El Guerrouj 2k WR - Incredible 3:49 Mile pace

how does that work? wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

I tell you what, instead of asking your stupid disingenuous questions that reinforce your ignorance of basic human physiology, why don't you tell us what you actually know about how EPO and blood doping works?

EPO and Blood transfusion works for patients who need it in a medical emergency.

Why would athletes with a normal healthy blood count need more red blood cells than they can use?

And there, in a nutshell, we have your utter ignorance of how doping works.

Athletes do use the extra blood cells that EPO and blood-doping provide - there is no scientific argument about that. That is why the practices are banned.

Doping often makes use of medical treatments which are normally stimulants for a person with a deficiency (like the drug meldonium for those with a heart ailment) but which act as a powerful performance booster in a highly trained athlete. Another such example is the use of human growth hormone, which is typically applied to those patients with development deficiencies but will boost muscle production in the fit and healthy. EPO will be used as a therapy for those deficient in haemoglobin, but it will boost performance in top athletes by increasing their ability to absorb and use oxygen beyond what their body would naturally be able to do.

Your lack of knowledge of what you presume to debate is apparently bottomless. If you were smart enough you would be embarrassed by it.

Armstronglivs wrote:

how does that work? wrote:

The confusion is all yours.

So by your "reasoning" top athletes should be anaemic - and there would be no advantage in adding to the RBC through blood doping and EPO - or even doing altitude-training. Your stupidity has just surpassed itself.

Maybe you should read this again?:

"The blood hemoglobin concentration is determinant of oxygen delivery. In anemic patients, oxygen delivery decreases and oxygen extraction is increased. This leads to decreased venous hemoglobin saturation and a lower tissue oxygen saturation."

You haven't actually understood what this says, which is that there is less oxygen available from the red blood cells in an anaemic patient and so the demand on the cells is increased - that is what "extraction" is referring to. Hence, as it says, there is less haemoglobin in the blood, as the blood cells are drained to supply oxygen to the body, and so less oxygen is available in the tissues - "lower tissue oxygen saturation", in other words.

If you knew anything about how the bloodstream works you would know why EPO is used as a treatment for anaemia - to boost red blood cells and thus the supply of oxygen to the body. The symptoms of anaemia are typically fatigue, body aches and

- wait for it! - breathlessness. Gee, I wonder how EPO counters that.[/quote]

Maybe you should read it again? It contradicts your assertion that an artificially increased RBC count increases oxygen "Extraction".

Please explain your how an artificially increased RBC count delivers more oxygen that a normal RBC count in a way that is incontravertibly pure 100% bone fide non delusional real medical science.

Armstronglivs you seem rather naive about doping.

You seem to believe that every new "Wonder drug" that comes on the market is going to improve Athletic performance.

Or maybe you are just trolling?

It escaped you that the article above was published in Runners' World, not a cycling publication.

If you understood how human physiology works you would know, as the author of the article did, that the effect of EPO in reducing fatigue - the "time to exhaustion" - will apply to any activity that places demands on human endurance. In principle, it will apply to running as it does to cycling.

The essential point of the study is that the effect of the drug is powerful. The improvement in 4 weeks was massive. It can be inferred that this will be so for runners just as it is for cyclists - because of human physiology that is the same for athletes in both sports. The very best cyclists (Armstrong) benefited from its use; so will the best distance runners. And that is why they use it.

The question of how much difference the drug will make to actual performance levels in any sport is not the focus of that article. It may well vary in different sports and in different athletes, but when the effect of reducing the onset of fatigue is as big as the study shows then the drug will undoubtedly make a significant difference in any sport that tests endurance.

It is further naive of you to think the issue of breathing is separate from a consideration of how EPO works. We have only been led down the path of discussing how EPO works because of an ignorance here of how it affects the body, including breathing. The drug improves O2 transmission to the tissues; that process is inextricably connected with taking in oxygen to the lungs and then the bloodstream. It is the most banal of observations that the more this process is improved, by a higher RBC, the less the athlete is "out of breath" - and the converse will also be seen of a gasping for air and breathlessness in those who are short of oxygen, because of their lower RBC - like the unfit, overweight and the anaemic.

The drug isn't everything - no drug - is - but the gains it affords to elite athletes are crucial at the top levels of sport.

how does that work? wrote:

Armstronglivs you seem rather naive about doping.

You seem to believe that every new "Wonder drug" that comes on the market is going to improve Athletic performance.

Or maybe you are just trolling?

A "new wonder drug"? EPO has been used by athletes since the mid-80's and blood-doping since the late-60's. What were you saying about "naive"? There's really dumb. And then there's you.

Maybe you should read it again? It contradicts your assertion that an artificially increased RBC count increases oxygen "Extraction".

Please explain your how an artificially increased RBC count delivers more oxygen that a normal RBC count in a way that is incontravertibly pure 100% bone fide non delusional real medical science.[/quote]

I didn't use the term "extraction" in the sense you have referred to and nor do you understand how the term is being used in the quoted passage - as I explained above. You also don't understand what anaemia is, and how EPO is used to treat it and why. Indeed, you don't really understand anything. You are a pointless distraction to the discussion (although you won't be able to distinguish that term from "extraction"), but I will extract myself from the futility of further engaging with you. You are proof of how a moron is impervious to any kind of understanding or learning.

So if do you believe that EPO delivers more oxygen than human limits, how does it bypass all the regulatory systems in the body to achieve this superhuman energy delivery?

You claim to be more knowledgeable than me about physiology. If this is true then you will have the answer.

Armstronglivs wrote:

I will extract myself from the futility of further engaging with you. You are proof of how a moron is impervious to any kind of understanding or learning.

Oh that's a pity. I was just getting started. But I sense your unease in anticipating the inevitable tough questions I was hoping to unleash.

I don't know if Runner's World also wrote an article about this cycling study on amateurs, or why that would even matter.

You did not give me a link to Runner's World , but gave me a link to a sports science blog summarizing a study on amateur cyclists published in the European Journal of Applied Physiology.

What I do know about physiology is that the physiological demands from running are not the same as in cycling the Grand Tours over three weeks.

I have rarely expressed doubts about cycling, as my interest is in running, but surely you are aware of two recent meta-studies that cast doubt on this popular notion that "The very best cyclists (Armstrong) benefited from its use".

More points from Ross I agree with:

- "One potential problem with the study was that the EPO group could not be blinded that they were receiving EPO, for ethical reasons. What this means is that everyone receiving EPO KNEW that they were, and there's good reason to believe that simply knowing you're receiving a drug improves performance as well!"

- "there are some (including us) who would debate the merits of a "ride to exhaustion" as a measure of performance. Normally, we prefer to see a Time-trial as a measure of performance, because the concept of riding to fatigue is not really an accurate or repeatable measure of performance."

I didn't consider "the issue of breathing is separate from a consideration of how EPO works", because I haven't yet considered what seems to be your own original thoughts on breathing and EPO, as yet unsupported by WADA, by anti-doping experts, by performance experts, or by any elite athletes. I did not ask you to explain yourself further, but to give me the name of an expert, or a reference to an article, a study, a quote, anything that says the same things you do about breathing's relation to EPO. Only then, once a basis for discussion has made discussion possible, will I begin to consider "the issue of breathing", and then only as described by the expert reference, considering the basis, if any, for those statements.

It still seems premature to even start a discussion about EPO and physiology until we have established whether El G doped, blood doped, altitude trained, possessed increased RBCs, transported more oxygen to the muscles, and/or breathed less.

Armstronglivs wrote:

rekrunner wrote:

Did you understand my post? How will anything I do help you establish if El G doped, blood doped, altitude trained, possessed increased RBCs, transported more oxygen to the muscles, and/or breathed less?

It won't help me, but it might help you understand better than you do.

But that completely misses the point, and attempts to solve a problem that doesn't exist, while avoiding the real point that your conclusions are not well supported.

Speaking of the sports scientists, Runner's World, and learning human physiology, I enjoyed reading Ross and Jon's book The Runner's Body, as well as their professor's The Lore of Running, both from cover to cover.

SDSU Aztec wrote:

Bower Man wrote:

Have always E-G's 2k WR is on par w/Komen's 3k WR -- 2 secs up on 2nd best ever in 2k, 3 secs up on 2nd best ever in 3k.

By these standards, Jacob I's 4:50 2k back in June should have gotten more notice for how brilliant it was.

John Walker ran 4:51 off of a 3:32 PR so Jacob's 4:50 is not as impressive given he has run 3:28.

Quality wise, Hicham El Guerrouj's 1500, mile and 2000 records are virtually identical.

John Walker also ran 3.49.08 in 1982 past his peak - having of course run 3.49.4 in 75. His PR was his PR but I don't think there is much doubt that 3.32.4 isn't really indicative of what he was capable of. Of course this sounds weird because there was no shortage of opportunities back then for the Olympic Champ to run fast (given the emergence of Coe, Ovett, Boit etc) - but he just never found himself in the right place right time over 1500m after Christchurch.

For me at least, given he ran 3.49 flat in 82 (equivalent to 3.31.xx) there is little doubt he had the ability to run 3.30.xx in his best years had things fallen into place.

As for Jakob, I said at the time that 4.50 was an insanely good time but he's capable of more - I see no reason why he can't run 4.47 high-48 low. But nobody is touching the 4.44 from Hichem and nobody is touching the 7.20 of Komen - unless we have another doping free-for-all like the mid to late 90's

Salvitore Stitchmo wrote:

Walker - but he just never found himself in the right place right time over 1500m after Christchurch.

Walker has run hundreds of times over 1500m/Mile.

887766 wrote:

Salvitore Stitchmo wrote:

Walker - but he just never found himself in the right place right time over 1500m after Christchurch.

Walker has run hundreds of times over 1500m/Mile.

His peak years physically were '74-76. That was the "right place right time". After that he was plagued by calf issues that reduced his training to around half an hour each day.

how does that work? wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

I will extract myself from the futility of further engaging with you. You are proof of how a moron is impervious to any kind of understanding or learning.

Oh that's a pity. I was just getting started. But I sense your unease in anticipating the inevitable tough questions I was hoping to unleash.

You leave an unmistakable footprint, from the same rambling nonsense you deliver on other threads in which doping is discussed. Different user name; same nutjob. Any moment now we will hear about how "the laws of thermodynamics" apply. Yawn.

You can't say that. You'll be hearing from rekrunner shortly.

You can't say that. You'll be hearing from rekrunner shortly.[/quote]

What would you expect me to say? I can mostly agree with his post:

- Maybe Walker could have been faster, and maybe he would be faster today, if his prime self could compete 40 years later.

- Maybe Jakob will become a little faster. Maybe not. He is already fastest non-African in 2000m and 3000m.

- Nobody could touch 4:44 from Hichem and 7:20 from Komen even even in the mid to late '90s.

- In the '90s, excluding El G and Komen, the next best was Morcelli, 3.08 seconds slower in the 2000m with 4:47.88, and Geb in 3000m, 4.42 seconds slower with 7:25.09. This was the historical result of the powerful, widespread, undetectable endurance drug.

You seem to want to forget that you still haven't given me an expert description of how EPO and breathing are connected.

Armstronglivs wrote:

how does that work? wrote:

Oh that's a pity. I was just getting started. But I sense your unease in anticipating the inevitable tough questions I was hoping to unleash.

You leave an unmistakable footprint, from the same rambling nonsense you deliver on other threads in which doping is discussed. Different user name; same nutjob. Any moment now we will hear about how "the laws of thermodynamics" apply. Yawn.

So how does your version of science compare to Mr Newton's?

What are you missing?

He also asked you to explain how EPO allows someone to breathe less oxygen while using more oxygen, just like I did.

You still haven't explained it.

how does that work? wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

You can't say that. You'll be hearing from rekrunner shortly.

He also asked you to explain how EPO allows someone to breathe less oxygen while using more oxygen, just like I did.

You still haven't explained it.

I have explained how the body utilises more oxygen through increased haemoglobin but you are too stupid and too ignorant to understand how this works and what it means. The phrasing of your question - which is incorrect - shows also you have no grasp of the subject. I have no interest in attempting to enlighten the witless, such as yourself, and the wilfully ignorant, like rekrunner. I would have more success engaging with a chimpanzee.