Armstronglivs wrote:
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.
Oh, but I didn't ask for your enlightenment.
I only asked you to point me to an expert who says the same things that you say about the connection to breathing and the power of EPO.
rekrunner wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
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.
Oh, but I didn't ask for your enlightenment.
I only asked you to point me to an expert who says the same things that you say about the connection to breathing and the power of EPO.
The essential point is made here, which applies to any means of increasing the ability of the body to absorb oxygen (referring here to the use of oxygen tents, although it also applies to other means such as altitude-training and blood doping, as the article makes clear.)
"The body responds by releasing natural EPO and growing more blood cells, so that it can absorb more oxygen with every breath."
" The ability to perform well in sporting events is determined by the ability to deliver oxygen to muscles. Oxygen is carried by red blood cells. The more red blood cells, the more oxygen you can carry. This in turn controls an athlete’s performance in aerobic exercise. EPO is a natural hormone that stimulates red blood cell production, raising the packed cell volume (PCV)—the percentage of the blood comprised of red blood cells. EPO is produced in response to anaemia, haemorrhage, pregnancy, or living at altitude. Athletes began injecting recombinant human EPO in the 1970s, and it was officially banned in 1985.16"
https://bjsm.bmj.com/content/38/6/666Armstronglivs wrote:
how does that work? wrote:
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.
+1
Couldn't agree more.
Armstronglivs wrote:
The essential point is made here, which applies to any means of increasing the ability of the body to absorb oxygen (referring here to the use of oxygen tents, although it also applies to other means such as altitude-training and blood doping, as the article makes clear.)
"The body responds by releasing natural EPO and growing more blood cells, so that it can absorb more oxygen with every breath."
" The ability to perform well in sporting events is determined by the ability to deliver oxygen to muscles. Oxygen is carried by red blood cells. The more red blood cells, the more oxygen you can carry. This in turn controls an athlete’s performance in aerobic exercise. EPO is a natural hormone that stimulates red blood cell production, raising the packed cell volume (PCV)—the percentage of the blood comprised of red blood cells. EPO is produced in response to anaemia, haemorrhage, pregnancy, or living at altitude. Athletes began injecting recombinant human EPO in the 1970s, and it was officially banned in 1985.16"
https://bjsm.bmj.com/content/38/6/666
I appreciate the effort to provide an article from a respected journal. You've chosen a rather interesting reference, "Why we should allow performance enhancing drugs in sport" -- an opinion piece which argues to legalize drugs in sports. I can't say I'm in favor of such a radical position.
Recall a few pages back, what I said would interest me about the expertise:
"I'd love to read about it -- what did you read exactly? Does it have a name? Who was the author? What is their background and experience and education and their personal observations?
Rather than retelling what you understood, don't you have a reference where an elite performance expert describes this more accurately, and backs it up with real observations and data?"
So let's take a look at who are these experts. The BMJ paper tells us:
J Savulescu - Uehiro Chair of Practical Ethics, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
B Foddy, M Clayton - Murdoch Childrens Research Institute, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
What is their background and experience and education and their personal observations? Are they the kinds of experts with the background to speak of breathing rates of elite athletes with a higher PCV?
How is their above statement backed up by "real observations and data"? It doesn't seem obvious from the paper that they have made any observations of the rate of breathing, as a function of PCV.
With a quick skim, I did find a couple of other statements of interest. Earlier you said I didn't understand the difference between high altitude and EPO, and that they achieve similar things by different means (while attributing a false claim to me).
Your paper tells us: "There is no difference between elevating your blood count by altitude training, by using a hypoxic air machine, or by taking EPO."
In other threads, you downplay the role of health and safety in determining when to ban drugs like EPO, and that WADA is mainly concerned with the performance effects. You often argue that if there is no guaranteed powerful effect for all athletes in all sports, at all levels of fitness, there would be no reasons for WADA to ban drugs.
Your paper argues that health is the more important consideration:
"Should there be any limits to drugs in sport?
There is one limit: safety. We do not want an Olympics in which people die before, during, or after competition. What matters is health and fitness to compete."
"Forget testing for EPO, monitor the PCV."
"We need to take safety more seriously."
I haven't yet taken the time to read it in more detail, but if there is anything worthy, I will come back to it.
On the outside looking in wrote:
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.
+1
Couldn't agree more.[/quote]
Which part did you agree with? I read the last statement as self-awareness that his ideas and arguments are at an intellectual level closer to the chimpanzee's -- finding it a rather strange thing to confess.
(sorry for the mangled quotes)
The position the paper advocates isn't mine; I simply used its explanation of how increased oxygen is absorbed into the body to enhance performance to answer a specific point that you raised. Many other papers on doping bypass that point because it is obvious and implicit in the discussion. Increased red blood cells allow for the absorption of more O2 into the body per breath. That is what EPO and blood doping do - among other things. It is a similar effect to altitude training but the gains are greater - as other papers have pointed out.
rekrunner wrote:
On the outside looking in wrote:
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.
+1
Couldn't agree more.
Which part did you agree with? I read the last statement as self-awareness that his ideas and arguments are at an intellectual level closer to the chimpanzee's -- finding it a rather strange thing to confess.[/quote]
Yes, you would read it in a way that only you would understand it. You seem to have confirmed my observation.
Armstronglivs wrote:
The position the paper advocates isn't mine; I simply used its explanation of how increased oxygen is absorbed into the body to enhance performance to answer a specific point that you raised. Many other papers on doping bypass that point because it is obvious and implicit in the discussion. Increased red blood cells allow for the absorption of more O2 into the body per breath. That is what EPO and blood doping do - among other things. It is a similar effect to altitude training but the gains are greater - as other papers have pointed out.
So how does that work? How does EPO doping allow the body to extract more oxygen from the air without breathing more oxygen?
You still haven't answered the question.
Armstronglivs wrote:
The position the paper advocates isn't mine; I simply used its explanation of how increased oxygen is absorbed into the body to enhance performance to answer a specific point that you raised. Many other papers on doping bypass that point because it is obvious and implicit in the discussion. Increased red blood cells allow for the absorption of more O2 into the body per breath. That is what EPO and blood doping do - among other things. It is a similar effect to altitude training but the gains are greater - as other papers have pointed out.
Reading the paper, it is not clear it is written by any authority with any direct involvement in doping and/or elite performance. Indeed they introduce the paper suggesting there arguments are ones that lack evidence: "In the absence of good evidence, we need an analytical argument ..."
My specific question was about any authoritative basis for your alleged connection between "breathing" and red blood cells, and not oxygen absorption or enhanced performance. It is not a point that *I* raised -- you are the one who connected "scarcely breathing" to "EPO is a powerful drug".
The paper says more red blood cells allows to get more oxygen, a particularly important adaptation at high altitudes when oxygen is scarce and air pressure is low.
But it doesn't go into any aspect of breathing rates. It doesn't say breathing rates are reduced. It doesn't talk about breathing at sea level, when oxygen is abundant, nor about how intense activity affects breathing rates, as a function of red blood cells, during and after the intense activity.
So here we are on page 7, and the best expert basis for your claim "Those last two laps - unbelievable- and scarcely breathing at the finish. Jeezus, EPO is a powerful drug!" appears to be "It goes without saying".
I should remind you that it has not been established that El G had more red blood cells, either by legal or illegal means. No aspect of your claim appears to have any observable basis in fact.
Armstronglivs wrote:
rekrunner wrote:
I read the last statement as self-awareness that his ideas and arguments are at an intellectual level closer to the chimpanzee's -- finding it a rather strange thing to confess.
Yes, you would read it in a way that only you would understand it. You seem to have confirmed my observation.
Just the same, I would agree with any suggestion that your arguments and conclusions without any seeming basis would only have success on those who apply lower standards of intellect when faced with such baseless arguments and conclusions.
rekrunner wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
Yes, you would read it in a way that only you would understand it. You seem to have confirmed my observation.
Just the same, I would agree with any suggestion that your arguments and conclusions without any seeming basis would only have success on those who apply lower standards of intellect when faced with such baseless arguments and conclusions.
It's one of those "Everyone know it's true, it's so obvious it's not even worth debating" things.
He thinks that by re-stating what everyone believes they think they know, he is on safe ground.
So the fact that he can't explain how EPO delivers more oxygen without breathing more oxygen is irrelevant. He won by a landslide, and everyone knows it's true.
how does that work? wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
The position the paper advocates isn't mine; I simply used its explanation of how increased oxygen is absorbed into the body to enhance performance to answer a specific point that you raised. Many other papers on doping bypass that point because it is obvious and implicit in the discussion. Increased red blood cells allow for the absorption of more O2 into the body per breath. That is what EPO and blood doping do - among other things. It is a similar effect to altitude training but the gains are greater - as other papers have pointed out.
So how does that work? How does EPO doping allow the body to extract more oxygen from the air without breathing more oxygen?
You still haven't answered the question.
I'm really sorry to hear about your brain damage.
how does that work? wrote:
rekrunner wrote:
Just the same, I would agree with any suggestion that your arguments and conclusions without any seeming basis would only have success on those who apply lower standards of intellect when faced with such baseless arguments and conclusions.
It's one of those "Everyone know it's true, it's so obvious it's not even worth debating" things.
He thinks that by re-stating what everyone believes they think they know, he is on safe ground.
So the fact that he can't explain how EPO delivers more oxygen without breathing more oxygen is irrelevant. He won by a landslide, and everyone knows it's true.
You didn't read the paper I posted. But then, you don't read anything. - or understand anything. Were you at the Capitol a few days ago? Amongst your peers.
rekrunner wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
The position the paper advocates isn't mine; I simply used its explanation of how increased oxygen is absorbed into the body to enhance performance to answer a specific point that you raised. Many other papers on doping bypass that point because it is obvious and implicit in the discussion. Increased red blood cells allow for the absorption of more O2 into the body per breath. That is what EPO and blood doping do - among other things. It is a similar effect to altitude training but the gains are greater - as other papers have pointed out.
Reading the paper, it is not clear it is written by any authority with any direct involvement in doping and/or elite performance. Indeed they introduce the paper suggesting there arguments are ones that lack evidence: "In the absence of good evidence, we need an analytical argument ..."
My specific question was about any authoritative basis for your alleged connection between "breathing" and red blood cells, and not oxygen absorption or enhanced performance. It is not a point that *I* raised -- you are the one who connected "scarcely breathing" to "EPO is a powerful drug".
The paper says more red blood cells allows to get more oxygen, a particularly important adaptation at high altitudes when oxygen is scarce and air pressure is low.
But it doesn't go into any aspect of breathing rates. It doesn't say breathing rates are reduced. It doesn't talk about breathing at sea level, when oxygen is abundant, nor about how intense activity affects breathing rates, as a function of red blood cells, during and after the intense activity.
So here we are on page 7, and the best expert basis for your claim "Those last two laps - unbelievable- and scarcely breathing at the finish. Jeezus, EPO is a powerful drug!" appears to be "It goes without saying".
I should remind you that it has not been established that El G had more red blood cells, either by legal or illegal means. No aspect of your claim appears to have any observable basis in fact.
Your response is everything I would expect from someone who has no understanding of how the body works to absorb and use oxygen. That is because you are unable to accept the process can be enhanced by doping. Yes, a chimp would offer a more meaningful dialogue. But you and your friend here make a fine pair of simian Siamese twins.
Armstronglivs wrote:
rekrunner wrote:
Reading the paper, it is not clear it is written by any authority with any direct involvement in doping and/or elite performance. Indeed they introduce the paper suggesting there arguments are ones that lack evidence: "In the absence of good evidence, we need an analytical argument ..."
My specific question was about any authoritative basis for your alleged connection between "breathing" and red blood cells, and not oxygen absorption or enhanced performance. It is not a point that *I* raised -- you are the one who connected "scarcely breathing" to "EPO is a powerful drug".
The paper says more red blood cells allows to get more oxygen, a particularly important adaptation at high altitudes when oxygen is scarce and air pressure is low.
But it doesn't go into any aspect of breathing rates. It doesn't say breathing rates are reduced. It doesn't talk about breathing at sea level, when oxygen is abundant, nor about how intense activity affects breathing rates, as a function of red blood cells, during and after the intense activity.
So here we are on page 7, and the best expert basis for your claim "Those last two laps - unbelievable- and scarcely breathing at the finish. Jeezus, EPO is a powerful drug!" appears to be "It goes without saying".
I should remind you that it has not been established that El G had more red blood cells, either by legal or illegal means. No aspect of your claim appears to have any observable basis in fact.
Your response is everything I would expect from someone who has no understanding of how the body works to absorb and use oxygen. That is because you are unable to accept the process can be enhanced by doping. Yes, a chimp would offer a more meaningful dialogue. But you and your friend here make a fine pair of simian Siamese twins.
But you are making an extraordinary claim, that EPO can extract more oxygen from the air without the lungs breathing more air.
None of the papers make such a claim. Yet you are insisting that it is a fact which is obvious.
But you can't explain how such an extraordinary phenomenon is possible.
Would that be because it's impossible?
Armstronglivs wrote:
Your response is everything I would expect from someone who has no understanding of how the body works to absorb and use oxygen. That is because you are unable to accept the process can be enhanced by doping. Yes, a chimp would offer a more meaningful dialogue. But you and your friend here make a fine pair of simian Siamese twins.
Your expectations are not realistic. I would like the dialogue to be more meaningful, and among non-chimps, that means providing meaningful substance supporting otherwise unfounded ideas when challenged.
Recall once again, it was you who defined the instant topic, connecting breathing to the power of EPO, and now this is a topic you wish to avoid at all costs, by employing all manner of psychological defense mechanisms.
Your topic did not include the tangential topics of "how the body works to absorb and use oxygen" nor how "the process can be enhanced by doping". These tangential topics could be connected to breathing rates, but so far you have failed to connect them in any meaningful way, but instead rely on a fallacy of "obviousness".
I've asked you to extend the dialogue to include authoritative discussions of how increased red blood cells impact breathing. You responded with:
- a sports science blog arguing "EPO works" by highlighting a study on short term effects of EPO on non-representative amateur athletes, using non-representative measures of peak power and time to exhaustion on an indoor stationary cycling ergometer, which did support any conclusion on breathing rates during or post effort
- an opinion paper written by, as far as you have shown, three non-experts in the field, arguing for the legalization of drugs and shifting "anti-doping" focus to health concerns, which did not provide any data on or even take any measures of breathing rates during or post exercise
One of your defense mechanisms is to stop any meaningful dialogue, and attempt to relieve yourself of any burden to justify your ideas, by attempting to shift the blame on those who wish to continue the dialogue with substance, for example, by suggesting the real issue is that they do not understand elementary school ideas that you have accepted without justification and are unable to justify. I completely understand your elementary school ideas. I understand how extra red blood cells can deliver more oxygen to the muscles. I understand, and studies have shown, that extra red blood cells can improve performance in amateurs from an unknown state of fitness, to an improved state of fitness.
But before we start any meaningful dialogue, I wish to separate and exclude ideas only found only in popular mythology. I don't find that a meaningful discussion.
Here is a summary scorecard of your failure to support your "obvious" conclusion:
- you have failed to show the relation between EPO and breathing rates during and post exercise
- you have failed to show that El G's red blood cell count was elevated
- you have failed to show that any alleged red blood cell count increase was due to EPO
Rather than you being a beacon of enlightment, all of your discussions quickly hit an intellectual dead-end and are quickly re-routed into repeated insults of the intelligence of those who simply ask you to put up or shut up.
"Put up or shut up"? Sigh.
Each breath has a given intake of oxygen but the amount that is transported to the rest of the body will depend on how many red blood cells you have. That is why every paper on the topic says that a higher red blood cell count improves aerobic capacity. It cannot improve aerobic capacity unless the amount of oxygen transported is higher for the given intake of oxygen - which, to the layperson like you, is a single breath. Again, a very simple case of cause and effect.
Your lack of knowledge of fundamental human physiology is bottomless. But no one will ever persuade you of what you either don't understand or don't wish to understand. What is comical in all of this is that you could be taken outside on a sunny day but require proof that you are in daylight. Only an approved "expert" can tell you what even a chimpanzee knows.
But you are making an extraordinary claim, that EPO can extract more oxygen from the air without the lungs breathing more air. But you can't explain how such an extraordinary phenomenon is possible.
Would that be because it's impossible?[/quote]
EPO extracts more oxygen from the air because it is only the red blood cells that transport oxygen to the body, and EPO increases the amount of red blood cells. It isn't the breath that transports oxygen to the body, it is the red blood cells. They can only transport as much oxygen as each cell can carry, and that capacity is not increased by breathing harder and making each cell carry more - it can't - but by having more cells available to carry the oxygen. Each breath is thus able to allow the transport of increased amounts of oxygen through the greater number of cells. Basic human biology is not part of your intellectual tool-kit. The only thing that is apparently "impossible" here is that you are able to grasp this. Your ignorance of how your own body works is truly spectacular.
Armstronglivs wrote:
But you are making an extraordinary claim, that EPO can extract more oxygen from the air without the lungs breathing more air. But you can't explain how such an extraordinary phenomenon is possible.
Would that be because it's impossible?
EPO extracts more oxygen from the air because it is only the red blood cells that transport oxygen to the body, and EPO increases the amount of red blood cells. It isn't the breath that transports oxygen to the body, it is the red blood cells. They can only transport as much oxygen as each cell can carry, and that capacity is not increased by breathing harder and making each cell carry more - it can't - but by having more cells available to carry the oxygen. Each breath is thus able to allow the transport of increased amounts of oxygen through the greater number of cells. Basic human biology is not part of your intellectual tool-kit. The only thing that is apparently "impossible" here is that you are able to grasp this. Your ignorance of how your own body works is truly spectacular.[/quote]
So how does EPO extract more oxygen from the air?
How do the "extra red blood cells" transport "increased amounts of oxygen" by breathing the same amount of air?
Your explanation doesn't make any sense. Where does the extra oxygen come from? How does the extra oxygen get into your lungs if you are breathing the same amount of air?
How does that work?