How do you get more oxygen from the same volume of oxygen? (quote)
How oxygen do you same get oxygen the volume of more?
Fixed.
El Guerrouj 2k WR - Incredible 3:49 Mile pace
Training Advice/Discussion
Report Thread
You are reporting this thread to the moderators for review and possible removal from the forum.
-
-
rekrunner wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
I didn't say one way or the other what I think about doping aiding WR performances. (quote)
Well, you never say anything about anything - "one way or the other". You specialise in saying nothing that has any meaning.
But then, in the next sentence, there is this:
I said that prevalence suggests some WR performances will also be doped. (quote)
Are you still saying nothing there about whether doping aids performance - a statement rather like that some world record holders have freckles? (in other words, a mildly interesting but utterly irrelevant observation). A normal person might think from your statement that you're suggesting doping contributed to those world record performances. But then you aren't normal, are you? Like Gollum, the left and right sides of your brain appear to be conducting separate conversations.
I say plenty, but you seem unable to address them, so you need to infer scarecrows and argue with yourself.
Regarding the utter irrelevance of the observation, this is also what I said, when declining to respond to a wrong question. But both you and High Octane insisted I respond, under some delusion that I believe all world records are clean.
A normal person would understand the difference between existence, correlation, and causation, rather than complaining there are too many words to be able to read, and then doubling and tripling down on something that was shown to be wrong the first time.
If we are under "some delusion that (you) think all world records are clean" no one is deluded into thinking that you believe doping actually contributed to those dirty world records. They may as well have been drinking mother's milk for all the effect their doping had on their performances.
You are quite right though, that "a normal person would understand the difference between existence, correlation and causation." You don't. In your mealy mouth it is all empty rhetoric. -
how does that work? wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
rekrunner wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
Actually, I don't say that. WADA and other antidoping experts say that. Of course, if the drug wasn't having an effect on sport there wouldn't have been a need to ban it and introduce a test for it - and nor would so many athletes in different sports continue use it today, despite the risks of being caught. If antidoping efforts were completely ineffectual we would see no difference in performances from the 90's to the years that followed the introduction of the test. But we do, which suggests the pre-testing era benefited from the use of the drug. El G's and Komen's records remain untouchable more than 20 years later.
You are wrong on both counts.
Neither WADA nor anti-doping experts say anything about EPO's effect on sub-4:50 2000m performances.
When creating the banned list, WADA only considers "potential" to enhance performance, neither showing, nor requiring, any benefit.
Anti-doping experts often say the opposite -- that their findings cannot be projected onto elite performances.
And neither suggest that the potential benefits from EPO are exclusive, and could not be replicated, or even exceeded, by legal means.
You are also wrong again: even in the case of no performance benefit, there would be a need for WADA to ban it for health reasons.
And this thread isn't about general effect on any athlete in any sport, but specifically about El Guerrouj and EPO and his 2000m performance in the sport of athletics. Even more specifically, you were speaking about his last 2 laps.
In this instance we (including everyone of "the vast majority of the athletics community and anti-doping experts") lack two key pieces of information:
- Is EPO powerful for elite athletes, when compared to legal methods?
- Did El Guerrouj take EPO?
Since you always twist what is being said to suit your fatuous arguments, I did not claim that WADA specifically said El G's performances (or anyone else's, for that matter) were doped. They never make claims about individual athletes except as findings from tests.
But they and other antidoping experts consider EPO to be a powerful performance enhancing drug - not that it only has the "potential" to be so. Only a religiously fanatical doping denier like yourself refuses to see it. Every thread has its flat earther and that is the role you always play when the subject of doping arises. Your failure to grasp the topography of the issue is your outstanding feature.
You still haven't explained how he could be taking in more oxygen but breathing less.
And why you think you know more about oxygen kinetics than Jack Daniels? -
rekrunner wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
So if this idea "originates in my imagination" - despite it bring present in every article I have read on the subject - what explanation does your "imagination" afford for increased aerobic fitness? How is there an increase of the supply of oxygen to the muscles without an increase in red blood cells to transport it?
Silly question. You've shown that basic biology isn't your thing. Not part of your "data".
You still seem to be greatly confused about what is in doubt -- not surprising when you are intimidated by too many words.
The doubt that has been raised is whether it is even true that more oxygen is getting to the muscles as a result of increased red blood cells, a doubt now that has been expressed in two papers, and not resolved if the hematocrit is too high (more than 48%).
And here you are asking me to explain more oxygen gets to the muscles (the very thing in doubt) under a scenario with decreased red blood cells (something no one claims).
You are right about one thing -- it is a silly question.
Not only are you asking a question with two obvious mistakes -- it is really not my burden to come up with alternative explanations after showing you why your fundamental claims are in doubt.
Maybe it is explained in one of these "every article you have ever read on the subject" -- can you produce one?
No one is asking you how more oxygen gets to the muscles with decreased red blood cells. Are you so stupid as to not grasp the question refers to the reverse scenario, of increased red blood cells? Or are you such a liar that you have to falsely state the question so you can avoid it? -
And why you think you know more about oxygen kinetics than Jack Daniels?[/quote]
Repeat question No.364.
Jack Daniels has told me he is perfectly happy with my explanations. But he is concerned about your sanity. -
Tom Cochrane. wrote:
It would seem like that to you. Has your education not reached the level where red blood cell function was explained? I know it was explained on here but it appears you failed to grasp it.
The question from the very beginning was how increased red blood cells changes the rate of breathing, or if not, why not.
Explaining what happens after the lungs misses the point. -
Armstronglivs wrote:
And why you think you know more about oxygen kinetics than Jack Daniels?
Repeat question No.364.
Jack Daniels has told me he is perfectly happy with my explanations. But he is concerned about your sanity.[/quote]
You shouldn't tell lies. Especially if you are pretending to be a moral guardian to the message board. -
Armstronglivs wrote:
No one is asking you how more oxygen gets to the muscles with decreased red blood cells. Are you so stupid as to not grasp the question refers to the reverse scenario, of increased red blood cells? Or are you such a liar that you have to falsely state the question so you can avoid it?
You asked me "How is there an increase of the supply of oxygen to the muscles without an increase in red blood cells to transport it?" as if the issue was the number of red blood cells and not the supply of oxygen to the muscles.
This was your answer to "is there an increase of the supply of oxygen to the muscles?" -- a question that you are avoiding.
Once you clearly establish beyond all doubt that there actually is an increase of oxygen to the muscles, then I will address your question as to how that happens in a scenario with increased red blood cells. -
Armstronglivs wrote:
rekrunner wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
So if this idea "originates in my imagination" - despite it bring present in every article I have read on the subject - what explanation does your "imagination" afford for increased aerobic fitness? How is there an increase of the supply of oxygen to the muscles without an increase in red blood cells to transport it?
Silly question. You've shown that basic biology isn't your thing. Not part of your "data".
You still seem to be greatly confused about what is in doubt -- not surprising when you are intimidated by too many words.
The doubt that has been raised is whether it is even true that more oxygen is getting to the muscles as a result of increased red blood cells, a doubt now that has been expressed in two papers, and not resolved if the hematocrit is too high (more than 48%).
And here you are asking me to explain more oxygen gets to the muscles (the very thing in doubt) under a scenario with decreased red blood cells (something no one claims).
You are right about one thing -- it is a silly question.
Not only are you asking a question with two obvious mistakes -- it is really not my burden to come up with alternative explanations after showing you why your fundamental claims are in doubt.
Maybe it is explained in one of these "every article you have ever read on the subject" -- can you produce one?
No one is asking you how more oxygen gets to the muscles with decreased red blood cells. Are you so stupid as to not grasp the question refers to the reverse scenario, of increased red blood cells? Or are you such a liar that you have to falsely state the question so you can avoid it?
You come from a land down under? Shouldn't you be in bed? -
Armstronglivs wrote:
How do you get more oxygen from the same volume of oxygen? (quote)
How oxygen do you same get oxygen the volume of more?
Fixed.
Ah -- if you have dyslexia, that would explain a lot. -
Armstronglivs wrote:
how does that work? wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
how does that work? wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
wegvewg wrote:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jsr0mZiRbNw
3:49.60 at 1600m as per the broadcast.
Those last two laps - unbelievable- and scarcely breathing at the finish. Jeezus, EPO is a powerful drug!
But isn't EPO supposed to make you breathe more?
Less. You have more oxygen in your bloodstream.
Which has to be extracted from the air by breathing more, not less.
No. When you have a higher red blood cell content you have more oxygen available and don't have to work as hard. That's why EPO/blood dopers make it look effortless. Dopers aren't gasping for air.
So did Jack Daniels tell you that oxygen uptake just goes up and up and up when hematocrit is 50,51,52,53,54,55,56......?
Or did your convo with him happen in you imagination? -
how does that work? wrote:
Tom Cochrane. wrote:
how does that work? wrote:
how does that work? wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
how does that work? wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
how does that work? wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
how does that work? wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
GBohannon wrote:
how does that work? wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
how does that work? wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
wegvewg wrote:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jsr0mZiRbNw
3:49.60 at 1600m as per the broadcast.
Those last two laps - unbelievable- and scarcely breathing at the finish. Jeezus, EPO is a powerful drug!
But isn't EPO supposed to make you breathe more?
Less. You have more oxygen in your bloodstream.
Which has to be extracted from the air by breathing more, not less.
If you can’t understand the point that was being made, you probably shouldn’t be on these boards.
Let me clarify - due to (alleged) EPO use, El G still seemed fresh at the conclusion of the race. He was not gasping for air as one might expect (perhaps) because his blood already had all of the oxygen it needed.
Yes (to both points).
Really? Explain how that works? Don't just keep repeating the same line. Try answering the question.
"EPO is a naturally occurring hormone in the body that stimulates the bone marrow to produce more red cells. Medically, it is given to patients with anemia of chronic disease whose bone marrow is suppressed to help them have more energy and increase daily function. But, inject it into an elite athlete and the extra oxygen increases their aerobic capacity. If the cell factory runs out of oxygen, it turns to anaerobic metabolism, whose waste products shut down the ability to perform. "
When you start running out of oxygen (which is carried to the muscles on the red blood cells) you quite literally run out of breath. That is when you see runners gasping and they may even collapse from lack of oxygen.
But if you increase your red blood cell content (which altitude training also does) you enable more oxygen to be carried to your muscles. Hence you can last longer with less effort. It doesn't involve breathing more because with each breath the increased red blood cells will carry more oxygen to the muscles. Everything becomes easier. That is why doped athletes can appear as fresh as a daisy at the end of a race.
So how does the body "run out of oxygen" it never happened to me in any race.
And how does having more red blood cells obviate the need to suck oxygen from the atmosphere?
How do you carry more oxygen without breathing more oxygen?
Your explanations don't make any sense.
Not on the planet you come from, which knows nothing about human physiology. Perhaps if you got off your a*se and did some reading about it you would stop parading your ignorance - the one thing you do well. As a previous poster said - you really shouldn't be here.
On the planet I come from oxygen makes up 20.9% of the atmosphere. Which Science should I be reading to understand how he could be using more oxygen, but breathing less?
The science that says a higher red blood cell content carries more oxygen to the muscles, hence fewer breaths are needed for given effort than if there is a lower red blood cell content (as in a less fit or undoped person) or if the cells have used up their oxygen. It appears your brain is starved of oxygen. Moron.
But how does the extra oxygen get into the blood from the atmosphere without breathing more?
How does he carry more oxygen without breathing more oxygen?
Does it happen by magic?
It would seem like that to you. Has your education not reached the level where red blood cell function was explained? I know it was explained on here but it appears you failed to grasp it.
How do you get more oxygen from the same volume of oxygen?
Well? How do you get more oxygen from the same amount of oxygen? -
Armstronglivs wrote:
How do you get more oxygen from the same volume of oxygen? (quote)
How oxygen do you same get oxygen the volume of more?
Fixed.
Sleep deprivation? Are the sleeping pills not working? -
Armstronglivs wrote:
rekrunner wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
I have never seen anyone who practises lying as hard as you do.
You have said previously said that given the prevalence of doping some of the world records will be doped. If that is not a statement of a causal relationship, what is it? Did doping contribute to those world records or not? It is utterly disingenuous to say subsequently that you are not making that causal connection, because in the contortions of your deluded mind it has not been established that doping leads to enhanced performance. (News flash- it has!) If doping played no contributory part in those records then its "prevalence" or otherwise is completely irrelevant. So why raise it? You might as well have been saying that given the prevalence of Nike (or Adidas) shoes some of the world records were set by athletes using that brand - a coincidental fact but of no causative significance.
But your backtracking on what you are appearing to say is consistent with your approach; it is the same kind of slithering and sliding around the truth characteristic of another type of liar, which is the holocaust denier. You apply the same method to doping denial. Doping only works on "weak" and inferior athletes, women on steroids, and cyclists - but not on distance runners in any of the events and by any of the runners you will do anything to defend. A minimiser is a denier.
Fortunately, those entrusted with antidoping take a completely different view; a sane view supported by empirically obtained information and backed by science, that consigns yours to the realm of the lonely crackpot, as you are.
You are so self-blinded by your mythology, it severely impacts your ability to comprehend what is written -- one of my primary reasons to "cut out the middleman" and go straight to your sources -- which you swear you have many, but conveniently cannot remember any.
It is not a statement of causal relationship, but a statement of mere existence. Prevalence suggests that doping exists, but existence alone does not demonstration correlation with performance, and does not prove cause and effect. This is why examples like Ramzi, Boulami, and Kiptum fail.
It's funny and ironic that you mention shoes, because there is stronger evidence that the new shoes "work", for both Africans and non-African elite runners.
There is no backtracking, just a correction of confusion that was born from the seeds in your brainwashed mind.
So many words to say so little. So you don't think doping aids performance. Of course you don't. Jon is as much a moron as you are but he doesn't need pages to prove that fact, as you do.
So genius oxygen kinetics and bioenergetics guru, tell us how EPO doping circumvents thermoregulation? -
Yes...I'd say both. Schumacher has been team physician for German Olympic team since 2000. One of his main areas of expertise is excercise testing & performance evaluation of athletes - so I think he knows a thing or two about elite performance:
rekrunner wrote:
No. He is testifying as an anti-doping expert, not as an expert on elite performance.
https://www.aspetar.com/person-profile.aspx?id=166&lang=en
Wouldn't that be implied when he & his colleagues determined that Karamasheva's abnormal blood values were doped and not from any physiological or pathological cause? What did you expect - that the anti-doping experts would conclude that Karamasheva blood doped, but tell the arbitrator that it had nothing to do with her performance and therefore none of achievements should be disqualified? LOL. C'mon...now, you're really acting stupid on this.
rekrunner wrote:
I will reconsider if you can answer me this: in Karamaheva's CAS hearing, did Schumacher find that Karamasheva realized a benefit from doping? Can you quote the relevant sections where Schumacher provides expert discussion specifically on Karamasheva's performance before and after EPO?
Like what? Give me a freaking break here - all you're doing now is trolling. Karamasheva - a confirmed doper - is busted based on her passport anomalies. Schumacher says it appers to be the result of EPO and testifies to the one minute/10,000m performance benefit. Karamasheva's competition results during the blood anomalies are disqualify because of an unfair advantage deemed over undoped competition.
rekrunner wrote:
It's not the first time you've quoted these paragraphs, under one of your many handles, and they fail now for the same reasons they failed before. You don't follow Schumacher, but you make non-expert conclusions about Karamasheva's performance that he did not.
You've got to quit defending these dopers. Be glad they're being caught once in awhile because so many get away with it!
BS rekrunner - he's testifying in *Karamasheva's CAS hearing,* therefore it is connected to her case. Because if it's not directly related to Karamasheva's case - then why would he make such a statement in first place or provide a disclaimer that it wouldn't apply in her case?
rekrunner wrote:
His expert testimony about oxygen and performance are hypotheticals that are not directly connected to Karamasheva. As hypotheticals, they express what could be possible, but not what really happened.
Here's another case where experts are giving their expert opinion on an ABP hematological anomalies case:
Yekaterina Ryzhova - Disciplinary Tribunal (SR/adhoesport/82/2019)
Dr. Garvican-Lewis (who's published some papers on elites) testified that a 16.0 Hgb in this ABP case with Ryzhova would improve aerobic capacity in her sport of RW.
In addition, ref Paragraph 89, the DT asked this very interesting question to an anti-doping expert:
"The Panel also asked Professor d’Onofrio about how long before a competition an athlete would be able to effectively transfuse blood so as to have a substantial impact on performance. Professor d’Onofrio stated that earlier, 24-48 hours was considered to be the normal time frame. Recently, however, athletes had been caught transfusing blood as little as two hours before a race. He stated that if blood were to be reinfused too early, it would decrease production of new red blood cells, which would be detrimental to an athletes performance."
"substantial impact on performance" - do you know what this means?
Of course "The Sole Arbitrator" did based on the evidence in the case and Schumacher's expert testimony. Doesn't a jury in a criminal court case give a verdict based on the evidence presented to them by witnesses and expert witnesses? Jurors don't have to be experts in forensics, toxicology, interrogation techniques, etc., to evaluate the evidence and render a verdict.
rekrunner wrote:
Regarding the unfair advantage, who made the determination that Karamasheva received an unfair advantage from doping? From you quote, it looks like "The Sole Arbitrator", and not the "elite performance expert" Schumacher.
Oh...and it's relevant that you know how to interpret the purpose of the ban and disqualifications?
rekrunner wrote:
It's not relevant how you interpret the purpose of the ban.
You're a making mockery out of yourself defending dopers who are banned and their achievements while doping disqualified by CAS.
I imagine casual observer must be ROFL at this continuous nonsense here! -
High-Octane Dopers wrote:
rekrunner wrote:
No. He is testifying as an anti-doping expert, not as an expert on elite performance.
Yes...I'd say both. Schumacher has been team physician for German Olympic team since 2000. One of his main areas of expertise is excercise testing & performance evaluation of athletes - so I think he knows a thing or two about elite performance:
https://www.aspetar.com/person-profile.aspx?id=166&lang=en
rekrunner wrote:
I will reconsider if you can answer me this: in Karamaheva's CAS hearing, did Schumacher find that Karamasheva realized a benefit from doping? Can you quote the relevant sections where Schumacher provides expert discussion specifically on Karamasheva's performance before and after EPO?
Wouldn't that be implied when he & his colleagues determined that Karamasheva's abnormal blood values were doped and not from any physiological or pathological cause? What did you expect - that the anti-doping experts would conclude that Karamasheva blood doped, but tell the arbitrator that it had nothing to do with her performance and therefore none of achievements should be disqualified? LOL. C'mon...now, you're really acting stupid on this.
rekrunner wrote:
It's not the first time you've quoted these paragraphs, under one of your many handles, and they fail now for the same reasons they failed before. You don't follow Schumacher, but you make non-expert conclusions about Karamasheva's performance that he did not.
Like what? Give me a freaking break here - all you're doing now is trolling. Karamasheva - a confirmed doper - is busted based on her passport anomalies. Schumacher says it appers to be the result of EPO and testifies to the one minute/10,000m performance benefit. Karamasheva's competition results during the blood anomalies are disqualify because of an unfair advantage deemed over undoped competition.
You've got to quit defending these dopers. Be glad they're being caught once in awhile because so many get away with it!
rekrunner wrote:
His expert testimony about oxygen and performance are hypotheticals that are not directly connected to Karamasheva. As hypotheticals, they express what could be possible, but not what really happened.
BS rekrunner - he's testifying in *Karamasheva's CAS hearing,* therefore it is connected to her case. Because if it's not directly related to Karamasheva's case - then why would he make such a statement in first place or provide a disclaimer that it wouldn't apply in her case?
Here's another case where experts are giving their expert opinion on an ABP hematological anomalies case:
Yekaterina Ryzhova - Disciplinary Tribunal (SR/adhoesport/82/2019)
Dr. Garvican-Lewis (who's published some papers on elites) testified that a 16.0 Hgb in this ABP case with Ryzhova would improve aerobic capacity in her sport of RW.
In addition, ref Paragraph 89, the DT asked this very interesting question to an anti-doping expert:
"The Panel also asked Professor d’Onofrio about how long before a competition an athlete would be able to effectively transfuse blood so as to have a substantial impact on performance. Professor d’Onofrio stated that earlier, 24-48 hours was considered to be the normal time frame. Recently, however, athletes had been caught transfusing blood as little as two hours before a race. He stated that if blood were to be reinfused too early, it would decrease production of new red blood cells, which would be detrimental to an athletes performance."
"substantial impact on performance" - do you know what this means?
rekrunner wrote:
Regarding the unfair advantage, who made the determination that Karamasheva received an unfair advantage from doping? From you quote, it looks like "The Sole Arbitrator", and not the "elite performance expert" Schumacher.
Of course "The Sole Arbitrator" did based on the evidence in the case and Schumacher's expert testimony. Doesn't a jury in a criminal court case give a verdict based on the evidence presented to them by witnesses and expert witnesses? Jurors don't have to be experts in forensics, toxicology, interrogation techniques, etc., to evaluate the evidence and render a verdict.
rekrunner wrote:
It's not relevant how you interpret the purpose of the ban.
Oh...and it's relevant that you know how to interpret the purpose of the ban and disqualifications?
You're a making mockery out of yourself defending dopers who are banned and their achievements while doping disqualified by CAS.
I imagine casual observer must be ROFL at this continuous nonsense here!
Are you interested in exercise physiology or the politics of WADA?
WADA is a self serving organisation. This has already been demonstrated by the fact that the research is funded by them and the conclusions are incontrovertible according to their own research. -
High-Octane Dopers wrote:
rekrunner wrote:
No. He is testifying as an anti-doping expert, not as an expert on elite performance.
Yes...I'd say both.
You'd be wrong again. Your posts are getting longer but still fail for all the same reasons:
- Team physician does not make him an performance expert on the causes of performance. Nor does testing and evaluation. It's like knowing a Rubik's cube is solved versus knowing how to solve it.
- Even if you could establish his credentials, it is a dead end. What is important is real data and observations on elite performance, not his credentials. You are fighting hard to commit the logical fallacy of "Appeal to Authority".
- His "expert testimony" is speculation that doping can work, up to some upper bound. He doesn't show that it did work -- for Karasmasheva, or any other elite athlete, ever. Nor can he, in a CAS hearing.
- His testimony on what could have happened has no value in the case, either for the verdict, the sanction, or any additional disqualifications, as performance benefit is not required, nor needs to be shown. It likewise has no value here, because it lacks real data and is not based on real observations of elite performance.
- I don't know why he makes a statement that has no possible bearing on the verdict or sanction. It is gratuitous.
- To illustrate this, even if the defending lawyer could show that doping really made these athletes slower, the dopers would still be banned and performance disqualified, for the same speculative reasons, because the rules don't make verdicts and sanctions subject to performance gains. These are all pre-decided earlier by committees that make the banned substance list, and make the anti-doping rules.
- An expert discussion worthy of my time would include a discussion of confounders (e.g. steroids for Russian women) and would have controlled measurements that isolates the independent variables.
- I'm not defending dopers (that tired, sad, lame accusation again?). We were talking about why you follow Schumacher and Malm.
- I am criticizing you, and dismissing your attempt to use statements in a CAS verdict speculating what could happen, to draw conclusions that even Schumacher doesn't draw.
- It is made worse since these speculations are in contradiction to the cautions of experts to not make such speculation on elite performances.
- The same applies for all experts in all CAS cases. CAS tribunals are not the place where scientific findings about performance benefit are made.
- All of these experts lack the required data necessary to make the conclusions you want to make. They speculate about performance benefits could be for elites without elite performance data. -
how does that work? wrote:
Tom Cochrane. wrote:
how does that work? wrote:
how does that work? wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
how does that work? wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
how does that work? wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
how does that work? wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
GBohannon wrote:
how does that work? wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
how does that work? wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
wegvewg wrote:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jsr0mZiRbNw
3:49.60 at 1600m as per the broadcast.
Those last two laps - unbelievable- and scarcely breathing at the finish. Jeezus, EPO is a powerful drug!
But isn't EPO supposed to make you breathe more?
Less. You have more oxygen in your bloodstream.
Which has to be extracted from the air by breathing more, not less.
If you can’t understand the point that was being made, you probably shouldn’t be on these boards.
Let me clarify - due to (alleged) EPO use, El G still seemed fresh at the conclusion of the race. He was not gasping for air as one might expect (perhaps) because his blood already had all of the oxygen it needed.
Yes (to both points).
Really? Explain how that works? Don't just keep repeating the same line. Try answering the question.
"EPO is a naturally occurring hormone in the body that stimulates the bone marrow to produce more red cells. Medically, it is given to patients with anemia of chronic disease whose bone marrow is suppressed to help them have more energy and increase daily function. But, inject it into an elite athlete and the extra oxygen increases their aerobic capacity. If the cell factory runs out of oxygen, it turns to anaerobic metabolism, whose waste products shut down the ability to perform. "
When you start running out of oxygen (which is carried to the muscles on the red blood cells) you quite literally run out of breath. That is when you see runners gasping and they may even collapse from lack of oxygen.
But if you increase your red blood cell content (which altitude training also does) you enable more oxygen to be carried to your muscles. Hence you can last longer with less effort. It doesn't involve breathing more because with each breath the increased red blood cells will carry more oxygen to the muscles. Everything becomes easier. That is why doped athletes can appear as fresh as a daisy at the end of a race.
So how does the body "run out of oxygen" it never happened to me in any race.
And how does having more red blood cells obviate the need to suck oxygen from the atmosphere?
How do you carry more oxygen without breathing more oxygen?
Your explanations don't make any sense.
Not on the planet you come from, which knows nothing about human physiology. Perhaps if you got off your a*se and did some reading about it you would stop parading your ignorance - the one thing you do well. As a previous poster said - you really shouldn't be here.
On the planet I come from oxygen makes up 20.9% of the atmosphere. Which Science should I be reading to understand how he could be using more oxygen, but breathing less?
The science that says a higher red blood cell content carries more oxygen to the muscles, hence fewer breaths are needed for given effort than if there is a lower red blood cell content (as in a less fit or undoped person) or if the cells have used up their oxygen. It appears your brain is starved of oxygen. Moron.
But how does the extra oxygen get into the blood from the atmosphere without breathing more?
How does he carry more oxygen without breathing more oxygen?
Does it happen by magic?
It would seem like that to you. Has your education not reached the level where red blood cell function was explained? I know it was explained on here but it appears you failed to grasp it.
How do you get more oxygen from the same volume of oxygen?
With more rbcs. This is the most basic equation there can be. -
Here's another ABP hematological anomalies case:
CAS 2016/O/4469 International Association of Athletics Federations (IAAF) v. All
Russia Athletics Federation (ARAF) & Tatyana Chernova
176."Taking into regard that the sanction of disqualification of results embraces the forfeiture
of any titles, awards, medals, points and prize and appearance money, the sanction of
disqualification is to be held equal to a retroactive imposition of a period of ineligibility
and, thus, is a severe measure. The Athlete loses all income from sport and, even more,
has to return income achieved. Considering, however, that the ABP has established
continued doping of the Athlete for the whole period until 8 July 2013, considering that
this comes roughly equal to the overall length of ineligibility period imposed by this
award, and considering that the effects of doping at the beginning of July 2013 might
well have continued until 22 July 2013, the Sole Arbitrator considers it justified, to
disqualify all the Athlete’s results from 15 August 2011 until 22 July 2013, bearing in
mind that the results of the Athlete from 15 August 2009 until 14 August 2011 have
already been disqualified by the RUSADA Disciplinary Committee. Such
disqualification of results covers the whole period during which the Athlete is found to
have used doping, as established on the basis of her ABP. The Sole Arbitrator is aware
of the fact that such period of disqualification, seen only from the perspective of the
sanction of disqualification of the results, must be deemed excessive in terms of
proportionality. However, not to disqualify results that have been achieved by using a
prohibited substance or prohibited method cannot be considered as fair with regard to
other athletes that competed against the Athlete during this period. The main purpose of
disqualification of results is not to punish the transgressor, but rather to correct any
unfair advantage and remove any tainted performances from the record (LEWIS /
TAYLOR (Eds.), Sport: Law and Practice, 2014, para. C.162, with further references)."
Answer this rekrunner: If doping doesn't work, how could Chernova have an "unfair advantage" which resulted in the disqualification of her performances. She could still get banned for four years but why disqualify her results if doping doesn't work and therefore she didn't have any "unfair advantage" over the other competitors. -
High-Octane Dopers wrote:
Answer this rekrunner: If doping doesn't work, how could Chernova have an "unfair advantage" which resulted in the disqualification of her performances. She could still get banned for four years but why disqualify her results if doping doesn't work and therefore she didn't have any "unfair advantage" over the other competitors.
We were not debating whether doping works.
I agree with your experts that doping can work.
Especially the steroids that all the Russian women took.
You said you follow experts like Schumacher and Malm.
We were discussing that.
I said they were not the right kind of experts, and that they didn't have the data and observations on elites to support your conclusions.
I said that you didn't follow them, but caught up and passed them, making conclusions that they don't make.
