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

Armstronglivs wrote:

rekrunner wrote:

I didn't enter a discourse about doping, but asked you for an authoritative citation to back up your initial statement.

You should be able to do this, regardless of my beliefs.

I quoted an article that made the obvious and uncontested point (except on this thread) that a higher RBC enables greater O2 transfer for each breath, but your beliefs got in the way of understanding - as they always do. It isn't a point of scientific contention - if you understood the science. That the earth isn't flat hardly requires a citation.

What article? There are lots of claims, but no explanations for where this extra energy is supposed to come from or how that is bioenergetically feasible.

That's why I have been asking for 15 years.

Your claim that EPO allows an athlete to extract more oxygen from the same volume of air is nonsensical.

How does having more 20% more haemoglobin enable more oxygen to be attached for the same volume of air?

Just have a think about what you're proposing?

By the way do you know the song "what you're proposing"

It's all about a man who has been snorting so much coke for so many years that he knows he is going crazy.

Armstronglivs wrote:

I quoted an article that made the obvious and uncontested point (except on this thread) that a higher RBC enables greater O2 transfer for each breath, but your beliefs got in the way of understanding - as they always do. It isn't a point of scientific contention - if you understood the science. That the earth isn't flat hardly requires a citation.

While you did quote an article, it fell far short of responding to what was asked of you.

This has nothing to do with my belief or my understanding.

When was this "height of the EPO era"? 1991- 2008?

Yo Sara ian wrote:

how does that work? wrote:

So are you saying El Gerrouj doped with EPO?

I never heard Steve Cram make that claim.

How does that work?

Ask Brendan.

rekrunner wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

I quoted an article that made the obvious and uncontested point (except on this thread) that a higher RBC enables greater O2 transfer for each breath, but your beliefs got in the way of understanding - as they always do. It isn't a point of scientific contention - if you understood the science. That the earth isn't flat hardly requires a citation.

While you did quote an article, it fell far short of responding to what was asked of you.

This has nothing to do with my belief or my understanding.

Au contraire.

Armstronglivs wrote:

rekrunner wrote:

While you did quote an article, it fell far short of responding to what was asked of you.

This has nothing to do with my belief or my understanding.

Au contraire.

So if I understand you correctly, you are saying if only I understood the article written by a chair of ethics, and two children researchers, then you would be capable of providing an authoritative description of the relation of EPO and breathing from an expert in the field that corroborates your version?

It looks odd to me that it is my lack of understanding that is directly causing you to fail to participate in what could be intelligent discourse.

I don't think a globe earth requires a citation, but if anyone were to challenge me to find one, I would be able to find several based on real verifiable and repeatable observations and data, and we wouldn't be discussing 10 pages later about why I couldn't find 1 single citation, choosing instead to doubt the intelligence and comprehension capability of those who dare to continue to ask for supporting arguments.

rekrunner wrote:

how does that work? wrote:

So are you saying El Gerrouj doped with EPO?

I never heard Steve Cram make that claim.

I understood "it is more than EPO" as an attempt to refocus the intelligent discourse away from EPO.

Like a smokescreen?

Yo Sara ian wrote:

rekrunner wrote:

I understood "it is more than EPO" as an attempt to refocus the intelligent discourse away from EPO.

Like a smokescreen?

Maybe we should ask the poster Standard Setter what was meant or implied in that post?

He means that El G was exceptionally talented as well.

If you can't glean that what chance do you have understanding scientific articles?

Perhaps you could explain how a higher RBC doesn't mean that more oxygen can be carried for each breath? Or how an improved aerobic capacity requires a runner has to breath harder than when they had lesser aerobic capacity? I'm sure you could produce citations. And another proving the earth is flat, while you are about it.

rekrunner wrote:

how does that work? wrote:

So are you saying El Gerrouj doped with EPO?

I never heard Steve Cram make that claim.

I understood "it is more than EPO" as an attempt to refocus the intelligent discourse away from EPO.

It appears many top runners aren't very intelligent. They prefer EPO.

The top runners were all taking EPO in the 1990s. It doesn't magically make every runner run the same time. This isn't Asterix at the Olympic Games. Training and talent differentiate them still.

Armstronglivs wrote:

Perhaps you could explain how a higher RBC doesn't mean that more oxygen can be carried for each breath? Or how an improved aerobic capacity requires a runner has to breath harder than when they had lesser aerobic capacity? I'm sure you could produce citations. And another proving the earth is flat, while you are about it.

I don't make any of these claims, as I haven't yet seen any expert discussion, nor the basis supporting the discussion, on the connection to the breathing rate, either during or post-exercise, associated with an alleged higher throughput capability of oxygen. Once I have seen the expert discussion, and the supporting data and observations, I would be in a better position to form a reasoned opinion, and explain the basis for it. You suggested an inverse relation: higher oxygen throughput leads to reduced breathing. You said it seems too logical. I said this inverse relation seems counter-intuitive.

Recall it was you who made a claim about the significance of breathing on page 1. A fundamentally basic part of intelligent discourse is for you to be able to provide the basis and foundations for your own claims. Telling me that I cannot comprehend a basis that has not been presented does not meet that burden.

With respect to the shape of the earth, around 1000 years ago, the Islamic astronomer Abu Rayhan al-Biruni did a mountain top experiment taking measures of the dip-angle to the horizon, relative to a horizontal gaze. From this measurement, and another measurement of angles to the height of the mountain, he used basic geometry to estimate the radius of the earth to a remarkable degree of accuracy, compared to our current estimates today. If the earth were flat, he would have measured a 0-degree dip-angle, and the radius calculation would have resulted in a division by zero, indicating the infinite radius associated with a plane. Anyone can make predictions from their model, and then perform this experiment for themselves, making the results verifiable, and if applicable, falsifiable.

zcxvczxv wrote:

The top runners were all taking EPO in the 1990s. It doesn't magically make every runner run the same time. This isn't Asterix at the Olympic Games. Training and talent differentiate them still.

The statement above was "nobody was touching (these times) - unless we have another doping free-for-all like the mid to late 90's".

My historical observation was that nobody else could touch these times even during the "doping free-for-all like the mid to late 90's". The gaps to the 2nd and 3rd best times were not fractions of a second, but several seconds.

I agree with you that talent and training are two significant factors. When we ignore the role of these and other non-doping factors, we risk over-estimating the true value of doping.

Taking your comment to the next logical step, we should ask how significant EPO was in contributing to the times in the 1990s, after you consider the contribution of other factors, like talent and training (and opportunity, pacing, etc.) or even ask why we think EPO was significant at all, for distance running events.

It seems appropriate to link again to the following thread, in which an Olympic quality athlete asserts that everybody was doping in the late 90s. Canova chose to ignore this when it was once pointed out to him.

It is certainly clear that El Guerrouj and Morceli were doping, and that it had an effect. How much of an effect is debatable, of course one certainly still needs hard work and ability.

posting again wrote:

It seems appropriate to link again to the following thread, in which an Olympic quality athlete asserts that everybody was doping in the late 90s. Canova chose to ignore this when it was once pointed out to him.

It is certainly clear that El Guerrouj and Morceli were doping, and that it had an effect. How much of an effect is debatable, of course one certainly still needs hard work and ability.

In this thread, much of the discussion on the topic of doping was limited to EPO, and the related impact on breathing, and not all forms of doping.

The Olympic class anonymous Algerian athlete poster in that thread wasn't too clear on which doping he and his competitors took and which doping "helped", only specifying Clenbuterol by name, and saying that weight loss was the most important thing.

What a relief that an ancient astronomer has assured you the earth isn't flat. You would never have known otherwise.

But in respect of "the earth isn't flat" observations I made about breathing being related to a higher RBC and improved aerobic capacity the only alternative position, if you dispute that relationship, is to accept the propositions in the questions I posed above. Logically you are required to maintain the converse of what I argued. So - go ahead and prove it.

I will remind you what my questions were.

- How does a higher RBC not mean that more oxygen can be carried for each breath?

- How does an improved aerobic capacity require a runner to breath harder for the same effort than when they had lesser aerobic capacity?

How does having a higher aerobic capacity reduce the ventilation rate?

Do you even understand the question?

Evidently not.

Because elites don't suck wind like hobbyjoggers.