This is how deep is doping in Kenya

just sayin wrote:

Renato Canova wrote:

It's true : athletes taking EPO run faster because they train more, so they run faster BECAUSE OF TRAINING.

The real problem is that, without taking EPO, they NEVER supposed to be able to train more. Under this point of view, EPO (like other drugs) has a great placebo effect on the mind of some athletes, increasing motivation for training and cancelling frights about the possibility of recovering.

the growth hormone cortisone EPO and testosterone allow you to train much harder and therefore become a faster stronger and less injured athlete

This is not placebo..

Mythology. Improved efficiency = less energy used in training = better recovery.

You never say anything worthwhile. All you do is gripe and swipe.

I inform you about real physiology, you are not interested.

I don't want to read all of the previous posts. Can someone summarize them for me? Is it just more lazy Westerners making excuses why their idols can't cut it on the world stage of distance running, or has there been anything new added to the discussion?

beentheredonethat wrote:

I don't want to read all of the previous posts. Can someone summarize them for me? Is it just more lazy Westerners making excuses why their idols can't cut it on the world stage of distance running, or has there been anything new added to the discussion?

The people on this thread are the same old drug obsessives who have been arguing the same crap for years. They will never change because they have personality disorders.

For those who are more interested in intelligent debate, Renato is explaining the training, and my posts explain the issue which 99.99% of people ignore and have no interest in learning, that biomechanical efficiency reduces oxygen and glycogen use and so the concept of athletes using drugs to increase their fuel consumption is just nonsense.

Jon Orange wrote:

You never say anything worthwhile. All you do is gripe and swipe.

I inform you about real physiology, you are not interested.

You throw way too much speculation, wild guesses and flat out unsupported nonsense into your posts. Just because you intermix it with fragments of legitimate physiology into them doesn't make them fully valid, but this is intentional on your part. I've already gone though the exercise of discussing proper physiology in years past but you're insistence on sidelining into pure BS makes it useless to discuss anything with you. So the only use I have for you is to continuously point out the garbage in your output. Post speculation as though it's fact, I'll point it it's speculation. Reference a strawman, I'll note it. Any other form of discussion with you is a waste of time.

Jon,

I am not mythologizing. All analogies break down at some point, so I will stick with mine.

Your posts consistently point to biomechanical efficiency as the only source of improvement in running, using your tagline "running is a skill." You never reference other sources of improvement in underlying physiology. That is the definition of reductionism. It is spread all over your posts.

I'm not accusing you of reductionism, your own posts do that. I'm just holding up a mirror.

Not true at all. False accusations. My point that I have always made is that basic fitness has with it most of the adaptions we need. Further adaptions are short term such as environment changes.

What almost eveyone else does is harp on about adaptions we already have as though they are continuous and ignore the really important issue of improved efficiency.

Sorry, but you are being either wilfully ignorant or disingenuous or both.

Jon Orange wrote:

What almost eveyone else does is harp on about adaptions we already have as though they are continuous and ignore the really important issue of improved efficiency.

^^ strawman

How is that a strawman? Like when I said that drugs can't improve a healthy body, you said that was a strawman, but I had to make that proviso or you would have jumped on the omission.

Tom, you are jealous of everyone who has something relevant to say that you can't. You desperately want people to see you as a great running guru. What have you got to offer? Griping and swiping, nothing of substance, just jealousy.

Jon Orange wrote:

How is that a strawman? Like when I said that drugs can't improve a healthy body, you said that was a strawman, but I had to make that proviso or you would have jumped on the omission.

Tom, you are jealous of everyone who has something relevant to say that you can't. You desperately want people to see you as a great running guru. What have you got to offer? Griping and swiping, nothing of substance, just jealousy.

The strawman is stating that others ignore it. Nobody is disputing it's importance, they're just not elevating it to the god-like role you are.

closter wrote:

Dude, everything Canova says is true about the placebo if you read Tyler Hamilton's book, or Floyd Landis, etc. They all FELT they could recover and hammer, they had a confidence about themselves while doping. Once off the sauce, their confidence dissipated quickly and their performances disappeared and they got injured.

Tyler Hamilton actually shows some stats of his supposed improvement with EPO, they are just complete nonsense as evidence. They show reduced weight, and more effort with a higher heart rate. I suppose most people reading those stats have no idea how to interpret them.

rekrunner wrote:

Eddie Hellebuyk is a top runner for you? A 2:12:47 places him around the top 7400th of all time.

Help me understand why you think "Enough people have been caught at the top ranks that it is clear EPO and other doping work". I can accept that some runners take EPO because they, or someone else advising them, believes it will help performance.

Here's a challenge: Pick the top 500 male performers of all time, for any and all distances 1500m and above, and tell me how many you find that "have been caught at the top ranks that it is clear EPO and other doping work".

Repeat the challenge for the top 100 women, for 5000m and above, excluding steroids and male hormones when you can.

Compare either to cycling.

Everyone stop feeding this idiot. A 42 yr old man runs 2:12 when his all-time best is 2:11:50 and wins the marathon and says the EPO is responsible and that it made him feel like "superman" and that is not even considered support by this imbecile.

The normal ones among us realize that drugs work and they improve performance a huge amount, stop arguing with the Flat Earth Society. It doesn't matter how many people come forward about their use or how many people test positive ... this guy is still going to tell you "the Earth is FLAT!!!"

Jon, you sure are sucker for making yourself look dumb.

Why do you do this to yourself?

Wouldn't it be funny if elite marathon runners burned fat at a high rate and actually used more oxygen as a result?

Jon Orange wrote:

The people on this thread are the same old drug obsessives who have been arguing the same crap for years. They will never change because they have personality disorders.

For those who are more interested in intelligent debate, Renato is explaining the training, and my posts explain the issue which 99.99% of people ignore and have no interest in learning, that biomechanical efficiency reduces oxygen and glycogen use and so the concept of athletes using drugs to increase their fuel consumption is just nonsense.

Jon,

Can you tell us why drugs are used in distance running, XC skiing, swimming, and cycling then? There can be no debate that athletes use, have used and will continue to use them in all those sports. What physiological reason are they using them for?

-newname

I have a theory too wrote:

The strawman is stating that others ignore it. Nobody is disputing it's importance, they're just not elevating it to the god-like role you are.

But they do ignore it. They have no concept of it. They don't understant that better efficiency = less glycogen and oxygen use in a race and in training = better recovery. What the heck do you think people are arguing about on this thread? The concept of the bigger engine from so called PEDs.

Almost everyone subcribes to the nonsense model of the 'bigger aerobic engine' And ignoing the neuroscience. That is not a strawman, that is what almost everyone preaches.

Where is your model for improving performance from ordinary to elite? Where is your inspirational speech? You can't do it because you lack the knowledge and the guts to say these things.

Why do you think I am posting under my own name and you aren't?

Because I have something to say and you don't.

Jon Morange wrote:

Jon, you sure are sucker for making yourself look dumb.

Why do you do this to yourself?

Wouldn't it be funny if elite marathon runners burned fat at a high rate and actually used more oxygen as a result?

Slower runners use more oxygen, elites use more glycogen. The longer you are out there on the marathon course, the more fats you have to use. The percentage VO2 is similar for both runners.

Stop posting with the name Jon Morange, it just makes you look like a fanboy stalker. You know that I know my physiology, so why say such silly things?

newname wrote:

Jon Orange wrote:

The people on this thread are the same old drug obsessives who have been arguing the same crap for years. They will never change because they have personality disorders.

For those who are more interested in intelligent debate, Renato is explaining the training, and my posts explain the issue which 99.99% of people ignore and have no interest in learning, that biomechanical efficiency reduces oxygen and glycogen use and so the concept of athletes using drugs to increase their fuel consumption is just nonsense.

Jon,

Can you tell us why drugs are used in distance running, XC skiing, swimming, and cycling then? There can be no debate that athletes use, have used and will continue to use them in all those sports. What physiological reason are they using them for?

-newname

Why do people use alchohol and cocaine to 'have a good time'?

These athletes are young and foolish. They don't know anything about physiology. They are surrounded by blood suckers exploiting them.

Drug psychology. Come on, use your intelligence.

Jon Orange wrote:

You are impossible to reason with. You are Tom Scwartz aka tinman aren't you.

Jon Orange wrote:

Slower runners use more oxygen, elites use more glycogen.

See, this statement is basically useless, yet you keep making similar statements that are essentially incomplete. What does 'use more oxygen' mean on it's own? More oxygen than what? A solidified block of concrete? It's a comparative but without the object or condition of comparison. Saying faster runners use less oxygen is equally useless. You have some blanks to fill in.