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

There is necessarily no mystery why particularly skiers have a higher Vo2Max than runners. Because more muscle mass is involved in the effort, body can use more of the oxygen delivered.

It is well-documented that blood doping increases performance of sub-elite runners, but there is also (limited) scientific evidence about elites. When a group of Canadian scientists blood doped a group some half a dozen of their elite runners in 1978, all (IIRC) of them broke their records after the experiment.

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.

That wasn't my point - they are all necessarily connected - but that's ok; your brain doesn't appear to be connected either.

I don't understand why you think the barrier here is my ability to process information.[/quote]

The first part of your sentence explains the second part.

Nice Broscience, Jon.

They are all aerobic monsters. The only reason you see higher numbers in skiers and cyclists is because of the greater mass of muscle actually used for the activity.

Your power comparisons are silly. None of the powerful kids are winning the races because there is way more to the sport than power numbers. Otherwise you would just upload your numbers from your power meter for a yellow jersey.

Armstronglivs wrote:

So tell us - our Denier-in-Chief - who are the "right kind of experts", with the "right kind of data and conclusions" - given that no elite athletes who have doped have also participated in any study to demonstrate the effects of doping?

How convenient that data isn't available; you can keep insisting there is no proof of what doping will do for elite athletes. Denial - like yours - depends on not seeing what everyone else can.

Ironically, that is the question I've been asking you this whole thread -- who are the "experts" talking about breathing.

The right kind of expert is the one with the data and observations.

It is not convenient for me, but inconvenient for those trying to draw conclusions without such data and observations.

I don't deny possibilities, but correctly categorize them as speculation without data and observations.

For all the reliance on researchers like Schumacher and Malm, they only state what they are qualified to state, a possible upper bound: "it could be up to ..."

You want me to give detailed and specific references to the abuse of young athletes by Quacks?

You want me to demonstrate that they have natural ability and they gain no Bioenergetic be benefit from doping?

This has been my concern since way back when?

Arguing with someone who has a medicine cabinet like a certain poster is pointless. He isn't going to change his mind.

Aragon wrote:

There is necessarily no mystery why particularly skiers have a higher Vo2Max than runners. Because more muscle mass is involved in the effort, body can use more of the oxygen delivered.

It is well-documented that blood doping increases performance of sub-elite runners, but there is also (limited) scientific evidence about elites. When a group of Canadian scientists blood doped a group some half a dozen of their elite runners in 1978, all (IIRC) of them broke their records after the experiment.

No, the XC Skiers have a naturally high muscle mass and a naturally high VO2max. The sport self selects on the basis of genetics. So does cycling, running, swimming etc. We are all better at some sports and worse at others.

Blood doping is the most bizarre quackery. Stop pretending otherwise.

Sure Jon, prove it.

how does that work?

Blood doping is the most bizarre quackery. Stop pretending otherwise.

The science says it works (in the population that were the cohort) and the mechanism is sound and plausible.

Here is an interesting anecdote. Half of the medallists at the 2001 cross-country skiing championships had so strange blood anomalies, that it was almost certain that all of them blood doped vs. only a few percent of those who didn't triumph. It is true that a few medallists might've doped because they had access to the latest technology, but likely not everyone of the blood dopers.

Aragon wrote:

how does that work?

Blood doping is the most bizarre quackery. Stop pretending otherwise.

The science says it works (in the population that were the cohort) and the mechanism is sound and plausible.

Here is an interesting anecdote. Half of the medallists at the 2001 cross-country skiing championships had so strange blood anomalies, that it was almost certain that all of them blood doped vs. only a few percent of those who didn't triumph. It is true that a few medallists might've doped because they had access to the latest technology, but likely not everyone of the blood dopers.

It's quackery. Please stop pretending otherwise.

Stop pretending you are a physiologist, Jon.

Armstronglivs wrote:

rekrunner wrote:

I don't understand why you think the barrier here is my ability to process information.

The first part of your sentence explains the second part.

Armstronglivs wrote:You keep topping yourself; I didn't think ...

This explains all...

how does that work? wrote:

You want me to give detailed and specific references to the abuse of young athletes by Quacks?

You want me to demonstrate that they have natural ability and they gain no Bioenergetic be benefit from doping?

This has been my concern since way back when?

Arguing with someone who has a medicine cabinet like a certain poster is pointless. He isn't going to change his mind.

No I don't want references to these things.

You wanted me to process information in your posts, apparently related to the "the plasma volume issue" you explained, just 16 years ago and again a few days ago.

Armstronglivs 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.

That wasn't my point - they are all necessarily connected - but that's ok; your brain doesn't appear to be connected either.

But your point was that breathing less was a sign of more oxygen in the blood and more oxygen in the muscles.

Is the connection to the lungs a direct relation, or is there an inverse relation? What do experts tell us?

how does that work? wrote:

It's quackery. Please stop pretending otherwise.

Thank you for your contribution to the discussion.

Your opinion has been noted. I think everyone knows it by now therefore there is no reason to repeat it in the future.

rekrunner wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

That wasn't my point - they are all necessarily connected - but that's ok; your brain doesn't appear to be connected either.

But your point was that breathing less was a sign of more oxygen in the blood and more oxygen in the muscles.

Is the connection to the lungs a direct relation, or is there an inverse relation? What do experts tell us?

It influences the rate of O2 kinetics. According to experts.

Rate of O2 kinetics is key. This is something Jon struggles with and you can too.

Right, so there are no "right kind of experts". None who can prove to your satisfaction what doping will do for athletes. If antidoping took your view - there would be no antidoping and doping would get a free pass. But that's what you'd like. The dopers have found their champion in you.

rekrunner wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

The first part of your sentence explains the second part.

Armstronglivs wrote:You keep topping yourself; I didn't think ...

This explains all...

It does. You are unable to read a full sentence. Lost after halfway. It explains a lot. (Sentence short enough for you?)

rekrunner wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

That wasn't my point - they are all necessarily connected - but that's ok; your brain doesn't appear to be connected either.

But your point was that breathing less was a sign of more oxygen in the blood and more oxygen in the muscles.

Is the connection to the lungs a direct relation, or is there an inverse relation? What do experts tell us?

Sigh. I didn't say breathing less. Less than what? The issue is that more oxygen makes it to the muscles for each breath when there is a greater quantity of red blood cells. (The transfer of oxygen is also dependent on the ability of the heart to pump the blood - that is another part of the aerobic equation). But it is futile to attempt to enlighten one who is both scientifically illiterate and cannot read plain English.