El Guerrouj 2k WR - Incredible 3:49 Mile pace

rekrunner wrote:

how does that work? wrote:

You want me to give detailed and specific references to the abuse of young athletes by Quacks?

You want me to demonstrate that they have natural ability and they gain no Bioenergetic be benefit from doping?

This has been my concern since way back when?

Arguing with someone who has a medicine cabinet like a certain poster is pointless. He isn't going to change his mind.

No I don't want references to these things.

You wanted me to process information in your posts, apparently related to the "the plasma volume issue" you explained, just 16 years ago and again a few days ago.

I want you to stop endorsing the quackery. The abuse of talented young athletes. The exploitation.

They process all the oxygen and glycogen they need.

See Alex Hutchinson's recent contributions on the subject of oxygen kinetics in runners.

If your opinion equals autistic dismissal of the body of literature, perhaps it is too difficult to deal with.

There have been numerous similar logical, rheological and other attempts to "prove" that blood doping doesn't enhance Vo2Max/performance, but the most sophisticates studies says that it does with the limitations of the studies in question.

how does that work? wrote:

Aragon wrote:

Thank you for your contribution to the discussion.

Your opinion has been noted. I think everyone knows it by now therefore there is no reason to repeat it in the future.

Is my opinion too tough for you to deal with? I'm asking you to recognize that these bizarre interventions are physically and psychologically abusive to the young athletes who have this "Doctoring" inflicted upon them based on pseudoscientific beliefs that it will "enhance" their performance.

No, it's too dumb to deal with over and over.

Besides it's not the young athletes who cave to the sweet dope.

how does that work? wrote:

I want you to stop endorsing the quackery. The abuse of talented young athletes. The exploitation.

They process all the oxygen and glycogen they need.

See Alex Hutchinson's recent contributions on the subject of oxygen kinetics in runners.

It's interesting that on one page, in my quest for scientific understanding, I'm called the "Denier-in-Chief", and on the next I'm "endorsing the quackery" and "abuse of young athletes".

rekrunner wrote:

how does that work? wrote:

I want you to stop endorsing the quackery. The abuse of talented young athletes. The exploitation.

They process all the oxygen and glycogen they need.

See Alex Hutchinson's recent contributions on the subject of oxygen kinetics in runners.

It's interesting that on one page, in my quest for scientific understanding, I'm called the "Denier-in-Chief", and on the next I'm "endorsing the quackery" and "abuse of young athletes".

When you endorse the old school quackery of women and steroids, it's just disappointing. You and Renato.

There are young women out there who have natural 11 meters per second speed. They don't need drugs to run 10.6 10.5 10.4

Aragon wrote:

If your opinion equals autistic dismissal of the body of literature, perhaps it is too difficult to deal with.

There have been numerous similar logical, rheological and other attempts to "prove" that blood doping doesn't enhance Vo2Max/performance, but the most sophisticates studies says that it does with the limitations of the studies in question.

Aragon read some literature about running economy please.

rekrunner wrote:

how does that work? wrote:

I want you to stop endorsing the quackery. The abuse of talented young athletes. The exploitation.

They process all the oxygen and glycogen they need.

See Alex Hutchinson's recent contributions on the subject of oxygen kinetics in runners.

It's interesting that on one page, in my quest for scientific understanding, I'm called the "Denier-in-Chief", and on the next I'm "endorsing the quackery" and "abuse of young athletes".

It's not surprising though.

how does that work? wrote:

When you endorse the old school quackery of women and steroids, it's just disappointing. You and Renato.

There are young women out there who have natural 11 meters per second speed. They don't need drugs to run 10.6 10.5 10.4

C'mon Jon...you're in left field on this one. Androgens are so powerful with women it's ridiculous. Women produce about 1/10th to 1/20th of the amount of testosterone as men's bodies. They go on steroids or T and develop lean muscle mass just like a man. All this new muscle mass increases sprint speed just like with a man.

I hope you don't start saying that professional bobybuilders don't need drugs to get a massive as they do. Lol.

I said there is a right kind.

Don't blame the messenger when "conclusions" without data and observations are classified as unproven speculation.

The bar for proven conclusions is not "my satisfaction", but "scientific method".

Luckily for anti-doping, they "punt" on requiring this level of proof, and only require a subjective committee assessment of "potential to enhance", or "harmful to health", and sanction athletes without requiring such proof.

how does that work? wrote:

When you endorse the old school quackery of women and steroids, it's just disappointing. You and Renato.

There are young women out there who have natural 11 meters per second speed. They don't need drugs to run 10.6 10.5 10.4

I don't condone or endorse doping, in violation of the WADA code.

I don't really like to talk about women and sprinting.

I would say I'm sorry to disappoint you, if I was.

Feel free to bump this post when one of these young girls set a new 400m or 800m women's record.

Tom Cochrane. wrote:

rekrunner wrote:

But your point was that breathing less was a sign of more oxygen in the blood and more oxygen in the muscles.

Is the connection to the lungs a direct relation, or is there an inverse relation? What do experts tell us?

It influences the rate of O2 kinetics. According to experts.

Rate of O2 kinetics is key. This is something Jon struggles with and you can too.

It's also interesting, but not surprising, when given the choice between "direct relation" and "inverse relation", you chose "influences the rate", and Armstronglivs chooses "necessarily connected".

Recall "scarcely breathing" apparently suggests more RBCs, more oxygen, and synthetic EPO, and its "powerful effect", while "gasping for air like a hobby-jogger" suggests normal RBCs, normal oxygen, and no synthetic EPO and no "powerful effect".

I would be very interested to read what experts have found about this apparently inverse relation at the barrier between the lungs and the blood.

I didn't feel forced to choose one or the other.

Armstronglivs wrote:

Sigh. I didn't say breathing less. Less than what? The issue is that more oxygen makes it to the muscles for each breath when there is a greater quantity of red blood cells. (The transfer of oxygen is also dependent on the ability of the heart to pump the blood - that is another part of the aerobic equation). But it is futile to attempt to enlighten one who is both scientifically illiterate and cannot read plain English.

You did say "scarcely breathing" contrasting it to "gasping for air like a hobby jogger". Less than the hobby jogger.

Does more oxygen make it to the muscles? This doesn't seem settled yet, given the two papers you have yet to address.

Is it "for each breath"? It appears your only support for that was an opinion paper to legalize doping, written by an ethics chair and two children's researchers.

I don't expect you to enlighten me -- that would waste both our time. What I have asked from the beginning is where I can find a real expert discussing this topic of "scarcely breathing" and what that signals. (This also wasted both our time).

Tom Cochrane. wrote:

I didn't feel forced to choose one or the other.

But you did feel a need to reply to a question directed at Armstronglivs, with yet another no-value added response.

rekrunner wrote:

Tom Cochrane. wrote:

I didn't feel forced to choose one or the other.

But you did feel a need to reply to a question directed at Armstronglivs, with yet another no-value added response.

Yeah, so? There was value added however.

rekrunner wrote:

how does that work? wrote:

When you endorse the old school quackery of women and steroids, it's just disappointing. You and Renato.

There are young women out there who have natural 11 meters per second speed. They don't need drugs to run 10.6 10.5 10.4

I don't condone or endorse doping, in violation of the WADA code.

I don't really like to talk about women and sprinting.

I would say I'm sorry to disappoint you, if I was.

Feel free to bump this post when one of these young girls set a new 400m or 800m women's record.

But you are endorsing the PED concept regarding women and Steroids.

In your mind and many here the Women's world records for 100 up to 800 are unbeatable without doping. So you are endorsing the corrupt old system. You are stuck in that mindset and you can't get out of it.

Why can't you and others address my point that there are young women out there with the natural ability. For example, young women with 11 meter per second speed? That is their natural ability. They don't need you or anyone saying otherwise. The old 70s system is still around and you have endorsed it as effecatious on several occasions.

Put up or shut up.

Tom Cochrane. wrote:

rekrunner wrote:

But you did feel a need to reply to a question directed at Armstronglivs, with yet another no-value added response.

Yeah, so? There was value added however.

Not really.

how does that work? wrote:

But you are endorsing the PED concept regarding women and Steroids.

In your mind and many here the Women's world records for 100 up to 800 are unbeatable without doping. So you are endorsing the corrupt old system. You are stuck in that mindset and you can't get out of it.

Why can't you and others address my point that there are young women out there with the natural ability. For example, young women with 11 meter per second speed? That is their natural ability. They don't need you or anyone saying otherwise. The old 70s system is still around and you have endorsed it as effecatious on several occasions.

Put up or shut up.

We weren't talking about women sprinters and steroids.

When I talk about women and steroids, I make an effort to say "events requiring strength", which may also include field events, and weightlifting.

This gives you the flexibility to exclude sprints.

There are young women out there with the natural ability.

The 400m and 800m records are from the '80s.

rekrunner wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

Right, so there are no "right kind of experts". None who can prove to your satisfaction what doping will do for athletes. If antidoping took your view - there would be no antidoping and doping would get a free pass. But that's what you'd like. The dopers have found their champion in you.

I said there is a right kind.

Don't blame the messenger when "conclusions" without data and observations are classified as unproven speculation.

The bar for proven conclusions is not "my satisfaction", but "scientific method".

Luckily for anti-doping, they "punt" on requiring this level of proof, and only require a subjective committee assessment of "potential to enhance", or "harmful to health", and sanction athletes without requiring such proof.

You said there is a "right kind" of expert? But you can't produce any. They appear to be as rare as unicorns. But that suits a doping denier like yourself. You views on antidoping are ignorant drivel.