The 'Performance Enhancing Drug' concept goes against the laws of physics

Hey Jon Fool - can you tell me the name of the car burns less fuel the faster you go? You know, the one where if you cover the same distance (say 100 miles) going 150mph you will burn almost no fuel as compared to covering that same 100 miles going 50mph. You know the one - it's that magic car that becomes more efficient with speed and pesky things like wind friction don't exist.

Look at anyone taking drugs, and they suffer greatly in proportion.

They certainly don't help anyone to run faster.

0/10

Completely ignorant. Like born and raised in solitary confinement.

Come on guys, cut the childish jibes. None of you has any clue about this, so you lash out in childish frustration.

Educate yourselves. Start with this: RUNNING IS A SKILL. THERE IS NO DRUG THAT CAN IMPROVE YOUR SKILL.

Either grow up and post something intelligent or don't bother.

Some drugs have the role to suppress the natural reaction of some organs, which would try to protect the body from malfunctioning.

For example, the kidneys can be "blinded" temporarily by a drug. These would continue to work as if the runner is at rest and the body would continue to receive the necessary energy. However, the liver would be overused until it completely fails - which can be fatal.

In the above case, the role of the drug would be to unlock extra resources, but with health hazards.

Just for the record, "PED" does not equal doping. Vitamin B complex injections are PED too, but are harmless, therefore allowed.

Jon Orange wrote:

You miscalculated and even admitted it on the previous thread.

Get back to those calculations. You can't re-invent the laws of physics.

No. You agreed with me in the end. You lose!!!!! Hahahahahaha!!!!!!!

You don't even know the difference between force and work. Hahahahahaha!!!!!!

JO the OP is all about efficiency.

PEDs allow you to recover faster and train longer at higher intensities. As your body adapts to this training, you become more efficient at higher intensities.

PEDs allow you to undergo the training to preform more efficiently faster than you otherwise could. In other words, PEDs work, just not in the way some people claim.

Why don't you test Newton's law of gravity and jump off something high.

Jon Orange wrote:

Educate yourselves. Start with this: RUNNING IS A SKILL. THERE IS NO DRUG THAT CAN IMPROVE YOUR SKILL.

This thread has been done before, yet you keep pretending that because efficiency matters, other relevant factors don't. You haven't got logic right, never mind physics.

Jon Orange wrote:

Your reading comprehension failed. Try again.

You multiply your power output by your time and your total energy output is less when you go faster.

Trust me I understand perfectly what you think you are saying. Unfortunately its from the mind of a simpleton.

Sad thing is that no one on this thread has the intelligence to refute what this troll is saying.

kvothe, are you an engineer?

In running, we run faster with more efficiency by decelerating less on landing and accelerating more on take off. Calculating the forces involved would need some extremely detailed analysis.

So lets look at what happens in cycling. An elite cyclist racing faster than his previous time in identical conditons, producing more power in watts will use less total energy because (the general trend) is that the increase in power is proportionally less than the decrease in time. That is the wonder of biomechanics.

So Chris Froome climbing Mont Ventoux in 60 minutes using an average of 380 watts 5.67 watt/kilogram (67 kg 6% body fat) is using 1368000 joules to complete the climb.

A well trained cyclist using 4 watts per kilo (75 kg 16% body fat) climbing in 1.30 is using 1620000 joules to complete the climb.

While the physics may be way over my head, I recall that one of the most eye-opening bio-mechanics studies (I believe the video analysis was performed about 7-8 years ago) revealed that there is practically no difference in "turnover" speed of the legs of the world's top 100 meter sprinters. Rather, the primary difference among the runners that led to different velocities was the force at which they struck the track. It effectively demonstrated what many of us have known all along: at the world class level, sprinting is a strength sport.

If F = M*A, it follows that increased force (striking the track and pushing off of the surface) should lead to increased acceleration. Force comes from strength. And strength comes from hours in the weight room. And more hours in the weight room come from a faster recovery from the previous session in the weight room. And a faster recovery can come from...well, you know the answer.

Sprinters have to watch their weight as much as distance runners. In the case of hours in the weight room they mustn't get to muscular, because too much extra muslce mass will reduce mass specific force, even if their total force is greater.

The big deciding factor in Bolt's fast races as in any sprint is his superior speed endurance. He isn't actually faster in top speed, but he can hold it much longer than his rivals. This comes from the fact that he started his career in the wrong races, 200 and 400 instead of 100, 200. When he moved down to 100 it took all the sprint experts of letsrun by surprise, and they still can't admit it.

You've changed your argument from F = ma to one based on efficiency and sustainable power output. This was literally my first response to your idiotic post.

My god, just admit you don't understand anything you're talking about.

Hahahahahahahaha!!!!!!!!

Jon Orange wrote:

The problem is the belief.

PEDs is concept, a CONCEPT not a fact.

A belief, not a fact a BELIEF.

The physics of the matter is ignored by everyone because they are convinced in the BELIEF, that elite runners use MORE ENERGY.

A false belief.

Understand?

" It is for such reasons that alterations in V ˙ O 2max and exercise performance are proportional to those in arterial oxygen content and systemic oxygen transport, a change in tHb-mass of 1 g being associated with a 4 mL · min−1 change in V ˙ O 2max . Similarly, V ˙ O 2max increases by approximately 1% for each 3 g · L−1 increase in [Hb] over the [Hb] range (120 to 170 g · L−1)."

"So Chris Froome climbing Mont Ventoux in 60 minutes using an average of 380 watts 5.67 watt/kilogram (67 kg 6% body fat) is using 1368000 joules to complete the climb.

A well trained cyclist using 4 watts per kilo (75 kg 16% body fat) climbing in 1.30 is using 1620000 joules to complete the climb."

Big deal There are lots of drugs you can take to increase your power while decreasing your weight.

Why did Contador get busted for Clen?

Jon Orange wrote:

If you had a bicycle with a power meter and you timed yourself going up a hill, you will find that if you multiply your power output, by your total time, the faster you go, the less total energy you are expending.

There's at least two things that bother me about this statement.

1) In the absence of evidence to the contrary, I don't think it's true or consistent with basic physics. In an (idealized) frictionless case the total energy should be the same independent of how long it takes to get up the hill. In cycling, aerodynamic drag is usually the dominant energy loss term and it's roughly quadratic with velocity, so the faster rider would require more net energy.

2) Even if the example as stated were correct, a bicycle power meter doesn't measure the efficiency of the rider's power generation.

Citizen Runner wrote:

Jon Orange wrote:

If you had a bicycle with a power meter and you timed yourself going up a hill, you will find that if you multiply your power output, by your total time, the faster you go, the less total energy you are expending.

There's at least two things that bother me about this statement.

1) In the absence of evidence to the contrary, I don't think it's true or consistent with basic physics. In an (idealized) frictionless case the total energy should be the same independent of how long it takes to get up the hill. In cycling, aerodynamic drag is usually the dominant energy loss term and it's roughly quadratic with velocity, so the faster rider would require more net energy.

2) Even if the example as stated were correct, a bicycle power meter doesn't measure the efficiency of the rider's power generation.

Hahahahahaha!!!!! Jon Orange goes home DEVASTATED!!!!!