Speaking of Schumachers, what does Jerry think?
Speaking of Schumachers, what does Jerry think?
rekrunner wrote:
Tom Cochrane. wrote:
See?
Yes, I did see a visibly reduced basal and maximal blood flow in Figure 2, from the rather conservative hematocrit levels recorded in Figure 1.
Can you tell me, in the 1990s, before blood testing and before EPO testing, when El G set these records, do you think his hematocrit was less than 48% like in your study? Maybe we can see that in the video.
You sees cherries, you pick 'em. no matter how old they are.
It was likely over 50. And flowing like warm molasses.
how does that work? wrote:
rekrunner wrote:
Yes, I did see a visibly reduced basal and maximal blood flow in Figure 2, from the rather conservative hematocrit levels recorded in Figure 1.
Can you tell me, in the 1990s, before blood testing and before EPO testing, when El G set these records, do you think his hematocrit was less than 48% like in your study? Maybe we can see that in the video.
44-45 slightly reduced plasma volume. 40-42 when doing high mileage, slightly increased plasma volume.
Try it for yourself it works.
About this 6% VO2max difference, it's a normal variable.
Tell Alan " former runner turned bodybuilder" To get out of the gym and meet different people.
You would have rocked on the sweet dope. Too bad you missed your pro cyclist years.
Ask Michael Schumacher how the O2 vectors really work.
Tom Cochrane. wrote:
rekrunner wrote:
Yes, I did see a visibly reduced basal and maximal blood flow in Figure 2, from the rather conservative hematocrit levels recorded in Figure 1.
Can you tell me, in the 1990s, before blood testing and before EPO testing, when El G set these records, do you think his hematocrit was less than 48% like in your study? Maybe we can see that in the video.
You sees cherries, you pick 'em. no matter how old they are.
It was likely over 50. And flowing like warm molasses.
Here's another ripe cherry: "Despite conflicting evidence with respect to its efficacy, rHuEPO has been used as a performance‐enhancing agent by athletes in a variety of sports, including elite cycling. The use of rHuEPO by athletes is generally based on the notion that increasing hematocrit levels (i.e., increasing the ratio between the volume of red blood cells and total blood volume) increases the amount of oxygen available for the muscles, thereby increasing performance. However, there is currently no clear evidence to suggest that this is the case in elite cyclists (Heuberger et al. 2013)."
So which cherries would you pick from the study you asked me to read for myself?
rekrunner wrote:
Tom Cochrane. wrote:
You sees cherries, you pick 'em. no matter how old they are.
It was likely over 50. And flowing like warm molasses.
Here's another ripe cherry: "Despite conflicting evidence with respect to its efficacy, rHuEPO has been used as a performance‐enhancing agent by athletes in a variety of sports, including elite cycling. The use of rHuEPO by athletes is generally based on the notion that increasing hematocrit levels (i.e., increasing the ratio between the volume of red blood cells and total blood volume) increases the amount of oxygen available for the muscles, thereby increasing performance. However, there is currently no clear evidence to suggest that this is the case in elite cyclists (Heuberger et al. 2013)."
So which cherries would you pick from the study you asked me to read for myself?
I just showed you where the tree was. This is for you to learn.
rekrunner wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
I have never seen anyone who practises lying as hard as you do.
You have said previously said that given the prevalence of doping some of the world records will be doped. If that is not a statement of a causal relationship, what is it? Did doping contribute to those world records or not? It is utterly disingenuous to say subsequently that you are not making that causal connection, because in the contortions of your deluded mind it has not been established that doping leads to enhanced performance. (News flash- it has!) If doping played no contributory part in those records then its "prevalence" or otherwise is completely irrelevant. So why raise it? You might as well have been saying that given the prevalence of Nike (or Adidas) shoes some of the world records were set by athletes using that brand - a coincidental fact but of no causative significance.
But your backtracking on what you are appearing to say is consistent with your approach; it is the same kind of slithering and sliding around the truth characteristic of another type of liar, which is the holocaust denier. You apply the same method to doping denial. Doping only works on "weak" and inferior athletes, women on steroids, and cyclists - but not on distance runners in any of the events and by any of the runners you will do anything to defend. A minimiser is a denier.
Fortunately, those entrusted with antidoping take a completely different view; a sane view supported by empirically obtained information and backed by science, that consigns yours to the realm of the lonely crackpot, as you are.
You are so self-blinded by your mythology, it severely impacts your ability to comprehend what is written -- one of my primary reasons to "cut out the middleman" and go straight to your sources -- which you swear you have many, but conveniently cannot remember any.
It is not a statement of causal relationship, but a statement of mere existence. Prevalence suggests that doping exists, but existence alone does not demonstration correlation with performance, and does not prove cause and effect. This is why examples like Ramzi, Boulami, and Kiptum fail.
It's funny and ironic that you mention shoes, because there is stronger evidence that the new shoes "work", for both Africans and non-African elite runners.
There is no backtracking, just a correction of confusion that was born from the seeds in your brainwashed mind.
So many words to say so little. So you don't think doping aids performance. Of course you don't. Jon is as much a moron as you are but he doesn't need pages to prove that fact, as you do.
rekrunner wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
So, Barney Rubble - explain how an athlete attains higher aerobic capacity without an increase in the red blood cells which transport the oxygen to the body?
All your preferred paper suggests is that there may be a point at which an increase in the RBC does not see a significant increase in oxygen transfer, because the process may attain a ceiling beyond which increases no longer occur. But the purpose of training and doping is to reach that ceiling, which would be as high as possible - and higher in some athletes than in others.
Sadly, the ceiling in your intelligence is reached all too soon.
Are you asking me to do the research to support your claim, and then spoon feed you?
It looks like you are trying to cure your defects by regurgitating the Gospel According to Armstronglivs. I put that straight in the bin.
I'm not asking you to do research but to explain how you can deny a basic proposition relating to aerobic capacity - 'how does an athlete improve aerobic capacity without an increase in their RBC?' But it doesn't take much to expose your lack of knowledge of these things.
With your attachment to your "data" you are like someone who thinks he understands something because he has read a book but knows nothing of the world outside its pages.
Armstronglivs wrote:
Jon is as much a moron as you are but he doesn't need pages to prove that fact, as you do.
He feels that need though.
Armstronglivs wrote:
So many words to say so little. So you don't think doping aids performance. Of course you don't. Jon is as much a moron as you are but he doesn't need pages to prove that fact, as you do.
I need the many words because there are so many things wrong with your posts.
I didn't say one way or the other what I think about doping aiding WR performances. This is an argument you invented and role played in front of us.
I said that prevalence suggests some WR performances will also be doped.
Since you want to respond, but are unable to refute what I say, you must invent something to refute. And for good measure, as if you were afraid we would forget your true character, you insult me and Jon, I guess to make you feel better about yourself, rather than admitting your own failure.
Armstronglivs wrote:
I'm not asking you to do research but to explain how you can deny a basic proposition relating to aerobic capacity - 'how does an athlete improve aerobic capacity without an increase in their RBC?' But it doesn't take much to expose your lack of knowledge of these things.
With your attachment to your "data" you are like someone who thinks he understands something because he has read a book but knows nothing of the world outside its pages.
I didn't "deny a basic proposition relating to aerobic capacity - 'how does an athlete improve aerobic capacity without an increase in their RBC?'".
The only explanation I can provide is that this idea, and many others, originate in your imagination, and your lack of ability to separate your imagination from reality severely impacts your ability to interpret what is going on around you in the real world.
Tom Cochrane. wrote:
I just showed you where the tree was. This is for you to learn.
Then my cherries stand supported by your tree.
What I learned is that you've debunked your statement "Viscosity is not a problem", while simultaneously debunking Armstronglivs' "more oxygen to the muscles", while confirming my expressed concerns about viscosity with larger doses of EPO.
You gave me a paper that says more correctly "Viscosity is not a significant problem when hematocrit is kept less than 48%" unlike "professional cyclists who doped with rHuEPO in the past".
The paper also says:
- "there is currently no clear evidence to suggest" "increasing hematocrit levels ...increases the amount of oxygen available for the muscles" -- thanks for helping debunk Armstronglivs
- "Thus, the effect of a change in the hematocrit level on blood flow may have a threshold and may only become evident with a relatively large change in hematocrit levels over a longer period of time. This notion is supported by our measurements of blood pressure, which were unaffected in the rHuEPO group."
In 2018, this was the first paper to look at blood flow to the muscles:
"This is the first reported placebo‐controlled study of the effect of rHuEPO—and indirectly the accompanying changes in hematocrit levels—on microvascular blood flow in well‐trained athletes."
rekrunner wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
I'm not asking you to do research but to explain how you can deny a basic proposition relating to aerobic capacity - 'how does an athlete improve aerobic capacity without an increase in their RBC?' But it doesn't take much to expose your lack of knowledge of these things.
With your attachment to your "data" you are like someone who thinks he understands something because he has read a book but knows nothing of the world outside its pages.
I didn't "deny a basic proposition relating to aerobic capacity - 'how does an athlete improve aerobic capacity without an increase in their RBC?'".
The only explanation I can provide is that this idea, and many others, originate in your imagination, and your lack of ability to separate your imagination from reality severely impacts your ability to interpret what is going on around you in the real world.
So if this idea "originates in my imagination" - despite it bring present in every article I have read on the subject - what explanation does your "imagination" afford for increased aerobic fitness? How is there an increase of the supply of oxygen to the muscles without an increase in red blood cells to transport it?
Silly question. You've shown that basic biology isn't your thing. Not part of your "data".
rekrunner wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
So many words to say so little. So you don't think doping aids performance. Of course you don't. Jon is as much a moron as you are but he doesn't need pages to prove that fact, as you do.
I need the many words because there are so many things wrong with your posts.
I didn't say one way or the other what I think about doping aiding WR performances. This is an argument you invented and role played in front of us.
I said that prevalence suggests some WR performances will also be doped.
Since you want to respond, but are unable to refute what I say, you must invent something to refute. And for good measure, as if you were afraid we would forget your true character, you insult me and Jon, I guess to make you feel better about yourself, rather than admitting your own failure.
I didn't say one way or the other what I think about doping aiding WR performances. (quote)
Well, you never say anything about anything - "one way or the other". You specialise in saying nothing that has any meaning.
But then, in the next sentence, there is this:
I said that prevalence suggests some WR performances will also be doped. (quote)
Are you still saying nothing there about whether doping aids performance - a statement rather like that some world record holders have freckles? (in other words, a mildly interesting but utterly irrelevant observation). A normal person might think from your statement that you're suggesting doping contributed to those world record performances. But then you aren't normal, are you? Like Gollum, the left and right sides of your brain appear to be conducting separate conversations.
Tom Cochrane. wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
Jon is as much a moron as you are but he doesn't need pages to prove that fact, as you do.
He feels that need though.
You're right. Despite his relative brevity, repetition is his thing. There has never been such a stuck record.
rekrunner wrote:
Tom Cochrane. wrote:
I just showed you where the tree was. This is for you to learn.
Then my cherries stand supported by your tree.
What I learned is that you've debunked your statement "Viscosity is not a problem", while simultaneously debunking Armstronglivs' "more oxygen to the muscles", while confirming my expressed concerns about viscosity with larger doses of EPO.
You gave me a paper that says more correctly "Viscosity is not a significant problem when hematocrit is kept less than 48%" unlike "professional cyclists who doped with rHuEPO in the past".
The paper also says:
- "there is currently no clear evidence to suggest" "increasing hematocrit levels ...increases the amount of oxygen available for the muscles" -- thanks for helping debunk Armstronglivs
- "Thus, the effect of a change in the hematocrit level on blood flow may have a threshold and may only become evident with a relatively large change in hematocrit levels over a longer period of time. This notion is supported by our measurements of blood pressure, which were unaffected in the rHuEPO group."
In 2018, this was the first paper to look at blood flow to the muscles:
"This is the first reported placebo‐controlled study of the effect of rHuEPO—and indirectly the accompanying changes in hematocrit levels—on microvascular blood flow in well‐trained athletes."
No, they are on the ground under the tree.
Armstronglivs wrote:
I didn't say one way or the other what I think about doping aiding WR performances. (quote)
Well, you never say anything about anything - "one way or the other". You specialise in saying nothing that has any meaning.
But then, in the next sentence, there is this:
I said that prevalence suggests some WR performances will also be doped. (quote)
Are you still saying nothing there about whether doping aids performance - a statement rather like that some world record holders have freckles? (in other words, a mildly interesting but utterly irrelevant observation). A normal person might think from your statement that you're suggesting doping contributed to those world record performances. But then you aren't normal, are you? Like Gollum, the left and right sides of your brain appear to be conducting separate conversations.
I say plenty, but you seem unable to address them, so you need to infer scarecrows and argue with yourself.
Regarding the utter irrelevance of the observation, this is also what I said, when declining to respond to a wrong question. But both you and High Octane insisted I respond, under some delusion that I believe all world records are clean.
A normal person would understand the difference between existence, correlation, and causation, rather than complaining there are too many words to be able to read, and then doubling and tripling down on something that was shown to be wrong the first time.
how does that work? wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
The science that says a higher red blood cell content carries more oxygen to the muscles, hence fewer breaths are needed for given effort than if there is a lower red blood cell content (as in a less fit or undoped person) or if the cells have used up their oxygen. It appears your brain is starved of oxygen. Moron.
But how does the extra oxygen get into the blood from the atmosphere without breathing more?
How does he carry more oxygen without breathing more oxygen?
Does it happen by magic?
how does that work? wrote:
how does that work? wrote:
But how does the extra oxygen get into the blood from the atmosphere without breathing more?
How does he carry more oxygen without breathing more oxygen?
Does it happen by magic?
It would seem like that to you. Has your education not reached the level where red blood cell function was explained? I know it was explained on here but it appears you failed to grasp it.
Tom Cochrane. wrote:
how does that work? wrote:
Does it happen by magic?
It would seem like that to you. Has your education not reached the level where red blood cell function was explained? I know it was explained on here but it appears you failed to grasp it.
How do you get more oxygen from the same volume of oxygen?
Armstronglivs wrote:
So if this idea "originates in my imagination" - despite it bring present in every article I have read on the subject - what explanation does your "imagination" afford for increased aerobic fitness? How is there an increase of the supply of oxygen to the muscles without an increase in red blood cells to transport it?
Silly question. You've shown that basic biology isn't your thing. Not part of your "data".
You still seem to be greatly confused about what is in doubt -- not surprising when you are intimidated by too many words.
The doubt that has been raised is whether it is even true that more oxygen is getting to the muscles as a result of increased red blood cells, a doubt now that has been expressed in two papers, and not resolved if the hematocrit is too high (more than 48%).
And here you are asking me to explain more oxygen gets to the muscles (the very thing in doubt) under a scenario with decreased red blood cells (something no one claims).
You are right about one thing -- it is a silly question.
Not only are you asking a question with two obvious mistakes -- it is really not my burden to come up with alternative explanations after showing you why your fundamental claims are in doubt.
Maybe it is explained in one of these "every article you have ever read on the subject" -- can you produce one?