I really want to get this point across that exercise physiologist know sweet fukc all about oxygen delivery and that is why we have had 50 years of this dreadful pseudoscience about blood boosting being rammed down our throats.
We have Ross Tucker on his blog rambling on endlessly about this subject and he doesn't even know what plasma shift is. His is typical of the nonsense being spouted.
Jon Orange wrote:
test2 wrote:But 80% is more than 79%. The faster runner uses oxygen at a faster rate. He may use less total but that's not related to what we are talking about here.
No, you're missing the point. The 1% difference is due to the shorter duration of running. If both runners race for the same length of time, they have the same heart rate.
By your calculation, hold all other factors constant and increase VO2Max in one of the twins by 1% who wins?
trollism wrote:
You coached anyone to any level yet Orange?
You gonna tell us more about Sally Gunnel's doping regime trolli?
After all, your'e completely anonymous here. Go for it. Go for Gold.
BTW how's the new book coming along?
test2 wrote:
Jon Orange wrote:No, you're missing the point. The 1% difference is due to the shorter duration of running. If both runners race for the same length of time, they have the same heart rate.
By your calculation, hold all other factors constant and increase VO2Max in one of the twins by 1% who wins?
I suggest you learn more about oxygen delivery before you publish your thesis. I will help you. No, I'm not being facetious. This stuff should be discussed intelligently instead of the ususal misconceptions that get bandied about endlessly.
For example, in most of the literature you read, the relationship between plasma volume and stroke volume is ignored.
Still the same old non expanded theory Jon?
You've had months and you're still spouting the short form?
Still want to deny what I'm saying without even looking at it?
This is why we have a drug problem. Ignorance and indoctrination.
What part of this don't you understand?:
79% VO2 max for a 3 hour race but only 80% for a 2 hour race.
If we compare two identical twins, one who is super elite and one who is a beginner but has good overall fitness, because they are genetically identical and both have good basic fitness, they will have the same absolute VO2 max.
The slower runner will doubtless have more body fat, perhaps 20% versus 6% for the elite runner at his skinniest.
If both runners have the same absolute VO2 max say 5 liters/minute then the 3 hour runner uses 5 x .79 = 3.95 liters x 180 = 711 liters oxygen
Elite runner uses 5x .80 = 4.0 liters x 120 = 480 liters oxygen
The difference in intensity is minimal. You assumed the fast runner has to have a massively hypertrophic heart giving him a super human VO2 max. This is the dogma, it goes back to even before you were born. Elite athletes don't have massively hypertrophic hearts.
The slower runner uses more fats and more carbs, as we all do when we run for longer periods.
Even if we use the example of two identical twins with a relatively low VO2 max, they will have genetically superior economy relative to those with a higher VO2 max. Say 4 liters/minute then the 3 hour runner uses 4 x .79 = 3.16 x 180 = 569 liters oxygen
Elite runner uses 4 x .80 = 3.20 liters x 120 = 384 liters.
So my point still stands: ELITE RUNNERS USE LESS OXYGEN, GLYCOGEN AND FATS TO RACE FASTER.
The same principle applies to runners with much smaller differences in ability.
Really, it's not hard to figure this stuff out, it's not quantum mechanics.
Read more:
http://www.letsrun.com/forum/flat_read.php?thread=7483154#ixzz4EO8PZVWr
Jon Orange wrote:
trollism wrote:You coached anyone to any level yet Orange?
You gonna tell us more about Sally Gunnel's doping regime trolli?
After all, your'e completely anonymous here. Go for it. Go for Gold.
BTW how's the new book coming along?
I'm intrigued, who do you think I am now? I kinda lose track.
Jon Orange wrote:
What part of this don't you understand?:
79% VO2 max for a 3 hour race but only 80% for a 2 hour race.
If we compare two identical twins, one who is super elite and one who is a beginner but has good overall fitness, because they are genetically identical and both have good basic fitness, they will have the same absolute VO2 max.
The slower runner will doubtless have more body fat, perhaps 20% versus 6% for the elite runner at his skinniest.
If both runners have the same absolute VO2 max say 5 liters/minute then the 3 hour runner uses 5 x .79 = 3.95 liters x 180 = 711 liters oxygen
Elite runner uses 5x .80 = 4.0 liters x 120 = 480 liters oxygen
The difference in intensity is minimal. You assumed the fast runner has to have a massively hypertrophic heart giving him a super human VO2 max. This is the dogma, it goes back to even before you were born. Elite athletes don't have massively hypertrophic hearts.
The slower runner uses more fats and more carbs, as we all do when we run for longer periods.
Even if we use the example of two identical twins with a relatively low VO2 max, they will have genetically superior economy relative to those with a higher VO2 max. Say 4 liters/minute then the 3 hour runner uses 4 x .79 = 3.16 x 180 = 569 liters oxygen
Elite runner uses 4 x .80 = 3.20 liters x 120 = 384 liters.
So my point still stands: ELITE RUNNERS USE LESS OXYGEN, GLYCOGEN AND FATS TO RACE FASTER.
The same principle applies to runners with much smaller differences in ability.
Really, it's not hard to figure this stuff out, it's not quantum mechanics.
Read more:
http://www.letsrun.com/forum/flat_read.php?thread=7483154#ixzz4EO8PZVWr
Same old stuff after taking a break and coming back with no updates.
Come up with something new.
Repeating it doesn't make it more credible.
rjm33 wrote:
Your post is long and wrong. Your theory is incorrect.
You need to read more:
http://www.hypo2sport.com/total-hemoglobin-mass-testing-the-gold-standard/
Followed your link. It's a business' website. What was I supposed to read there?
Rotten Oranges wrote:
Jon Orange wrote:What part of this don't you understand?:
79% VO2 max for a 3 hour race but only 80% for a 2 hour race.
If we compare two identical twins, one who is super elite and one who is a beginner but has good overall fitness, because they are genetically identical and both have good basic fitness, they will have the same absolute VO2 max.
The slower runner will doubtless have more body fat, perhaps 20% versus 6% for the elite runner at his skinniest.
If both runners have the same absolute VO2 max say 5 liters/minute then the 3 hour runner uses 5 x .79 = 3.95 liters x 180 = 711 liters oxygen
Elite runner uses 5x .80 = 4.0 liters x 120 = 480 liters oxygen
The difference in intensity is minimal. You assumed the fast runner has to have a massively hypertrophic heart giving him a super human VO2 max. This is the dogma, it goes back to even before you were born. Elite athletes don't have massively hypertrophic hearts.
The slower runner uses more fats and more carbs, as we all do when we run for longer periods.
Even if we use the example of two identical twins with a relatively low VO2 max, they will have genetically superior economy relative to those with a higher VO2 max. Say 4 liters/minute then the 3 hour runner uses 4 x .79 = 3.16 x 180 = 569 liters oxygen
Elite runner uses 4 x .80 = 3.20 liters x 120 = 384 liters.
So my point still stands: ELITE RUNNERS USE LESS OXYGEN, GLYCOGEN AND FATS TO RACE FASTER.
The same principle applies to runners with much smaller differences in ability.
Really, it's not hard to figure this stuff out, it's not quantum mechanics.
Read more:
http://www.letsrun.com/forum/flat_read.php?thread=7483154#ixzz4EO8PZVWrSame old stuff after taking a break and coming back with no updates.
Come up with something new.
Repeating it doesn't make it more credible.
It's real physiology. My numbers are correct. Elite athletes are more energy efficient.
Do you have a background in exercise physiology? Do you have plans to test your hypothesis? Have you run your hypothesis by any experts? What did they say?
Jon Orange wrote:
Rotten Oranges wrote:Same old stuff after taking a break and coming back with no updates.
Come up with something new.
Repeating it doesn't make it more credible.
It's real physiology. My numbers are correct. Elite athletes are more energy efficient.
No, it's all hypothetical with fudged numbers to make it fit your hypothesis.
Reaganomics wrote:
Do you have a background in exercise physiology? Do you have plans to test your hypothesis? Have you run your hypothesis by any experts? What did they say?
No, no and I was hoping some experts would chime in here. I'm coming at this as a fan of the sport who doesn't buy Renato canova's argument that EPO doesn't work on the top East Africans.
For what it's worth I'm a scientist but not a sports scientist. This is outside my realm of true expertise so its very possible I've made a beginner's mistake. If so, I imagine it would be easy for an expert to point it out. I'm started this thread hoping that someone would do just that.
To the poster who asked me for citations, that will a little time so check back. I'll add references as I can.
Rotten Oranges wrote:
Jon Orange wrote:It's real physiology. My numbers are correct. Elite athletes are more energy efficient.
No, it's all hypothetical with fudged numbers to make it fit your hypothesis.
No it isn't. It's real physiology, something you and everyone should learn. And that especially includes exercise physiologists, who are largely to blame for the drug problem.
test2 wrote:
Reaganomics wrote:Do you have a background in exercise physiology? Do you have plans to test your hypothesis? Have you run your hypothesis by any experts? What did they say?
No, no and I was hoping some experts would chime in here. I'm coming at this as a fan of the sport who doesn't buy Renato canova's argument that EPO doesn't work on the top East Africans.
For what it's worth I'm a scientist but not a sports scientist. This is outside my realm of true expertise so its very possible I've made a beginner's mistake. If so, I imagine it would be easy for an expert to point it out. I'm started this thread hoping that someone would do just that.
To the poster who asked me for citations, that will a little time so check back. I'll add references as I can.
Renato is right. You and everyone should respect him. I don't why you would't?
The internet is a weird place and you have been indoctrinated with nonsense.
How could you possibly think you know more than a coach of his experience who isn't involved in the drugs business?
And it's not just elite East Africans, but everyone who stands nothing to gain by doping. Read my posts and educate yourself. You are not doing this but you should be.
Jon, this is rich coming from you. You agree with Renato only on the EPO doesn't work result and none of his reasoning. That you don't even care about his logic shows a complete lack of respect for Renato Canova and logic itself.
I for one mean no disrespect to Renato. Personally I believe that his opinions are genuine, I simply disagree with his reasoning in this one case. It may well be that it is I who am in error and not him. I fact, if I had to bet, I'd bet on him but is still like to know where my argument fails. If it's long and wrong as some troll wrote, it should be pretty easy for people to spot the holes. So far no one has done so have at it.
Jon Orange wrote:
Rotten Oranges wrote:No, it's all hypothetical with fudged numbers to make it fit your hypothesis.
No it isn't. It's real physiology, something you and everyone should learn. And that especially includes exercise physiologists, who are largely to blame for the drug problem.
Same statement again. How many times can you put it on separate threads and then link back to previous threads all saying the same thing?
Come up with a something new or an actual study instead of your "twins" scenario.
Rotten Oranges wrote:
Jon Orange wrote:No it isn't. It's real physiology, something you and everyone should learn. And that especially includes exercise physiologists, who are largely to blame for the drug problem.
Same statement again. How many times can you put it on separate threads and then link back to previous threads all saying the same thing?
Come up with a something new or an actual study instead of your "twins" scenario.
Come up with something new? But you don't even want to learn what I'm saying. Why would that be?
Ulterior motive in promoting drug stories?
test2 wrote:
Jon, this is rich coming from you. You agree with Renato only on the EPO doesn't work result and none of his reasoning. That you don't even care about his logic shows a complete lack of respect for Renato Canova and logic itself.
I for one mean no disrespect to Renato. Personally I believe that his opinions are genuine, I simply disagree with his reasoning in this one case. It may well be that it is I who am in error and not him. I fact, if I had to bet, I'd bet on him but is still like to know where my argument fails. If it's long and wrong as some troll wrote, it should be pretty easy for people to spot the holes. So far no one has done so have at it.
I don't agree with Renato's blood viscosity explanation. Blood viscosity is a very minor issue at the doped athlete's level.
Renato understands coaching by experience and intuition, I have a lot of respect for that.
But let's get back to your hypothesis:
test2 wrote:
I've got a hypothesis that highly trained, particuarly alitutude trained, runners should benefit the most from EPO use. What's wrong with the following argument?
Personally I'm dubious that altitude training reduces the effectiveness of EPO for the following reason. One of the most pronounced changes due to training, particularly altitude training, is an increase in blood plasma volume. This increase is so dramatic that even though altitude training stimulates increased red blood cell (RBC) production, hematocrit (RBC concentration) tends to drop during training, even at altitude. While there are more RBCs, there is even more volume of fluid to dilute them. Why don't RBCs keep up to maintain or even raise the hematocrit? Likely because the human body is evolved to be overly cautious about increasing RBC production because if too high, blood viscosity can increase to the point that clots happen. The point is that the body fears clots more than it cares about optimal performance so the hematocrit is naturally set below optimum distance running levels. That's why EPO helps untrained but otherwise healthy people run faster. Highly trained people and particularly those trained at altitude, however, have lower hematocrits due to their vastly increased blood volume. In theory this should give them more room to increase their hematocrit via injection of EPO or red blood cells (blood doping). Unless there is some other factor at work here, it seems obvious that highly trained runners, particularly altitude trained runners, should be able to tolerate a lot more EPO than everyone else and therefore see larger gains in performance before blood viscosity increases to dangerous levels.
Firstly, altitude training does not increase plasma volume, it does the opposite due to reduced air temperature and humidity. It takes many weeks of high volume training for the athetes to get back the reduction in plasma volume at altitude.
And hematocrit does not drop at altitude, again it does the opposite for the above reasons.
Get back to your studies and come up with something worth discussing when you have learned the basics.
Is there a rule against attaching a helium balloon to yourself while running a road race?
Jakob Ingebrigtsen has a 1989 Ferrari 348 GTB and he's just put in paperwork to upgrade it
How rare is it to run a sub 5 minute mile AND bench press 225?
Am I living in the twilight zone? The Boston Marathon weather was terrible!
Mark Coogan says that if you could only do 3 workouts as a 1500m runner you should do these
Move over Mark Coogan, Rojo and John Kellogg share their 3 favorite mile workouts