Good science, what do you think is the proximate cause of performance limitation, then? In other words, what physiological process limited how fast Paula Radcliffe ran?
Good science, what do you think is the proximate cause of performance limitation, then? In other words, what physiological process limited how fast Paula Radcliffe ran?
No. SOME people do but many people have a natural count that is well below the optimum for endurance performance.
We are all limited by our level of fitness. Hers was obviously higher than any other woman marathon runner.
How far can we push that lactate curve to the right for better efficiency? Probably a good way beyond the current records?
I'm not trying intentionally to be dense. But do you have a specific metabolic mechanism that provides the upper limit for an individual in a given race? I've heard people say the number of mitochondria is important. Is this what you think?
He doesn't have one; he's trolling.
Gary Oldman wrote:
J.R. wrote:Blah blah blah
I think your brain turns all data into this.
Yes, all the data from you.
And every doctor?
So JR if somebody injected heroin into you nothing would happen because you don't believe it does anything?
Sure, heroin does "something", the same as the drugs, but the something is not HELPFUL.
Doctors want their drugs to make people sick, which is why they are constantly pushing them.
The sicker they cause people to get with their drugs, the more money they make.
Drugs "work", in that sense, but not in a helpful manner.
J.R. wrote:
Sure, heroin does "something", the same as the drugs, but the something is not HELPFUL.
Doctors want their drugs to make people sick, which is why they are constantly pushing them.
The sicker they cause people to get with their drugs, the more money they make.
Drugs "work", in that sense, but not in a helpful manner.
Do steroids help build muscle mass? Does testosterone help a woman grow a beard?
Good science, bad science wrote:
half logic wrote:Good science, No sane person would debate the notion aerobic efficiency of elite athletes is one of the determinants of elite performance. No sane person would debate aerobic efficiency improvement would shift the LT curve to the right. Many people would also agree that this can be improved with training. Since you seem to have a bent around muscle tension/biomechanics it would be interesting to hear you describe the mechanisms responsible so we can learn.
Now let's think about this as one puzzle piece and tie this efficiency gain to racing and performance. Better aerobic efficiency means lower lactate at a given pace. In a race that means an athlete is going to run faster (my assumption here is the fastest time is the objective versus running less than 'all out' for the distance).
Now let's think about one more puzzle piece which is the additional performance gains from added oxygen carrying capacity (via EPO, altitude or other adaptation). Increase red cells and you have more oxygen delivery at a given speed. This will also shift the LT curve to the right. In a race, this means an athlete will race faster (same assumption that the goal is fastest time).
These two pieces should both impact performance, perhaps the benefit is not additive but again tons of evidence says more red cells and better efficiency impact performance.
Your final point about increaseing red blood cells is the very one I am adressing that is a false logic. You have all the oxygen carrying capacity you need if you are heathy and in reasonable fitness. Within that capacity, you can keep increasing your neural conditioning more and more, shifting that lactate curve further and further to the right. This mean that the faster you race, the more economical you are, and thus, the less total energy you use. The concept of increasing oxygen delivery implies the oppostite, that increasing total energy consumtion will give you more benefit. Both scenarios are not applicable. One is natural and real science the other is bad science and a construct of the drug obsessive mentality.
Was hoping you had some insight to share but since you have shared no data you are trolling. I'm done with this thread.
Gary Oldman wrote:
Do steroids help build muscle mass? Does testosterone help a woman grow a beard?
I'm not sure you even fully understand what "efficiency" means. Physiologically, you're more efficient when you are more aerobic, meaning you are using more type I or IIa fibers, meaning you're using less glycogen (which you said). Type I fibers use less ATP (fuel) per unit force production. But then you also mention using less oxygen, which contradicts the natural adaptation/shift to more type I and IIa fibers. I don't understand your point, plus I also don't understand what you mean by "controlling our nervous system", which you have stated a handful of times. Please elaborate.
half logic wrote:
At a given blood volume and HR Max, more EPO = More Red Cells and = more oxygen delivery capacity = higher VO2MAX
Higher Vo2Max means the Vo2 at a given pace is lower percentage of max and therefore 'easier'. This would be measured as a lower HR at given speed after EPO. It would also translate into shifting of 4MMol LT to a higher speed for any athlete that has an increase in red cells following EPO use.
Higher Vo2Max, all other things being equal also enables runner to run faster in training which stimulates other training adaptations (in muscle) so runner becomes more 'fit'.
This is false and a training error for many. VO2max is a measure of oxygen consumption, not delivery. It doesn't matter how much oxygen you can dump on working type 1 muscle if there's not enough to use it all. And even if there is enough, the concurrent action of acid-producing muscle limits its use. It is vital in middle distance, but you can't run long distances at VO2max.
good science bad science wrote:
The real performance enhancers are adrenalin/noradrenalin, controlling your efficiency ... They push the cardivascular system too hard to early in the run, not allowing for the neural efficiency to take effect.
The real performance enhancers were amphetamines, but in-competition testing forced athletes to look for others.
marathon WR, 1920-1947 2:32 -> 2:25, - 7 minutes
1947-1969 (amphetamine era) 2:25 -> 2:09, - 16 minutes
1969-1999 (steroid/blood boost era) 2:09 -> 2:05, -4 minutes
This is true of almost every record progression from sprints to marathon - massive progress from right after WW2 to around 1968 when in-competition testing started. It's also the elephant in the doping room - nobody wants to believe their gods from that era were dirty, even though it was legal then, so they ignore it.
Anyhow you're right, nervous system enhancement is more effective than anything else. Even caffeine can make a big difference. Which makes me wonder about qat, which is legal out of competition. Maybe qat makes a difference in the training of East Africans.
Bad Wigins wrote:
The real performance enhancers were amphetamines, but in-competition testing forced athletes to look for others.
marathon WR, 1920-1947 2:32 -> 2:25, - 7 minutes
1947-1969 (amphetamine era) 2:25 -> 2:09, - 16 minutes
1969-1999 (steroid/blood boost era) 2:09 -> 2:05, -4 minutes
2015 (wiggins using everything era) 2:03 -> 11:29
dial it up wrote:
No, no it doesn't.
This.
OP is a troll / fool.
I'm not going to argue with your scientific basis of your claim that boosting red blood cell count would not improve performance in elite athletes who are already efficient. Other posters have made reasonable objections (that I agree with) that you have rejected.
But if we accept your theory as true, what is your overall point?
That the most successful distance runners are successful because of their talent and training alone and are either
1) Completely clean, or
2) using EPO, CERA, etc but that this not really cheating because it doesn't help them and has nothing to do with their performance.
If that's your point then:
Should the IAAF and WADA should just stop testing for EPO because its a waste of time? Should the IAAF be focusing more on other drugs like hgh, test., or mystery new designer drugs?
Should we feel sorry for athletes like Rita Jeptoo who were "tricked" into using drugs that didn't help?
Is there some unidentified poorly understood "neurological component" to training/ talent that a few runners have lucked into? (One other poster has raised this question)
What do you suggest that aspiring athletes should do to unlock this neural component?
I'm honestly interested on your thoughts. Thanks-
Good science, bad science wrote:
Elite athletes use less glycogen to run or ride a bike a given pace. Less glycogen mean less oxygen. The concept of a higher oxygen uptake or more efficient oxygen uptake as a result of blood boosting is just plain bad science.
Paula Radcliffe's tests by Professor Andy Jones show this; she was super efficient at 2.15 marathon pace, using less glycogen, less oxygen. The result of better training, not blood boosting.
You do realise that the old Soviet union had a documented state sponsored blood-doping regimen for r the 1976 and 1980 Olympics involving track,cycling, biathlon, speed skating,xc skiing, rowing with the science to back it up
Professor conconi was doing the same thing with the Italians and stated the performance gains
The finns were at it too
You can multiply those effects x10 when unregulated EPO use started in the 90s
So Armstrong should be given back his 7 Tour wins.
And Ben Johnson should get his medal back.