I thought it was the screen I was watching on, but it looks the same on my tv. Has anyone else noticed this? Are they all just gluten free now, is there an absence of PED's in use, or is there something that is keeping them skinny?
I thought it was the screen I was watching on, but it looks the same on my tv. Has anyone else noticed this? Are they all just gluten free now, is there an absence of PED's in use, or is there something that is keeping them skinny?
Mainahhhh wrote:
I thought it was the screen I was watching on, but it looks the same on my tv. Has anyone else noticed this? Are they all just gluten free now, is there an absence of PED's in use, or is there something that is keeping them skinny?
The times speak for themselves. You can't take straight anabolic steroids and hope to pass a drug screen these days, so that beach body bodybuilder physique is out. There is no way the sprints are cleaner than the dirty 80's.
Yeah I mentioned this while watching the womens 200 last night. The event is so much skinnier than it used to be.
It is about proportions. So yes the heavier runner bites the dust. Bolt is not so heavy for his lenght.
Kg / power ratio improves once you get lighter.
Because even at shorter distances you can't deny physics - power/weight ratio can be adjusted more than one way.
Although Gil Robert's barrel chest disagrees with you observation. Jesus, duDE needs to lay off the bench press.
bigtool05 wrote:
Yeah I mentioned this while watching the womens 200 last night. The event is so much skinnier than it used to be.
I definitely noticed the same thing in the women's 200.
a certain peptide used for speed ............ IGF -1 lr3.................
will burn the fat off of you .
without effecting functional muscle mass .
and now chronic use in sprints and track and other sports
but wada refuse to test for it ,showing exactly what about ....
set up and bought and paid for .
also keeps times down ,most events progressive and
if can add in other dope then still have standout stars.
also what allows older athletes like gatlin and lagat , or collins to keep running
into twilight years by saving nervous system .
beyond obvious .
also , what collins or lagat doing in events unheard of ,,,, before this peptide
at such ages regardless of any other factors
DJERIDL wrote:
bigtool05 wrote:Yeah I mentioned this while watching the womens 200 last night. The event is so much skinnier than it used to be.
I definitely noticed the same thing in the women's 200.
This. Compare them to Daphne Schippers, Carmelita Jeter, or Flojo.
Mainahhhh wrote:
I thought it was the screen I was watching on, but it looks the same on my tv. Has anyone else noticed this? Are they all just gluten free now, is there an absence of PED's in use, or is there something that is keeping them skinny?
Maybe changes in training approach.
As someone mentioned there are lots of peptides/research chemicals you can buy right online now.
IGF-1 lr3 ................................
no other peptide or research chemical ,designer roid or amphetamine
simply this .
not just skinnier ,......
but generally faster .......
and consistently running fast unlike before........
and at ever younger ages especially in males.
and not just sprints.
makes breaking 10.20 or 20.30 for 200m look like a walk in park
whereas before with just steroids was never guaranteed.
not to mention getting close to 10 or sub 10 in much greater numbers
look at a average meet circa 2000- 2004 in europe and winning time in 200m
would never approach times getting now consistantly.
dukeboss wrote:
It is about proportions. So yes the heavier runner bites the dust. Bolt is not so heavy for his lenght.
Kg / power ratio improves once you get lighter.
Tyler the Creator wrote:
Because even at shorter distances you can't deny physics - power/weight ratio can be adjusted more than one way.
Although Gil Robert's barrel chest disagrees with you observation. Jesus, duDE needs to lay off the bench press.
But most sprinters are more concerned with being big than being fast.
Drugs, Drugs, Drugs! wrote:
You can't take straight anabolic steroids and hope to pass a drug screen these days
There is no way we know this to be true or false. I agree with your more general point the old school steroids are not being used though.
There were/are many side effect and timing issues with old school steroids.
As aduck posted, sports have moved on to using peptides. They get most of the androgenic effects of steroids without all the post-cycle issues. Dosing is easy. A little needle in a fattier part of your body and it's all good.
Of course, no one wants to talk about the known carcinogenic risks of at least some of the peptides.
And finally, WADA has a steroids passport. It works like the bio-passport and could be quite effective if the sports federations wanted to limit doping. But they don't.
Some of the times from the USA trials were ridiculous, so USATF is certainly doing their part to permit doping. The "how" of not sanctioning the positives is unknown though.
aduck2022 wrote:
a certain peptide used for speed ............ IGF -1 lr3.................
will burn the fat off of you .
without effecting functional muscle mass .
and now chronic use in sprints and track and other sports
but wada refuse to test for it ,showing exactly what about ....
set up and bought and paid for .
also keeps times down ,most events progressive and
if can add in other dope then still have standout stars.
also what allows older athletes like gatlin and lagat , or collins to keep running
into twilight years by saving nervous system .
beyond obvious .
also , what collins or lagat doing in events unheard of ,,,, before this peptide
at such ages regardless of any other factors
Knew i could count on you to spill the beans on IGF1, MGF and other peptides.
These are insane developments for chemically enhanced athletes.
Can't wait until gene doping fully takes off.
How can you stop it???
aduck2022 wrote:
makes breaking 10.20 or 20.30 for 200m look like a walk in park
whereas before with just steroids was never guaranteed.
not to mention getting close to 10 or sub 10 in much greater numbers
look at a average meet circa 2000- 2004 in europe and winning time in 200m
would never approach times getting now consistantly.
Yep this is spot on
Blood dEPOr wrote:
aduck2022 wrote:makes breaking 10.20 or 20.30 for 200m look like a walk in park
whereas before with just steroids was never guaranteed.
not to mention getting close to 10 or sub 10 in much greater numbers
look at a average meet circa 2000- 2004 in europe and winning time in 200m
would never approach times getting now consistantly.
Yep this is spot on
How much faster will this make a 14:30 5k runner with 24-low 200m speed?
How does it affect daily training routines?
I'm sure that PEDs play a major role in the change of the fields, but I think that coaches start looking to certain body types following the success of different athletes.
So everyone is looking for the next Bolt, not M Greene, or the next A Felix, etc..
14.30 5k runner down to 13.50 -13.30 range maybe
all nervous system mediated once hit peak cycle after 5/6 weeks in
look at what did for that scotish lass or fellow . for said example.
bolt is the original igf-1 poster boy .
on this from the very start as teen before could even hit hard steroids
in free for all jamican days of old from 2007 on
Not Merritt, he's the bulkiest quarter miler I've seen since Michael Johnson, that says a lot.
Fjords and sandstorms wrote:
DJERIDL wrote:I definitely noticed the same thing in the women's 200.
This. Compare them to Daphne Schippers, Carmelita Jeter, or Flojo.
Schippers looks more masculine than I'll ever do.