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

Burning energy (metabolism)at a faster rate increases thermogenesis. We are limited genetically homeostatically, thermodynamically.

Energy kinetics in sport has more than a metabolic component. Trying to get so called Exercise Physiologists to debate this issue seriously is a forlorn hope. They are either just plain ignorant or afraid.

Tom Cochrane wrote:

rekrunner wrote:

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.

What is more likely is that they didn't care to run fast, as this study wasn't important.

What would be more relevant is pre-EPO training phase where the athletes are trained for 3000m up to their predicted potential, before the baseline time trial, and conducting the trials with an EPO group, and a control group.

Sorry I can't answer the question.

Marco was talented, no doubt. I'm not sure many cyclists, doped or clean, could have beaten a clean and fit Pantani in his prime.

Armstronglivs wrote:

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.

I keep calling your bluff. If your hand is so strong, why do you keep folding?

My hypothesis predicted you would not answer these simple questions, and you would find a way to blame me and a way to insult me.

how does that work? wrote:

Tom Cochrane wrote:

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.

Burning energy (metabolism)at a faster rate increases thermogenesis. We are limited genetically homeostatically, thermodynamically.

Energy kinetics in sport has more than a metabolic component. Trying to get so called Exercise Physiologists to debate this issue seriously is a forlorn hope. They are either just plain ignorant or afraid.

You have no idea what the genetic limits are.

Exercise physiologists don't want to debate with you because you have no credibility to do so.

rekrunner wrote:

Tom Cochrane wrote:

Too delusional.

The increased "fitness" from doping is glaring.

What is more likely is that they didn't care to run fast, as this study wasn't important.

What would be more relevant is pre-EPO training phase where the athletes are trained for 3000m up to their predicted potential, before the baseline time trial, and conducting the trials with an EPO group, and a control group.

It would and it would show the same thing. The athletes were very likely at their predicted potential already.

You would just move the goalposts if the study was done as you describe above.

Tom Cochrane wrote:

It would and it would show the same thing. The athletes were very likely at their predicted potential already.

You would just move the goalposts if the study was done as you describe above.

It's nice to speculate wishful thinking, but we won't know what it would show until someone does it.

The athletes most certainly under-performed versus their predicted potential. Besides the low RPEs indicating they didn't even try to run fast, we know this because they published the average PBs of the athletes. The PBs of the athletes predicted they were capable, on average, of 8:00 for 3000m (ranging from ~7:50 for the fastest PBs, and ~8:15 for the slowest). Yet the average of the fastest EPO time trial was 1 minute slower, and the fastest athlete was around 8:25.

This whole "moving goalposts" is another popular myth, invented by those who build their own goalposts and score own goals. My "goalpost" in this case is that 25 seconds is a significant over-estimation. If there is any gain at all (something not obvious for these altitude based athletes), it would be something more modest, like 5-10 seconds for these near-elite runners.

rekrunner wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

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.

I keep calling your bluff. If your hand is so strong, why do you keep folding?

My hypothesis predicted you would not answer these simple questions, and you would find a way to blame me and a way to insult me.

But you have earned it. Again and again.

You have to get out of this doping mindset to see past the delusion.[/quote]

The delusion is all yours.

And about 2-5 for elites, which is the whole point. Modest, and pretty much the difference between first and last in the last Oly 1500.

Cue your 1500 is not 2k etc.

Tom Cochrane wrote:

And about 2-5 for elites, which is the whole point. Modest, and pretty much the difference between first and last in the last Oly 1500.

Cue your 1500 is not 2k etc.

So now you concede that the 25 seconds in the Kenyan study was bogus, after arguing so confidently from a point of obvious ignorance of the details of the time trials and the Kenyan participants?

The point is that 2-5 seconds for elites is still just mythical hypothesis -- speculation from fans, who have no real insight, and sometimes even from researchers, who should know better, but throw caution to the wind.

And when you compare any alleged gains of the EPO runner to the similarly proven gains achieved by the legally hi-lo altitude trained runner, this mythical advantage erodes even further into the noise.

rekrunner wrote:

Tom Cochrane wrote:

And about 2-5 for elites, which is the whole point. Modest, and pretty much the difference between first and last in the last Oly 1500.

Cue your 1500 is not 2k etc.

So now you concede that the 25 seconds in the Kenyan study was bogus, after arguing so confidently from a point of obvious ignorance of the details of the time trials and the Kenyan participants?

The point is that 2-5 seconds for elites is still just mythical hypothesis -- speculation from fans, who have no real insight, and sometimes even from researchers, who should know better, but throw caution to the wind.

And when you compare any alleged gains of the EPO runner to the similarly proven gains achieved by the legally hi-lo altitude trained runner, this mythical advantage erodes even further into the noise.

Nope. Not bogus at all. I threw you a bone and you fell for it. That was tempo pace difference and you need to translate that to race performance.

Elites benefit.

Tom Cochrane wrote:

rekrunner wrote:

So now you concede that the 25 seconds in the Kenyan study was bogus, after arguing so confidently from a point of obvious ignorance of the details of the time trials and the Kenyan participants?

The point is that 2-5 seconds for elites is still just mythical hypothesis -- speculation from fans, who have no real insight, and sometimes even from researchers, who should know better, but throw caution to the wind.

And when you compare any alleged gains of the EPO runner to the similarly proven gains achieved by the legally hi-lo altitude trained runner, this mythical advantage erodes even further into the noise.

Nope. Not bogus at all. I threw you a bone and you fell for it. That was tempo pace difference and you need to translate that to race performance.

Elites benefit.

Seems odd that I am required to do post-processing of the data. Wouldn't that lead to everyone just seeing what they want to see?

If *I* need to translate it, then first I would normalize the times to cancel the effect from the different RPEs, so we can compare apples to apples. Then any significant difference in tempo pace diminishes if not dissappears. Then *I* need to translate resulting tempo to race pace? How? Using something like equivalencies from tables like Daniels' VDOTs? Seems like too many degrees of freedom which would lead to "overfitting the data".

Best is to have a better study design, and better control of the execution, to ensure comparable results and that the effects are from EPO.

As a self admitted "rek-runner", or a glorified hobby jogger, you argue with such certitude about that you which have no experience of. You have never been an elite runner and nor have you had any experience in either using ped's (I assume) or working with elite athletes who have. None of the "experts" you rely so much on have had that experience either. That is the best reason why their findings are often to be treated with caution and are rarely conclusive. But they still know more than you, who have done no research. As a professional in several different areas of life I recognise in your posturing the empty opinions of one who has never done what they presume to know such much about.

You post process everything to your sure about being unsure nonsense.

Armstronglivs wrote:

As a self admitted "rek-runner", or a glorified hobby jogger, you argue with such certitude about that you which have no experience of. You have never been an elite runner and nor have you had any experience in either using ped's (I assume) or working with elite athletes who have. None of the "experts" you rely so much on have had that experience either. That is the best reason why their findings are often to be treated with caution and are rarely conclusive. But they still know more than you, who have done no research. As a professional in several different areas of life I recognise in your posturing the empty opinions of one who has never done what they presume to know such much about.

To read papers, with graphs and tables, and to calculate numbers and to identify logic gaps, you just need sufficient skills in science, mathematics, and logic.

You place great stock on faithful anecdotes of the experiences of athletes/coaches, but ultimately their experience is recorded with numbers, available to, and evaluated by the mathematician.

Tom Cochrane wrote:

You post process everything to your sure about being unsure nonsense.

I find that far more honest than being over-confident about that which you are ignorant.

rekrunner wrote:

Tom Cochrane wrote:

You post process everything to your sure about being unsure nonsense.

I find that far more honest than being over-confident about that which you are ignorant.

Have you ever used EPO or spoken to athletes who have? The people who use the drugs are the ones to tell you how they work.

If you want to know what childbirth is like, you don't ask an obstetrician. You ask a mother.

Tom Cochrane wrote:

rekrunner wrote:

I find that far more honest than being over-confident about that which you are ignorant.

Have you ever used EPO or spoken to athletes who have? The people who use the drugs are the ones to tell you how they work.

If you want to know what childbirth is like, you don't ask an obstetrician. You ask a mother.

Of course a doped athlete will claim EPO is a performance enhancer. They know as much science as you do.