So cute, another predictable, childish insult. How insecure are you?
I don't see how responding to your feeble posts is a demonstration of insecurity. Your inadequacy makes me almost feel like a bully, it is so unfair picking on you. But then I remind myself you deserve everything that comes at you.
Four childish insults! hahaha I told you you are predictable. And of course you are not a bully. You are insecure like one but, unlike a bully, you are weak.
That said, prescribing HGH to seniors has it's dangers.
Well I don't think seniors can do this but probably anyone else on this forum, all it takes is 10 minutes a day above lactate threshold to get the most natural HGH release.
Exercise training above the lactate threshold may amplify the pulsatile release of hGH at rest, increasing 24-hour hGH secretion.
Human growth hormone (hGH) is secreted in a pulsatile fashion, generally following a circadian rhythm. A number of physiological stimuli can initiate hGH secretion, the most powerful, non-pharmacological of which are sleep an...
I don't see how responding to your feeble posts is a demonstration of insecurity. Your inadequacy makes me almost feel like a bully, it is so unfair picking on you. But then I remind myself you deserve everything that comes at you.
Four childish insults! hahaha I told you you are predictable. And of course you are not a bully. You are insecure like one but, unlike a bully, you are weak.
Four childish insults! hahaha I told you you are predictable. And of course you are not a bully. You are insecure like one but, unlike a bully, you are weak.
Find a hobby.
Heed your own advice. 3000 posts in 3 months... haha
as to your point about Europeans improving less than Africans since EPO came on the scene, if that is in fact true it wouldn't be terribly surprising at first glance considering EPO does essentially the same thing as blood doping (getting blood transfusions), albeit slightly slower (like 4-6 weeks to build it up instead of 4-6 hours), but a simple injection is much easier and less likely to have serious complications which i would assume are major factors in east africa considering they do not have the same sort of medical facilities available en masse that europe or the US has.
essentially, blood doping has a lot of barriers to entry that your typical kenyan, ethiopian, ugandan etc will certainly not be able to clear without a serious team behind them (granted, it's not easy to do that in the US/EUR alone either), whereas epo opened the floodgates because it's simple, discreet and as long as your ferritin is high enough (bekele is on record stating he kept his around 300) before starting it's going to work.
As I said, after your generous offer to "feel free to ama", my expectations were apparently unrealistic.
You can't recall a few titles of studies that you decided were not "garbage from the outset"?
Stray-Gundersen found a significantly higher effect for the ~16:40 runners (men) in the 1997 study, than the US elite runners in 2001. Your linear model could not be applied to both groups. Similarly, in the 1997 study, both "hi-hi" and "hi-lo" groups increased in blood values as expected, but the "hi-hi" group was not any faster after 4 weeks -- the blood increase led to no improvement for that group.
Your "Blood doped Europeans were the fastest in 1980" speculation sounds reasonably convincing at first glance. But countries we know who were dabbling in blood doping, like Finland, Italy, and Russia (Soviet Union for Coevett), did not feature among the fastest times. The fastest runners in the '80s were runners like the Brits Coe and Cram and Moorcroft and Jones, and the Portuguese Lopes and Mamede, and South African American Maree, the Mexican Arturio Barros, a Japanese Kodame, and included the Kenyans Henry Rono and Ondieki, Ethiopians Abebe and Dinsamo, Djiboutian Salah, and Somalian Bile. One Italian did make the list, Antibo. Apparently he did try blood doping in 1984, and didn't like it. His fastest time was in 1989.
That's a popular belief, not only among ignorant fans, but also among athletes, and/or their support staff, who perceive the benefit is worth the risk.
The ignorance is yours. EPO has been shown to be more potent than altitude-training and even blood doping. That is why it is used by athletes.
as to your point about Europeans improving less than Africans since EPO came on the scene, if that is in fact true it wouldn't be terribly surprising at first glance considering EPO does essentially the same thing as blood doping (getting blood transfusions), albeit slightly slower (like 4-6 weeks to build it up instead of 4-6 hours), but a simple injection is much easier and less likely to have serious complications which i would assume are major factors in east africa considering they do not have the same sort of medical facilities available en masse that europe or the US has.
essentially, blood doping has a lot of barriers to entry that your typical kenyan, ethiopian, ugandan etc will certainly not be able to clear without a serious team behind them (granted, it's not easy to do that in the US/EUR alone either), whereas epo opened the floodgates because it's simple, discreet and as long as your ferritin is high enough (bekele is on record stating he kept his around 300) before starting it's going to work.
As I said, after your generous offer to "feel free to ama", my expectations were apparently unrealistic.
You can't recall a few titles of studies that you decided were not "garbage from the outset"?
Stray-Gundersen found a significantly higher effect for the ~16:40 runners (men) in the 1997 study, than the US elite runners in 2001. Your linear model could not be applied to both groups. Similarly, in the 1997 study, both "hi-hi" and "hi-lo" groups increased in blood values as expected, but the "hi-hi" group was not any faster after 4 weeks -- the blood increase led to no improvement for that group.
Your "Blood doped Europeans were the fastest in 1980" speculation sounds reasonably convincing at first glance. But countries we know who were dabbling in blood doping, like Finland, Italy, and Russia (Soviet Union for Coevett), did not feature among the fastest times. The fastest runners in the '80s were runners like the Brits Coe and Cram and Moorcroft and Jones, and the Portuguese Lopes and Mamede, and South African American Maree, the Mexican Arturio Barros, a Japanese Kodame, and included the Kenyans Henry Rono and Ondieki, Ethiopians Abebe and Dinsamo, Djiboutian Salah, and Somalian Bile. One Italian did make the list, Antibo. Apparently he did try blood doping in 1984, and didn't like it. His fastest time was in 1989.
confirmed, rekrunner is still an absolute fcking clown
As I said, after your generous offer to "feel free to ama", my expectations were apparently unrealistic.
You can't recall a few titles of studies that you decided were not "garbage from the outset"?
Stray-Gundersen found a significantly higher effect for the ~16:40 runners (men) in the 1997 study, than the US elite runners in 2001. Your linear model could not be applied to both groups. Similarly, in the 1997 study, both "hi-hi" and "hi-lo" groups increased in blood values as expected, but the "hi-hi" group was not any faster after 4 weeks -- the blood increase led to no improvement for that group.
Your "Blood doped Europeans were the fastest in 1980" speculation sounds reasonably convincing at first glance. But countries we know who were dabbling in blood doping, like Finland, Italy, and Russia (Soviet Union for Coevett), did not feature among the fastest times. The fastest runners in the '80s were runners like the Brits Coe and Cram and Moorcroft and Jones, and the Portuguese Lopes and Mamede, and South African American Maree, the Mexican Arturio Barros, a Japanese Kodame, and included the Kenyans Henry Rono and Ondieki, Ethiopians Abebe and Dinsamo, Djiboutian Salah, and Somalian Bile. One Italian did make the list, Antibo. Apparently he did try blood doping in 1984, and didn't like it. His fastest time was in 1989.
confirmed, rekrunner is still an absolute fcking clown
confirmed, rekrunner is still an absolute fcking clown
Again, you invited everyone to feel free to ask you anything. Did you really mean it? With a moniker like "math plus experience plus lots of studies", I felt free to ask. Feel free to answer.
Blot clot or stroke or heart attack from a blood clot
idk if this is true.... according to this website everyone is on EPO but never heard of a single elite runner having any of these issues save one that was almost certainly not doping and had a heart condition RIP ryan shay... maybe PEDs are just good for our overall health and unless we're competing we should be taking them... I knew a professional baseball player, high draft pick but don't think ever made the show... said the best thing he ever did was HGH... maybe a lot of these PEDs are just great for overall health?
Quite a number of East African runners have dropped dead suddenly, for example Bekele's 17 yo GF.
confirmed, rekrunner is still an absolute fcking clown
Again, you invited everyone to feel free to ask you anything. Did you really mean it? With a moniker like "math plus experience plus lots of studies", I felt free to ask. Feel free to answer.
You have a strange way with the English language. You try to lecture everyone about your made-up statistics and useless comparisons and personal imaginations, and yet you claim you only ask questions.
If only you would ask questions, and then accept the answers, instead of bombarding the board with your repetitive nonsense, you could actually learn a thing or two.
Again, you invited everyone to feel free to ask you anything. Did you really mean it? With a moniker like "math plus experience plus lots of studies", I felt free to ask. Feel free to answer.
You have a strange way with the English language. You try to lecture everyone about your made-up statistics and useless comparisons and personal imaginations, and yet you claim you only ask questions.
If only you would ask questions, and then accept the answers, instead of bombarding the board with your repetitive nonsense, you could actually learn a thing or two.
I find it less strange than the range of non-answers I get. Many are non-answers, e.g. personal insults: "fcking clown", or fictitious rumors: "Rojo made him a mod." When I do get answers, they are often presented without any basis, and only seem to raise more questions. You seem to think that these answers are definitive, and should be the end of a conversation, and I should blindly follow the blind and move along. The goal of my questions is not to prop up popular myths with superficial answers, but to scratch the plated surface to see what is underneath providing support and foundation.
Regarding "math, ped, and beyond", I was most interested in his quite precise hematocrit/power/speed model finding 9% improvements, and when asking for the basis, the response was that he didn't have the time to collect his thoughts and provide a response. That was a complete non-answer.
He also said most studies were garbage, something I tend to agree with. I asked for a few titles that were not garbage, and received no answer.
He offered to comment on specific studies. I asked what he thought about the Pitsiladis study linked in post #26, and received no answer.
I don't mind these non-answers, as he owes me nothing, but it just seems all the stranger as we were all expressly invited to ask him anything.
I was also interested in his position, partly agreeing with Renato, that altitude based athletes likely benefit much less than sea-level athletes, something I also mostly tend to agree with, and was curious to explore that idea further.
I have here, and in the past, asked why sea-level athletes have made such little progress "at the top" during the EPO-era (and consequently, why so many still believe EPO "works" for elite distance runners). Despite you claiming I have received "the answer", but keep rejecting it, this is not quite accurate. I have received many answers: 1) blood-doping non-Africans already improved in the '70s and '80s; 2) non-Africans didn't dope in the EPO-era because higher morals, and/or testing was too effective; 3) non-Africans are doping, but we don't know which ones, so we cannot say that they didn't improve; 4+) etc.
Which of these should I accept, and more importantly, why? They only raise more questions than they answer, with respect to historically known information about both the spread and depth of doping, and the distribution of top performances. Superficial answers are not the end of a discussion, but the start of one, and only invite the next questions: "what are the bases for these answers, and where can we find confirmation in performances, and how do we explain seeming contradictions (again with basis)?"
If my statistics and comparisons are made-up and useless, which ones are real and useful?
Maybe this line of questioning seems strange to the one grading it as an English language exam, but it is quite normal for the scientist to keep asking questions even when everyone thinks they know the answer. We used Newton for centuries, until Einstein, because scientists kept asking questions.
Help us build the best running shoe review site for a chance to win a LetsRun t-shirt.Help us build the best running shoe review site for a chance to win one of 10 LetsRun t-shirts.
