Benefits in having a high blood stroke volume???

pariah wrote:

enter the lab yourself, Jon. wrote:

Of course they were. And they were higher than they would have been because he doped. Is it really this hard to get?

They make those claims because they are experts in their field and study their data and peer review it.

Nobody is paying them to make up stuff.

You can't exceed homeostasis. Basic physiology. Lance Armsrong's V02 max power output was 6.6 - 6.7 watts per kilo. People claim that was his 'lactate threshold' A difference of around 10% like I said.

Some experts in every field make stuff up all the time for money or through misunderstanding.

What the heck does "exceed homeostasis" mean? Our bodies do this all the time.

What does any of your Lance "data" have to do with doping not being a huge factor in his success?

Also why do you take months off from this argument and then re-surface with the exact same statements with zero extra evidence?

pariah wrote:

But the most important issue is energy efficiency. Slow runners sweat more and suffer more than fast runners in a distance race.

running fast is a sum of factors.

But I notice that there are people with more difference between their race time in cool conditions and hot summer conditions, fast runners have a little gap in sec/km from cool and hot.

Jon Morange rises from the ashes of defeat wrote:

Hmmmm, a little variety in this one. Still, absolutely nothing new from the lab of Jon Orange.

Why you so scared to post under your real name again? Do you think people are fooled into thinking some OTHER random dude on the internet knows more than all of the guys with actual degrees and lab experience?

So that's infamous Jon Orange that I've heard so much about? ? I was wondering about this poster and some of the weird stuff he postulates. Then I recalled how Jon Orange posted about the same weird stuff. ?

pariah wrote:

You will be very unhappy with my calculation of Lance Armsrong's power output on Alpe d'Huez. 6 watts per kilo not 7

I just thought you had to know though.

Who's "Armsrong?" A Korean cyclist? ?

Who Am I? wrote:

Jon Morange rises from the ashes of defeat wrote:

Hmmmm, a little variety in this one. Still, absolutely nothing new from the lab of Jon Orange.

Why you so scared to post under your real name again? Do you think people are fooled into thinking some OTHER random dude on the internet knows more than all of the guys with actual degrees and lab experience?

So that's infamous Jon Orange that I've heard so much about? ? I was wondering about this poster and some of the weird stuff he postulates. Then I recalled how Jon Orange posted about the same weird stuff. ?

That's him. I'm surprised he doesn't defend drunk drivers since their bodies would never allow homeostasis to be exceeded therefore they are not under the influence. It's basic physiology.

#pseudoscience#homeostasis#efficiency#springyfeet#basicphysiology

0/10

C'mon Jon Orange...quit with the utter drivel - your reputation for nonsense proceeds you!

Mainstream science - read & learn:

Jon will just dismiss that as either wrong or paid off by whoever the beneficiaries are of his monetary gain conspiracy theory.

Sport scientist will find 10% difference or whatever figure you want to throw around with blood manipulation. They will find the same figure without blood manipulation due to some training method they claim can make such a jump.

Here is some more reliable data on cycling power outputs for ascending Alpe d'Huez

http://alex-cycle.blogspot.co.uk/2011/07/lalpe-dhuez-one-for-mortals.html

I assume the data is for ideal conditions. It's right in line with my 6 watts per kilo for Lance Armsrtrong in 2001.

But 7 watts per kilo is what people want to believe. People love to mythologize, especially on letsrun.

Zede wrote:

pariah wrote:

But the most important issue is energy efficiency. Slow runners sweat more and suffer more than fast runners in a distance race.

running fast is a sum of factors.

But I notice that there are people with more difference between their race time in cool conditions and hot summer conditions, fast runners have a little gap in sec/km from cool and hot.

Indeed.

pariah wrote:

Sport scientist will find 10% difference or whatever figure you want to throw around with blood manipulation. They will find the same figure without blood manipulation due to some training method they claim can make such a jump.

Here is some more reliable data on cycling power outputs for ascending Alpe d'Huez

http://alex-cycle.blogspot.co.uk/2011/07/lalpe-dhuez-one-for-mortals.html

I assume the data is for ideal conditions. It's right in line with my 6 watts per kilo for Lance Armsrtrong in 2001.

But 7 watts per kilo is what people want to believe. People love to mythologize, especially on letsrun.

So you assume to get the right numbers? That's not how science works, Jon.

Point is that no matter what numbers you give Armstrong they are higher because he doped.

Don't cherry pick one climb and hammer away at that as if it explains everything.

OK, I'll see your six watts per kilo and raise them with the fact that he would be 5 watts without doping.

Also the doping let him deliver his enhanced performance day in and day out over the whole Tour. That's the big key.

It's not like Boardman smoking the prologue and having his balls fail the next day.

Childish arguments. Grow up. Post something intelligent and insightful.

But you're just trolling so you can't and won't.

pariah wrote:

Childish arguments. Grow up. Post something intelligent and insightful.

But you're just trolling so you can't and won't.

Um, Armstrong proved this by not doping and then doping and magically transforming. Did you miss all that?

Go away for another few months and then come back with the same old same old. Jon.

It's childish and everyone is laughing at you. Your current name seems to reflect that you've accepted that. It's a start..

Now grow up yourself.

Jon Morange rises from the ashes of defeat wrote:

Still, absolutely nothing new from the lab of Jon Orange.

Ahhhhh and it all makes sense.

The heart uses less oxygen when it has to pump fewer times so reducing heart rate while maintaining cardiac output (blood pumped per minute) is more economical.

Care to cite your sources?

It is true that not everyone gets an increase in RBC from altitude training, but it is just as true that many do. Some of it has to do with not going high enough.

Don't encourage him. He'll just repeat his reductionist argument devoid of details or facts. You'll see. He'll be back tomorrow morning to repeat his statement from earlier.

More economical than when the cardiac output is lower due to reduced plasma volume, but the hemoconcentration is higher?

If the stroke volume is higher, the heart is working harder per heart beat. I would suggest both scenarios involve very similar work for the same oxygen delivery. Part of the wonder of oxygen delivery and cardiovascular adaptions both genetic and trainable.

I could find a few more if I tried. My point is that the supposed benefit of increasing RBCs beyond normal to increase oxygen delivery and performance is a silly construct. It sounds so plausible to Joe Public that it has been universally accepted as fact. I would hope some physiologists aren't so naieve, but then again most of them are.

Can we discuss the parameters of oxygen delivery that everyone here should know?

As well as Cardiac output; heart rate x stroke volume, there is hemoconcentration and arteriovenous difference of oxygen that rarely get a mention.

In other words, instead of accepting the blood boosting dogma, accept that it can and should be challenged.