https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6ovnkzJP7us
Flat footed ground slapper against strong footed elastic Kenyan who won World Junior CC in his barefeet.
Flat footed ground slapper against strong footed elastic Kenyan who won World Junior CC in his barefeet.
Well Jon, you keep talking about neuromuscular signalling, but there are no specifics about how it works.
JO, Help us understand where you and conventional thinking diverge.
1. Training is required to be a competitive distance runner.
2. Training produces a stimuli that makes muscles, tendons, bones stronger and better adapted to the exercise. This includes but is not limited to more capillaries, more mitochondria, tougher tendons, increased lung and heart volume per time, enzyme level changes and yes, possibly better economy.
3. More training produces more adaption.
4. PEDs allow more training.
Please answer in a coherent way that explains how you agree or disagree with the numbered items above. An answer of "you just don't get it" is the same as saying "I don't understand these things".
Best of luck with this.I would appear JO merely makes implausible claims he cannot articulate or defend, and provides irrelevant evidence he cannot articulate or interpret.When people question him, he becomes snippy.When people make an honest effort to understand him, he takes dozens of tries to explain the same 'simple' point, yet cannot get that point across.Either way he cannot maintain a consistent position, or hold an adult conversation.Nothing to see here.
OverSimple wrote:
JO, Help us understand where you and conventional thinking diverge.
1. Training is required to be a competitive distance runner.
2. Training produces a stimuli that makes muscles, tendons, bones stronger and better adapted to the exercise. This includes but is not limited to more capillaries, more mitochondria, tougher tendons, increased lung and heart volume per time, enzyme level changes and yes, possibly better economy.
3. More training produces more adaption.
4. PEDs allow more training.
Please answer in a coherent way that explains how you agree or disagree with the numbered items above. An answer of "you just don't get it" is the same as saying "I don't understand these things".
We believe in the drugs, and we're going to keep trolling any intelligent discussion on this forum.
The Dro'jos wrote:
We believe in the drugs, and we're going to keep trolling any intelligent discussion on this forum.
A one sided statement is not a discussion.
OverSimple wrote:
JO, Help us understand where you and conventional thinking diverge.
1. Training is required to be a competitive distance runner.
2. Training produces a stimuli that makes muscles, tendons, bones stronger and better adapted to the exercise. This includes but is not limited to more capillaries, more mitochondria, tougher tendons, increased lung and heart volume per time, enzyme level changes and yes, possibly better economy.
3. More training produces more adaption.
4. PEDs allow more training.
Please answer in a coherent way that explains how you agree or disagree with the numbered items above. An answer of "you just don't get it" is the same as saying "I don't understand these things".
I disagree with the term PEDs. It is as if all of you who use this terminology are insisiting on it being factual rather than philosophical. Fitness is what gives you the ability to train more. And efficiency is what allows this. You are using less energy to go faster. It's so simple to understand. But when you believe the drug dogma your mind becomes so clouded by bad science you just can't accept what should be simple and obvious.
Jon Orange wrote:
OverSimple wrote:JO, Help us understand where you and conventional thinking diverge.
1. Training is required to be a competitive distance runner.
2. Training produces a stimuli that makes muscles, tendons, bones stronger and better adapted to the exercise. This includes but is not limited to more capillaries, more mitochondria, tougher tendons, increased lung and heart volume per time, enzyme level changes and yes, possibly better economy.
3. More training produces more adaption.
4. PEDs allow more training.
Please answer in a coherent way that explains how you agree or disagree with the numbered items above. An answer of "you just don't get it" is the same as saying "I don't understand these things".
I disagree with the term PEDs. It is as if all of you who use this terminology are insisiting on it being factual rather than philosophical. Fitness is what gives you the ability to train more. And efficiency is what allows this. You are using less energy to go faster. It's so simple to understand. But when you believe the drug dogma your mind becomes so clouded by bad science you just can't accept what should be simple and obvious.
Drugs give you the ability to train more and harder which enhances fitness.
Going faster requires more rapid use of energy. Go out and run as fast as you can. See?
Just like driving a car, so simple and obvious.
Jon, you skipped right over 1, 2, 3. So your answer is:1. Anybody can be a competitive distance runner if they are efficient enough even without training. 2. These named adaptations are a fantasy.3. See answer #1.4. There is no such thing as a Performance Enhancing Drug. But it sounds like this is a terminology issue for you. What if we called it a "Drug intended to aid bodily function which may or may not work"?Correct me if I have misinterpreted your answer.
Jon Orange wrote:
OverSimple wrote:JO, Help us understand where you and conventional thinking diverge.
1. Training is required to be a competitive distance runner.
2. Training produces a stimuli that makes muscles, tendons, bones stronger and better adapted to the exercise. This includes but is not limited to more capillaries, more mitochondria, tougher tendons, increased lung and heart volume per time, enzyme level changes and yes, possibly better economy.
3. More training produces more adaption.
4. PEDs allow more training.
Please answer in a coherent way that explains how you agree or disagree with the numbered items above. An answer of "you just don't get it" is the same as saying "I don't understand these things".
I disagree with the term PEDs. It is as if all of you who use this terminology are insisiting on it being factual rather than philosophical. Fitness is what gives you the ability to train more. And efficiency is what allows this. You are using less energy to go faster. It's so simple to understand. But when you believe the drug dogma your mind becomes so clouded by bad science you just can't accept what should be simple and obvious.
The Dro'jos wrote:
We believe in the drugs, and we're going to keep trolling any intelligent discussion on this forum.
mouth breathers wrote:
A one sided statement is not a discussion.
Well you're welcome to discuss the one side.
The Dro'jos wrote:
The Dro'jos wrote:We believe in the drugs, and we're going to keep trolling any intelligent discussion on this forum.
mouth breathers wrote:
A one sided statement is not a discussion.
Well you're welcome to discuss the one side.
Why? It's wrong.
The only bad science is from Jonny O. Starting the same thread over and over.
What's the philosophical concept behind your perseveration?
mouth breathers wrote:
The Dro'jos wrote:Well you're welcome to discuss the one side.
Why? It's wrong.
We know it's wrong, but we're going to keep promoting them anyway.
The Dro'jos wrote:
mouth breathers wrote:Why? It's wrong.
We know it's wrong, but we're going to keep promoting them anyway.
Of course it's wrong to cheat. That's why we support drug discussion.
OverSimple wrote:
Jon, you skipped right over 1, 2, 3. So your answer is:
1. Anybody can be a competitive distance runner if they are efficient enough even without training.
2. These named adaptations are a fantasy.
3. See answer #1.
4. There is no such thing as a Performance Enhancing Drug. But it sounds like this is a terminology issue for you. What if we called it a "Drug intended to aid bodily function which may or may not work"?
Correct me if I have misinterpreted your answer.
Jon Orange wrote:I disagree with the term PEDs. It is as if all of you who use this terminology are insisiting on it being factual rather than philosophical. Fitness is what gives you the ability to train more. And efficiency is what allows this. You are using less energy to go faster. It's so simple to understand. But when you believe the drug dogma your mind becomes so clouded by bad science you just can't accept what should be simple and obvious.
You missed out one very important factor, the nervous system, which controls all movement. Why? Because that's what almost everyone does isn't it? And you wonder why I can't take you seriously?
fred wrote:
The only bad science is from Jonny O. Starting the same thread over and over.
What's the philosophical concept behind your perseveration?
What's your real name? Is it George Malley?
Jon Orange wrote:
OverSimple wrote:Jon, you skipped right over 1, 2, 3. So your answer is:
1. Anybody can be a competitive distance runner if they are efficient enough even without training.
2. These named adaptations are a fantasy.
3. See answer #1.
4. There is no such thing as a Performance Enhancing Drug. But it sounds like this is a terminology issue for you. What if we called it a "Drug intended to aid bodily function which may or may not work"?
Correct me if I have misinterpreted your answer.
You missed out one very important factor, the nervous system, which controls all movement. Why? Because that's what almost everyone does isn't it? And you wonder why I can't take you seriously?
What does the brain run on, Jon?
Glycogen stored in Astrocyctes is converted to Lactate, which fuels neurons.
Jon Orange wrote:
OverSimple wrote:Jon, you skipped right over 1, 2, 3. So your answer is:
1. Anybody can be a competitive distance runner if they are efficient enough even without training.
2. These named adaptations are a fantasy.
3. See answer #1.
4. There is no such thing as a Performance Enhancing Drug. But it sounds like this is a terminology issue for you. What if we called it a "Drug intended to aid bodily function which may or may not work"?
Correct me if I have misinterpreted your answer.
You missed out one very important factor, the nervous system, which controls all movement. Why? Because that's what almost everyone does isn't it? And you wonder why I can't take you seriously?
Oh yes the system that can be enhanced with drugs. You mean that system?
"Amphetamine is used by some athletes for its psychological and athletic performance-enhancing effects, such as increased endurance and alertness;[26][39] however, non-medical amphetamine use is prohibited at sporting events that are regulated by collegiate, national, and international anti-doping agencies.[73][74] In healthy people at oral therapeutic doses, amphetamine has been shown to increase muscle strength, acceleration, athletic performance in anaerobic conditions, and endurance (i.e., it delays the onset of fatigue), while improving reaction time."
So you found the wikipedia page for Amphetamine? And that makes you better informed does it?
So, tell me what amphetamine does to the nervous system that natural adrenaline can't?