how does that work? wrote:
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.
You shouldn't tell lies. Especially if you are pretending to be a moral guardian to the message board.[/quote]
I am not a moral guardian nor pretending to be. But Jack is worried about you. We all are.
rekrunner wrote:
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.
Not if oxygen has to reach the muscles. But that's ok - your reading hasn't yet arrived at that point.
If that were true, it would seem in your interest to address the concerns raised in two papers about the muscles.
But even then, it still misses the point. The point you initially raised, but since then, continue to avoid like the plague, was about the mouth and lungs, not the blood or muscles.
rekrunner wrote:
If that were true, it would seem in your interest to address the concerns raised in two papers about the muscles.
But even then, it still misses the point. The point you initially raised, but since then, continue to avoid like the plague, was about the mouth and lungs, not the blood or muscles.
Well can you address the plasma volume issue I explained 16 years ago and again a few days ago?
Otherwise this thread goes nowhere useful.
how does that work? wrote:
rekrunner wrote:
If that were true, it would seem in your interest to address the concerns raised in two papers about the muscles.
But even then, it still misses the point. The point you initially raised, but since then, continue to avoid like the plague, was about the mouth and lungs, not the blood or muscles.
We’re talking enhanced blood not weak sauce watered down stuff.
Well can you address the plasma volume issue I explained 16 years ago and again a few days ago?
Otherwise this thread goes nowhere useful.
We’re talking enhanced blood here not watered down stuff.
how does that work? wrote:
rekrunner wrote:
If that were true, it would seem in your interest to address the concerns raised in two papers about the muscles.
But even then, it still misses the point. The point you initially raised, but since then, continue to avoid like the plague, was about the mouth and lungs, not the blood or muscles.
Well can you address the plasma volume issue I explained 16 years ago and again a few days ago?
Otherwise this thread goes nowhere useful.
We've been circling around nowhere useful for 68 pages. But in the meantime, why not.
What is the plasma volume issue? That volume and hematocrit can vary?
rekrunner wrote:
how does that work? wrote:
Well can you address the plasma volume issue I explained 16 years ago and again a few days ago?
Otherwise this thread goes nowhere useful.
We've been circling around nowhere useful for 68 pages. But in the meantime, why not.
What is the plasma volume issue? That volume and hematocrit can vary?
Yes, by about 10 or more percent to and fro. So a highvolume training runner can have have a hematocrit of 40 when doing volume training and 45 in a short race like 1500 or 2000m. If it is 45 heart rate will be higher, stroke volume lower, maximal cardiac output is the same, but hemoconcentration is much higher.
This is how my 1500m times kept improving despite my age. I worked out a warm up strategy to optimise the parameters.
Most distance runners underestimate their true ability at 1500 and never find out.
I'm not sure what you expect. Shall I address something specific, or just acknowledge it?
I understand that these parameters can vary widely in the short term.
how does that work? wrote:
rekrunner wrote:
We've been circling around nowhere useful for 68 pages. But in the meantime, why not.
What is the plasma volume issue? That volume and hematocrit can vary?
Yes, by about 10 or more percent to and fro. So a highvolume training runner can have have a hematocrit of 40 when doing volume training and 45 in a short race like 1500 or 2000m. If it is 45 heart rate will be higher, stroke volume lower, maximal cardiac output is the same, but hemoconcentration is much higher.
This is how my 1500m times kept improving despite my age. I worked out a warm up strategy to optimise the parameters.
Most distance runners underestimate their true ability at 1500 and never find out.
So much for homeostasis.
Just out of curiosity,
Are you the same guy, who claimed a few years ago that EPO/blood doping was beneficial only because of plasma volume expansion?
Because there tends to be actually a minor fall in plasma because total blood volume tends to remain roughly the same after the treatment.
Aragon wrote:
Just out of curiosity,
Are you the same guy, who claimed a few years ago that EPO/blood doping was beneficial only because of plasma volume expansion?
Because there tends to be actually a minor fall in plasma because total blood volume tends to remain roughly the same after the treatment.
There was another poster 'Alberto Contador' making the claim that total blood volume increased. It might be true to some degree in hot/humid weather but
I agree with your point. EPO doping and Blood packing increase red blood cell volume and decrease plasma volume.
I am saying that plasma volume can change during training and racing over the course of a few minutes going up or down.
Heart rate and stroke volume are more variable than 'Heart rate zone' tables suggest. Not that the tables are a wrong concept, but if we know about plasma volume variability it gives more information.
rekrunner wrote:
I'm not sure what you expect. Shall I address something specific, or just acknowledge it?
I understand that these parameters can vary widely in the short term.
I don't know. You don't seem to be able to process the information in my post.
My point is simple. This idea that elite runners are 'aerobic monsters' is nonsensical. Jack Daniels never made such a claim. Why is it supposedly conventional wisdom?
Andy Jones goes even further with his observations that elite runners don't have sky high oxygen uptake.
Elite cyclists seem to have higher numbers and thete are obvious genetic differences from one athlete to another.
They are aerobic monsters. Every endurance organism is.
Your ideas are bunk.
how does that work? wrote:
rekrunner wrote:
I'm not sure what you expect. Shall I address something specific, or just acknowledge it?
I understand that these parameters can vary widely in the short term.
I don't know. You don't seem to be able to process the information in my post.
My point is simple. This idea that elite runners are 'aerobic monsters' is nonsensical. Jack Daniels never made such a claim. Why is it supposedly conventional wisdom?
Andy Jones goes even further with his observations that elite runners don't have sky high oxygen uptake.
Elite cyclists seem to have higher numbers and thete are obvious genetic differences from one athlete to another.
I don't understand why you think the barrier here is my ability to process information.
Like Armstronglivs' cartoons, I have processed the information and understand your simple point.
I've processed much more, including from Jones and Daniels, as well as many others.
I use a performance model derived from basic exercise physiology where aerobics is an important, but by far not the only component.
My advice to you is the same -- if you want me to process some of your ideas, and give them some more weight, give me some of your detailed and specific references that allow me to remove your filters and biases and other original ideas, or at least put them in perspective.
Tom Cochrane. wrote:
how does that work? wrote:
Yes, by about 10 or more percent to and fro. So a highvolume training runner can have have a hematocrit of 40 when doing volume training and 45 in a short race like 1500 or 2000m. If it is 45 heart rate will be higher, stroke volume lower, maximal cardiac output is the same, but hemoconcentration is much higher.
This is how my 1500m times kept improving despite my age. I worked out a warm up strategy to optimise the parameters.
Most distance runners underestimate their true ability at 1500 and never find out.
So much for homeostasis.
What does science say about homeostatis and plasma volume?
"The primary variables that are homeostatically regulated are blood volume and plasma osmolality, but both are subject to short term variation in response to posture change, exercise, food and fluid intake and a number of other factors,"
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/j.1600-0838.2010.01207.xhow does that work? wrote:
My point is simple. This idea that elite runners are 'aerobic monsters' is nonsensical. Jack Daniels never made such a claim. Why is it supposedly conventional wisdom?
Andy Jones goes even further with his observations that elite runners don't have sky high oxygen uptake.
Elite cyclists seem to have higher numbers and thete are obvious genetic differences from one athlete to another.
I think it was famed physiologist Steve Seiler, who was surprised that there hadn't been an endurance runner with Vo2Max above 90 ml/min/kg.
The released data is anecdotal and sometimes dubious (why to release the suspicious "blood doped" data?), but there is a interindividual correlation between Vo2Max and speed e.g. in the data measured by the Finnish scientists, who tested Finnish elite athletes in 1973-1976, but there was also a correlation between speed and % of slow type muscle fibers, activity of certain muscle enzymes etc.. (Viren not tested)
In some sports, the correlation can be more clear, e.g the Swedes tested their elite skiers already in the early 1970s and noticed a clear correlation between the relative Vo2Max and the average of five best placings during the 1971-72 season (left box), not that evident with absolute Vo2Max (right box):
https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-AvBl7jgHa8s/XeUguR0GYQI/AAAAAAAAAI4/oQevNRSHWkQEbGAT5OJa7Hoz21HBOyvcwCLcBGAsYHQ/s1600/BerghKaavio.jpgThere is a few years old Norwegian paper with roughly the same conclusion with elite Norwegians in the 1990s and 2000s.
Because there is evidence that blood doping tends to elevate also Vo2Max of elite athletes (there is also some unpublished time-trial data), it is not a bridge to far to believe that it is beneficial in many - if not most - cases even if the other factors are also important.
Aragon wrote:
how does that work? wrote:
My point is simple. This idea that elite runners are 'aerobic monsters' is nonsensical. Jack Daniels never made such a claim. Why is it supposedly conventional wisdom?
Andy Jones goes even further with his observations that elite runners don't have sky high oxygen uptake.
Elite cyclists seem to have higher numbers and thete are obvious genetic differences from one athlete to another.
I think it was famed physiologist Steve Seiler, who was surprised that there hadn't been an endurance runner with Vo2Max above 90 ml/min/kg.
The released data is anecdotal and sometimes dubious (why to release the suspicious "blood doped" data?), but there is a interindividual correlation between Vo2Max and speed e.g. in the data measured by the Finnish scientists, who tested Finnish elite athletes in 1973-1976, but there was also a correlation between speed and % of slow type muscle fibers, activity of certain muscle enzymes etc.. (Viren not tested)
In some sports, the correlation can be more clear, e.g the Swedes tested their elite skiers already in the early 1970s and noticed a clear correlation between the relative Vo2Max and the average of five best placings during the 1971-72 season (left box), not that evident with absolute Vo2Max (right box):
https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-AvBl7jgHa8s/XeUguR0GYQI/AAAAAAAAAI4/oQevNRSHWkQEbGAT5OJa7Hoz21HBOyvcwCLcBGAsYHQ/s1600/BerghKaavio.jpgThere is a few years old Norwegian paper with roughly the same conclusion with elite Norwegians in the 1990s and 2000s.
Because there is evidence that blood doping tends to elevate also Vo2Max of elite athletes (there is also some unpublished time-trial data), it is not a bridge to far to believe that it is beneficial in many - if not most - cases even if the other factors are also important.
EliteXC Skiers are "Aerobic Monsters" VO2 max more than 85 for men
Elite Cyclists around 80
Elite runners somewhat less
Oxygen uptake in a healthy person is tightly controlled by homeostasis and you can't cheat the laws of physics. Those Tour de France cyclists who doped didn't cheat the laws of physics, they jave the same power outputs as your local 19 year old amateur hero, take a look at some numbers.
Doping = quackery. Anti doping just reinforces the belief in doping. It's not difficult to comprehend the psychology is it?
If you constantly tell young people not to dope because it gives an unfair advantage, you are endorsing the quackery.
Let me ask you, do you believe Jan Ulrich had a natural VO2 max of 80 ml/kg/min?
Of course he did.
Is that sufficient oxygen delivery to enable him to climb Alpe d'Huez in 37 minutes and Time Trial at 53kmh?
Of course it is. And all the rest.
rekrunner wrote:
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.
You keep topping yourself; I didn't think it was possible to exceed your ignorance of the subject being discussed - but you do. You always do.
rekrunner wrote:
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.
Everything is dyslexia to you. It explains a lot.
how does that work? wrote:
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?
A surprising recommendation from one who argues that drugs don't work.
