Dope Hardstrong wrote:4
How's the book coming along, Jon?
How your thermodynamic Thesis coming along Dopey?
$10,000 could be yours if you can explain how drugs can increase energy kinetics beyond human limits without affecting thermodynamics?
Dope Hardstrong wrote:4
How's the book coming along, Jon?
How your thermodynamic Thesis coming along Dopey?
$10,000 could be yours if you can explain how drugs can increase energy kinetics beyond human limits without affecting thermodynamics?
yeah, but no, but yeah wrote:
Dope Hardstrong wrote:4
How's the book coming along, Jon?
How your thermodynamic Thesis coming along Dopey?
$10,000 could be yours if you can explain how drugs can increase energy kinetics beyond human limits without affecting thermodynamics?
It's not a thesis. Your idea is flawed Why don't guys with an 85 get hotter than a guy with a 45?
10 grand is chump change and it won't come from the proceeds of your book.
Let's get to the bottom of this wrote:
rekrunner wrote:
I provided accurate information that you failed to contradict.
You don't provide accurate information - you provide opinion and speculation. You try to pawn that off as fact but you fail to provide any proof of your hypothesises. How do you specifically know Lombard didn't need to use EPO? Where you there with him? Did you monitor his dosing schedule and blood values? Do you have data on him to share with us? How were you able to separate that his improvement had nothing to with the EPO usage? What did Lombard relate to you in terms of his training in relation to EPO use? In monitoring his training, how did you conclude that the EPO use had nothing to do with improvement in intensity, recovery and times?
☝️ Need I remind you Lombard said he took EPO to "have an equal chance." Transalation: He's stating that he couldn't compete at that level without doping. If he could have improved enough just from modifications to his training to have an "equal chance" then he wouldn't have needed to use EPO. Are you calling Lombard a liar?
"I didn't set out to try to win medals or to make money," Lombard told the Irish Examiner. "I just wanted to be as competitive as I could and have an equal chance with everyone else. I am not trying to justify what I did in any way. I am just saying this was the case; this is what I did; and, hands up, I did it. I know: nobody has ever admitted they're guilty. Nobody is ever guilty."
The information that I provided that you called inaccurate was that he changed his coach and his training. You called it inaccurate but did not rebut it.
He didn't need to take EPO. To raise his blood values without risk, he can go train at altitude.
I rejected the claim as neither you nor Lombard demonstrated the need.
The words from Lombard are his beliefs, even when they are written in italics and bolded.
Typically you don't call someone a liar for expressing their beliefs.
Dope Hardstrong wrote:
yeah, but no, but yeah wrote:
How your thermodynamic Thesis coming along Dopey?
$10,000 could be yours if you can explain how drugs can increase energy kinetics beyond human limits without affecting thermodynamics?
It's not a thesis. Your idea is flawed Why don't guys with an 85 get hotter than a guy with a 45?
10 grand is chump change and it won't come from the proceeds of your book.
You dont even know what thermoregulation is.
We all have genetic limits to oxygen uptake and thermoregulation. This is really basic physiology that you chumps dont know or care about.
This is the reason for drug problems in sport, ignorance of basic physiological concepts.
Show me one person on letsrun who actually cares about this stuff other than me?
$10000 should be easy money if you are right and I am wrong.
casual obsever wrote:
rekrunner wrote:
2.2%, or nearly 3 minutes, is a large difference for second fastest all time, after nearly three decades of EPO availability. Just compare that to the men -- in 2017, 3 minutes would include about 70 runners.
We were not trying to prove or disprove doping, nor determine the question of doping, nor determine if the record was doped.
LOL.
What happened to
rekrunner wrote:
- London 2003 -- she was aided by 8 male pacers, and a tailwind for much of the course that benefited the women more than Boston 2011
- Lack of pacemaking for the women
- Lack of depth of top competition for the women
And:
rekrunner wrote:
I do not and have never argued that any performance is clean or dirty.
But:
rekrunner wrote:
Of course she's clean.
Really fun to watch your constantly changing stories...
Not really sure what you see above that has changed. There is no inconsistency, and the story only changes because the subjects of threads change.
In this thread, I am talking about the likelihood of all of the dopers being so much slower than Paula for so long. It's not about determining whether Paula doped, but the likelihood of such a big gap to #2 all-time for so long, assuming doping is a big part of the explanation for Paula, and doping is widespread and has a big effect.
The above statements help explain some of the significant non-doping factors as to why Paula was fast, without needing to resort to doping as a big explanation -- something that was relevant in other threads.
rekrunner wrote:
Not really sure what you see above that has changed. There is no inconsistency, and the story only changes because the subjects of threads change.
In this thread, you keep arguing that the doping effect has to be negligible because Paula was so so much faster. This in itself is already hilarious, as pointed out before.
Example:
rekrunner wrote:
Note here, we were talking about a single outlying performance, with a large margin of 2.2% maintained for 14 years, over the next best runner, and not number of years a world record was held (e.g. 16.5 years for the marathon). In the context of this thread, think "replicate her success to within to 2.2%". This is 1 second for 400m, 2.5 seconds for 800m, 5 seconds for 1500m, and 39 seconds for 10000m. We can see that Jarmila, Marita, Wang, Tirunesh, and Qu were not single outliers, but had a lot of company.
But in the other thread, you kept arguing that Paula wasn't really so much faster to make your point that she was clean. At some point you cited a 90 second bias for that marathon - if you were consistent and had done that here too, your whole argument would be null and void, as her status would then be quite similar to Jarmila, Marita, Wang, Tirunesh, and Qu.
And of course there was your cute self-contradiction:
rekrunner wrote:
I do not and have never argued that any performance is clean or dirty.
rekrunner wrote:
Of course she's clean.
And just now, back to square one:
rekrunner wrote:
We were not trying to prove or disprove doping, nor determine the question of doping, nor determine if the record was doped.
yeah, but no, but yeah wrote:
No rekrunner, the plain truth which I have been holding back from you all these years is that you have some kind of mental health problem.
You ask me the same questions over and over expecting me to agree with you. You lack basic knowledge of biology, physics and chemistry. You are constantly trying to force a square peg into a round hole and wondering why I'm telling you it doesn't fit.
Now you are telling me that my ideas are reductive. No, they are basic physiology which you refuse to acknowledge.
I acknowledge that your ideas are a part of basic physiology, which are part of a more comprehensive Performance Model, consistent with my understanding of basic exercise physiology.
rekrunner wrote:
dadsfadsfdasfdsafdas wrote:
No I don't think Lombard could run sub 14 without doping. He tried for a half dozen years and didn't come close. Then in 12 months of EP he takes 60s off his 5k time. Why do you think he had such a break through after years of stagnation? Just coincidence?
Cathal Lombard changed his coach, and drastically changed his training, reducing overall volume, and increasing intensity.
So after his doping ban expired, he came back and ran a bunch of PRs right? After all he could still do that same volume, intensity, and coach right? So give another 2 years of training he should have smashed all those EPO prs.
rekrunner wrote:
dadsfadsfdasfdsafdas wrote:
So you are saying EPO doesn't result in any performance improvements? How to you square that believe with reality of ever study ever down on the topic? When a theory doesn't match reality, it is the theory that is wrong not reality.
There have been a couple of recent meta-studies that took a critical look at "every study done on the topic", reviewing the best of the blinded EPO studies, concluding that EPO effects were over-valued.
Most EPO studies take non-elite athletes in an unknown state of fitness, and show short term gains after a few weeks of intervention, for distances ranging from 3000m to 10000m. Projecting these results from non-elites to elite athletes, or from athletes in an unknown and uncontrolled state of fitness to athletes with a high level of fitness, or from shorter distances to longer distances, or from the short term of a few weeks of intervention to the long term of many years of training, is something that must be done with care.
Care to post one of them? The only one I saw that questioned the benefits of EPO was the Lancet Haematology study which nobody in the field takes seriously for looking at ahtletic peformance. But even that one showed 5% gains in vo2max and power output which is inline with pretty much every other study shows. 5% is about enough to take 20-30s off your 5k time. Or you know enough to go from a world where people run 13:10s to one where people are running 12:50s......
yeah, but no, but yeah wrote:
We all have genetic limits to oxygen uptake and thermoregulation..
Drugs override genetics. That's the easy part that you somehow don't get.
You're the only person on here interested in your ideas because you're the only one who believes them.
Dope Hardstrong wrote:
yeah, but no, but yeah wrote:
We all have genetic limits to oxygen uptake and thermoregulation..
Drugs override genetics. That's the easy part that you somehow don't get.
You're the only person on here interested in your ideas because you're the only one who believes them.
No, you are denying the laws of thermodynamics because you are delusional.
Your ignorance is part of a mass delusion about drugs as supposed performance enhancers.
$10,000 for a brief thesis demonstrating your premise as being scientifically valid.
Should be easy money for anyone if you are right and I am wrong.
yeah, but no, but yeah wrote:
Dope Hardstrong wrote:
Drugs override genetics. That's the easy part that you somehow don't get.
You're the only person on here interested in your ideas because you're the only one who believes them.
No, you are denying the laws of thermodynamics because you are delusional.
Your ignorance is part of a mass delusion about drugs as supposed performance enhancers.
$10,000 for a brief thesis demonstrating your premise as being scientifically valid.
Should be easy money for anyone if you are right and I am wrong.
Getting 4% better is well within the scope of the body. A Pronghorn, Racehorse or sled dog do not ignite when they run at nearly twice the consumption.. They are made of the same stuff.
You have some sort of religious delusion that everyone is "perfect".
Never once have you addressed the problem of your theory not being able to explain how elites can use the same amount of energy in half the time.
And you won't this time either.
Dope Hardstrong wrote:
yeah, but no, but yeah wrote:
No, you are denying the laws of thermodynamics because you are delusional.
Your ignorance is part of a mass delusion about drugs as supposed performance enhancers.
$10,000 for a brief thesis demonstrating your premise as being scientifically valid.
Should be easy money for anyone if you are right and I am wrong.
Getting 4% better is well within the scope of the body. A Pronghorn, Racehorse or sled dog do not ignite when they run at nearly twice the consumption.. They are made of the same stuff.
You have some sort of religious delusion that everyone is "perfect".
Never once have you addressed the problem of your theory not being able to explain how elites can use the same amount of energy in half the time.
And you won't this time either.
I never made any such claim. I said elites race faster using less total calories. They are more energy efficient. Why can't you understand this?
Slower runners produce more total heat heat and have less efficient strides. This again is basic physiology that you dont want to learn.
yeah, but no, but yeah wrote:
Dope Hardstrong wrote:
Getting 4% better is well within the scope of the body. A Pronghorn, Racehorse or sled dog do not ignite when they run at nearly twice the consumption.. They are made of the same stuff.
You have some sort of religious delusion that everyone is "perfect".
Never once have you addressed the problem of your theory not being able to explain how elites can use the same amount of energy in half the time.
And you won't this time either.
I never made any such claim. I said elites race faster using less total calories. They are more energy efficient. Why can't you understand this?
Slower runners produce more total heat heat and have less efficient strides. This again is basic physiology that you dont want to learn.
They still do it at near twice the rate. Annoying little glitch, huh?
Now you have to pretend that doesn't happen. Tough one.
dadsfadsfdasfdsafdas wrote:
rekrunner wrote:
Cathal Lombard changed his coach, and drastically changed his training, reducing overall volume, and increasing intensity.
So after his doping ban expired, he came back and ran a bunch of PRs right? After all he could still do that same volume, intensity, and coach right? So give another 2 years of training he should have smashed all those EPO prs.
It's would have been possible, but that would require enormous mental strength and self-confidence, factors that were clearly low when he decided he needed external support.
rekrunner wrote:
dadsfadsfdasfdsafdas wrote:
So after his doping ban expired, he came back and ran a bunch of PRs right? After all he could still do that same volume, intensity, and coach right? So give another 2 years of training he should have smashed all those EPO prs.
It's would have been possible, but that would require enormous mental strength and self-confidence, factors that were clearly low when he decided he needed external support.
And a bike.
Dope Hardstrong wrote:
yeah, but no, but yeah wrote:
I never made any such claim. I said elites race faster using less total calories. They are more energy efficient. Why can't you understand this?
Slower runners produce more total heat heat and have less efficient strides. This again is basic physiology that you dont want to learn.
They still do it at near twice the rate. Annoying little glitch, huh?
Now you have to pretend that doesn't happen. Tough one.
You aren't making any sense. Twice what rate? And how do heat shock proteins circumvent thermodynamics? They don't they are proteins involved in stress adaptations and cell homeostasis.
dadsfadsfdasfdsafdas wrote:
Care to post one of them? The only one I saw that questioned the benefits of EPO was the Lancet Haematology study which nobody in the field takes seriously for looking at ahtletic peformance. But even that one showed 5% gains in vo2max and power output which is inline with pretty much every other study shows. 5% is about enough to take 20-30s off your 5k time. Or you know enough to go from a world where people run 13:10s to one where people are running 12:50s......
I guess you mean Heuberger. Many studies do that -- measure VO2max and power and pretend that is performance, rather than directly measuring performance. I don't find it persuasive. They also performed a time trial up the Mont Ventoux and the EPO group was insignificantly slower, despite increased VO2max and power.
Here's two:
Overestimated Effect of Epo Administration on Aerobic Exercise Capacity: A Meta-Analysis
Hein F.M. Lodewijkx, Bram Brouwer, Harm Kuipers, René van Hezewijk
Erythropoietin doping in cycling: lack of evidence for efficacy and a negative risk–benefit.
Jules A A C Heuberger, Joost M Cohen Tervaert, Femke M L Schepers, Adriaan D B Vliegenthart, Joris I Rotmans, Johannes M A Daniels, Jacobus Burggraaf, and Adam F Cohen
dadsfadsfdasfdsafdas wrote:
rekrunner wrote:
There have been a couple of recent meta-studies that took a critical look at "every study done on the topic", reviewing the best of the blinded EPO studies, concluding that EPO effects were over-valued.
Most EPO studies take non-elite athletes in an unknown state of fitness, and show short term gains after a few weeks of intervention, for distances ranging from 3000m to 10000m. Projecting these results from non-elites to elite athletes, or from athletes in an unknown and uncontrolled state of fitness to athletes with a high level of fitness, or from shorter distances to longer distances, or from the short term of a few weeks of intervention to the long term of many years of training, is something that must be done with care.
Care to post one of them? The only one I saw that questioned the benefits of EPO was the Lancet Haematology study which nobody in the field takes seriously for looking at ahtletic peformance. But even that one showed 5% gains in vo2max and power output which is inline with pretty much every other study shows. 5% is about enough to take 20-30s off your 5k time. Or you know enough to go from a world where people run 13:10s to one where people are running 12:50s......
You believe in a supramaximal oxygen uptake. There is no such thing.
Anyone can make these claims if they measure sub maximal and then maximal and claim the latter is supramaximal.
Prove me wrong and win $10,000