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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
rekrunner wrote:
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?
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:
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
[b]how does that work? wrote:[b]
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.
