Did you tell Boardman how to cure his hormone problem?
Did you tell Boardman how to cure his hormone problem?
what are you talking about wrote:
Why is Dr. Pitsiladis writing that EPO improves sporting performance? Why Jon? Why? Has he gone mad?
Even the great Dr. Pitsiladis can be wrong sometimes. That just proves that I'm right.
Of course there are good reasons not to take drugs, and there are circumstances where some drugs are useless with respect to improving performance, yet people take them anyway, based on a mistaken belief that such drugs will always help.But more importantly, the list of reasons you are building to NOT take drugs, or to show that there is a drug dogma, are demonstrably flawed. This is one reason you gain so little traction. You undermine yourself and your well intentioned goals by claiming science and researchers stand with you, without being willing or able to explain why, or what you mean, to your intended audience.Women, even supplementing with male hormones, do not reach male levels. The goal isn't to beat men, but other women. The old records still stand precisely because the women then were doped at a level that is no longer possible today.The production of new red blood cells is controlled biochemically. You are conflating normal health with elite performance. Some artificially unhealthy bodies will outperform what can be obtained with natural health. These exceptions boil down to the questions I posed originally about PEDs: which drugs, and for whom, and under which conditions. If you want to whittle away the dogma, you need to be more honest about when drugs work, and when they don't. You want to replace a drug dogma with a non-drug dogma, and pretend science is your ally. While I'm sure it is well intentioned, your approach is flawed.I'm not sure what Daniels VO2 graph you are asking me to look at. In Daniels model, a 2 hour marathon runner would use 84.35% of his VO2max (~86 ml/kg/min), while a 3 hour runner would use 81.84% of his VO2max (~53.5 ml/kg/min). The faster runner has a higher VO2max (ml/kg/min of O2) and uses a higher percentage of his higher VO2max in a marathon. This can only mean MORE oxygen. The 2 hour runner would consume 8650 ml/kg in 2 hours compared to the 3 hour runner consuming 7900 ml/kg in 3 hours. No matter how I look at Daniels model, as a fractional percentage of VO2max, as a rate of VO2 consumption, or as an absolute volume of O2 consumed in a fixed distance race, the faster runner always uses MORE oxygen.Daniels model, derived from real world oxygen/pace measurements, shows us that ELITE RUNNERS USE MORE OXYGEN IN A RACE, NOT LESS.
Jon Orange wrote:
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.
rekrunner wrote:
I'm not sure what Daniels VO2 graph you are asking me to look at. In Daniels model, a 2 hour marathon runner would use 84.35% of his VO2max (~86 ml/kg/min), while a 3 hour runner would use 81.84% of his VO2max (~53.5 ml/kg/min). The faster runner has a higher VO2max (ml/kg/min of O2) and uses a higher percentage of his higher VO2max in a marathon. This can only mean MORE oxygen. The 2 hour runner would consume 8650 ml/kg in 2 hours compared to the 3 hour runner consuming 7900 ml/kg in 3 hours. No matter how I look at Daniels model, as a fractional percentage of VO2max, as a rate of VO2 consumption, or as an absolute volume of O2 consumed in a fixed distance race, the faster runner always uses MORE oxygen.
Daniels model, derived from real world oxygen/pace measurements, shows us that ELITE RUNNERS USE MORE OXYGEN IN A RACE, NOT LESS.
Jon Orange wrote: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.
I haven't had a chance to run the numbers myself yet but rekrunner's sound right to me. Jon Orange, it is possible that you are confusing this with the fact the fact that at any given pace, better runners use less oxygen? So you know, at say 16min 5k pace, an elite marathoner will use less oxygen than a guy whose PR is 16min but the elite marathoner may well use more oxygen to run at 13:30 pace than 16min PR guy does at 16min-pace. Know what I mean?
This is, of course, exactly right. Jon doesn't understand that. Of course he doesn't know that he doesn't know. Dunning-Krueger (sp.) in full effect.
Jon Orange wrote:
PhD wrote:Do you have better neuro muscular coordination at the top of Mount Everest without supplemental oxygen or when going for a hike a few hundred meters above sea level?
The second one. I can see that your PhD is not related to physiology though.
OK, so do you think that the low partial pressure of oxygen at the top of Everest has no impact on brain/nerve function and subsequent neuromuscular coordination?
Jon? Are you still with us? This must be a crushing blow to your psyche.
PhD wrote:
OK, so do you think that the low partial pressure of oxygen at the top of Everest has no impact on brain/nerve function and subsequent neuromuscular coordination?
In terms of supercompensation what neurochemical effects would a prolonged stay at 13,000 feet have?
fred wrote:
PhD wrote:OK, so do you think that the low partial pressure of oxygen at the top of Everest has no impact on brain/nerve function and subsequent neuromuscular coordination?
In terms of supercompensation what neurochemical effects would a prolonged stay at 13,000 feet have?
You'd probably become impaired and have to become a cycling journalist.
Jon Orange wrote:
test2 wrote:Something concrete. Love it. Are you talking about Daniel's running formula? If you've got a copy handy, which figure are you referring to?
I am refering to Daniels' graph of percentage oxygen uptake plotted against time duration of race.
I'm using a 2005 printing of Daniel's Running Formula. Are you referring to the bottom graph in Figure 3.2 on page 47? It plots Fraction VO2max against race duration (T). The relationship is a smooth decreasing function with roughly FVO2max=1 at T=15 min and falling to about 90% at T=45min, 87% at T=2hrs and seems to plateau around 85%. Is this the figure we are discussing? I know it's hard to remember from memory just what is in an particular figure.
If I could choose a figure to talk discuss, it'd be Figure 2.5 on page 31. It shows heart rate (HR), VdotO2 and blood lactate (BLa) against running velocity for the same athlete at different levels of fitness. The empty markers are early season (lower fitness) and the filled markers are late season (higher fitness). Looking at the VdotO2 plot (circles), you see the higher fitness curve lies below and to the right of the lower fitness curve. It being below means that at the same speed, the runner uses less oxygen when more fit (higher efficiency). Being tto the right means that higher VdotO2 levels can be reached if necessary (increased maximal ability to use oxygen i.e. greater VO2max).
Are we on the same page so far?
what are you talking about wrote:
Jon Orange wrote:You're welcome. Sir David John "Dave" Brailsford, CBE former performance director of British Cycling and currently general manager of Team Sky.
Professor Yianis Pitsiladis Professor of Sport and Exercise Science, Bristol University.
Are you always wrong? Unless there is another Dr. Pitsiladis, the Dr. Pitsiladis that I know is at the University of Brighton. His research is funded by WADA to create better tests to catch drug cheats (detecting the use of EPO). You are honestly telling us that, speaking for Dr. Pitsiladis, that he believes that EPO gives athletes no advantage and consequently EPO shouldn't be banned?
The problem is that you've gotten yourself onto the edge of an idea that you don't understand. You don't need a PhD because you are too smart for those fools, right? You are the most unfortunate kind of stupid - too stupid to know you are stupid. Still, I like a clown, so carry on pretending you know things. The best part of LRC is fools like you. Pure entertainment.
You should do a bit more research on what Dr. Pitsiladis has actually said and written.
Flying High wrote:
Jon Orange wrote:What adaptions are you refering to?
You should know what I'm referring to, but, altitude training increases the number of red blood cells in the body, which is the same benefit of EPO. So, if athletes get a performance benefit from altitude training, then they would get a similar benefit from EPO.
Not true. Altitude training does not do that. Popular myth. What actually happens is that hematocrit rises because plasma volume goes down. Upon this misinformation was built the mythology.
Jon Orange wrote:
Flying High wrote:You should know what I'm referring to, but, altitude training increases the number of red blood cells in the body, which is the same benefit of EPO. So, if athletes get a performance benefit from altitude training, then they would get a similar benefit from EPO.
Not true. Altitude training does not do that. Popular myth. What actually happens is that hematocrit rises because plasma volume goes down. Upon this misinformation was built the mythology.
Can you show me some references that show that going to a higher altitude doesn't stimulate EPO production therefore stimulating red blood cell production please?
rekrunner wrote:
Of course there are good reasons not to take drugs, and there are circumstances where some drugs are useless with respect to improving performance, yet people take them anyway, based on a mistaken belief that such drugs will always help.
But more importantly, the list of reasons you are building to NOT take drugs, or to show that there is a drug dogma, are demonstrably flawed. This is one reason you gain so little traction. You undermine yourself and your well intentioned goals by claiming science and researchers stand with you, without being willing or able to explain why, or what you mean, to your intended audience.
Women, even supplementing with male hormones, do not reach male levels. The goal isn't to beat men, but other women. The old records still stand precisely because the women then were doped at a level that is no longer possible today.
The production of new red blood cells is controlled biochemically. You are conflating normal health with elite performance. Some artificially unhealthy bodies will outperform what can be obtained with natural health. These exceptions boil down to the questions I posed originally about PEDs: which drugs, and for whom, and under which conditions. If you want to whittle away the dogma, you need to be more honest about when drugs work, and when they don't. You want to replace a drug dogma with a non-drug dogma, and pretend science is your ally. While I'm sure it is well intentioned, your approach is flawed.
I'm not sure what Daniels VO2 graph you are asking me to look at. In Daniels model, a 2 hour marathon runner would use 84.35% of his VO2max (~86 ml/kg/min), while a 3 hour runner would use 81.84% of his VO2max (~53.5 ml/kg/min). The faster runner has a higher VO2max (ml/kg/min of O2) and uses a higher percentage of his higher VO2max in a marathon. This can only mean MORE oxygen. The 2 hour runner would consume 8650 ml/kg in 2 hours compared to the 3 hour runner consuming 7900 ml/kg in 3 hours. No matter how I look at Daniels model, as a fractional percentage of VO2max, as a rate of VO2 consumption, or as an absolute volume of O2 consumed in a fixed distance race, the faster runner always uses MORE oxygen.
Daniels model, derived from real world oxygen/pace measurements, shows us that ELITE RUNNERS USE MORE OXYGEN IN A RACE, NOT LESS.
Jon Orange wrote: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.
No, you're not getting it. You can't say that old womens' records were more drugged than they were in subsequent years that's just not true.
Neither is it true that women need any kind of so called 'PEDs' to beat old records. Pure speed is natural, to suggest that any runner needs drugs to reach their natural speed potential is ludicrous, it's insanity, it's nothing but brainwashing and extreme 'PED' dogma. Cut the crazy shit, that is just complete and utter bollocks. The same for speed endurance.
As for your numbers, they are wrong too. Try again or give up.
So what you're saying is that if you take a talented female athlete and use pharmaceuticals to turn her into a man (you know it's possible), she/he wouldn't run any faster?
trollism wrote:
Jon Orange wrote:Not true. Altitude training does not do that. Popular myth. What actually happens is that hematocrit rises because plasma volume goes down. Upon this misinformation was built the mythology.
Can you show me some references that show that going to a higher altitude doesn't stimulate EPO production therefore stimulating red blood cell production please?
Altitude does stimulate red blood cell production, however upon returning to sea level the number of red blood cells is back to normal, so it appears that there may be some compensatory mechanism for a greater oxidative stress, even though the amount of oxygen uptake is reduced at altitude.
Why do so many athletes do altitude training? The reason Daniels cites are a change of scenery and environment may re-invigorate an athletes enthusiasm, but not everyone likes the change. He says it's just another form of training.
It may be true that training with less oxygen forces the athlete to use oxygen/glycogen more efficiently, but this is speculation. However it is a hypothesis worth investigating. Some authors make the claim that it does just that.
oh yeah a bunch of athletes from the same country got a lot of natural speed at the same time and we're known to use drugs.
LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL
Jon Orange wrote:
Then do you believe that to be the best that you can be, you have to take drugs?
I have to address this belief, it's the concept that's going to kill the sport.
Believe in human physiology people please, not pharmacology.
How do you define "the bast that you can be"? This is the problem with your question. The best you can be with outside help (i.e., with drugs) is different than the best that you can be without outside help (i.e., without drugs).
There's nothing inherently wrong with believing that you can be just as good without drugs as you would be with them. The problem is what your espousing will be used by some as a thinly veiled justification for their drug use, or as a justification for eliminating the currently justified rules for banning performance enhancing drugs.
You should embracing "and" if you really have the courage of your convictions. Be a strong advocate for banning performance enhancing drugs AND argue that you can be just as good without them.
Jon Orange wrote:
Altitude does stimulate red blood cell production, however upon returning to sea level the number of red blood cells is back to normal, so it appears that there may be some compensatory mechanism for a greater oxidative stress, even though the amount of oxygen uptake is reduced at altitude.
It returns to normal immediately? Or is there enough time for an athlete to race at sea-level? (you know, like how people use altitude training)
xxjxjxjxj wrote:
oh yeah a bunch of athletes from the same country got a lot of natural speed at the same time and we're known to use drugs.
LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL
US of A?
That does not prove that a sprinter needs drugs to run fast does it? What it proves is that American sprint coaches are obsessed with drugs.