Do I need to have first hand knowledge of doping to understand what it does? Apparently not, since you say you know what doping does and I assume you haven't doped. But, as I said, your first -hand knowledge of the other factors you describe is too small a class sample from which to make any definitive conclusions. It is cancelled out by those who've said here they didn't experience any gains from bicarb, or the new shoes.
You sound like a global warming denier. "It's not any warmer in my town this week! Look, it's snowing! Global warming is a hoax!"
Global warming is confirmed by science world-wide. His arguments are more along the line of there was a second shooter on the grassy knoll.
There are things I deny. There are things I don't deny. It is nuanced.
What isn't nuanced is that you are a doping denier.
You are simply repeating exactly what I said before: "doping denier" is a dumbed down label wiping out the nuance, leaving something simple, yet false, that you can understand.
It's an avoidance technique because you can't engage intellectually and defend your imagined views on the merits.
Do I need to have first hand knowledge of doping to understand what it does? Apparently not, since you say you know what doping does and I assume you haven't doped. But, as I said, your first -hand knowledge of the other factors you describe is too small a class sample from which to make any definitive conclusions. It is cancelled out by those who've said here they didn't experience any gains from bicarb, or the new shoes.
You need data to understand what "it" does to draw any definitive conclusions, or at the very least to measure correlations.
Without data, bi-carb is just like any other drug. All of your arguments against bi-carb can equally apply to drugs, and all of your arguments for drugs can be used for bi-carb.
By your flawed logic, many athletes use and keep using bi-carb -- therefore it must work. If it were not so, they wouldn't use it.
You sound like a global warming denier. "It's not any warmer in my town this week! Look, it's snowing! Global warming is a hoax!"
"Global warming" is confirmed by science world-wide. His arguments are more along the line of there was a second shooter on the grassy knoll.
Temperatures haven't been measured the same way over time. Constant temperature measurement is something of the past 40-50 years. "Scientists" say the temperature was X before constant measurement was possible. But really they're apples and oranges and they can't scientifically make this deduction. Big cities with intensification blocking out cooler temps, more ocean temperatures added into averages where seas are warmer than land, coastal areas don't get as cold in winter, temperatures being collected at airports. Anyway researchers into the figure of "90% of scientists believe in man-made global warming" found it wasn't true. Less than 30% responded believing this, the rest didn't believe it was conclusive. So 90% of the 30% came to this conclusion. Anyway the earth is warming fastest from the bottom of the oceans upwards.
Temperatures haven't been measured the same way over time. Constant temperature measurement is something of the past 40-50 years. "Scientists" say the temperature was X before constant measurement was possible. But really they're apples and oranges and they can't scientifically make this deduction. Big cities with intensification blocking out cooler temps, more ocean temperatures added into averages where seas are warmer than land, coastal areas don't get as cold in winter, temperatures being collected at airports. Anyway researchers into the figure of "90% of scientists believe in man-made global warming" found it wasn't true. Less than 30% responded believing this, the rest didn't believe it was conclusive. So 90% of the 30% came to this conclusion. Anyway the earth is warming fastest from the bottom of the oceans upwards.
Global warming is confirmed by science world-wide. His arguments are more along the line of there was a second shooter on the grassy knoll.
Scientists have confirmed that super shoes have an effect.
Sure. So does wearing the right shorts and eating chocolate bars. But the shoes haven't enough of an effect to wipe Flojo's, Kratochvilova's and El G's records from the books. Bekele wasn't using them and he was still faster than all those who have.
This post was edited 7 minutes after it was posted.
What isn't nuanced is that you are a doping denier.
You are simply repeating exactly what I said before: "doping denier" is a dumbed down label wiping out the nuance, leaving something simple, yet false, that you can understand.
It's an avoidance technique because you can't engage intellectually and defend your imagined views on the merits.
You use more words but you are still confirming what I said.
Do I need to have first hand knowledge of doping to understand what it does? Apparently not, since you say you know what doping does and I assume you haven't doped. But, as I said, your first -hand knowledge of the other factors you describe is too small a class sample from which to make any definitive conclusions. It is cancelled out by those who've said here they didn't experience any gains from bicarb, or the new shoes.
You need data to understand what "it" does to draw any definitive conclusions, or at the very least to measure correlations.
Without data, bi-carb is just like any other drug. All of your arguments against bi-carb can equally apply to drugs, and all of your arguments for drugs can be used for bi-carb.
By your flawed logic, many athletes use and keep using bi-carb -- therefore it must work. If it were not so, they wouldn't use it.
What a gormless argument. You effectively liken bicarb to EPO. One is banned and the other isn't. For reasons you find impossible to fathom.
By your logic some people don’t respond to EPO. So why do we ban that?
Bicarb in it modern form is not that same as taking a teaspoon before a race in the past. Regular bicarbonate has limits due to stomach and intestinal issues. The modern pellets allow megadosing. It’s like turning Cocaine into Crack.
And don’t get me started on the shoes. 3-4% is not a second or two. It’s a full 6 -8 seconds in the 1500m. All of these 3:27-3:29 guys are really 3:35-3:37 guys in the 1500m.
If you are for the cheat codes that fine. But just admit what you are saying. it’s fair to the athletes competing amongst each other. But it’s not fair to the previous world record holders.
You are simply repeating exactly what I said before: "doping denier" is a dumbed down label wiping out the nuance, leaving something simple, yet false, that you can understand.
It's an avoidance technique because you can't engage intellectually and defend your imagined views on the merits.
You use more words but you are still confirming what I said.
You've got it backwards. You are confirming what I said. You unwittingly agree with me without realizing it.
What a gormless argument. You effectively liken bicarb to EPO. One is banned and the other isn't. For reasons you find impossible to fathom.
Is there a difference? With respect to performance, bi-carb and EPO are alike in that both are believed to be potentially performance enhancing.
You didn't specify EPO earlier, but vaguely said "doping". According to experts, it is not possible to generalize performance from "doping". Some "doping" can be performance enhancing. For most "doping", there is no performance data. Some drugs can even impair athletic performance:
American Journal of Medicine wrote:
Just as drugs that enhance exercise capacity and/or athletic performance are often called "ergogenic," drugs that impair these functions can be termed "ergolytic." Today's athletes hear too much about the former and too little about the latter. Ergolytic drugs used today by certain athletes include alcohol, marijuana, smokeless tobacco, cocaine, antihypertensives, eye drops, and diuretics. Some antidepressants, too, can be ergolytic, as well as some antihistamines and other common drugs--even caffeine--in some settings, for some people.
With respect to reasons I find possible to fathom to ban a substance, EPO is also arguably banned for being 1) potentially harmful, and 2) against the spirit of the sport. According to WADA, these reasons alone are sufficient to ban EPO without having to consider performance. We don't know why WADA bans it because they do not make their reasoning public, nor otherwise justify their reasoning for their subjective conclusions.
Temperatures haven't been measured the same way over time. Constant temperature measurement is something of the past 40-50 years. "Scientists" say the temperature was X before constant measurement was possible. But really they're apples and oranges and they can't scientifically make this deduction. Big cities with intensification blocking out cooler temps, more ocean temperatures added into averages where seas are warmer than land, coastal areas don't get as cold in winter, temperatures being collected at airports. Anyway researchers into the figure of "90% of scientists believe in man-made global warming" found it wasn't true. Less than 30% responded believing this, the rest didn't believe it was conclusive. So 90% of the 30% came to this conclusion. Anyway the earth is warming fastest from the bottom of the oceans upwards.
Do you believe this?
Which part isn't true? Because the 'science' of 'global warming' is indeed very subjective.
So I suggest we concentrate our attention on a variable that is reliable, namely Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide measurements and suggest possible and probable causes and cures.
Yes they appear to accumulate in a 1:1(stoichiometric)ratio and we are supposed to believe that ingesting bicarbonate reduces this ratio, but there is another way to achieve this that doesn't involve ingesting bicarbonate.
Do you mean hyperventilation?
Hyperventilation is a symptom of metabolic acidosis, which we want to avoid too much of.
I suggest avoiding the extremes in training whilst hitting your target times, helps in racing.
Scientists have confirmed that super shoes have an effect.
Sure. So does wearing the right shorts and eating chocolate bars. But the shoes haven't enough of an effect to wipe Flojo's, Kratochvilova's and El G's records from the books. Bekele wasn't using them and he was still faster than all those who have.
This is why your argument sounds like you are a global warming denier. You point to rare exceptions as if they disprove everything else. The 1% of cases does not refute the 99%.
More guys running under 3:30 in the 1500 than ever before. More guys running under 13:00 in the 5000 than ever before. More guys running under 2:05 in the marathon than ever before. Youth, college, national, and world records galore. Yet you fixate on the few records that still stand. Illogical.