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. 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/kg
2:40 -- 50.7 ml/kg/min -- 8112 ml/kg
3:10 -- 41 ml/kg/min -- 7790 ml/kg
3:40 -- 34.18 ml/kg/min -- 7519.6 ml/kg
4:10 -- 29.12 ml/kg/min -- 7280 ml/kg
4:40 -- 25.23 ml/kg/min -- 7064.4 ml/kg
As 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 74.49
According 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.
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? Aren't you refering to medical practice rather than 'doping'? Unlike J.R. I believe to some degree in medical practice. Why wouldn't I? If I had a tropical disease and the doctor told me I will die if I dont' take drug X, do you think I would doubt him?
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. A human frailty to which almost everyone is, was and forever more shall be enslaved. Isn't that why alchohol, tobacco, cocaine, ampetamines, heroin etc are all uncontrollable in society? Well the same human frailty is not just a problem for addicts is it? It's a perception to which we are all vulnerable, that things would be better with some exogenous chemical assistance.
Back to the bio-mechanical efficiency point; it determines your performance level. To run faster, or bike faster you have to output more power overall than you did before and that is controlled neurally.
Now you have read Daniels' research haven't you? Remember that graph with the oxygen uptake for marathon runners? It showed that the difference in percentage VO2 max for 2 hours or 3 hours was miniscule. Do some simple arithemtic, elite runners use less oxygen in a race, nor more. Less energy. This is the opposite of the 'Bigger Engine' concept that almost everyone believes. Therein lies the problem. It's conceptual. A wrong philosophy is prevalent.
You're building a list of reasons to take synthetic testosterone or other drugs, reinforcing the doping dogma. If it's so effective for women, how come they are still the usual 8-10% slower than men? And how come the old womens' records are still standing?
Red blood cells die naturally and are replaced naturally. A healthy body has the amount it needs, just as it does with testosterone. If you aren't healthy, address the reasons as you would if you kept getting injured.
Improved efficiency means better recovery.
As for your arithmetic, you've got it completely wrong. I told you to look at Daniels' VO2 graph for marathon runners to calculate differences between different runners. You didn't do this. Do it again as I suggest and you will get the point, ELITE RUNNERS USE LESS OXYGEN IN A RACE NOT MORE.