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

Tom Cochrane wrote:

how does that work? wrote:

Homeostasis is very tightly controlled with Thermoregulation. It has to be. Human Bioenergetic efficiency is limited by Genetics and Thermodynamics. This is basic Physiology.

Your proposal is that doping can increase the rate of energy Kinetics without reference to Thermodynamics.

It's not that tight and the body has no trouble with the rate.

You don't understand basic physiology and have made up a silly erroneous model.

Cash please.

Thermoregulation sustains life. It also controls your metabolic rate in a race.

The proposal is that human metabolic functionality can be improved with drugs is the real drug problem.

EPO doping is pure quackery and endorsing it as a metabolic booster is pure quackery.

This dogma is an abuse of Science, but fortunately there are good people out there in the world of Sports Science who recognize this.

Tom Cochrane wrote:

rekrunner wrote:

Yes it is. But that's not nearly enough information.

It's a vast improvement from marathon pace. You don't need EPO to run faster than marathon pace for 3000m.

And that doesn't even begin to explain "EPO raises the limit better than altitude does", especially when considering elite performances.

Yes I run. I'm a rek-runner.

It's more than enough info. When you take that much off you're just better all around.

It also totally explains elite performances.

There is very little we can conclude, even for these sub-elite Kenyans, if the Kenyans just tempo'd the time trials.

See Hopkins 1999 paper previously discussed as to why the "Kenyan study" is not representative.

how does that work? wrote:

Tom Cochrane wrote:

It's not that tight and the body has no trouble with the rate.

You don't understand basic physiology and have made up a silly erroneous model.

Cash please.

Thermoregulation sustains life. It also controls your metabolic rate in a race.

The proposal is that human metabolic functionality can be improved with drugs is the real drug problem.

EPO doping is pure quackery and endorsing it as a metabolic booster is pure quackery.

This dogma is an abuse of Science, but fortunately there are good people out there in the world of Sports Science who recognize this.

It can and it does boost metabolism, Jon. Why do you think they want to use it for Obesity?

Science.

rekrunner wrote:

Tom Cochrane wrote:

It's more than enough info. When you take that much off you're just better all around.

It also totally explains elite performances.

There is very little we can conclude, even for these sub-elite Kenyans, if the Kenyans just tempo'd the time trials.

See Hopkins 1999 paper previously discussed as to why the "Kenyan study" is not representative.

When you drop your temp pace by that much over 3km you have made significant gains. Any serious runner knows this.

Tom Cochrane wrote:

When you drop your temp pace by that much over 3km you have made significant gains. Any serious runner knows this.

While that may be true in general, it is not clear that the Kenyans dropped their tempo pace (or that any drop was just due to EPO rather than due to training).

They measured RPE, and the Kenyans just tried harder in the EPO time trials.

To simulate real competition, the athletes should have been trained for the event first, and they should have raced all the time trials. We can tell that didn't happen by the RPE.

Note there was also no control group to eliminate other variables, such as simply due to training.

They were already well trained. Gains were from the EPO. Deal with it.

But what exactly is my belief about doping again?

I agreed with you that doping is prevalent -- so that is your belief too.

I acknowledge that athletes/fans/coaches believe in the powerful effect of doping.

Are you suggesting that is "my belief", and that that belief is wrong? I.e. that athletes/fans/coaches do not believe in the powerful effect of doping? (quote)

The usual red herring. You can't bring yourself to acknowledge that this "belief" is sustained by the fact that doping does what people believe it does. It isn't a mere superstition. The connection you refuse to make is between the "belief" many have that doping enhances performance and the fact it actually does so. That is why you use terms like "belief" and "faith" that imply there is no proof that doping has a significant effect on performance. That is a falsehood - and deliberate in your case. Of course many believe doping offers advantage - because it has long been shown to do so. To suggest doping does not significantly offer advantage is as much doping denial as to say the practice doesn't really exist. It is thus like a holocaust denier who says the number of deaths cannot be absolutely verified and are only estimates so therefore it may not have actually happened or at least the deaths were less than is claimed - we have no "proof". That is a form of lying, which you are well practised at.

Since we didn't see improved oxygen flow to the muscles on the video, I didn't think it was necessary to explain something we are not sure even occurred. (quote).

So if you can't see inside the human body you aren't sure it occurs. I suppose that goes for breathing, digestion - any metabolic process - that if it can't be observed by the human eye we can't be sure it is actually happening. Even the skeletal structure can't be seen as such. There is much for you to be unsure of.

Tom Cochrane wrote:

They were already well trained. Gains were from the EPO. Deal with it.

Unfortunately I am too well informed about the study to be so gullible.

As the trials were not controlled, the gains could be from a bad study design and poor execution of the trials themselves.

As the trials were not raced, as evidenced and measured by RPE collected after the trials, they fail to represent real competitions.

It is not red herring -- you are using a monkey defense or parrot defense, by suggesting that "not believing" is the same as "believing the contrary". Whether it does nor not, I believe it has not "long been shown to do so" and what athletes/fans/coaches and many scientists BELIEVE is over-estimated.

What you suggest are "facts" and "proofs" fall far short of being facts and proofs, in any academic sense, for the fastest, elite, distance running performances. This doesn't change just by you stating what you want to believe, nor by building strawmen beliefs and feebly assigning them to me.

But I will give you another chance to persuade me to reconsider, by providing concrete counter-examples. Are you able to answer these questions with concrete substance:

1) Accepting for discussion that there was an EPO-era for cycling, led by Lance Armstrong and followed by many: was there an EPO-era for distance running?

2) Do most non-Africans believe in the powerful performance effects of EPO?

3) Did the very best non-Africans realize the powerful performance effects of EPO?

4) Selecting from the pool of all NON-AFRICAN, MALE, DISTANCE athletes from 5-continents, over the last 35 years, representing 85-90% of the world population, can you give me 5 of the VERY BEST examples that best illustrate your "fact" that EPO SIGNIFICANTLY enhances the fastest elite distance running performance?

5) and 6) For balance and perspective, lest I be accused of racism or cherry-picking, can you give me 5 of the VERY BEST examples of North Africans? East Africans?

If indeed these are well known facts, and it has long been shown to do so, it should take you little time and effort to answer THREE YES/NO questions, and provide THREE short lists of names of the best representative examples. If you decide once again to avoid providing any concrete support for your perceptions, and make it about me, I will conclude that that you CANNOT show otherwise and have NOTHING to offer.

Armstronglivs wrote:

[quote]rekrunner wrote:

Since we didn't see improved oxygen flow to the muscles on the video, I didn't think it was necessary to explain something we are not sure even occurred. (quote).

So if you can't see inside the human body you aren't sure it occurs. I suppose that goes for breathing, digestion - any metabolic process - that if it can't be observed by the human eye we can't be sure it is actually happening. Even the skeletal structure can't be seen as such. There is much for you to be unsure of.

You suggested that "... "even pacing and drafting" improves oxygen flow to the muscles and so allows an athlete like El G to compete with less respiratory effort."

"improved oxygen flow to the muscles" is entirely your unsubstantiated assumption, and is not something I depend on to explain El G's post-exercise breathing.

I've debated these issues with you many times before over the last several years - so nothing new there. And you have already gotten a couple of things wrong on the "era" of EPO. For one, the EPO-era in cycling wasn't "led by Lance Armstrong." It started actually in the early 90s where times exploded and riders got much faster, particularly in the climbs. Both legends Greg LeMond & Laurant Fignon, TdF winners in the late 80s, said that once EPO hit the scene in the early 90s, they couid no longer keep up with the dopers, and not wanting to use EPO, they both retired early. Btw, 5-time Tour winner Miguel Indurain and Banesto team dominated the early to mid-90s (go look up Banesto's ties to doping).

The EPO-era for distance running started just a little later than cycling around the mid to late 90s when North & East African times starting exploding, as well as some European times.

And distancing running is still in the EPO-era. A PED as efficacious as EPO and abused over the last 3 decades isn't going away anytime soon. What has changed is a trend toward micro-dosing in an effort to fly under ABP radar as well as reduce the chances of testing positive and blood transfusions to avoid testing positive for EPO.

The one's that use EPO. ?

Same as above. ?

There's quite a few that are suspicious. There's a particular German & a Spaniard as well as others from Europe & N. America. But keep in mind that there wasn't the same talent level in these non-African nations that could keep with the talented rocket-fueled North & East Africans.

Too funny - just go look at some of the top runners from North & East Africa on the all-time best lists. ?

High-Octane Dopers wrote:

I've debated these issues with you many times before over the last several years - so nothing new there.

Yes you have, and there is nothing new there.

The goal here is to see if Armstronglivs is capable of providing 3 YES/NO responses, and 15 names to help demonstrate what he says has long been shown.

The hypothesis I'm working from is that he can only offer insults, analogies, personal beliefs, and cartoon interpretations, rather than address skepticism on the merits.

I know many try to come to his rescue, by attempting to supply things that he cannot -- this only reinforces the hypothesis.

High-Octane Dopers wrote:

But keep in mind that there wasn't the same talent level in these non-African nations that could keep with the talented rocket-fueled North & East Africans.

The inherently different levels of talent is always in my mind.

rekrunner wrote:

Tom Cochrane wrote:

They were already well trained. Gains were from the EPO. Deal with it.

Unfortunately I am too well informed about the study to be so gullible.

As the trials were not controlled, the gains could be from a bad study design and poor execution of the trials themselves.

As the trials were not raced, as evidenced and measured by RPE collected after the trials, they fail to represent real competitions.

Too delusional.

The increased "fitness" from doping is glaring.

rekrunner wrote:

High-Octane Dopers wrote:

I've debated these issues with you many times before over the last several years - so nothing new there.

Yes you have, and there is nothing new there.

The goal here is to see if Armstronglivs is capable of providing 3 YES/NO responses, and 15 names to help demonstrate what he says has long been shown.

The hypothesis I'm working from is that he can only offer insults, analogies, personal beliefs, and cartoon interpretations, rather than address skepticism on the merits.

I know many try to come to his rescue, by attempting to supply things that he cannot -- this only reinforces the hypothesis.

High-Octane Dopers wrote:

But keep in mind that there wasn't the same talent level in these non-African nations that could keep with the talented rocket-fueled North & East Africans.

The inherently different levels of talent is always in my mind.

Ok, we have the perfect subject to discuss. Not Hicham, cuz we don't know if he was hematologically "altered", but Marco, cuz we know he was.

His ascents of Alpe d'Huez in the zTour de France. The 3 fastest times in history 1994, 95, 97 two of them just under 37 minutes, one just over. The first 2.5 km @10% grade average. 7 minutes for this section, then the rest of the climb at slightly faster average pace.

Superhuman or super talented plus super fit plus brilliant tactics?

The dopey dogma is that drugs can boost energy kinetics to superhuman levels. When you ask the proponents of this belief to explain this in metabolic terms, they are incredulous that you can even question their strongly held conviction.

In other words they don't understand the question.

So you won't get an explanation from anyone here, ever.

Hence my question. Since cycling is the dopiest endurance sport, can a non doped cyclist be as fast or faster than Marco Pantani et alumni?

Here an example only that you understand what rekrunner is talking about:

Think about an athlete, who ran two time trials a few weeks apart.

On day one he ran a time trial (say 3000m) and said after it that the effort was "maybe somewhat hard or hard" and estimated that his heart rate had been 146.

A few weeks later he ran another time trial of similar distance and estimated that this time his effort was "maybe hard or very hard" and estimated that his heart rate had been 161.

Presuming there had been no change in his training or form in the course of these two experiments, which one of these trials do you think he almost certainly ran faster?

how does that work? wrote:

Hence my question. Since cycling is the dopiest endurance sport, can a non doped cyclist be as fast or faster than Marco Pantani et alumni?

Simple answer: No.

EPO was the single biggest game changer in the history of cycling:

"Disappointment in Europe: Changes in the peloton

I was then 25 years old. I thought it was time for me to try my hand at being a leader. I saw myself winning big races in Europe, but cycling was about to change in a radical way as a result of doping. All of a sudden, many patacones [which literally means fried plantains], as we used to call the faceless riders who were pack filler, started leaving us behind in the mountains. On the flat, the speeds became became astonishing. In one stage that was completely flat, without as much as an overpass or bridge, my speedometer read 50 miles an hour (80km/hr). I simply couldn't believe it, so I went to a teammate and asked to look at his speedometer. They all showed the same, we were really going 50 miles an hour.""

"There was an obvious change in the early 90s. When you train, you have ways of measuring your performance, best times and records in climbs. So you know how you're doing. I was training, doing well, but I would go to Europe and everyone would be so much faster all of a sudden. They were using something strong, something serious. It started with just a few riders, but then it seemed like everyone, just everyone could beat us. They could all climb faster."

"In 1992 I was greatly disheartened by racing in Europe. I was sick and tired of being humiliated by cyclists who were doped up to their eyeballs with EPO, while I had no opportunities of winning anything while racing clean. But even more maddening was the way I was criticized by the press, at least certain Colombian journalists, who were not capable of understanding the fundamental change that was happening in cycling, I'm speaking of the new types of doping that became popular in the 1990s. They didn't have the guts to explain Colombian fans why our riders could no longer ride and compete like in the days of Lucho and Fabio Parra. They accused us of being lazy, and of having become bourgeois over time. It was incredibly unfair."

Nope. You keep saying superhuman. That's just hyperbole. Drugs just make the individual a bit better (more or less depending on individual response) on top of their high level of talent and training.

Of course a non-doped cyclist can be as fast or faster. But they themselves will be faster if they doped.

You've never been able to explain how burning energy at a higher rate will do anything deleterious.

Another utterly disingenuous challenge. You will not change your views whatever I choose to say - indeed no one has ever succeeded in doing that - so I have no interest in trying to persuade you of anything. But I would recommend psychiatric assistance.