rekrunner wrote:
I recommend altitude training for two reasons:
- similar "proven" effect for non-elites in studies
- it is legal
Although it is equally largely ineffective? Because otherwise it would be better than blood-doping.
You are a strange fellow, recommending such a hassle though it's largely ineffective.
Armstronglivs wrote:
He has now introduced "morality" into the argument about comparing results. "Better" means more virtuous, but not necessarily faster. Very scientific. I wonder if his use of "similar" also has moral connotations - that they are morally equivalent? Somehow I don't think the studies he frequently refers to were looking at the question from a moral perspective. But once again, the ground shifts as he speaks.
This was just to reconcile "casual obsever's" omission of the word "result".
He concluded I meant "better", despite never arguing it, by virtue of my recommending altitude training, as if that proved your false allegation of "better result". One factor in my recommendation is that it is permitted by WADA.
Similarly, I did not put "similar" on its own, but coupled it with "similar effect".
The ground shifts as I speak? Maybe you two should get a room and feel the earth move.
casual obsever wrote:
rekrunner wrote:
I recommend altitude training for two reasons:
- similar "proven" effect for non-elites in studies
- it is legal
Although it is equally largely ineffective? Because otherwise it would be better than blood-doping.
You are a strange fellow, recommending such a hassle though it's largely ineffective.
Hasn't helped non-Africans compete at the top in 35 years.
Is based on faith and belief
rekrunner wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
To remind you of what you have previously said (on many occasions) in response to the question, "why do athletes blood dope?", your explanation is - "belief". But never "knowledge". Thus "belief", used in that sense, must be unfounded. They have no rational basis for thinking blood doping will enhance their performance - otherwise their decision must be based on something more than belief.
But if we asked the question, "why do athletes train at altitude?", you would never say "belief". That would suggest there is no rational basis for altitude training - and you have never argued that. Yet you continue to argue that altitude training and blood doping may achieve the same results - which suggests the question deserves the same response. "Belief". Or knowledge. This is despite the fact we have no examples of athletes who have chosen to do both, that might prove your claim of parity of performance.
You also now try to argue that altitude training doesn't produce "better" results than blood doping - because you are adamant you have never said that. But why draw the line only at parity? How can you be so sure - again, without examples of athletes who have both altitude trained and blood doped? It doesn't fit well with your previous comments, that you are prepared to believe the distance running world records could have been achieved legally. In that case, both fact and logic say they have to be better than any doped performance. So it appears you are saying it, after all.
I await a response in which you say - yet again - that you never said any of that, that you meant something else and I have put words in your mouth.
Au contraire. The question actually never came up, but if you ask me why athletes go to altitude to train, I will also say "belief" for many of the same reasons.
It is a fact that hi-lo training is "proven" in studies, at least on non-elites, so if you want to take EPO to raise your blood values, my advice is to put your faith in hi-lo training, and raise your blood values legally. I don't advocate EPO or blood transfusions, but do advocate training legally.
Note that our initial discussion was not at all about whether altitude training was "better" or not.
You faulted me for making conclusions without establishing a clean baseline, and I responded that such a clean baseline would be difficult to establish, given altitude studies (on non-elites) showing similar effect as EPO and blood doping studies (on non-elites).
So "belief" has suddenly turned into "reasons" - which necessarily have a rational or evidential basis. You have made this clear by saying "the same reasons" - and altitude training is nothing if not of provable benefit, as you have pointed out. "Belief" now simply refers to motivation supported by reasons and not your previously favored synonym of "faith", i.e. that which has no proven factual basis.
It seems then that blood dopers have "reasons" for doping - just like those who altitude train. Because you have previously used "belief" as a way of distinguishing blood doping from practices that have a proven rational basis, is now meaningless as you have redefined it.
You are slipperier than a bar of soap. Nothing you say means anything.
rekrunner wrote:
Having said that, I did not say altitude training would help elite Russian men succeed, let alone better then with blood doping with steroids.
If it wouldn't, then there would be no point in recommending it.
Come on, you are just arguing for the sake of rekrunnering.
casual obsever wrote:
rekrunner wrote:
I recommend altitude training for two reasons:
- similar "proven" effect for non-elites in studies
- it is legal
Although it is equally largely ineffective? Because otherwise it would be better than blood-doping.
You are a strange fellow, recommending such a hassle though it's largely ineffective.
Strange to advocate something WADA legal rather than something that is banned?
For those obsessed with increasing their blood values, I recommend the path of no risk.
Even if the reward is low for elites, the risk/reward benefit highly favors no risk.
rekrunner wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
He has now introduced "morality" into the argument about comparing results. "Better" means more virtuous, but not necessarily faster. Very scientific. I wonder if his use of "similar" also has moral connotations - that they are morally equivalent? Somehow I don't think the studies he frequently refers to were looking at the question from a moral perspective. But once again, the ground shifts as he speaks.
This was just to reconcile "casual obsever's" omission of the word "result".
He concluded I meant "better", despite never arguing it, by virtue of my recommending altitude training, as if that proved your false allegation of "better result". One factor in my recommendation is that it is permitted by WADA.
Similarly, I did not put "similar" on its own, but coupled it with "similar effect".
The ground shifts as I speak? Maybe you two should get a room and feel the earth move.
You are getting excited by your own use of the word "coupled".
Nothing you say ever progresses beyond word definition, which changes as you speak. Reading a scrabble board is more informative.
rekrunner wrote:
This was just to reconcile "casual obsever's" omission of the word "result".
Omission? I'm just following your lead here. LOLz.
rekrunner wrote:
I don't argue that altitude would be "better".
rekrunner wrote:
I don't argue that altitude would be "better".
And now you've gone full circle again.
rekrunner wrote:
I would agree altitude training is "better" morally, by virtue of being legal, even if the benefit is "similar". But it would be dishonest to conclude "better results".
Armstronglivs wrote:
So "belief" has suddenly turned into "reasons" - which necessarily have a rational or evidential basis. You have made this clear by saying "the same reasons" - and altitude training is nothing if not of provable benefit, as you have pointed out. "Belief" now simply refers to motivation supported by reasons and not your previously favored synonym of "faith", i.e. that which has no proven factual basis.
It seems then that blood dopers have "reasons" for doping - just like those who altitude train. Because you have previously used "belief" as a way of distinguishing blood doping from practices that have a proven rational basis, is now meaningless as you have redefined it.
You are slipperier than a bar of soap. Nothing you say means anything.
You really are confused. Belief hasn't turned into reasons -- whatever that means.
I have reasons for calling it "belief". I have a rational or evidential basis.
My reasons are independent of why and how athletes decide to dope or altitude train.
You are struggling to understand what words like "belief" and "faith" mean, despite my giving you dictionary definitions in the past.
Honestly, how do you get through life? I feel sorry for those around you.
casual obsever wrote:
rekrunner wrote:
This was just to reconcile "casual obsever's" omission of the word "result".
Omission? I'm just following your lead here. LOLz.
rekrunner wrote:
I don't argue that altitude would be "better".
I find you extremely dishonest when you pluck quotes out of context. I am not leading, but objecting to the false claim "same if not better results":
rekrunner wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
More bullsh*t. You have repeatedly maintained that you consider it possible for altitude-trained elites to achieve the same if not better results legally than through blood-doping. If you are not saying that then you are not saying anything.
The bullsh*t is entirely of your own making. I don't argue that altitude would be "better".
rekrunner wrote:
I find you extremely dishonest when you pluck quotes out of context. I am not leading, but objecting to the false claim "same if not better results":
LOL!
Try to read my response in context.
You first.
casual obsever wrote:
Try to read my response in context.
Your response makes no sense in context. Once again, here’s the context:
multiple accusations from Armstronglivs such as:
"rekrunner's own argument were accepted, that altitude training may offer the same or greater advantage than blood-doping"
"altitude-trained elites can obtain the same or better results than blood-doped athletes trained at sea-level"
"rekrunner claimed it was possible that legal methods could achieve the same results or better in some instances than blood-doping”
Despite my never arguing for better or greater results, you argue, by plucking out three quotes from three contexts:
Combined this means that in your opinion, altitude is superior to blood-doping.
What I find fascinating is the passion with with several of you try to convince me that I believe and have argued for “better results” and “greater results” for elites, by virtue of showing proven "similar effect" on non-elites, and recommending something WADA legal over advocating doping, oh, and the failure of Russian men to succeed in distance running despite widespread nationally sponsored doping, and despite the untenability of Armstrongliv's repeated false claims, demonstrated by the great lengths you and he went to fabricate an interpretation of "better result" despite my never having said it or argued it.
Their passion is nothing compared to your need to troll and being incapable of admitting you are wrong or not waffle endlessly.
They have long since stopped trying to convince you to realize that drugs work.
rekrunner wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
So "belief" has suddenly turned into "reasons" - which necessarily have a rational or evidential basis. You have made this clear by saying "the same reasons" - and altitude training is nothing if not of provable benefit, as you have pointed out. "Belief" now simply refers to motivation supported by reasons and not your previously favored synonym of "faith", i.e. that which has no proven factual basis.
It seems then that blood dopers have "reasons" for doping - just like those who altitude train. Because you have previously used "belief" as a way of distinguishing blood doping from practices that have a proven rational basis, is now meaningless as you have redefined it.
You are slipperier than a bar of soap. Nothing you say means anything.
You really are confused. Belief hasn't turned into reasons -- whatever that means.
I have reasons for calling it "belief". I have a rational or evidential basis.
My reasons are independent of why and how athletes decide to dope or altitude train.
You are struggling to understand what words like "belief" and "faith" mean, despite my giving you dictionary definitions in the past.
Honestly, how do you get through life? I feel sorry for those around you.
When words can mean anything - as they do with you - then they mean nothing.
But one has to question the literacy of someone who is always lost in translation. As you are.
physics defiant wrote:
Their passion is nothing compared to your need to troll and being incapable of admitting you are wrong or not waffle endlessly.
They have long since stopped trying to convince you to realize that drugs work.
Wrong about what? Your posts lack any specificity.
I admitted that drugs work, giving the example of Russia and mid-distance women.
Armstronglivs wrote:
When words can mean anything - as they do with you - then they mean nothing.
But one has to question the literacy of someone who is always lost in translation. As you are.
More false projections.
Apparently "similar effect" for you means "same or greater result".
And when I have reasons, for you that means I'm admitting athletes have reasons.
And apparently, for you, I'm the liar, and for "physics defiant", I'm wrong, for pointing out your fabrications of things not said.
Words have meaning when they are written, but their original meaning is lost for you when you read them.
It's clear that Rekrunner, Armstronglivs, Casual Observer and Physics defiant have a lot of time (because of Corona virus ?) for fighting about phylosophy, meaning of words, and articles from different Writers (sometimes physiologists, sometimes opportunistic clowns).
That war never can produce some winner, because everybody is very firm in his own ideas, refusing to analyse in proper way the reasons of the other.
At the end of the day, is again a matter of "belief".....
rekrunner wrote:
physics defiant wrote:
Their passion is nothing compared to your need to troll and being incapable of admitting you are wrong or not waffle endlessly.
They have long since stopped trying to convince you to realize that drugs work.
Wrong about what? Your posts lack any specificity.
I admitted that drugs work, giving the example of Russia and mid-distance women.
I skipped 10 pages and missed absolutely nothing. Rekrunnerbot is just arguing for the sake of arguing. It's always the same, we all know that only 1-2% of cheats are caught, but the people busted do give us insight as to what they were doing and in what location, but Rek will always insist that the training partner, who has yet to be caught, who has made an even greater transformation in complete your innocent.