RE: If you believe in the concept of Performance Enhancing Drugs......

test2 wrote:

Jon Orange wrote:

Learn your basic physiology. Bio-mechanical efficiency. Learn what it is and what it does. Above all, don't tell lecture me when you can't see the big picture.

Few people like being lecture to. I admit that I'm not going to change any minds that way. You say "Learn your basic physiology. Bio-mechanical efficency." I know something about these things and have drawn different conclusions than you have so we are at an impasse.

For what it's worth, I'm as open to questioning my beliefs as anyone you'll find on here. If your goal is to convince even one person to get away from thinking PEDs work, I'd urge you to post or re-post a long argument that lays out the logic for your position all in one place.

I don't do long posts. Who reads such things here? About 3 people.

Why don't you just read through my posts on this thread? I kept em short, to get to the point of which all of you seem unaware. Some of it should really make you re-think the really bad science, the dogma which is so entrenched. If it doesn't, you aren't that interested to begin with.

PHD wrote:

test2 wrote:

Few people like being lecture to. I admit that I'm not going to change any minds that way. You say "Learn your basic physiology. Bio-mechanical efficency." I know something about these things and have drawn different conclusions than you have so we are at an impasse.

For what it's worth, I'm as open to questioning my beliefs as anyone you'll find on here. If your goal is to convince even one person to get away from thinking PEDs work, I'd urge you to post or re-post a long argument that lays out the logic for your position all in one place.

Even better, he could become a Doctor of Physiology and this could be his thesis. But that's not going to happen, is it?

PhDs are extreme tunnel visionaries aren't they? That's not for me. I actually read every chapter in an exercise physiology textbook. Do you?

I disagree about the long posts. If they are good, people will still be linking to them 10 years from now. There are plenty by JK, HADD, etc that are still referenced. In any case, I don't really care about length. It's about having the whole logical arc in one place. My undestanding of your argument is disjointed. That makes it hard to refute and even harder to find convincing. Do you as you choose but it seems to me a single cohesive argument would be both more convincing and more efficient compared to the status quo.

Jon Orange wrote:

extreme tunnel visionaries aren't they? That's not for me.

Is that right.

Show me an exercise physiolgy PhD who isn't either reductionist in their views or easily swayed by conventional wisdom/dogma? Robert Robergs and who else?

I want to know who is worth the time and who is a waste of time?

Jon Orange wrote:

Show me an exercise physiolgy PhD who isn't either reductionist in their views or easily swayed by conventional wisdom/dogma? Robert Robergs and who else?

I want to know who is worth the time and who is a waste of time?

I want you to be what you think a PhD should be and present your thesis and defend it.

Until then you're just a failed journalist with an idea.

Read through the thread. There is a lot for you to think about but It won't take long to read it. I get to the point.

lol

Jin has no formal training

he has no experience in science

never coached an elite.

he reads books written by other people and makes his own shit up

Jon is a failed journalist who can't explain basic physiology to anyone but his deranged cat. and even the cat is like wtf are you smoking bro?

Jon Orange wrote:

I actually read every chapter in an exercise physiology textbook. Do you?

You've read one whole book, J.R.?

Jon Orange wrote:

Read through the thread. There is a lot for you to think about but It won't take long to read it. I get to the point.

You just keep posting the same short statement of your idea and fail to prove it.

That's not how a thesis works.

That's no different from someone saying they believe in God and that's it.

Jon, I genuinely enjoy your posts and you are thought provoking if nothing else.

Answer me this though -

Why do trainers bother doping race horses? There's big risks if caught. There's costs involved. There's big money at stake, so I guess there wouldn't be the desire to do it unless it worked...

Horses don't know they're being doped...

Are you suggesting doping horses is a waste of time?

A horse actually can know it is being doped but it learns of the effect by experience rather than being told.

Which proves that doping works that way rather than through "belief".

Jon Orange wrote:

Read through the thread. There is a lot for you to think about but It won't take long to read it. I get to the point.

There's nothing in the tread, no actual science. Just you trolling away in your own thread.

Jon, are you injured or have you retired?

http://www.powerof10.info/athletes/profile.aspx?athleteid=3727

Jon Orange wrote:

PhDs are extreme tunnel visionaries aren't they? That's not for me. I actually read every chapter in an exercise physiology textbook. Do you?

I'm not agreeing that you did read a whole book ever, however, it you did read the whole book, then this scene comes to mind (with my additions in parenthesis):

Otto (Jon Orange): Don't call me stupid.

Wanda (LRC readers): Oh, right! To call you stupid would be an insult to stupid people! I've known sheep that could outwit you. I've worn dresses (running shoes) with higher IQs. But you think you're an intellectual, don't you, ape?

Otto (Jon Orange): Apes don't read philosophy (physiology textbooks).

Wanda (LRC Readers): Yes they do, Otto (Jon). They just don't understand it.

Despite the long response, You failed to address the obvious subjective ambiguity of the whole thread, and you failed to answer my specific questions. Do you believe NO PEDS exist for anyone, and that science agrees with you? You didn't answer the question.I've given you many times the example of women and steroids. We have seen this repeatedly in history. Healthy women have low levels of testosterone, and other male hormones, compared to males, making them comparatively weaker. Every healthy women will benefit from increased muscle strength when taking supplemental male hormones (barring some condition like androgen insensitivity syndrome).Not everyone has a healthy body, nor a balanced training suited for their body. Some are afflicted with genetic shortcomings, or have been subject to disease causing permanent endocrine related damage. Some simply do the wrong training, and then drugs can become a temporary shortcut making up for a lack of proper training.Intense exercise causes temporary hormonal imbalance, muscle breakdown, and destruction of red blood cells, releasing all kinds of stress hormones. For example, the performance and health of cyclists measurably degrades over the course of a 3-week grand tour. Drugs that speed up or promote recovery, or delay breakdown, will improve overall performance, not absolutely for any single effort, but cumulatively over the course of the 3 weeks.Ryan Hall's performance in the last few years has been hit and miss due to low-testosterone -- something which could be solved by banned supplementation. Similarly Alberto Salazar's health was negatively impacted by his intense performances. Some recovery was possible later thanks to pharmaceuticals.Age itself causes a strong youthful body to diminish in many important aspects.I'm happy you asked me to do some simple arithmetic. I'm always happy to do math. Let's do some simple Daniel's arithmetic with elite runners -- to see how well your often repeated "elite runners use less oxygen" claim aligns with Daniel's model from real world oxygen measurements:If I run 2:03 for the marathon, my estimated VO2max is 83.59 ml/kg/min, and my estimated rate of VO2 consumption is 70.16 ml/kg/min.In a marathon lasting 123 minutes, I would consume an estimated absolute cumulative total volume of 8629.58 ml/kg of O2.Similarly, as we get slower, for:2:10 -- 65.51 ml/kg/min -- 8516.3 ml/kg2:40 -- 50.7 ml/kg/min -- 8112 ml/kg3:10 -- 41 ml/kg/min -- 7790 ml/kg3:40 -- 34.18 ml/kg/min -- 7519.6 ml/kg4:10 -- 29.12 ml/kg/min -- 7280 ml/kg4:40 -- 25.23 ml/kg/min -- 7064.4 ml/kgAs we can see, although elite runners consume less oxygen for "a given pace", they actually don't run "a given pace", but they run faster, consuming more oxygen/kg, both absolutely and relatively.If I repeat the exercise for faster distances, like the 5K and 3K, I get the same trend:- a 12:40 5K runner consumes 1058.58 ml/kg of O2, at a rate of 83.55 ml/kg/min, versus a 13:40 runner consuming 1038.92, at a rate of 76.0- a 7:20 3K runner consumes 640.42 ml/kg of O2, at a rate of 87.37 ml/kg/min, versus an 8:20 runner consuming 620.50, at a rate of 74.49According to Daniels arithmetic, elite runners use *MORE* oxygen in a race than slower athletes. And they consume *MORE* oxygen in *LESS* time. More energy. More heat. Daniel's research actually supports the "Bigger Engine" concept that almost everyone believes.

Even if slower people used more oxygen elites end up using theirs up in half the time. The rate of consumption is higher.

Not really different from the concept of using the same energy to walk a mile or race a mile.

rekrunner wrote:

Despite the long response, You failed to address the obvious subjective ambiguity of the whole thread, and you failed to answer my specific questions. Do you believe NO PEDS exist for anyone, and that science agrees with you? You didn't answer the question.

I've given you many times the example of women and steroids. We have seen this repeatedly in history.

Jon Orange wrote:

Yes performance is partly bio-chemical, but what do you think that human body is lacking bio-chemically? What imbalance are you expecting? ...

A healthy body is not lacking anything bio-chemically. To suggest otherwise as the 'PED' dogma implies, is a continuation of the drug folklore, the mythology of the ages, the belief in magic potions, shamanism. Why tis witchcraft. Seriously, it is the same mentality in modern guise. ...

It's not obvious that healthy people are perfectly balanced for the specific purpose of running. Humans bodies are multi-purpose: we need to be able to run, swim, climb, reproduce etc. so it's logical that our bodies would be more tuned to be good at all of these rather than great at any single one. Especially in women there would seem to be a tradeoff between optimal hormone levels for reproduction and for running.

I continue to plead for a self contained argument from you because I can't follow the direction of you logic. It seems to me that you assume that PEDs don't work then argue with conventional ex-phys when it comes into conflict with those core assumptions. Perhaps this isn't fair and there is more depth to your reasoning than that...help me out.

They say you are a journalist. I'd think you'd be eager to lay our your theory to an eager audience.

He has laid it out. That's it.