Big Ass cohort wrote:
JonO. wrote:
People believe in doping? Really, what a profound statement.
What a profoundly superficial reading. Athletes and coaches can numerically measure performance in workouts and competition that provides solid evidence of the effects of pharmacological agents, just as an FDA study would measure the range of motion before and after a proposed drug for arthritis.
No, you're reading is superficial. Mine is reasonable and rational. Athletes and coaches can't numerically measure performance in relation to doping, only in relation to other performances.
What happens is that as they go through a doping protocol and train towards a peak of performance, they improve anyway. You can make the same superficial claim about just about anything you think is a 'performance enhancer'.
Look at the phases of a 47.6 400m race for a woman or more specifically Marita Koch's abilty; what part of her 100, 200 or 400 races are in your opinion, not possible without drugs?
There is no part that is not possible without drugs, it just comes down to the fact that you have been told to believe in doping so many times that you have no other frame of reference.
Well here's what you are missing; superior biomechanical efficiency means that more power is achieved for the same effort.
And a correct (not a mythological) bioenergetic model will show you that the human body doesn't produce superhuman levels of energy output.
Problem is: People love to mythologize.