'We Can Now Estimate the Effect of Blood Doping'

No doubt that is his bible.

physics defiant wrote:

An educated person would have understood my quote. Perhaps you need some training in logic and physiology?

I understood the reference went over your head.

Armstronglivs wrote:

"Similar" is not an exact term. It is only an approximation of those things that are somewhat alike - or, if you like, "the same or better". It therefore does not equate to 2+2=4, which is invariably exact. Synonyms are clearly not part of your tool kit, but that you mistake them for numeracy reveals yet another of the limitations of your mind. I don't think any qualification is going to cure that.

I guess with law training, "similar" is a synonym for "better". Lol.

Armstronglivs wrote:

How ironic, that you should express yourself through a novel that is about the manipulation of truth.

The irony is a self-proclaimed "qualifed in law" who knows a thing or two about words, and interpretations, resorts to the equivalent of the grade school retort "I know you are, but what am I".

rekrunner wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

"Similar" is not an exact term. It is only an approximation of those things that are somewhat alike - or, if you like, "the same or better". It therefore does not equate to 2+2=4, which is invariably exact. Synonyms are clearly not part of your tool kit, but that you mistake them for numeracy reveals yet another of the limitations of your mind. I don't think any qualification is going to cure that.

I guess with law training, "similar" is a synonym for "better". Lol.

No, it isn't but in your characteristically manipulative fashion you change it from the phrase, "the same or better". The two words have to be read together to be understood correctly. If a performance is described as "similar" then that is a ballpark comparison, not an equation, and allows for the possibility that it could be a little better (or worse - which doesn't matter to the conversation). Not only do you need lessons in understanding English but logic as well, it seems.

rekrunner wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

How ironic, that you should express yourself through a novel that is about the manipulation of truth.

The irony is a self-proclaimed "qualifed in law" who knows a thing or two about words, and interpretations, resorts to the equivalent of the grade school retort "I know you are, but what am I".

As we saw from your math, you don't know much about equivalence. You think "similar" means the same as 2+2=4. You weren't reading Orwell in grade school. But you probably didn't need to, to learn about manipulation of the truth.

rekrunner wrote:

physics defiant wrote:

An educated person would have understood my quote. Perhaps you need some training in logic and physiology?

I understood the reference went over your head.

You don't have the data to support that. That's just your belief.

Armstronglivs wrote:

No, it isn't but in your characteristically manipulative fashion you change it from the phrase, "the same or better". The two words have to be read together to be understood correctly. If a performance is described as "similar" then that is a ballpark comparison, not an equation, and allows for the possibility that it could be a little better (or worse - which doesn't matter to the conversation). Not only do you need lessons in understanding English but logic as well, it seems.

Speaking of phrase manipulation, the original phrase was "similar effect" -- the two words must be read together to be understood correctly. You distort the meaning by replacing this phrase with non-synonymous phrases.

The way you double and triple down on your past failures makes me think that the subject of Psychology Today was you.

Armstronglivs wrote:

As we saw from your math, you don't know much about equivalence. You think "similar" means the same as 2+2=4. You weren't reading Orwell in grade school. But you probably didn't need to, to learn about manipulation of the truth.

Again, you provide another example of a basic failure to comprehend what was clearly written.

"I always thought 2+2=4, but I guess with a law qualification, 2+2=5."

As you described it, it's the law qualification that provides new "rules of interpretations" as you "learned a thing or two about how words and texts can be understood".

physics defiant wrote:

You don't have the data to support that. That's just your belief.

You are flailing like a fish out of water.

"But, but, but, normal people with an education wouldn't be expected to understand a three centuries old concept".

Lol.

rekrunner wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

No, it isn't but in your characteristically manipulative fashion you change it from the phrase, "the same or better". The two words have to be read together to be understood correctly. If a performance is described as "similar" then that is a ballpark comparison, not an equation, and allows for the possibility that it could be a little better (or worse - which doesn't matter to the conversation). Not only do you need lessons in understanding English but logic as well, it seems.

Speaking of phrase manipulation, the original phrase was "similar effect" -- the two words must be read together to be understood correctly. You distort the meaning by replacing this phrase with non-synonymous phrases.

The way you double and triple down on your past failures makes me think that the subject of Psychology Today was you.

Now, psychology is interesting, because if we start to go down that route we discover the nature of your disorder.

Contrary to what you think, "effect" doesn't change the meaning of "similar"; it only identifies what it applies to. It remains an approximate judgment - like "same or better". (By the way, the inclusion of the conjunction means "better" isn't read on its own but as a possible alternate of "same". In other words, the phrase as a whole, and not the individual words within it, is an approximation and thus synonomous to "similar effect". Perhaps you need to understand how conjunctions work?)

I think I might have been unfair to first year law students when I drew comparison with you.

Haven't read the all thread.

rek you claim that EPO works only because people believe in it.

That logically may be true.

In fact if we replaced "belief" with "fairy dust" your argument would still be logically true, because fairy dust, just like belief, was never shown not to be the cause of the PE in PEDS.

Wouldn't it be reasonable to assume that a substance that has proven physiological changes that promote oxygen transport and utilization, is the cause ?

Can you purpose a mechanism by which EPO doesn't work?

*propose a mechanism

Armstronglivs wrote:

Contrary to what you think, "effect" doesn't change the meaning of "similar"; it only identifies what it applies to. It remains an approximate judgment - like "same or better". (By the way, the inclusion of the conjunction means "better" isn't read on its own but as a possible alternate of "same". In other words, the phrase as a whole, and not the individual words within it, is an approximation and thus synonomous to "similar effect". Perhaps you need to understand how conjunctions work?)

I think I might have been unfair to first year law students when I drew comparison with you.

You were also unfair to those with real law qualifications.

Contrary to what you quadruple down on, "same or better result" is not synonymous with "similar effect".

I know you are averse to relying on dictionaries, preferring instead lawyer-like manipulations of interpretations of words instead, but to those of us with less than 1 year of law training:

- an essential part of "similar" is that it is not the "same", or else we would say "same" or "identical"

- yet any differences, better or worse, are insignificant, as significant differences would render it dissimilar

So the conjunction "same or better", is, by definition, one part wrong, and, by definition, the other part insignificant.

Bravo.

Here are my unqualified legal disclaimers:

In all cases, I did not say, nor mean, any of the following: "same", "better", "greater", "same or better", or "same or greater", no matter how you conjoin them.

Recall, I said "similar effect", as a description of the comparison of the relative improvements of two kinds of studies on non-elite athletes. If there is a possibility of "better" or "greater", it is only to the extent, and by virtue of, the effect that was observed in these studies, on the athletes in those studies, under the pre-conditions and conditions with which they were observed.

Israeli jogger wrote:

Haven't read the all thread.

rek you claim that EPO works only because people believe in it.

That logically may be true.

In fact if we replaced "belief" with "fairy dust" your argument would still be logically true, because fairy dust, just like belief, was never shown not to be the cause of the PE in PEDS.

Wouldn't it be reasonable to assume that a substance that has proven physiological changes that promote oxygen transport and utilization, is the cause ?

Can you purpose a mechanism by which EPO doesn't work?

Thanks for the serious question. Sorry for the length, but I hope it is clear.

First, I do not claim "that EPO works only because people believe in it".

I claim that EPO works, if and only if, there is a weakness, and EPO serves to strengthen that weakness. This can be physical and/or psychological.

I claim the motivation for deciding to take EPO is based on a belief that this is a necessary change to achieve further improvements that is not possible with legal methods.

The decision to dope, by virtue of breaking the rules, represents a major commitment to improved performance, which can result in physical causes from EPO, but also psychological causes, from the heightened commitment, and can be accompanied by other decisions, such as multiple doping products, training at altitude, e.g. to mask doping, dedicated training in a group, and other significant changes to training.

This makes anecdotal experience difficult to interpret.

I have no doubt that EPO physiologically causes the production of new red-blood cells, and I'm familiar with the proposed mechanism of increased oxygen transport, At the end, we measure best performances, and the unanswered question is whether EPO can cause a level of performances that are better than what can be achieved legally within WADA rules. Short term studies, showing gains over 4-12 weeks give us some clues, but do not indicate what is ultimately possible in the long term for any of the athletes in the study, nor elite athletes at that height of their fitness.

I'm not sure I can propose a mechanism where something doesn't work, but I'll explain:

If one trains at a high level for many years, any aerobic weakness diminishes with each year, as does the potential gain by attempting to make stronger something that is already strong. At some point, the potential gain becomes insignificant compared to the potential gains from other non-aerobic factors. This point where that occurs is unknown, and debatable.

Maximizing performance is not a question of maximizing one of the factors, but of optimizing all of the factors that produce performance. Think of it like comparing a high school band to a symphony orchestra. If you replace some the high school violinists with virtuosos, the performance is still a high school band. You need to develop all of the factors together in concert, and many of them are non-aerobic.

Earlier, I pasted a link of collected writings from exercise physiologist Stephen Seilers. In it he describes three waves of change:

1) Short term (roughly VO2max)

2) Medium term (roughly LT, AT, VT, and many other similar thresholds)

3) Long term -- efficiency/economy

The first two are aerobic, and max out relatively quickly. To become elite requires a mature development of the third non-aerobic factor.

We can see a great example of this recently with new Nike shoes, where it is the gains in efficiency that lead to observed performance improvements across all populations. Contrast this non-uniform gains in the EPO-era.

Armstronglivs wrote:

rekrunner wrote:

Maybe, but an educated person would have understood the Orwellian doublethink reference, and a small amount of them would have recalled the role of "2+2=5" in Nazi and Russian propoganda.

"2 + 2 = 5 is the archetypical untruth—is attested at least as early as 1728."

Perhaps you need some training in law.

I'm glad you choose 2+2=5; it is the formula that underlies everything you say.

Interesting because I always thought that Rekrunner operated on a 2+2=-4 basis.

rekrunner wrote:

physics defiant wrote:

You don't have the data to support that. That's just your belief.

You are flailing like a fish out of water.

"But, but, but, normal people with an education wouldn't be expected to understand a three centuries old concept".

Lol.

There you go with the word contortions again.

Israeli jogger wrote:

Haven't read the all thread.

rek you claim that EPO works only because people believe in it.

That logically may be true.

In fact if we replaced "belief" with "fairy dust" your argument would still be logically true, because fairy dust, just like belief, was never shown not to be the cause of the PE in PEDS.

Wouldn't it be reasonable to assume that a substance that has proven physiological changes that promote oxygen transport and utilization, is the cause ?

Can you purpose a mechanism by which EPO doesn't work?

It works in animals and they aren't aware of its potential, nor do they believe in it.

Subway Surfers wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

I'm glad you choose 2+2=5; it is the formula that underlies everything you say.

Interesting because I always thought that Rekrunner operated on a 2+2=-4 basis.

Archetypical untruths, as in Orwell's 2+2=5, are more his thing. Don't be fooled by his fake numbers.