Which threads talk about the "facts" of "PEDs"?
Which threads talk about the "facts" of "PEDs"?
Every one you troll.
So that must be none then.
rekrunner wrote:
So that must be none then.
Not that I can post in Braille.
rekrunner wrote:
So that must be none then.
None? Yet you indignantly deny you are a "doping denier". The data - obligingly provided by yourself - proves you are. The only "data" that you accept is that which diminishes doping as a practice and claims its gains are illusory. You are ignorance posing as an expert. Trump is your model for truth.
You shouldn't worry so much about me.
What do you think of this study on Russian women's performance?
Do you think the methodology is sound?
Do you see any issues with it?
physics defiant wrote:
round and round and round with the bs wrote:
What is your degree? PhD in physics defiance?
That fits.
So you don't have one. Surprise!
Are we surprised by this? I'm not.
SARMs producers are smart, they they stock their product right next to the toilet paper ?
What I've found in a lot of these studies is that to be considered scientifically significant takes a lot more difference than what we consider a difference in actual competition. For instance, it's not uncommon to see a study saying one training method is no better than another because the former only led to a 10% increase in time to exhaustion, which the people doing the study say isn't relevant.
In this study I would like to see the actual numbers of each person in the study. I don't want their opinion, just the data.
Crowd Sorcerer wrote:
.. .it's not uncommon to see a study saying one training method is no better than another because the former only led to a 10% increase in time to exhaustion, which the people doing the study say isn't relevant.
Now I am not trying to be rude, but the main reason why even 10 % differences in TTE might be insignificant isn't that such a reliable, predictable and almost uniform boost isn't relevant from performance viewpoint, but that averages tend to hide the fact revealed usually by large variance in response, that the outcome might've taken place randomly.
The opinion that baseline Hb is quite irrelevant from blood doping boost viewpoint is also that of Björn Ekblom who has expressed the view in some of his article, he has conducted some 6-7 blood doping studies since 1966.
Of course there are only like one or two papers focusing on this particular subject, but it is still interesting that there is no noticeable pattern. I went theough the paper only quickly so might get the details slightly wrong, but one possible limitation in this 1987 study could be that the blood bags the 180 g/l guys get back have more hemoglobin than the 120 g/l guys, and their Vo2max should increase 50 % more because of larger possible increase in total Hb.
physics defiant wrote:
Not that I can post in Braille.
What about you "physics defiant"?
Are you really more concerned about me and my skepticism, or about "the "facts" of "PEDs""?
What do you think of this study on Russian women's performance regression?
Do you think the methodology is sound?
Do you see any issues with it?
Does the study succeed in advancing the hypothesis? Why or why not?
Are there other recent studies think about this hypothesis?
Sorry about the last line:
Are there other recent studies that have addressed this hypothesis? What do they think?
i think the gains made from epo use and steroids together would be even greater than 4 % .and certainly more than blood doping on its own.
Possibly. What this article compares is
a) a group with all-out blood and limited 'roid/HGH etc. doping
with
b) a group with limited blood and limited 'roid/HGH etc. doping.
On top of that, group b) came after group a), so group b) benefited more from advanced technology and gained training and doping experiences.
Yet, group b) was a couple of percent slower, give or take. Quite a demonstration what difference unlimited blood doping makes.
rekrunner wrote:
You shouldn't worry so much about me.
What do you think of this study on Russian women's performance?
Do you think the methodology is sound?
Do you see any issues with it?
I don't worry about you. I just note that you reject there are any "facts" about doping that aren't part of your "data". You have an apparent monopoly on truth. A world monopoly it seems - because it isn't what athletes, anti-doping experts and many scientists around the world understand is the truth.
As someone who is neither a scientist nor a researcher in this field, but a self-declared "mathematician with a statistical bent", how are you qualified to critique the methodology of the research?
For someone who is not worried about me, you sure can't seem to stop talking about me.
You are posting in a thread about a study about the performance of Russian women.
Surely a man with more than a half-century of experience in the sport can provide some substantial insights.
What do you think about this study on Russian women's performance regression?
rekrunner wrote:
What do you think about this study on Russian women's performance regression?
I think the data supports it.
Interesting -- can you elaborate?
jeff tallon wrote:
i think the gains made from epo use and steroids together would be even greater than 4 % .and certainly more than blood doping on its own.
Exactly...and you can add HGH to that formula also. If you look at the history of the doping cocktails that doping doctors/coaches put their athletes on it's always EPO (or transfusions) with either T/steroids and/or HGH. We've seen this over and over again throughout the decades. All those doping rings broken up in Spain (Puerto, Galgo, Skype, etc.) had not only EPO but T, steroids and HGH. Aden's doping camp in Sabadell had EPO and steroids. They're not using one or the other - only the dosing is different on an individual basis.
The Ethiopian report from "The Guardian" highlighted an unnamed high-profile athlete that was using a EPO & HGH and was instructed on the exact time to stop so as not be glowing at the pre-comp drug control. Maybe this is why they don't get busted no way near the Kenyans do - better anti-doping countermeasures.
I think the synergestics effects could be higher than 4% with some athletes given individual variability and response.
rekrunner wrote:
Interesting -- can you elaborate?
No need. The data does that.