new study shows micro-doping can boost performance nearly 5% and impossible to detect

Seriously? We are responding now to the troll trolling the troll?

Fine, why not. Extra energy, no. In each case in this study, everyone burned 650 kcal, i.e. always the same amount of energy.

Also, we could burn a lot more than 650 kcal. For example, some can and did run a marathon without energy intake. Using the good old 100 kcal/mile rule, that's 2622 kcal.

Next troll question.

casual obsever wrote:

Seriously? We are responding now to the troll trolling the troll?

Fine, why not. Extra energy, no. In each case in this study, everyone burned 650 kcal, i.e. always the same amount of energy.

Also, we could burn a lot more than 650 kcal. For example, some can and did run a marathon without energy intake. Using the good old 100 kcal/mile rule, that's 2622 kcal.

Next troll question.

I wasn't trolling. I was pointing out how ridiculous there point is.

I know. I laughed about Jon trolling rek.

dopeology wrote:

It's based on pseudoscience. Drugs can't give you more energy, but that is the PED belief.

Where do you think this supposed extra energy is coming from? Does it just appear by magic.

Either you're taking the piss or you are JO. Anyhow drugs like meldonium do effect the way the body uses energy, making you more efficient and leaner.

Yes, also if you use peds to strengthen the core you can minimize energy waste. A certain runner had a lot of energy waste pre 2011, then became very good.

The greater the red cell mass the longer you can go.

Subway Surfers wrote:

Yes, also if you use peds to strengthen the core you can minimize energy waste. A certain runner had a lot of energy waste pre 2011, then became very good.

The greater the red cell mass the longer you can go.

I can litteraly think of a certain British athlete who fits that description.

Example:

Mo in 07:

Mo in 16:

But Alberto told us this was from push ups and not jogging the easy runs.

Why ask me? -- this issue of extra energy is not mine. Looks like turbo chargers solve a low oxygen situation due to atmospheric pressure being insufficient to meet the demand. It's done in a clever way, reusing energy from exhaust gas that would otherwise be wasted. Maybe such a device is useful for runners at high altitude.

Sand Dunes wrote:

Watch this video. Please explain to me how turbo chargers do not work? Where is all the extra energy coming from?

"Troll trolling the troll". Way to maintain the high road. Perhaps he meant a higher rate of energy.

casual obsever wrote:

Seriously? We are responding now to the troll trolling the troll?

Fine, why not. Extra energy, no. In each case in this study, everyone burned 650 kcal, i.e. always the same amount of energy.

rekrunner wrote:

"Troll trolling the troll". Way to maintain the high road.

Perhaps he meant a higher rate of energy.

casual obsever wrote:

Seriously? We are responding now to the troll trolling the troll?

Fine, why not. Extra energy, no. In each case in this study, everyone burned 650 kcal, i.e. always the same amount of energy.

Hey Rek, any lazy jobs going at HQ in Monaco?

Kcal can not be measured precisely based upon Kjs due to the fact that not everyone’s efficiency is the same. Most of us are between about 22-25% on the bike, but when it comes to science we want precision. Kcal can be estimated from Kjs, but you can’t say with absolutely confidence what the kcal expenditure will be by simply measuring power output.

Anyway, the fact you believe 4.7% increase in power could net a 4.4% increase in speed is enough to tell me you don’t have any experience in this matter. Just because a study seems to say something doesn’t mean it’s true. Remember, this study was not done outside in real conditions, correct? It was done in a lab. The actual speed was 0mph.

For the guy who asked, no I’m not Alex from the cyclingnews forums. Again, I have tons of experience with this and have run the numbers thousands of times in many different situations so I have the confidence to say when a study is BS or when others posters know not what they speak of, as is the case more often than not here.

For anyone who wants to see how close a 10% increase in power on the bike over flat ground nets a very close to 3.14% improvement, go check out analyticcycling.com for a handy calculator. Of course it’s not exactly 3.14% all the time as there will be less return on investment the faster the base speed is. As a general rule though, 3.14% is an easy number for me to remember when making quick approximations. For precise calculations I’ll use analyticcycling.com

rekrunner wrote:

Why ask me? -- this issue of extra energy is not mine.

Looks like turbo chargers solve a low oxygen situation due to atmospheric pressure being insufficient to meet the demand.

It's done in a clever way, reusing energy from exhaust gas that would otherwise be wasted.

Maybe such a device is useful for runners at high altitude.

Sand Dunes wrote:

Watch this video. Please explain to me how turbo chargers do not work? Where is all the extra energy coming from?

Much like blood doping, which increases the supply of oxygen to the muscles. Which allow the person to work at a high capacity.

Jon has no clue how much energy is available in a body.

All this "extra" energy he is harping on about is available in every reasonable scenario.

Article Please? wrote:

Kcal can not be measured precisely based upon Kjs due to the fact that not everyone’s efficiency is the same. Most of us are between about 22-25% on the bike, but when it comes to science we want precision. Kcal can be estimated from Kjs, but you can’t say with absolutely confidence what the kcal expenditure will be by simply measuring power output.

Dude. You don't use efficiency to convert energy in kJ into energy in kcal. Think about. Or read this again, and verify via google or wiki or whatever cycling page you like:

casual obsever wrote:

Both kJ and kcal are units of energy, therefore one is not more difficult to measure than the other.

1 kcal = 4.184 kJ

That is not exactly a complicated formula.

Or anything else in the entire world. He is literally the dumbest mutherfucker ever to post on letsrun. That is a very high bar.

Jon is in bed devestated today wrote:

Jon has no clue how much energy is available in a body.

All this "extra" energy he is harping on about is available in every reasonable scenario.

Even rekrunner appears to get the concept though he professes to not believe it.

So Gary sits in second place in the top moran of all time rankings.

casual obsever wrote:

Article Please? wrote:

Kcal can not be measured precisely based upon Kjs due to the fact that not everyone’s efficiency is the same. Most of us are between about 22-25% on the bike, but when it comes to science we want precision. Kcal can be estimated from Kjs, but you can’t say with absolutely confidence what the kcal expenditure will be by simply measuring power output.

Dude. You don't use efficiency to convert energy in kJ into energy in kcal. Think about. Or read this again, and verify via google or wiki or whatever cycling page you like:

casual obsever wrote:

Both kJ and kcal are units of energy, therefore one is not more difficult to measure than the other.

1 kcal = 4.184 kJ

That is not exactly a complicated formula.

It’s true that 1 kcal = 4.184 kJ. However, anyone that could put out 400w for an hour and thus produce 1440kj while only using 344 kcal in that hour would absolutely destroy everyone else in the tour. Imagine doing 400w for 6 hours straight and only burning about 2000 kcal ?. You’re in over your head here and I don’t blame you since you obviously have no cycling background.

1 kcal = 4.184 kJ of output to the cranks if there is 100% efficiency. Humans riding bikes are around 25% efficient, generally a bit less.

You obviously don’t ride and have zero experience with powermeters. You are truly a casual observer at best.

casual obsever wrote:

Article Please? wrote:

Kcal can not be measured precisely based upon Kjs due to the fact that not everyone’s efficiency is the same. Most of us are between about 22-25% on the bike, but when it comes to science we want precision. Kcal can be estimated from Kjs, but you can’t say with absolutely confidence what the kcal expenditure will be by simply measuring power output.

Dude. You don't use efficiency to convert energy in kJ into energy in kcal. Think about. Or read this again, and verify via google or wiki or whatever cycling page you like:

casual obsever wrote:

Both kJ and kcal are units of energy, therefore one is not more difficult to measure than the other.

1 kcal = 4.184 kJ

That is not exactly a complicated formula.

Try reading this. Remember, it's ok to be wrong, especially regarding something you have no experience with, but it does you no good to dig your heels in and proclaim you're right simply because you looked up an equation on google.

All that and it's still a rough estimation.

Let's stop pulling those estimates out please.

about the this much roughly exactly wrote:

All that and it's still a rough estimation.

Let's stop pulling those estimates out please.

214 watts with a cda of .25, weight of 75kg, rolling resistance of .004 on flat ground and air density of 1.226 nets a speed of 10.61m/s. Increase that to 224 watts and speed goes up to 10.79m/s. So you get about a 1.7% increase in speed off of about 4.7% increase in power.

Try for yourself