Lactate curves of elite athletes show that EPO/ Blood boosting is pointless.

Good science, bad science wrote:

easy weeks wrote:

PEDs allow for that better training. Recovery is enhanced. They are potentiators; a catalyst, a piece of the training puzzle, and something that - all other things being equal - that will always give the athlete an advantage.

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.

Said the poster who has never taken Test/EPO/HGH or even the few over the counter supplements that actually do something.

PED's work great. Olympics are full of examples.

Good science, bad science wrote:

It is not a good idea to rely on the 4 mmol lactate measurement that ex phys geeks are so fond of in the belief that it refers to half marathon pace, because the top runners are probably running a 10k at that lactate level. This should be the aim of serious distance runners, racing at a lower glycogen uptake/lactate level for most of the race, but still be at or near the front of the race and having greater reserves to finish fast..

Agree that a 4 mmol measure oversimplifies things, but who cares. Others have posted about lactate curves.

In addition to improving 'efficiency', notice I said 'in addition' to improving efficiency, having more red cells available via altitude training, EPO, whatever, will also lead to lower lactate level at a given pace = faster race performance

Can you cite just one more piece of evidence behind your be-all-end-all efficiency point other than Paula R (n=1) case study?

I wonder if Paula is working on efficiency training right now or cardio.

dingle wrote:

Good science, what do you think is the proximate cause of performance limitation, then? In other words, what physiological process limited how fast Paula Radcliffe ran?

the "membrane potential" of her entire etheric body, if you will. that electrical potential is the holistic view of all the little physiological processes and limiters people are talking about here, as if any one of them was independent of the others. all of those little processes matter! the bone density, the stroke volume, bpg levels, mechanics, arterial and veinous elasticity, lung capacity, etc. etc. etc. is all a reflection of one's electric potential.

that electric potential can be increased via drugs, which could be said to artificially alter one's consciousness, or the electric potential could be increased without drugs. either way, the consciousness MUST change, evolve, in a certain manner for an increased energetic output.

we are electric beings. it's no surprise elite athletes tend towards moving in a more and more similar manner as performances increase. the electricity moves through them in a similar fashion, as if they are following it's lead in the great dance of life.

that epo/blood boosting is pointless totally denies the past 30-40 years of our history, and not just in the athletic world, but in the medical world as well. you can say it's all one big mindf..k and that's the only reason epo and transfusions work, but it goes to show that a change in consciousness makes a very dramatic impact on performance, no matter what the specific mechanism is. as if the specific mechanism has to be labeled to one's satisfaction for it to be reality!

Good science, bad science wrote:

The real performance enhancers are adrenalin and noradrenalin. There is no superior performance without the help of these hormone/neurotransmitters.

I want to get the basic physiology across and point out the insanity and bad science of the drug dogma. People will make all sorts of claims about all sorts of substances won't they? It's an obsession.

Efficiency means less oxygen/glycogen uptake for a given pace, that is what is required for future world records, using less energy to race faster.

Explain the neurochemistry in detail if you're not a troll.

pop_pop! wrote:

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.

Said the poster who has never taken Test/EPO/HGH or even the few over the counter supplements that actually do something.

PED's work great. Olympics are full of examples.

Epo worked just fine for Rashid Ramzi and every male and female world and Olympic 1500 champion for the the previous 20 years

But altitude training doesn't increase reb blood cell mass. That's another popular myth. Paula says her count stays the same after altitude training and other sources say the same, look it up.

What confuses many researchers is how the hematocrit goes up dramatically in the first few days at altitude, due to plasma drop, altering the percentages. Researchers should have know this, but they didn't. Bad science.

The concept of increasing oxygen uptake beyond normal measures is a holy grail fantasy. Improved oxygen economy, and overall efficiency mean that you can run faster and faster with what nature gave you. However, most peope have rather low self esteem in believing that what nature gave them is truly wonderful don't they?

Contless thousands of lactate curves show the same training and racing efficiency improvements don't they?

Coach.. wrote:

Epo worked just fine for Rashid Ramzi and every male and female world and Olympic 1500 champion for the the previous 20 years

Epo works for me and that's why I'm sold on it.

fred wrote:

Good science, bad science wrote:

The real performance enhancers are adrenalin and noradrenalin. There is no superior performance without the help of these hormone/neurotransmitters.

I want to get the basic physiology across and point out the insanity and bad science of the drug dogma. People will make all sorts of claims about all sorts of substances won't they? It's an obsession.

Efficiency means less oxygen/glycogen uptake for a given pace, that is what is required for future world records, using less energy to race faster.

Explain the neurochemistry in detail if you're not a troll.

Assuming that I even might be trolling suggests to me that you are just an idiot who is not worth the time. Read a physiology textbook just once in your life if you are really interested.

You sound like an Evangelist rather than a physiologist.

Lots of vague references and promises, nothing tangible.

It's basic phsyiology versus bad science and drug obsessive dogma. If that doesn't appeal to you, may I ask why?

Bearheart wrote:

Good science, bad science wrote:

I answered the question yesterday. The answer was no, the answer is still no.

That means your theory is wrong. Clearly the cardiovascular system changes dramatically with training and if it were true that efficiency becomes more important the cardio system would wane as efficiency increases.

That doesn't happen.

The cardiovascular system doesn't change dramatically with training. If you have basic health and basic fitness, your cardiovascular system is not going to improve at all. Again this is a point of basic phsyiology that is not generally understood. Instead what we read and hear is countless misinformed pseudoscience about 'aerobic development'. Mythology, not good science.

fred` wrote:

Coach.. wrote:

Epo worked just fine for Rashid Ramzi and every male and female world and Olympic 1500 champion for the the previous 20 years

Epo works for me and that's why I'm sold on it.

Yeah, me too, and I get all of my runners to use drugs.

Good science, bad science wrote:

It's basic phsyiology versus bad science and drug obsessive dogma. If that doesn't appeal to you, may I ask why?

It may be basic but you haven't even been able to provide a simple explanation of how it works.

Good science, bad science wrote:

Bearheart wrote:

That means your theory is wrong. Clearly the cardiovascular system changes dramatically with training and if it were true that efficiency becomes more important the cardio system would wane as efficiency increases.

That doesn't happen.

The cardiovascular system doesn't change dramatically with training. If you have basic health and basic fitness, your cardiovascular system is not going to improve at all. Again this is a point of basic phsyiology that is not generally understood. Instead what we read and hear is countless misinformed pseudoscience about 'aerobic development'. Mythology, not good science.

Prove it,

How many dopers did you examine in your study to come to this conclusion?

You are trolling. No evidence, just anecdotes. Respond to questions with evidence, but you can't because you are a troll. Your arguments have actually gotten pretty lame and baseless. I'll be surprised if you can keep up this shit much longer.

Good science, bad science wrote:

fred wrote:

Explain the neurochemistry in detail if you're not a troll.

Assuming that I even might be trolling suggests to me that you are just an idiot who is not worth the time. Read a physiology textbook just once in your life if you are really interested.

another example of a troll posting. No evidence, just some silly argument and name calling. 0/10

Good science, bad science wrote:

Bearheart wrote:

That means your theory is wrong. Clearly the cardiovascular system changes dramatically with training and if it were true that efficiency becomes more important the cardio system would wane as efficiency increases.

That doesn't happen.

The cardiovascular system doesn't change dramatically with training. If you have basic health and basic fitness, your cardiovascular system is not going to improve at all. Again this is a point of basic phsyiology that is not generally understood. Instead what we read and hear is countless misinformed pseudoscience about 'aerobic development'. Mythology, not good science.

Troll post. Made up. Ignores published data. No facts 0/10