Subway Surfers wrote:
Big Ass cohort wrote:
There is an ongoing, multi-center, international study as to whether PED's have a positive effect. For decades, top level athletes have been trying PED's in workouts and competition and have seen and felt improvements that have led them to risk everything to keep using them. The results speak for themselves.
Exactly
Naturally. We have been saying that for years, but some letsrun trolls gotta keep arguing against it.
I hate to jump into this conversation, as I sort of lost interest in the physiological details some time ago. Before walking away from the subject, I read a lot from Stephen Seiler, including a time course model for improvements based on 3 waves of change, illustrated in one nice graph. For lack of better terms, and ease of understanding, hoping I don't misrepresent it, roughly they are:
1) VO2max -- this source of performance improvement comes rapidly, and after 1-2 years, most performance improvements have been realized, and start to plateau.
2) LT -- in the mid term, we get better at using a higher percentage of VO2max, sustaining it for longer. This takes longer, say 4-5 years, before most of the benefits from this source have been realized and start to plateau.
3) Economy -- ability to go faster with the same energy consumption. This comes from many years of practice, and eliminating wasted or conflicting movements, leveraging static properties (like tendon and muscle elasticity), and improved synchronization from the nervous system.
Right or wrong, I found it a simple and powerful model for athletes who are not Ex. Phys. Phds, to understand how training helps at several physiological levels, aerobic and non-aerobic.
Of course, if you detrain, you lose aerobic and economic adaptions, but they come back fairly quickly once training resumes. And maxing out VO2max doesn't mean you stop training it -- you still need "VO2max training" to maintain the high level.
Once you've attained a high level of "aerobic" fitness, the last long term phase is about improving from non-aerobic factors, like fine tuning the nervous system, and improving your form.
Elite athletes are already highly developed in all three. So while extra oxygen delivery to the muscles appears to help significantly in studies with amateurs, and slower athletes like a "clean" Lombard, the question becomes, how much improvement can elite athletes achieve, by increasing oxygen delivery in athletes who already have a high level?
Other topics to consider: if we get more oxygen to the muscles, producing more energy at a higher rate, heat is one by-product of this increased rate of energy production that needs to be managed/dissipated, and excess accumulation will eventually limit performance. I suppose this is more important for longer duration races. Another factor in long races like the marathon is how this impacts glycogen depletion, which will also limit performance in a big and sudden way. Another factor is the increased viscosity caused by red blood cells actually reducing blood flow, and the delivery of oxygen to the muscles.
Regarding steroids for women for strength events -- I think historical performances from the 70s and the 80s are hard to explain without such an effect.
Don't the lack of results also speak for themselves?
Big Ass cohort wrote:
There is an ongoing, multi-center, international study as to whether PED's have a positive effect. For decades, top level athletes have been trying PED's in workouts and competition and have seen and felt improvements that have led them to risk everything to keep using them. The results speak for themselves.
rekrunner wrote:
I hate to jump into this conversation, as I sort of lost interest in the physiological details some time ago. Before walking away from the subject, I read a lot from Stephen Seiler, including a time course model for improvements based on 3 waves of change, illustrated in one nice graph. For lack of better terms, and ease of understanding, hoping I don't misrepresent it, roughly they are:
1) VO2max -- this source of performance improvement comes rapidly, and after 1-2 years, most performance improvements have been realized, and start to plateau.
2) LT -- in the mid term, we get better at using a higher percentage of VO2max, sustaining it for longer. This takes longer, say 4-5 years, before most of the benefits from this source have been realized and start to plateau.
3) Economy -- ability to go faster with the same energy consumption. This comes from many years of practice, and eliminating wasted or conflicting movements, leveraging static properties (like tendon and muscle elasticity), and improved synchronization from the nervous system.
Right or wrong, I found it a simple and powerful model for athletes who are not Ex. Phys. Phds, to understand how training helps at several physiological levels, aerobic and non-aerobic.
Of course, if you detrain, you lose aerobic and economic adaptions, but they come back fairly quickly once training resumes. And maxing out VO2max doesn't mean you stop training it -- you still need "VO2max training" to maintain the high level.
Once you've attained a high level of "aerobic" fitness, the last long term phase is about improving from non-aerobic factors, like fine tuning the nervous system, and improving your form.
Elite athletes are already highly developed in all three. So while extra oxygen delivery to the muscles appears to help significantly in studies with amateurs, and slower athletes like a "clean" Lombard, the question becomes, how much improvement can elite athletes achieve, by increasing oxygen delivery in athletes who already have a high level?
Other topics to consider: if we get more oxygen to the muscles, producing more energy at a higher rate, heat is one by-product of this increased rate of energy production that needs to be managed/dissipated, and excess accumulation will eventually limit performance. I suppose this is more important for longer duration races. Another factor in long races like the marathon is how this impacts glycogen depletion, which will also limit performance in a big and sudden way. Another factor is the increased viscosity caused by red blood cells actually reducing blood flow, and the delivery of oxygen to the muscles.
Regarding steroids for women for strength events -- I think historical performances from the 70s and the 80s are hard to explain without such an effect.
Not just strength events but steroids are potent in women's mid-d events:
http://clinchem.aaccjnls.org/content/43/7/1262"The positive value of anabolic steroids for the development of a top performance is undoubted. Here are a few examples… Performances could be improved with the support of these drugs within four years as follows: Shot-put (men) 2.5–4 m; Shot-put (women) 4.5–5 m; Discus throw (men) 10–12 m; Discus throw (women) 11–20 m; Hammer throw 6–10 m; Javelin throw (women) 8–15 m; 400 m (women) 4–5 sec; 800 m (women) 5–10 sec; 1500 m (women) 7–10 sec… Remarkable rates of increase in performances were also noted in the swimming events of women… . From our experiences made so far it can be concluded that women have the greatest advantage from treatments with anabolic hormones with respect to their performance in sports… . Especially high is the performance-supporting effect following the first administration of anabolic hormones, especially with junior athletes."
This thread is pointless.
This 2018-1998 fellow tries to refute currently accepted science about the aerobic system, strength, steroids, EPO etc, but does so with no evidence (that article he linked does not say what he thinks it does).
Meanwhile he puts forwards the most vague alternative theory by simple stating words like 'thermoregualtion' 'homeostasis' without context and basically won't explain what he thinks happens even if you ask him 20+ times.
So I think it's best to ignore him.
if we get more oxygen to the muscles, producing more energy at a higher rate...
getting more oxygen to the cells does not necessarily imply producing more energy. it just makes more oxygen available. think of this as being similar to topping up the fuel tank in your car. the car doesn't go faster just because the tank is full. all you've done is increase the possibilities. oxygen can sit quite comfortably in the cells, and in inter-cellular spaces, until required. after all, 60% of the human body is water, and your brain is 73% water, specifically H2O, and two-thirds of that is oxygen. where do you think that oxygen comes from? hint: it's not in peanut butter.
heat is one by-product of this increased rate of energy production that needs to be managed/dissipated...
this is probably irrelevant now because, as we have seen, there is not "extra energy production," but I seem to recall from human biology 101 that several hundred thousand years of evolution has equipped us with an effective and efficient heat regulatory system. we sweat, our capillaries dilate, etc., managed by homeostasis, the tendency of the body to return to equilibrium. are you suggesting that running five minutes faster over twenty six miles produces so much more excess heat that the body is going to go into some sort of self-destructive meltdown?
Callum Hawkins overheated at the Commonwealth Games marathon. so I'm not going to pretend it doesn't happen, ever. but when was the last time you saw this in anything other than some vastly under-trained jogger? elite athletes, the subject of this thread, the folks who take PED's, do not overheat on anything remotely like a regular basis and therefore this supposed "topic to consider" has precisely nothing to do with whether or not PED's work.
and, if anything, the increased exchange of oxygen and CO2 at the cell / blood barrier would assist with removing heat from the cells, in the CO2, which is why, on a cold day, your hot breath condenses in the cold air. you are literally breathing out hot air.
try not think of it as "extra oxygen means I run faster." it is probably more accurate to think that blood doping works because it ensures that oxygen can never become a limiting factor; there will always be enough, at the point where it is required, when it is required. if there is a limiting factor, it will be something else.
and finally, since this thread was initially about Tim Hutchings, here's a fun fact about Tim Hutchings. he has run exactly the same number of sub-4 miles as Herb Elliott, the man who was never beaten over a mile.
cheers.
ex-runner wrote:
This thread is pointless.
This 2018-1998 fellow tries to refute currently accepted science about the aerobic system, strength, steroids, EPO etc, but does so with no evidence (that article he linked does not say what he thinks it does).
Meanwhile he puts forwards the most vague alternative theory by simple stating words like 'thermoregualtion' 'homeostasis' without context and basically won't explain what he thinks happens even if you ask him 20+ times.
So I think it's best to ignore him.
Today is one of those brief moments when you think Jon has suddenly realized that he overlooked a gross detail in his theory and has slunk away but he'll be back to repeat his stock phrases with no sign that he has even considered the above points.
The rate of fuel burning detail just seems to completely elude him.
All of the references above to VO2 peaking early are offset by the fact that EPO gives a boost to that stagnant number.
Jon has this weird idea that everyone is perfect for them and nothing can be added even though it's such a simple concept that a person can be enhanced by overriding their natural levels.
It's almost like he has some odd religious belief that you can't mess with "the way God made you".
Stock repsonse wrote:
ex-runner wrote:
This thread is pointless.
This 2018-1998 fellow tries to refute currently accepted science about the aerobic system, strength, steroids, EPO etc, but does so with no evidence (that article he linked does not say what he thinks it does).
Meanwhile he puts forwards the most vague alternative theory by simple stating words like 'thermoregualtion' 'homeostasis' without context and basically won't explain what he thinks happens even if you ask him 20+ times.
So I think it's best to ignore him.
Today is one of those brief moments when you think Jon has suddenly realized that he overlooked a gross detail in his theory and has slunk away but he'll be back to repeat his stock phrases with no sign that he has even considered the above points.
The rate of fuel burning detail just seems to completely elude him.
All of the references above to VO2 peaking early are offset by the fact that EPO gives a boost to that stagnant number.
Jon has this weird idea that everyone is perfect for them and nothing can be added even though it's such a simple concept that a person can be enhanced by overriding their natural levels.
It's almost like he has some odd religious belief that you can't mess with "the way God made you".
That's exactly what it's like.
As the poster above said, increasing the availability of oxygen helps to remove that as a limiting factor in exercise performance. And be assured, oxygen availability is a limiting factor, it even says that in the article 2018-1998 linked!
That article was interesting in its discussion of how VO2max as we understand it is not tested well by the current methods. It talks of a central limiter that prevents you from pushing yourself to the point of dying.
That much is known to people who have studied VO2max. The values do differ depending on how the person is feeling/what they've eaten etc because the test required them to push themselves to their maximum which isn't always possible.
That does not mean that VO2max doesn't exist in the more general understanding of 'the maximal oxygen one can take in and use'. It also doesn't mean that aerobic output isn't limited by how much oxygen one can use and it also doesn't disprove the theory of increasing 'VO2max' after a period of training leads to better exercise performance.
Adaptations to aerobic exercise are not 'red herrings'. Every single one is designed beautifully to increase the amount of oxygen one can get to the working muscles.
We don't grow fins to lose more heat, we increase vascularisation of the lungs to transfer more oxygen with each breath. Etc.etc.
I'm not going to dwell too long on the physiology, but just want to understand your points.
You've lost me. You are saying the extra O2 helps, but the extra oxygen is not used in the aerobic production of ATP for energy? Isn't that the primary goal of the extra red blood cells carrying extra oxygen, to make more ATP? And O2 is being stored in H2O when not in use?
Regarding "running five minutes faster over twenty six miles", the argument is that that doesn't really happen if you were already bumping up against a heat limit with the slower time. If the increased rate of energy production pushes you over the limit, the body will not allow it in the first place, because of the reasons you said " several hundred thousand years of evolution has equipped us with an effective and efficient heat regulatory system. we sweat, our capillaries dilate, etc., managed by homeostasis, the tendency of the body to return to equilibrium". And if you were able to improve by 5 minutes, then the heat limit wasn't your issue, and then you are right, this is not the issue to consider in this case.
Regarding "oxygen can never become a limiting factor", in events that are sub-maximal, is oxygen ever a limiting factor.
I didn't say it explicitly, but also considered sprint and mid-d events as events requiring muscular strength.
Muscular Women Who Run Fast wrote:
Not just strength events but steroids are potent in women's mid-d events:
Original link is gone, but here is a copy:http://www.owascoveloclub.com/Education_files/6%20Time%20Course%20Training%20Adapt.pdf
rekrunner wrote:
I hate to jump into this conversation, as I sort of lost interest in the physiological details some time ago. Before walking away from the subject, I read a lot from Stephen Seiler, including a time course model for improvements based on 3 waves of change, illustrated in one nice graph.
Dope works, full stop wrote:
Jon, you still haven't explained how elites get the job done at twice the rate of the plodders. Clearly they don't overheat.
Your argument was always that an elite uses a fraction less total energy to run a Marathon but you've always dodged how they can possibly do so without somehow doing so at a far higher rate.
I can't believe I read this whole thread and you still haven't moved beyond that silly statement coupled with the endless linking to those same two articles which you feel support your theory.
I did explain it. Quite implicitly and with numbers which you refuted.
On a warm day in a marathon, the elites don't slow down much but the plodders slow down a lot. Being more energy efficient they do exactly what you say. So where does your argument actually lie?
Muscular Women Who Run Fast wrote:
rekrunner wrote:
I hate to jump into this conversation, as I sort of lost interest in the physiological details some time ago. Before walking away from the subject, I read a lot from Stephen Seiler, including a time course model for improvements based on 3 waves of change, illustrated in one nice graph. For lack of better terms, and ease of understanding, hoping I don't misrepresent it, roughly they are:
1) VO2max -- this source of performance improvement comes rapidly, and after 1-2 years, most performance improvements have been realized, and start to plateau.
2) LT -- in the mid term, we get better at using a higher percentage of VO2max, sustaining it for longer. This takes longer, say 4-5 years, before most of the benefits from this source have been realized and start to plateau.
3) Economy -- ability to go faster with the same energy consumption. This comes from many years of practice, and eliminating wasted or conflicting movements, leveraging static properties (like tendon and muscle elasticity), and improved synchronization from the nervous system.
Right or wrong, I found it a simple and powerful model for athletes who are not Ex. Phys. Phds, to understand how training helps at several physiological levels, aerobic and non-aerobic.
Of course, if you detrain, you lose aerobic and economic adaptions, but they come back fairly quickly once training resumes. And maxing out VO2max doesn't mean you stop training it -- you still need "VO2max training" to maintain the high level.
Once you've attained a high level of "aerobic" fitness, the last long term phase is about improving from non-aerobic factors, like fine tuning the nervous system, and improving your form.
Elite athletes are already highly developed in all three. So while extra oxygen delivery to the muscles appears to help significantly in studies with amateurs, and slower athletes like a "clean" Lombard, the question becomes, how much improvement can elite athletes achieve, by increasing oxygen delivery in athletes who already have a high level?
Other topics to consider: if we get more oxygen to the muscles, producing more energy at a higher rate, heat is one by-product of this increased rate of energy production that needs to be managed/dissipated, and excess accumulation will eventually limit performance. I suppose this is more important for longer duration races. Another factor in long races like the marathon is how this impacts glycogen depletion, which will also limit performance in a big and sudden way. Another factor is the increased viscosity caused by red blood cells actually reducing blood flow, and the delivery of oxygen to the muscles.
Regarding steroids for women for strength events -- I think historical performances from the 70s and the 80s are hard to explain without such an effect.
Not just strength events but steroids are potent in women's mid-d events:
http://clinchem.aaccjnls.org/content/43/7/1262"The positive value of anabolic steroids for the development of a top performance is undoubted. Here are a few examples… Performances could be improved with the support of these drugs within four years as follows: Shot-put (men) 2.5–4 m; Shot-put (women) 4.5–5 m; Discus throw (men) 10–12 m; Discus throw (women) 11–20 m; Hammer throw 6–10 m; Javelin throw (women) 8–15 m; 400 m (women) 4–5 sec; 800 m (women) 5–10 sec; 1500 m (women) 7–10 sec… Remarkable rates of increase in performances were also noted in the swimming events of women… . From our experiences made so far it can be concluded that women have the greatest advantage from treatments with anabolic hormones with respect to their performance in sports… . Especially high is the performance-supporting effect following the first administration of anabolic hormones, especially with junior athletes."
All those number bandied about. And yet the gap between men and women remains 10%
Big Ass cohort wrote:
There is an ongoing, multi-center, international study as to whether PED's have a positive effect. For decades, top level athletes have been trying PED's in workouts and competition and have seen and felt improvements that have led them to risk everything to keep using them. The results speak for themselves.
People believe in doping? Really, what a profound statement.
Cottonshirt wrote:
it's 2018 not 1998 wrote: The blood boosting/ped dogma is really saying that cell respiration can be enhanced with more red blood cells, implying that the human body doesn't produce enough for endurance races.
the bit I've set in italics is not correct, or at least misinterprets the facts.
the "PED dogma" as you call it, does not imply that the body does not produce enough red blood cells for endurance races. it implies that more oxygen is not a bad thing in an aerobic sport. the point is, that with literally every stride that you take while running you are destroying red blood cells. here is a quote from a paper describing the phenomenon...
"exercise can decrease the red blood cell mass by intravascular hemolysis mainly of senescent red blood cells, which is caused by mechanical rupture when red blood cells pass through capillaries in contracting muscles, and by compression of red cells e.g., in foot soles during running or in hand palms in weightlifters. Together, these adjustments cause a decrease in the average age of the population of circulating red blood cells in trained athletes."
there is also a phenomenon known as "sports anaemia," whereby highly-trained athletes have enhanced blood plasma volume which gives them, proportionately, a lower haematocrit. although it is called sports anaemia these folk are not anaemic in the classic sense, but they do have low haematocrit. additionally, since red blood cells are constantly exposed to high levels of oxygen and high concentrations of polyunsaturated fatty acids and haem iron, red blood cells also suffer from oxidative stress. since oxidative stress is proportional to oxygen uptake, it is also found that antioxidants in muscle, liver and red blood cells can also be depleted during exercise.
so, the reason blood doping works is that boosting red blood cell count increases the haemoglobin level, and this in turn improves the oxygen gradient at the blood lung barrier (because each haemoglobin carries four oxygen) which increases the oxygen carrying capacity of the blood, which improves the oxygen gradient at the blood cell barrier which increases the amount of oxygen available to a higher proportion of individual cells. this in turn also increases the CO2 gradient at the cell blood barrier increasing the level of CO2 removed from cells and carrying it back to the lung for expiration to the atmosphere. blood doping also reduces the average age of red blood cells and younger cells have improved oxygen release and deformability characteristics, both of which also improve tissue oxygen supply. and, by reducing the average age of red blood cells it also offsets the effects of oxidative stress, which normalises levels of antioxidants.
it's really just a matter of improving oxygen supply to tissues, improving CO2 exhaust, and correcting exercise induced antioxidant depletion. this is the exact opposite of your claim, "This is beyond bad science, it's weird cult belief." it is in fact very simple science easily understood by anyone sufficiently interested to read it with an open mind.
cheers.
Hold on there cottonshirt, you're misinterpreting the research. Firstly the shortened life of red blood cells in runners as you say is likely to be due to oxidative stress. So the oft quoted RBC lifespan of 90-120 days has been re evaluated by some researchers to somewhat less. Either way we have a turnover of RBCs keeping the numbers at the optimal level. That is why most blood tests reveal exactly that.
And the 'Sports Anemia' thing is, as you say really a higher blood plasma volume which is compensated for by a higher heart stroke volume.
Your explanation of an increase in oxygen carrying capacity and carbon dioxide removal is just another way of saying that more glycogen is being oxidised, which, if you believe is factualy also will increase both heat production and glycogen depletion. So where in this model does thermoregulation and efficiency actually fit in? It doesn't. Rethink it.
but the extra oxygen is not used in the aerobic production of ATP for energy?
I was really responding to a point that its 2018 not 1998 made that "energy production" has limits. insofar as I understood his argument, he seemed to be saying that extra oxygen does not contribute to better running performance because the human body cannot handle the energy required to consume all of that oxygen. I was merely pointing out that oxygen has many other uses, does not have to be used to produce energy, and that therefore his point was based on an unsafe assumption.
you seem to have read me as saying the opposite extreme of what its 2018 not 1998 was saying. I am not saying that none of this oxygen is used to make energy. I'm saying that it is incorrect to assume that all of it will be used that way.
Isn't that the primary goal of the extra red blood cells carrying extra oxygen, to make more ATP?
one consequence of having more oxygen available is that you can make more ATP. sure. maybe I don't get out much, but I've never heard anyone claim that it is the primary goal of blood doping. during a marathon, an elite runner will make more than his own body weight in ATP. there is no need to make any more.
"The high rate of oxygen delivery to those skeletal muscles, which is needed to sustain their function during maximum exercise, is the result, not the cause, of an athlete's superior exercise capacity." (Noakes, 2003 p. 12.)
cheers.
ex-runner wrote:
There is not one shred of evidence in that article that states that increased oxygen consumption IS NOT associated with increased performance.
It simply says that what we measure as 'VO2max' using the standard treadmill method might not actually be VO2max. Something which anyone who has performed VO2max testing in real life would know anyway. Many factors affect the numbers you get. But this has nothing to do with heat being an absolute limiter.
EPO increases the headroom an athlete has. Only loons think it 'gives you endurance'. Of course by running you are training many systems to get improved performance. Learning to push yourself more is one, increased biomechanical efficiency is another, increased strength if you do strength training, better CNS response and motor recruitment is a big one, and improved cardiac output is another.
I asked you for some evidence that heat is the absolute limiting factor in endurance or middle distance running and you can't even find one lousy even badly written article. If you had some research of your own I'd like to read it. But I doubt you do.
I can have a quick fire discussion with you because I'm used to reading masses of scientific journals and also know what I'm talking about. I don't need to 'take time' to consider something which you haven't actually outlined in any detail whatsoever.
Might you even suggest how training increases this heat restriction on the body? Or suggest why running in cold weather does not lead to increased 1500m performance?
Reading comprehension ex-runner. I gave the Magness link answering the point about the aerobic development concept being flawed. Heat production is ONE limiting factor, but a very important one. You can't just pretend that any drug can circumvent heat production. It is an inevitable by product of carbohydrate metabolism. Why don't we run 1500m faster in cold weather? Because as you know there is an idea temperature for you and me and everyone else for different distances. Up to a point heat production increases enzyme activity, beyone that is decreases it.
I agree with your other points. Just drop the EPO gives you more oxygen uptake nonsense.
ex-runner wrote:
Also I don't see how Jakob comes into this at all. I don't care if it's 'corrosive to the sport' to suggest he's on drugs or how it's relevant to your statements about heat loss being an absolute limiter.
I don't think he's on drugs but think he has a well developed aerobic system and a well practiced, efficient running technique, both of which he has developed since he was 10 years old training like a professional athlete with two other professionals.
Can you please actually state how thermoregulation fits in with training principles or the fact that Jakob has run 3:31?
How does training increase the thermal headroom of an athlete? As far as I'm aware heat loss is about sweating, vasodilation and surface area to volume ratio. I don't see how running around a park improves any of those to such an extent that one can run significantly faster after training.
Where does Jakob come into all of this? Well he's made his mark on the World scene and shown how fast a 17 year old can run. If you don't care about corrosive comments and opinions, then you're not the sort of person I want to be debating with.
rekrunner wrote:
I hate to jump into this conversation, as I sort of lost interest in the physiological details some time ago. Before walking away from the subject, I read a lot from Stephen Seiler, including a time course model for improvements based on 3 waves of change, illustrated in one nice graph. For lack of better terms, and ease of understanding, hoping I don't misrepresent it, roughly they are:
1) VO2max -- this source of performance improvement comes rapidly, and after 1-2 years, most performance improvements have been realized, and start to plateau.
2) LT -- in the mid term, we get better at using a higher percentage of VO2max, sustaining it for longer. This takes longer, say 4-5 years, before most of the benefits from this source have been realized and start to plateau.
3) Economy -- ability to go faster with the same energy consumption. This comes from many years of practice, and eliminating wasted or conflicting movements, leveraging static properties (like tendon and muscle elasticity), and improved synchronization from the nervous system.
Right or wrong, I found it a simple and powerful model for athletes who are not Ex. Phys. Phds, to understand how training helps at several physiological levels, aerobic and non-aerobic.
Of course, if you detrain, you lose aerobic and economic adaptions, but they come back fairly quickly once training resumes. And maxing out VO2max doesn't mean you stop training it -- you still need "VO2max training" to maintain the high level.
Once you've attained a high level of "aerobic" fitness, the last long term phase is about improving from non-aerobic factors, like fine tuning the nervous system, and improving your form.
Elite athletes are already highly developed in all three. So while extra oxygen delivery to the muscles appears to help significantly in studies with amateurs, and slower athletes like a "clean" Lombard, the question becomes, how much improvement can elite athletes achieve, by increasing oxygen delivery in athletes who already have a high level?
Other topics to consider: if we get more oxygen to the muscles, producing more energy at a higher rate, heat is one by-product of this increased rate of energy production that needs to be managed/dissipated, and excess accumulation will eventually limit performance. I suppose this is more important for longer duration races. Another factor in long races like the marathon is how this impacts glycogen depletion, which will also limit performance in a big and sudden way. Another factor is the increased viscosity caused by red blood cells actually reducing blood flow, and the delivery of oxygen to the muscles.
Regarding steroids for women for strength events -- I think historical performances from the 70s and the 80s are hard to explain without such an effect.
That's a tough question but I think the answer lies in what is the scientifically proven limits of human physiology in running a certain discipline (without any pharmaceutical aid). Once those limits are established then everything achieved beyond that would have had to been pharmaceutically aided...period.
I'll use the 1500m for illustrative purposes: We know the 1500 WR is 3:26 flat and it's been that way for 20 yrs. Is this the limits of human physiology for this distance without pharmaceutical aid? IOW, is this the fastest a human can run this distance clean...ever? Conversely, if this time is unachievable without some level of pharmaceutical assistance, then what time below this would be the fastest without pharma aid? For example, if it's in the 3:27 range then not much boosting from pharmaceuticals would occur to reach the current WR. If OTOH, it's as low as the 3:30 range then you're looking at a signficant performance boost in the area of ~1.5% from PEDs to reach the WR.
It would be interesting to get to the bottom of this but so many people have emotional ties to their favorites that if you set line of scrimmage, so to speak, of the cleanest time possible, people get all pissed off if their idols are on the wrong side of the line. So, to try to ascertain a scientifically unbiased opinion might be near impossible without hostilities.
Hard Questions wrote:
I think the answer lies in what is the scientifically proven limits of human physiology in running a certain discipline (without any pharmaceutical aid). Once those limits are established then everything achieved beyond that would have had to been pharmaceutically aided...period.
.
There is no such thing. You have limits to energy production which are easy to measure by someone who really knows how to do the lab tests correctly.
Supposed limits to efficiency are based on guesswork and always have been. And time has toll us that fast runners usually guess wrong, underestimating future performances.
This gives just fuels suspicion of the so called PED phenomenon. But it always has.. Look at the psychology of the belief in the PED concept. Accepting it as factual and not conceptual shows your susipcious bias. Avoiding the issue of your own psychology in the doping issue is not constructive, your mind goes round and round in circles, an inferno of suspicion and paranoia and irrational beliefs.
But you will keep avoiding the issue of anyone questioning your wisdom or rationality on the issue.