Lactate curves of elite athletes show that EPO/ Blood boosting is pointless.

Brilliant. Cyclists don't have to be economical. Amazing.

Good science, bad science wrote:

Gary Oldman wrote:

They don't have to be economical because they have extra oxygen practically oozing out of their pores.

You don't have to be a miser if you're swimming in cash.

TdeF riders just eat more to make up for energy use. Why would they run out of gas if they can re-fuel as they go?

Brilliant. Cyclists don't have to be economical. Amazing.

See, you are learning.

the reader wrote:

nouse4aname wrote:

See how those two concepts can coexist? Come on man, this stuff is not that hard....

But you are a scientist and he's a guy that reads and thinks he understands scientific articles.

Vast difference.

Actually he's a bullshitter par excellence. Not that you would notice.

So, back to the original premise, which is after all basic physiology, elite athletes are using less oxygen to run or bike faster, not more oxygen as conventiona wisdom will have you believe.

Paula Radcliffe was indeed using less oxygen and less glycoge to run at 5.10 per mile than her rivals, and this was a result of years of training giving her more efficiency.

The concept of 'running economy' was first introduced by A.V. Hill in 1923

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2375555/#b20

Some good information by Steve Magness. Unfortunately, he can't see the wood for the trees and how he just like most people have been taken in by the drug dogma. My basic arguement is that with better oxygen economy, gained through better training you always have a reserve of oxygen uptake available, enabling faster average speed and a faster finish if need be. So blood boosting is pointless.

http://www.scienceofrunning.com/2009/12/fallacy-of-vo2max-and-vo2max.html

http://www.scienceofrunning.com/2008/01/running-economy-overated-echinacea-and.html

Good science, bad science wrote:

My basic arguement is that with better oxygen economy, gained through better training you always have a reserve of oxygen uptake available, enabling faster average speed and a faster finish if need be. So blood boosting is pointless.

The reserve of course being hosted by a plethora of EPO induced rbcs.

You're missing the point. Try again.

Not getting it yet? I will explain it again.

Racing faster requires more efficient movement. More efficient movement means that you get from A to B using less energy, not more energy, not more oxygen or glcyogen, but less.

Stop using the bigger engine analogy. The human body is not a machine. It is not like a racing car. This is biology not motor mechanics.

There, it wasn't so hard was it?

Lecture over.

You start the same thread every 2 months?

Woohoo!

1) Aerobic Capacity

2) then stamina

3) then school band becomes symphony orchestra

Boy, Jon got killed on this thread too.

Actually I didn't. But your jealousy will kill you.

Not quite the letsrun guru you think you are. And this is such a threat to you isn't it?

Good science, bad science wrote:

Not getting it yet? I will explain it again.

Racing faster requires more efficient movement.

I think you are confusing cause and effect. That would be bad science, then.

No, it's basic physiology.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4555089/

Jon Orange wrote:

Actually I didn't. But your jealousy will kill you.

Not quite the letsrun guru you think you are. And this is such a threat to you isn't it?

No. I am telling you to leave it to the actual real life scientific gurus. Nobody is a guru on a message board. Is that what you are actually trying to become?

Yes, but that does not imply that efficiency is the bottleneck, and oxygen transport does not matter.

Jon Orange wrote:

No, it's basic physiology.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4555089/

Jon, from that very link above:

Conclusions

Running economy is a complex, multifactorial concept that represents the sum of metabolic, cardiorespiratory, biomechanical and neuromuscular efficiency during running.

So better cardiorespiratory parameters means better economy. Not the other way around that better economy replaces need for better parameters. Simple as that.

thrice yearly thread wrote:

Jon Orange wrote:

Actually I didn't. But your jealousy will kill you.

Not quite the letsrun guru you think you are. And this is such a threat to you isn't it?

No. I am telling you to leave it to the actual real life scientific gurus. Nobody is a guru on a message board. Is that what you are actually trying to become?

Like these guys:

Nobody is a guru on a message board? Does that include you too?

effervescent movement wrote:

Jon Orange wrote:

No, it's basic physiology.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4555089/

Jon, from that very link above:

Conclusions

Running economy is a complex, multifactorial concept that represents the sum of metabolic, cardiorespiratory, biomechanical and neuromuscular efficiency during running.

So better cardiorespiratory parameters means better economy. Not the other way around that better economy replaces need for better parameters. Simple as that.

Basic fitness gives you those better cardirespiratiory parameters. This is easily and quickly achieved. However, improving your speed endurance through better skill takes much much longer.

Jon Orange wrote:

thrice yearly thread wrote:

No. I am telling you to leave it to the actual real life scientific gurus. Nobody is a guru on a message board. Is that what you are actually trying to become?

Like these guys:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25164465

Nobody is a guru on a message board? Does that include you too?

Correct. The guys that wrote your terrible source of proof of your theories are not on the message board.

I am not a guru. I already said that. Are you having trouble reading again?