RE: If you believe in the concept of Performance Enhancing Drugs......

I suggested that historically, some women used drugs to develop unnatural performance from 400m to 10000m.I agree there is still room for doubt, with placebo, psychology, group training, internal competition, etc.I'm happy to read your alternative suggestions why the women's records have stood for so long.As for my numbers, just like you, these are not mine, but Daniels'. I tried twice to guess what you thought Daniels VO2 graphs showed. I did exactly as you instructed, and got pretty much the opposite conclusion, but maybe I'm looking at the wrong graph.Surely you have your own numbers if you claim FASTER runners use LESS oxygen.Surely if you think one of Daniels graphs show that, you could be more specific.I'm happy to read your own defense of your claim.Here are the Daniels formulas I used:percent_max = 0.8 + 0.1894393 * e^(-0.012778 * time) + 0.2989558 * e^(-0.1932605 * time)vo2 = -4.60 + 0.182258 * velocity + 0.000104 * velocity^2vo2max = vo2 / percent_maxwhere time is in minutes, and velocity is in meters/min.

Jon Orange wrote:

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.

Those dirty drug cheats, make me sick!

OMG I'm so sick! I'm going to take an advil and lay down, in fact I might have to sleep 12 hours a day!!!! THOSE DIRTY DRUG CHEATS!

All this stress is causing inflammation so I'm taking more Ibuprofin and drinking more coffee! OK back to sleeping in my altitude tent, then a trip to my doctors to try and keep up with all the DIRTY DRUG CHEATS from other countries, wow they really P me O big time, I'm going to have to take even more drugs to calm down! Uhoh my breathing is a bit out of whack, let me see what I've got here to settle it down. If only there weren't so many DIRTY DRUG CHEATS IN THE WORLD!

Thank you REKRUNNER for standing up for me, those DIRTY DRUG CHEATS!!!!

No, you're not getting it. The point is that 'PEDs' is a concept not a fact. A naive belief that your body will be better with some chemical assistance, when in fact it will be better with more efficient use of energy.

All of this constant information about so called 'PEDs' has blinded you and almost everyone else into believing whatever you are told about some magic chemical formulae and ignoring basic physiological fact that you will perform better with more efficient muscle action and this comes from the strectch shortening cycle of muscle contraction combined with more accurate timing of movement.

Banning so called 'PEDs' is just a PR campaign, and unwinnable war against chemists coming up with new formulae. How many so called 'PEDs' are there potentially? The numbers are uncountable.

The more people go on about so called 'PEDs' the more they believe in the BS and the further they get away from self belief. Did you know that the human body is amazing and amazingly adaptable? Have you forgotten? Please dont' try to justify the madness. Don't preach to me about how we can be improved chemically.

rekrunner, you know what this guy is saying is gibberish. He's either a troll or a complete fool. Personally I think he's a complete fool. All he does is repeat the same few inane incorrect sentences over and over; so why engage with him? The only way he will go away, whether he is a troll, a fool, or both, is if people just ignore his utter stupidity. Let him believe we live on a flat earth and whatever other nonsense he uses to fill the void of his deeply rooted insecurities. These people need to feel like they know things that others don't. It's a psychosis you can not cure, especially not with facts and logic. Leave the fool be.

Let's look at the womens 400 record. 47.60 by Marita Koch 1985.

Why would that be unbeatable without drugs? Why hasn't it been beaten?

Perhaps coaches and athletes are so obsessed with the idea that it can't be beaten naturally that they have a mental block?

It's 10% slower than Michael Johnson's 43.18. Why is no-one running 43 seconds in the men's even these days?

I think one of the problems is that coaches don't know enough about how to train for the distance, but Clyde Hart does.

The popular concept is that the runner must fight acidosis, fight fatigue. I think this is wrong because it doesn't work, you can't fight fatigue either in training or racing only accept it and adjust the stride accordingly. I also think that Brother Colm O'Connell follows this plan in a similar way to Clyde Hart, but for the 800 with David Rudisha.

When the adrenaline is flowing just right the speed endurance comes naturally. We have all experienced this.

I'm looking for the Daniels' graph online. There are a lot of them and a lot of charts.

Jon Orange is a fool.

Jon Orange wrote:

trollism wrote:

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)

Some researchers say a few days, but that will also require a re-adjustment of blood chemistry which takes 3 weeks or more.

So, in that few days before the blood chemistry re-adjusts, does the athlete receive a performance benefit from increased oxygen supply at lower elevations? The research says yes, which would be a big problem with your argument that blood chemistry has no bearing on performance.

Jon Orange wrote:

Let's look at the womens 400 record. 47.60 by Marita Koch 1985.

Right, I'm looking at it.

She took a lot of T and was essentially a man.

What part of that don't you understand?

Jonny, here's some research.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24709362

I did a lot of hard downhill running, and I'm a goner.

trollism wrote:

Jon Orange wrote:

Let's look at the womens 400 record. 47.60 by Marita Koch 1985.

Right, I'm looking at it.

She took a lot of T and was essentially a man.

What part of that don't you understand?

10% slower than a man. What part don't YOU understand?

The guys who didn't take the chemicals fell off the back of the peloton. True or false, cycle writer?

Oh no , Fred, that was just a placebo effect that you needed the chemicals to stay up. The power of suggestion.

Jon Orange wrote:

Let's look at the womens 400 record. 47.60 by Marita Koch 1985.

.

You should never have strayed from your set stupid sentences. You just proved yourself wrong. Idiot. The GDR was all about PEDs, especially steroids. They were doing massive amounts. Marita was taking 4-Chlorodehydromethyltestosterone for years, huge doses. And she wanted more. There's a letter from Marita where she complained that another athlete was getting more steroids than her.

So, you are correct - in order to beat the unbeatable record, you need to take drugs, lots of drugs, just like the person who set the record.

Jon Orange wrote:

trollism wrote:

Right, I'm looking at it.

She took a lot of T and was essentially a man.

What part of that don't you understand?

10% slower than a man. What part don't YOU understand?

10% slower than the fastest man in history, still faster than all women, and still pretty fast by male standards.

Nowhere has anyone said that women who take steroids will break the male world records.

Here's a similar graph

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4555089/figure/Fig3/

85% VO2 max for a 3 hour race but only 86% for a 2 hour race.

The slower runnre will doubtless have more body fat, perhaps 20% versus 6% for the elite runner at his skinniest.

If both runners have the same absolute VO2 max say 5 liters/minute then the 3 hour runner uses 5 x .85 = 4.25 liters x 180 = 765 liters oxygen

Elite runner uses 5x .86 = 4.3 liters x 120 = 516 liters oxygen

The difference in intensity is minimal. You assumed the fast runner has to have a massively hypertrophic heart. This is the dogma, it goes back to even before you were born. Elite athletes don't have massively hypertrophic hearts.

The slower runner uses more fats and more carbs, as we all do when we run for longer periods.

Running economy:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4555089/

Look at the problem this way....when you run faster, your body's natural reaction is to breath faster. This is your body's way of saying that you need to supply more oxygen to the muscles to sustain the level of energy output. Improving your biomechanical efficiency changes the energy consumption rate (running pace) at which this occurs. If oxygen supply was not a limiting factor in the reaction that generates muscular energy, you would never feel short of breath while sprinting.

Before unification (1989) there were 9 East German women ran under 50.15 for the 400. Since then only two German women (all of Germany) have gone under 50.15 - and the last one was in 1999.

Drug testing seems to be working.

It also makes you wonder how fast humans could run with a sophisticated state sponsored doping program that begins at a young age.

You're the only one preaching here. If you had the courage of your convictions you would say, "Let's continue to ban PEDs. When we truly enforce these bans, but still surpass the times achieved with the drugs, we will have proven that the drugs did nothing!" But you don't do this. Instead, you argue there should be no bans. This tells me you are a shill for those looking to allow cheating through effective PED use!

The womens's events from 100 to 800 are weak. That's the problem. It has nothing to do with lack of drugs, but lack of belief and proper training. What is so special about a woman running 49 seconds or a man running 45 seconds?

Speed is natural, speed endurance is natural. You people have no clue about physiology.