leading me to the 1999 Hopkins study. It is a goldmine reference on the do's and don'ts of how to design a study on elite competitive performance.

Although you didn't give it to me directly, it was because of you pointing out the stupidity of experts attempting to use cycling exercise performance (time to exhaustion at constant power) of recreationally active subjects and the 5000m time-trial performance of collegiate/club-runners/USA team development runners hi-lo training, to estimate elite 1500m performance gains.

This single find makes the whole thread worthwhile.

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.[/quote]

Protesting that is your method doesn't make it so. In your case it is bad science - if it is indeed science. Were you to offer genuine scientific analysis your observations would be worth heeding. But they are not. They are mere sounds that have the appearance of meaning only.

Thus, you say - "I try to use the scientific method to arrive at conclusions of substance and value through iteration and scientific challenge and refinement". So what is that actually saying? Despite its air of portentousness a statement of complete vacuity. There is no one else on this board who offers so much that amounts to so little.

You further confirm this when you say that in this entire thread you have made "no point of substance" - an observation evident to anyone - and have done little more than repeat the same question again and again, demanding a citation for a point of basic biology. For one who protests an adherence to science you show little inclination to acquaint yourself with it.

rekrunner wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

A modest goal easily achieved.

The goal was to collect any evidence of:

- inverse rate of breathing to RBC count

- El G's RBC count

- El G's elevated RBC count due to EPO

For all this talk about moving goalposts, that one is collecting dust and spiderwebs.

If that was your goal - and it was only yours - you made no effort to collect any evidence. That is why it "collects dust and spiderwebs". Doing your own research is out of the question.

rekrunner wrote:

Shopping hour wrote:

No, you will never change. You've dug your heels in too deep.

I do want to take a moment to say I appreciate your role in leading me to the 1999 Hopkins study. It is a goldmine reference on the do's and don'ts of how to design a study on elite competitive performance.

Although you didn't give it to me directly, it was because of you pointing out the stupidity of experts attempting to use cycling exercise performance (time to exhaustion at constant power) of recreationally active subjects and the 5000m time-trial performance of collegiate/club-runners/USA team development runners hi-lo training, to estimate elite 1500m performance gains.

This single find makes the whole thread worthwhile.

As he said - you will never change. Dug in too deep.

I believe in awarding what is merited.

rekrunner wrote:

Shopping hour wrote:

No, you will never change. You've dug your heels in too deep.

You didn't even try. My feet are dug into solid ground with deep foundation.

You suggested that there is contradictory evidence that I ignored, but never followed up.

I can't know what evidence you consider both contradictory and ignored by me.

I can't consider evidence that you fail to produce.

"My feet are dug into solid ground with deep foundation."[/quote]

A little higher than your feet.

Armstronglivs wrote:

rekrunner wrote:

The goal was to collect any evidence of:

- inverse rate of breathing to RBC count

- El G's RBC count

- El G's elevated RBC count due to EPO

For all this talk about moving goalposts, that one is collecting dust and spiderwebs.

If that was your goal - and it was only yours - you made no effort to collect any evidence. That is why it "collects dust and spiderwebs". Doing your own research is out of the question.

Yes yes yes. I get it -- it's my burden to research your baseless claims, and it's my burden to completely decide the direction of my research, until I stumble by hampenchance upon some of the many sources you have read, but can no longer remember who or what you read.

I did some of this research in the course of this thread, and you didn't like it -- calling it confirmation bias.

Armstronglivs wrote:

You further confirm this when you say that in this entire thread you have made "no point of substance" - an observation evident to anyone - and have done little more than repeat the same question again and again, demanding a citation for a point of basic biology. For one who protests an adherence to science you show little inclination to acquaint yourself with it.

Did I say that? I don't recall saying I made no point of substance. Those don't look like my words.

You already conceded I made at least "one rational point", so how can "no point" be "evident to anyone" if one point was evident to you?

I know I know -- time to renew my library card and wait for the lockdown to be over when the library opens again. I'll ask the librarian for the Armstronglivs' gospels section.

Armstronglivs wrote:

I believe in awarding what is merited.

Yes, you are stuck in your loop, giving the merry-go-round another spin.

Armstronglivs wrote:

I do want to take a moment to say I appreciate your role in leading me to the 1999 Hopkins study. It is a goldmine reference on the do's and don'ts of how to design a study on elite competitive performance.

Although you didn't give it to me directly, it was because of you pointing out the stupidity of experts attempting to use cycling exercise performance (time to exhaustion at constant power) of recreationally active subjects and the 5000m time-trial performance of collegiate/club-runners/USA team development runners hi-lo training, to estimate elite 1500m performance gains.

This single find makes the whole thread worthwhile.

As he said - you will never change. Dug in too deep.[/quote]

Are you kidding? Didn't you read Hopkins? That is a game-changer.

rekrunner wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

As he said - you will never change. Dug in too deep.

Are you kidding? Didn't you read Hopkins? That is a game-changer.

Whoops - needed to fix the Armstronglivs style mangled nested quotes

rekrunner wrote:

Shopping hour wrote:

No, you will never change. You've dug your heels in too deep.

I do want to take a moment to say I appreciate your role in leading me to the 1999 Hopkins study. It is a goldmine reference on the do's and don'ts of how to design a study on elite competitive performance.

Although you didn't give it to me directly, it was because of you pointing out the stupidity of experts attempting to use cycling exercise performance (time to exhaustion at constant power) of recreationally active subjects and the 5000m time-trial performance of collegiate/club-runners/USA team development runners hi-lo training, to estimate elite 1500m performance gains.

This single find makes the whole thread worthwhile.

It took you 20 plus years to find that readily available paper and you still needed help. Do you think some later studies did not address those issues?