You have obviously no experience of bike racing.
And maybe, like a lot of inexperienced cyclists, your saddle is set too high.
Anyway, shut up and read this:
http://www.cyclingtips.com.au/2009/05/efficiency-of-pedal-stroke-ankling/
You have obviously no experience of bike racing.
And maybe, like a lot of inexperienced cyclists, your saddle is set too high.
Anyway, shut up and read this:
http://www.cyclingtips.com.au/2009/05/efficiency-of-pedal-stroke-ankling/
unbrainwashed wrote:
You have obviously no experience of bike racing.
And maybe, like a lot of inexperienced cyclists, your saddle is set too high.
Anyway, shut up and read this:
http://www.cyclingtips.com.au/2009/05/efficiency-of-pedal-stroke-ankling/
The correct answer according to Slowtwitch is that everyone's seat is too high, so maybe you are right about that.
EZ10Miler wrote:
jikugki wrote:I didn't say that genes do NOT have anything to do with it. I specifically said that they may or they may not, but so far there has been no proof. Only suggested possibilities.
OMG so you're THAT guy, the "there's no such thing as talent" guy that comes on here ever couple of days asking why no body has found the "talent" gene.
LOOK AT THE TOP 100 PERFORMANCES IN ANY DISTANCE RACE EVER. You'll see a trend.
20 years ago the top 100 performances showed a different trend. (so you're argument is bad)
Are you kidding me? Lance doped just like everyone else! He acts so insistent that he didn't dope when the whole world knows EVERYONE doped in cycling at the time. I'm not saying we should crucify Lance because of his doping, but he is DEFFINITLEY not innocent.
bad argument wrote:
EZ10Miler wrote:OMG so you're THAT guy, the "there's no such thing as talent" guy that comes on here ever couple of days asking why no body has found the "talent" gene.
LOOK AT THE TOP 100 PERFORMANCES IN ANY DISTANCE RACE EVER. You'll see a trend.
20 years ago the top 100 performances showed a different trend. (so you're argument is bad)
20 years ago the East Africans weren't as heavily involved in the sport. So I don't know why 20 years ago would have anything to do with today. Looks to be on point too me.
A nice perspective from someone who doped but was never was caught. Why can't former athletic (track) speak out like Vaughters? We know it happened in the 90s and early 20s. It is time to come clean.
jikugki wrote:
Aghast wrote:You keep on saying the ONLY way to show genetic linkage is by identifying these polymorphisms, which is completely wrong.
That's not what I'm saying. Do none of you have any reading comprehension on here?
I said that there are other possible explanations for family members sharing qualities besides genes. Without identifying specific genes, you can NOT be sure that it's genetics causing the shared qualities or whether it's something else. Families share a lot of things together besides genes: diet, chemical exposure, belief system, confidence, toughness, fatigue level, exercise habits, sports backgrounds, etc.
That's one of the main principles of the scientific method. Isolation of variables and control.
Please tell me what is wrong about that.
Researchers are a lot smarter than that. They do things like compare identical twins with non-identical twins, twins with other siblings, etc. They also use twins separated (e.g., at birth) who have the very similar genetics but different environments. If you do not know enough to understand this, then you are not contributing anything reliable even though some of what you say is true (because we would not know which part is true). I am NOT involved in this field or in genetics but just 'casual' reading etc., appears to have given me a broader understanding on at least this one point than what you appear to have based on (admittedly brief, and thus you might know more) comments on it here.
"THEN, just short of finally living your childhood dream, you are told, either straight out or implicitly, by some coaches, mentors, even the boss, that you aren’t going to make it, unless you cheat. Unless you choose to dope. Doping can be that last 2 percent. It would keep your dream alive, at least in the eyes of those who couldn’t see your heart. However, you’d have to lie. Lie to your mother, your friends, your fans. Lie to the world. This has been the harsh reality laid out before many of the most talented, hardest working and biggest dreaming athletes."
What a load. Dressing up his lying and cheating in pretentious cliches like "keeping your dream alive" is just pathetic. He wants to make a living at his absurd boutique profession, well more power to him, wealth can make all sorts of absurd professions viable, but don't pretend there is anything ennobling or meaningful about the job or anything particularly tragic about the lies and compromises he made to keep the paychecks coming.
26mi235 wrote:
Researchers are a lot smarter than that. They do things like compare identical twins with non-identical twins, twins with other siblings, etc. They also use twins separated (e.g., at birth) who have the very similar genetics but different environments. If you do not know enough to understand this, then you are not contributing anything reliable even though some of what you say is true (because we would not know which part is true). I am NOT involved in this field or in genetics but just 'casual' reading etc., appears to have given me a broader understanding on at least this one point than what you appear to have based on (admittedly brief, and thus you might know more) comments on it here.
There are no twins in the study that we are talking about so that is irrelevant. (unless there ARE twins in the study we are talking about which I could have missed I guess)
Aquafina wrote:
20 years ago the East Africans weren't as heavily involved in the sport. So I don't know why 20 years ago would have anything to do with today. Looks to be on point too me.
There are plenty of countries and cultures that still aren't involved in the sport today.
Even if there is something special about the Africans, you can't just say it's genes. "Africans" share a lot of things in common - genes, training style, training history, confidence, effort, diet, greater interest in distance running, and culture.
Their dominating trend could be attributed to any one of those shared qualities. How do you not see that?
I think that caffeine can be a PED, but only within a narrow window, the activity has to be very specific, because you will pay the price in other dimensions of your life.
This guy drank absurd quantities. He would drink a large bodum of espresso daily, and only slept maybe a couple of hours, and fitfully at that.
Come summer he would recover somewhat, as his family was well-off and he didn't need to work, at least not hard.
But I've never seen anything like it before, or since. For him, I believe it was performance-enhancing, even if ultimately it was due to something like a placebo effect, as his tolerance built.
Placebo effect cannot be underestimated. Caffiene is certainly a stimulant, a quick fix, an easy option. We humans are weak minded. Despite my assertions I just had a cup 20 minutes ago. I'm sure I would be healthier without coffee, but tis mine only vice pharmacologically speaking.
argy-bargy wrote:
"THEN, just short of finally living your childhood dream, you are told, either straight out or implicitly, by some coaches, mentors, even the boss, that you aren’t going to make it, unless you cheat. Unless you choose to dope. Doping can be that last 2 percent. It would keep your dream alive, at least in the eyes of those who couldn’t see your heart. However, you’d have to lie. Lie to your mother, your friends, your fans. Lie to the world. This has been the harsh reality laid out before many of the most talented, hardest working and biggest dreaming athletes."
What a load. Dressing up his lying and cheating in pretentious cliches like "keeping your dream alive" is just pathetic. He wants to make a living at his absurd boutique profession, well more power to him, wealth can make all sorts of absurd professions viable, but don't pretend there is anything ennobling or meaningful about the job or anything particularly tragic about the lies and compromises he made to keep the paychecks coming.
+1
I especially liked the neat externalization of an adverse "harsh reality". Nice touch.
unbrainwashed wrote:
Placebo effect cannot be underestimated. Caffiene is certainly a stimulant, a quick fix, an easy option. We humans are weak minded. Despite my assertions I just had a cup 20 minutes ago. I'm sure I would be healthier without coffee, but tis mine only vice pharmacologically speaking.
You seem really hung up on the placebo effect. I think most anyone that's taken it has seen big boosts in performance. Just reading the Eddie H article in RT, or the Outside article where the cyclist took went on a drug regime- all reported the same type of results. I suspect EPO is used by athletes because it really works.
Optimal Performance wrote:
Criminals cheat and they do things you probably don't have the guts to attempt. "Weak" is not the correct descriptive word. When your road to the mountain top comes to a plato there is another steeper, rockier road waiting for you.
And there, you will find Socrates.
It is NO placebo effect.http://jap.physiology.org/content/99/5/2053.shortIn the original publication of the “live high-train low” model, we demonstrated clearly that exposure for >20 h/day to 2,500 m altitude for 4 wk led to an increase in erythrocyte volume, an increase in V̇o2 max, and improved performance in an event (5,000 m time trial) that is dependent on high rates of oxygen transport (18). In contrast, a control group exposed to identical training, but living at sea level, improved neither erythrocyte volume, V̇o2 max, nor performance.To further define the mechanisms underlying the improvement in performance with altitude training, all the altitude-living athletes from our previous studies (18, 28) were divided into two groups based on only one criterion: those who improved their race time by more than the group mean (“responders”) and those that got worse (“nonresponders”; Ref. 4). There were no differences between these groups with respect to numerous physiological variables that might influence acclimatization to altitude (4).Rather, the key distinguishing feature was that the responders had a greater increase in erythropoietin concentration with acute altitude exposure, which remained elevated for a more prolonged period of time. Indeed, the erythropoietin increase in the responders after 2 wk at altitude was equivalent to the peak response in the nonresponders, in whom erythropoietin had returned to baseline. This difference in erythropoietin response patterns was clearly physiologically significant and not a chance occurrence; the responders had an increase in erythrocyte volume and increased V̇o2 max, whereas the nonresponders did not. Furthermore, the increase in V̇o2 max was exactly what would be predicted from change in blood volume and hemoglobin concentration (31): predicted increase 248 ml/min − actual increase 245 ml/min(4). This derivation model was confirmed prospectively in another population (4, 26).
unbrainwashed wrote:
Placebo effect cannot be underestimated. Caffiene is certainly a stimulant, a quick fix, an easy option. We humans are weak minded. Despite my assertions I just had a cup 20 minutes ago. I'm sure I would be healthier without coffee, but tis mine only vice pharmacologically speaking.
jikugki wrote:
There are no twins in the study that we are talking about so that is irrelevant. (unless there ARE twins in the study we are talking about which I could have missed I guess)
The twins argument is refuting your claim that you need to identify specific genes. It is not in reference to the study about performance and genetics.
You seem pretty slow. Can you understand how these two things are separate, and yet both currently points of discussion?
Also, I don't think you understand the broader definition of "genetic." You seem to think that when someone says "running performance is genetic" that they mean "you will run exactly as fast as your mother and father did." That's not what it means. What it means is that each person has a "performance limit" which is comprised of a variety of factors (their size, their build, their muscle makeup, their response to training, etc), and that all of these factors are controlled by their genes.
You're focusing way too much on the familial aspect of genetics, and completely missing everything else.
No sane person would argue that hair color, eye color, and height are not genetic. They obviously are. Yet, you don't necessarily share all of these attributes with family members. You understand that this doesn't disprove that they are genetic, right?
Basically, you are highly misinformed about the state of this fieldHere is something you might be interested in.Suggests (in rats) 39% of endurance performance is inherited.http://ajpregu.physiology.org/content/275/5/R1455.shortBy the way there are plenty of candidate genes linked to endurance performance in humans. I don't know if you have access but check out: http://www.springerlink.com/content/kdrvbp3xlv1tct22/fulltext.htmlTreadmill running was evaluated as a phenotype for selective breeding for high- and low-endurance performance from a starting population of 18 male and 24 female outbred Sprague-Dawley rats. Each rat was exercised to exhaustion once per day for 5 consecutive days. The treadmill was set at a constant 15° slope, and the initial velocity of 10 m/min was increased by 1 m/min every 2 min. The total distance run on the single best day out of the five trials was taken as the measure of endurance performance. The original population (males and females combined,n = 42) ran on average for 396 m. The two lowest-performing pairs and two highest-performing pairs were selectively bred through three successive generations. After three generations of selection, performance of the offspring from the high selected line averaged 659 ± 36 m (n = 20), whereas low-performance offspring (n = 13) averaged 388 ± 28 m. The narrow-sense heritability, calculated as the regression of individual offspring performance on midparental value for each family, was 0.39 across the three generations. This implies that 39% of the variation in running endurance performance between the low and high selected lines was determined by heritable factors.
jikugki wrote:
There are no twins in the study that we are talking about so that is irrelevant. (unless there ARE twins in the study we are talking about which I could have missed I guess)
Optimal Performance wrote:
Criminals cheat and they do things you probably don't have the guts to attempt. "Weak" is not the correct descriptive word. When your road to the mountain top comes to a plato there is another steeper, rockier road waiting for you.
Goob wrote:
And there, you will find Socrates.
Awesome! A+
An Engineer wrote:
The twins argument is refuting your claim that you need to identify specific genes. It is not in reference to the study about performance and genetics.
You seem pretty slow. Can you understand how these two things are separate, and yet both currently points of discussion?
Also, I don't think you understand the broader definition of "genetic." You seem to think that when someone says "running performance is genetic" that they mean "you will run exactly as fast as your mother and father did." That's not what it means. What it means is that each person has a "performance limit" which is comprised of a variety of factors (their size, their build, their muscle makeup, their response to training, etc), and that all of these factors are controlled by their genes.
You're focusing way too much on the familial aspect of genetics, and completely missing everything else.
No sane person would argue that hair color, eye color, and height are not genetic. They obviously are. Yet, you don't necessarily share all of these attributes with family members. You understand that this doesn't disprove that they are genetic, right?
You guys have no reading comprehension.
My argument is not that you need to identify specific genes. My argument was that (in the one study that we are focused on), you'd need to identify some genes in order to arrive at their conclusion. BECAUSE they did NOT filter out/control for other variables that could affect endurance performance.
This whole conversation is about that ONE study. I've said this several times. Why don't you guys understand that?