His performance has been given the respect due. But he's telling everyone he knows the secret for all ages, particularly the youth of today.
And he's known it for 39 years., so why wasn't he world class or at his best earlier?
His performance has been given the respect due. But he's telling everyone he knows the secret for all ages, particularly the youth of today.
And he's known it for 39 years., so why wasn't he world class or at his best earlier?
The Guardian:
Rashid Ramzi
"In 2004 he won a world indoor silver medal over 800m. But then, early in that Olympic summer, he stunned everyone by ending the four-year winning streak of El Guerrouj and lowering his personal best by nine seconds. In Athens, despite being one of the favourites, he mysteriously trailed in 11th in his semi-final. We hardly saw him again until the following year's world championships in Helsinki. He won gold at 1500m and 800m, unprecedented in the modern era. He almost embarrassed his competitors with his ease of victory. New-found ability in your mid-20s has the odour of North Shields fish quay on a warm day."
paying dues wrote:
His performance has been given the respect due. But he's telling everyone he knows the secret for all ages, particularly the youth of today.
And he's known it for 39 years., so why wasn't he world class or at his best earlier?
World class takes genetic talent and/or performance drugs.
Peaking at 40 to 45 takes 10 years of hard work, laying it on the line in workouts without getting injured or burnt out.
Trautmann can do it now, but he was always injured in his 20's.
Thanks, but this is not my thread is it? This is the fred show. I wish I could block him because he will deliberately miss the point over and over. It's like having a conversation with a stoner, where everything you say is taken the wrong way and his thought process goes off on weird tangents.
He is either a stoner or just naturally paranoid.
Jon Orange wrote:
Thanks, but this is not my thread is it? This is the fred show. I wish I could block him because he will deliberately miss the point over and over. It's like having a conversation with a stoner, where everything you say is taken the wrong way and his thought process goes off on weird tangents.
He is either a stoner or just naturally paranoid.
You're doing the same thing, Jon. Can't you see that?
Nobody is "missing the point", they're just not buying it.
Improved efficiency in the one dimensional way you view it is 5-7%, tops.
5-7% is just a guess. Based on what?
When I was 16 my best 1500 was 5.17
When I was 43 it was 4.00
Why was I so slow when I was 16? I was trying as hard as I could in that race, but I was not running efficiently. Why?
Well here's a clue. I did a track session around that time, it was 8 or 10 times 400, can't remember which, but my first 400 was 83 and it was tough, each one was faster, and my last was 64 and it felt much easier. Why is that?
You know the answer as well as I do. Why don't you say it?
The real 'Performance Enhancer' is a chemical produced naturally in the body.
What is the name of that chemical?
Jon Orange wrote:
5-7% is just a guess. Based on what?
When I was 16 my best 1500 was 5.17
When I was 43 it was 4.00
Why was I so slow when I was 16? I was trying as hard as I could in that race, but I was not running efficiently. Why?
Well here's a clue. I did a track session around that time, it was 8 or 10 times 400, can't remember which, but my first 400 was 83 and it was tough, each one was faster, and my last was 64 and it felt much easier. Why is that?
You know the answer as well as I do. Why don't you say it?
The real 'Performance Enhancer' is a chemical produced naturally in the body.
What is the name of that chemical?
Jon, had you ever heard of a warmup plus some short sprints before starting the 400's?
Adrenaline binds to alpha and beta adrenergic receptors. How many different types of receptors are there in the body? How many different hormones are there?
Jon Orange wrote:
5-7% is just a guess. Based on what?
When I was 16 my best 1500 was 5.17
When I was 43 it was 4.00
Why was I so slow when I was 16? I was trying as hard as I could in that race, but I was not running efficiently. Why?
Well here's a clue. I did a track session around that time, it was 8 or 10 times 400, can't remember which, but my first 400 was 83 and it was tough, each one was faster, and my last was 64 and it felt much easier. Why is that?
You know the answer as well as I do. Why don't you say it?
The real 'Performance Enhancer' is a chemical produced naturally in the body.
What is the name of that chemical?
You were warmed up and using more oxygen at a faster rate and getting productive work out of it.. Not rocket science. If you figured it all out in that workout you would have raced much faster the next time out.
It took you until you were over 40 to put 2 and 2 together?
Jon Orange wrote:
5-7% is just a guess. Based on what?
I generously gave your own source the credit for that amount.
fred wrote:
The belief on PEDs is ludicrous.
Right, and you're the STUPID IDIOT who believes in them.
stupid fred registered wrote:
fred wrote:The belief on PEDs is ludicrous.
Right, and you're the STUPID IDIOT who believes in them.
And he is CORRECT along with millions of others with even the simplest brain stem to think with.
But I'm sure hard work will still get you under 20.
icu2 wrote:
Jon Orange wrote:5-7% is just a guess. Based on what?
When I was 16 my best 1500 was 5.17
When I was 43 it was 4.00
Why was I so slow when I was 16? I was trying as hard as I could in that race, but I was not running efficiently. Why?
Well here's a clue. I did a track session around that time, it was 8 or 10 times 400, can't remember which, but my first 400 was 83 and it was tough, each one was faster, and my last was 64 and it felt much easier. Why is that?
You know the answer as well as I do. Why don't you say it?
The real 'Performance Enhancer' is a chemical produced naturally in the body.
What is the name of that chemical?
You were warmed up and using more oxygen at a faster rate and getting productive work out of it.. Not rocket science. If you figured it all out in that workout you would have raced much faster the next time out.
It took you until you were over 40 to put 2 and 2 together?
Well thanks coaching genius. I look forward to your athletes winning medals in Rio.
Jon Orange wrote:
icu2 wrote:You were warmed up and using more oxygen at a faster rate and getting productive work out of it.. Not rocket science. If you figured it all out in that workout you would have raced much faster the next time out.
It took you until you were over 40 to put 2 and 2 together?
Well thanks coaching genius. I look forward to your athletes winning medals in Rio.
It's genetic talent and often dope that wins medals Jon, not coaching. That's why you were miles from elite although you could have been faster earlier if you had a clue about training and weren't so lazy. Plus a little dope would have helped.
'Do PEDs work' is not that interesting a question. They obviously do, JO is obviously incorrect, and he's obviously not likely to change his mind.
But I'm interested in the following ...
- Why does JO so deeply believe PEDs don't work, when there is so much evidence to the contrary, and zero evidence in favor?
- Why is it so important to him to convince people otherwise, when he doesn't have any goods with which to convince them?
- Did his disbelief in PEDs _help_ him run 4'00 at 40?
Mostly I care about the last one. More and more it feels like to perform at the highest levels, we need to use our whole brain. Not just superficial goals and preferences, but deep beliefs, needs, and desires. And invariably this means deeply believing things that aren't true. Like 'in the scheme of things, this race is really important'. Or 'Nobody Beats (country/college/pro team)!!!' Or maybe, in JOs case, that 'age means nothing, PEDs don't matter, running economy is everything, and there's nothing stopping me from running 4'00 at 40!!!!!'
Maybe what JO's actually trying to communicate, is that if you convince yourself PEDs don't matter, you'll raise your ceiling.
(Unless you're taking them.)
None of Jon's performances show a deeper understanding of anything about training.
If anything they show a slower learning of the process, particularly since he thought he had it all figured out at 16.
This thread is just like the rest of the forum, central to the Brojos' obsession that people need drugs to run fast, yet their friend Radcliffe is clean, and Wejo ran 28 minutes by jogging around slowly.
They're obsessed with the idea that drugs give special aide to all performances, but their own, and you're swimming upstream to try and prove otherwise. As soon as you do, the specially commissioned LR trolls will go into their hypocritical frenzy.
Nonsense. Nobody has said you need drugs to run fast.
Yep, Willis can run fast without drugs
Do you think he is clean or you are being sarcastic. Please clarify. This thread is amazing. There is opinion without studies, data, facts. Anyone who produces those things is ridiculed as an idiot who lives in a fantasy world. Pseudo math equations are used with fake data to "prove" an idea. Anyone who questions the fake numbers or simplicity of the math is told they do not have a fundamental understanding of math.
fred wrote:
Yep, Willis can run fast without drugs