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

Because they are doping too, Jon. And using motors.

No, it isn't. By definition, a placebo effect is not the effect of a drug but only of a belief. Thus, a mere trick of the imagination. There is no drug that has improved performance.

By the same token, your professed adherence to "logic", "reason" and the "scientific method" is a mere trick of your imagination. You employ none of them; you only think you do. But there is no placebo effect because in your case there is no enhancement of intellectual performance.

You are not merely a dullard; you are a dishonest dullard.

Tom Cochrane wrote:

Nope. Elites benefit is the point. Evidence is not an anecdote.

Keep moving them.

Maybe these were other Tom Chochrane's asking me to speak to athletes?

You goalpost wasn't "evidence" but "speak to the athletes" as "they are the ones to tell (me) how they work"

This means I should not listen to Armstronglivs, or Tom Cochrane, or Shopping Hour, or anyone else, as the are not "the ones to tell (me) how they work".

My goalpost was to hear arguments of substance to support some of the things that non-expert posters say.

You asked if I had done something that nobody here has done, before forming my opinions, as if I am the only one that has to meet a burden.

You lamented that "(I'll) never change. Ever."

Why should I change, when there is no substantial reason for me to change?

Armstronglivs wrote:

No, it isn't. By definition, a placebo effect is not the effect of a drug but only of a belief. Thus, a mere trick of the imagination. There is no drug that has improved performance.

By the same token, your professed adherence to "logic", "reason" and the "scientific method" is a mere trick of your imagination. You employ none of them; you only think you do. But there is no placebo effect because in your case there is no enhancement of intellectual performance.

You are not merely a dullard; you are a dishonest dullard.

I know you are one of the foremost experts on the imagination, having spent 40+ years building your own Imaginary Land.

Nevertheless, placebo effect is a real, scientifically proven effect. It is not imaginary. That's why double-blind studies are so important.

An athlete with a strong belief in the powerful effect of drugs does not bother to determine whether a 2% gain after taking a drug is a direct physiological effect from the drug, or an indirect placebo effect from the drug.

Any improvement after taking the drug, whether it is placebo, or from training, or any other changes, will be attributed to the drug, by one who strongly believes that is what is supposed to happen. A 2% placebo effect will confirm the drugs effect for the non-critical, non-scientific athlete.

This is why we must take everything an athlete says with caution. They are not neutral impartial observers. For example, Lance is one of the strongest believers there are in drugs, with a huge career-long psychological investment in his choice to take drugs, forcing him to rationalize his choices, but he is also a proven, long term, pathological liar, with a strong charismatic ability to con many people.

So is it better to be a skeptic, or a gullible lemming?

rekrunner wrote:

Tom Cochrane wrote:

Nope. Elites benefit is the point. Evidence is not an anecdote.

Keep moving them.

Maybe these were other Tom Chochrane's asking me to speak to athletes?

You goalpost wasn't "evidence" but "speak to the athletes" as "they are the ones to tell (me) how they work"

This means I should not listen to Armstronglivs, or Tom Cochrane, or Shopping Hour, or anyone else, as the are not "the ones to tell (me) how they work".

My goalpost was to hear arguments of substance to support some of the things that non-expert posters say.

You asked if I had done something that nobody here has done, before forming my opinions, as if I am the only one that has to meet a burden.

You lamented that "(I'll) never change. Ever."

Why should I change, when there is no substantial reason for me to change?

You want to know how elites benefit. That's not a moved goalpost. It IS the posts.

You don't have to talk to them but a logical and reasonable person would.

rekrunner wrote:

.

So is it better to be a skeptic, or a gullible lemming?

Those are not the only choices.

It's not surprising that Lance has/had a career long belief in doping, look who he was surrounded by. Look at what many people believe.

I don't agree about him being a pathological liar. He is and was a terrible liar, his body language is such a giveaway. Real psychos and narcissists have much more composure under pressure.

He was good at bluffing though. But then you can't win big races without that ability.

And he had a naturally high VO2 max. Which is not always an advantage. He hated the heat.

Tom Cochrane wrote:

Because they are doping too, Jon. And using motors.

Do you know any Professional Cyclists?

A placebo effect, even though it is an effect, is not the result of taking drugs - or it would not be a placebo effect. It isn't doping. It seems logic and reason are not working for you there.

Further, Lance Armstrong isn't the only athlete who has doped. Thousands have, for years - and still do. But keep telling yourself they are kidding themselves that they think they are gaining advantage from their doping. It's all one gigantic placebo.

how does that work? wrote:

Tom Cochrane wrote:

Because they are doping too, Jon. And using motors.

Do you know any Professional Cyclists?

Yes.

You guys have gone on for 44 pages. We're talking about doping in cycling now instead of running, or El G. Do you guys ever get tired of having the same discussion again and again?

how does that work? wrote:

It's not surprising that Lance has/had a career long belief in doping, look who he was surrounded by. Look at what many people believe.

I don't agree about him being a pathological liar. He is and was a terrible liar, his body language is such a giveaway. Real psychos and narcissists have much more composure under pressure.

He was good at bluffing though. But then you can't win big races without that ability.

And he had a naturally high VO2 max. Which is not always an advantage. He hated the heat.

He also knew it worked.

A naturally high VO2 is always an advantage. He had no trouble with the heat for 7 years in a row. Because EPO and blood doping enhance thermoregulation.

Honest answer: No.

I don't understand what your beef is with this thread when there are so many other ridiculous threads that having absolutely nothing to do with running. There's a thread on Tom Brady that's generated a heated debate. There's a stupid thread on online dating, another on vacuum cleaners, another one on the best elite military forces. Lol. What do those threads have to do with running? Are you going to post your criticism on those threads? You're not forced to click on a thread you don't like, but in this case why don't you jump in on this discussion instead of criticizing it?

Armstronglivs wrote:

A placebo effect, even though it is an effect, is not the result of taking drugs - or it would not be a placebo effect. It isn't doping. It seems logic and reason are not working for you there.

Further, Lance Armstrong isn't the only athlete who has doped. Thousands have, for years - and still do. But keep telling yourself they are kidding themselves that they think they are gaining advantage from their doping. It's all one gigantic placebo.

It doesn't really matter what you think placebo effect is -- we will never get an athlete adding disclaimers that his experiment of one was neither blinded nor controlled.

Don't worry too much about what I tell myself -- but I have no doubt that thousands of athletes -- maybe 10s or 100s or 1000s of thousands or millions, have doped over the years, decades, and centuries, since the days of Asterix and Obelix. The resulting performances of the best athletes are also permanently recorded.

I'd rather you worry more about the specific things I asked you to tell me, that would give your words meaning, but you repeatedly avoided these challenges -- adding meaning to your words is your best and only hope to change what I tell myself.

gotem wrote:

. Do you guys ever get tired of having the same discussion again and again?

No. That would be like asking if I get tired of going for a run nearly every day.

Tom Cochrane wrote:

how does that work? wrote:

It's not surprising that Lance has/had a career long belief in doping, look who he was surrounded by. Look at what many people believe.

I don't agree about him being a pathological liar. He is and was a terrible liar, his body language is such a giveaway. Real psychos and narcissists have much more composure under pressure.

He was good at bluffing though. But then you can't win big races without that ability.

And he had a naturally high VO2 max. Which is not always an advantage. He hated the heat.

He also knew it worked.

A naturally high VO2 is always an advantage. He had no trouble with the heat for 7 years in a row. Because EPO and blood doping enhance thermoregulation.

You don't know any professional cyclists or what thermoregulation is.

gotem wrote:

You guys have gone on for 44 pages. We're talking about doping in cycling now instead of running, or El G. Do you guys ever get tired of having the same discussion again and again?

No poster in the entire history of letsrun.com has produced a single scrap of evidence that El Gerrouj doped.

I think that's very telling don't you?

how does that work? wrote:

Tom Cochrane wrote:

He also knew it worked.

A naturally high VO2 is always an advantage. He had no trouble with the heat for 7 years in a row. Because EPO and blood doping enhance thermoregulation.

You don't know any professional cyclists or what thermoregulation is.

Neither do you.

how does that work? wrote:

gotem wrote:

You guys have gone on for 44 pages. We're talking about doping in cycling now instead of running, or El G. Do you guys ever get tired of having the same discussion again and again?

No poster in the entire history of letsrun.com has produced a single scrap of evidence that El Gerrouj doped.

I think that's very telling don't you?

Yes, drug testing is not very good and dopers dodge and microdose etc. Also golden geese get away with it.