You're right, I'm wrong (I got about 2 hours sleep last night ;) ).
Hey, no worries. Been there.
And, by the way, thank you, sincerely for writing that.....very big of you. Most forums could use more people like you who are mature enough to say "My bad....I was mistaken." I have a lot of respect for people that do that.
I'm not exactly sure what you want me to say.....I've already plainly stated that we don't know all the pathways as to why EPO helps endurance athletes. I'm curious about your views on the science and it's interpretation:
Good science, bad science wrote:
You don't need drugs to train better or recover faster, you need better training. The idea that your body can be improved by doping shows a lack of self worth, self belief and a lack of respect for just how amazing your body is. Plus a large amount of gullibilty.
Good science, bad science wrote:
It's basic physiology, you train better, you get more efficient, there is no known limit for your performance. Lydiard said that. He was right. That's why he is still relevant today.
What I'm curious about is it appears from your previous comments that you believe we all exist on a level playing field from a training and performance perspective. That it's ridiculous that people even take EPO because if they just trained properly they could unlock the same unlimited potential as any of the elites. Is it fair to say that this is an accurate interpretation of your beliefs?
I'm not trolling, I'm truly interested.
Yes, Lydiard said, "...there is no known limit for your performance." But what he didn't say is that your performance is unlimited. A small, but critical distinction.
Thanks for taking the time to read through.
I agree with your placebo effect concept. The Human race seems to have been obsessed with drugs and alchohol for thousand of years, it's ingrained to the point of superstitious belief, that life is better when one is chemically altered. Perhaps it relates to times of extreme struggle which could have lasted a lifetime for many of our ancestors and getting into a chemically altered state was preferable to their miserable existance and is now part of our genetics?
I do think that it is ridiculous for any athlete, elite or otherwise to take EPO or any other so called 'performance enhancing drug'. I am sure as I can be that the real performance enhancers are adrenalin and noradrenalin and that outstanding performance is dependent on these neurotransmitters. I also think that exerxcise physiology has been derailed by a lack of attention to neuroscience by the most well known ex phys people, who lack a truly full knowledge of the full range of ex phys subjects.
A runner's ability is only as good as their training and their ambition, and that efficiency is what we must strive for. The concept of 'aerobic development' is false, our cardiovascular systems don't improve in the way most people believe. What improves is the ability to run with more biomechanical and bioenergetic efficiency, i.e. more speed for the same effort and more endurance. These improvement are clearly shown by countless thousands of lactate tests several decades. Lactate is fermented glycogen/glucose, not a waste product as many believe, and it is an essential part of metabolism, without which we cannot exercise. The efficiency with which we use it is shown by these lactate curves.
In Paula Radcliffe's case, the researcher who has test her, Andy Jones has shown that even though her oxygen upatke had declined slightly as she got older, she could run at 2.15 marathon pace very efficiently, using much less glycogen that other runners. I felt that it was important to say this here on letsrun, to counter the usual idiots and their drug obsessions. Not that they will want to learn, but others who are more intelligent might be interested?
Should our cardiovascular systems regress if we start training properly? After all the stress should be lowered on them as we get more biomechanically and bioenergetically efficient.
Not in the way you describe, but as part of the ageing process.
Good science, bad science wrote:
Not in the way you describe, but as part of the ageing process.
But why wouldn't it also fade away as the body learns to run more efficiently?
Don't know trollo, you tell me?
Good science, bad science wrote:
Don't know trollo, you tell me?
I didn't think you would hold up under questioning.
Superb troll, 10/10. OP uses pretty much every logical fallacy known to mankind. It's a thing of beauty.
You Are What You Is wrote:
OP uses pretty much every logical fallacy known to mankind.
Good science, bad science wrote:
The way to improve this is to train smarter by letting the pace come to you and not try to force it to come. Most runners do the opposite and simply try to hard to run fast, which just makes you tire easily.
Lydiard training principles in a nutshell.
EPO, or any other PED, is not a magic solution that removes the need for hard, intelligent training, good mechanics etc. etc. But all the accounts by athletes who have admitted to doping with EPO agree that it does have a beneficial effect. Most cyclists who have been busted for its use say something along the lines that it doesn't make the effort any less but it enables them to sustain a very high level of effort for much longer than they could unaided. Too many people have said things along these lines for this to be "all in the mind" or some sort of placebo effect.
A highly tuned, superbly engineered, mechanically perfect car will still see an improvement in performance if a better quality fuel is used. Diito athletes and their blood. EPO won't make a champion out of a scrubber; but it does make a small but very significant difference to an elite athlete - who may well have exhausted all other possibilities for improvement?
Bearheart wrote:
Good science, bad science wrote:Don't know trollo, you tell me?
I didn't think you would hold up under questioning.
I answered your question.
Good science, bad science wrote:
Bearheart wrote:I didn't think you would hold up under questioning.
I answered your question.
No, you really couldn't.
From the past wrote:
Good science, bad science wrote:The way to improve this is to train smarter by letting the pace come to you and not try to force it to come. Most runners do the opposite and simply try to hard to run fast, which just makes you tire easily.
Lydiard training principles in a nutshell.
Indeed. Lydiard also didn't believe in the efficacy of so called 'performance enhancing drugs' either did he?
Now if only the so called 'Lydiardists' could understand this, then they might by true followers. I tried to explain this to Nobby Hashizume last year. He wasn't interested.
Bearheart wrote:
Good science, bad science wrote:I answered your question.
No, you really couldn't.
So you are a troll?
mark b wrote:
EPO, or any other PED, is not a magic solution that removes the need for hard, intelligent training, good mechanics etc. etc. But all the accounts by athletes who have admitted to doping with EPO agree that it does have a beneficial effect. Most cyclists who have been busted for its use say something along the lines that it doesn't make the effort any less but it enables them to sustain a very high level of effort for much longer than they could unaided. Too many people have said things along these lines for this to be "all in the mind" or some sort of placebo effect.
A highly tuned, superbly engineered, mechanically perfect car will still see an improvement in performance if a better quality fuel is used. Diito athletes and their blood. EPO won't make a champion out of a scrubber; but it does make a small but very significant difference to an elite athlete - who may well have exhausted all other possibilities for improvement?
Mark, read through my comments. This is basic physiology.
Good science, bad science wrote:
dingle wrote:I'm not trying intentionally to be dense. But do you have a specific metabolic mechanism that provides the upper limit for an individual in a given race? I've heard people say the number of mitochondria is important. Is this what you think?
No, I don't believe that elite runners have more mitochondria than much slower runners. But anyway, you seem to be missing the point of the thread. It's not about using more oxygen than normal to run faster for longer, it's about using oxygen and glycogen more efficiently. That's what lactate curves show.
Do you have an answer, then, on what limits individual performances? You seem to keep answering the question about what explains differences between performers, but not what eventually is the physiological limiter(s) in a given performance? Why didn't Paula run 30 seconds faster on the day her record was set?
You are only as good as your fitness level. Who could have imagines that a woman would run so fast back when that was the mens' record in 1959-60
Even Lydiard himself thought that Abebe Bikila was close to the limits of what a man could run in the Marathon.
There are obvious phsyiological parameters like glycogen depletion and heat accumulation that we must run within, and but the efficiency with which we run is contolled by our nervous system. So the limit is really how much muscle tension can we control?
Good science, bad science wrote:
Bearheart wrote:No, you really couldn't.
So you are a troll?
Yes, as are you. Now please answer the question.