Are you trying to imply that Lactate production causes acidosis? Robergs has clearly shown the biochemistry to disprove this, that lactate production consumes protons, not produces them.
You clearly haven't studied Roberg's text in detail, nor the arguments to and fro between him and Kemp and Lindinger.
You also state other points which I have to contest. Lactate is not an inneficient substrate the way you describe it. You have little knowledge of Brooks's cell to cell lactate shuttle hypothesis.
Also to state that lactate burns ATP, so what? so does pyruvate production.
You state "Respiratory acidosis occurs when CO2 rises to high."
no it doesn't, the rise in CO2 prodution is and invevitable consequence of increasing carbohydtrate oxidation, acidosis does not cause this, but co-incides with it. Acidosis is caused by non-mitochondrial ATP turnover.
You state:
"Lacate causes muscular fatigue by inhibiting excitation coupling of actin-myosin filaments(via reduced transience of calicum cations through sarcoplasmic reticulums?) Note, I a not quoting someone and forgetting to put the quotes around the information as some people do in debate. That's my interpreation of the information."
Your interpretation is wrong in my opinion, you are confusing acidosis with lactate production. The source of the protons in not lactate production, as has been shown in Robergs' text, and that of other researchers.
Has it really been proven that acidosis inhibits muscle contraction? I don't believe it has, but the two events do co-incide.
I am quite capable of thinking for myself. Why do you think I want to debate these and so many other points.
Tom you clearly want to cling to old ideas and not allow them to be challenged. I don't argue for the sake of arguing, that is a poor defence of your dogma.
You are younger than me, but you have already decided that science can show you nothing new. Don't you realize how that state of mind can entrap you?
Don't you realize that a gap between old school and new science will always form and widen, causing cynicism, mistrust and confusion?
Tom, please study Robergs, Brooks and Gladden's texts and enrich your knowledge.
You want to hold the upper hand in these debates, but you argue pseudoscientifically and wonder why people get frustrated with your dogma.
Why can't you just be more reasonable and reel your ego in about 1000 yards, enough to appreciate that some people have done a lot of research that is worth presenting, the research of the most brilliant minds is excercise physiology, such as Robergs and Brooks?