The Light wrote:
I have to side with Tinman on all counts.
First, "wellnow" has a tendency to come up with black-and-white statements that something is true or something else is now known to be and widely considered false. The older I get, the more I find out that life is not so black and white -- and particularly so in human physiology. I find these statements should only serve to introduce the colored statements which should follow. Standing alone, black-and-white statements have little weight. In mathematics, a single point has no thickness.
As an example, "wellnow" tells is quite pointedly that the idea of "oxygen debt" has been disproven. This could be in interesting point to follow up on, but what can I read to see what's behind that statement? Previously he did reference an older posting which he said explained the idea better (coincidentally by "Tinman"), but the best support I could find there was that the oxygen debt "model" was wrong -- that it over-estimates the magnituded of oxygen-debt. This doesn't disprove the idea, but just calls for a need to update the model. Can we just update the model, or is there another compelling reason to discard it as disproven? I don't know because the point hasn't been made yet. Life is in color, and discussions in a discussion forum should be too.
And finally, it is not insulting to say that bad English makes it hard to be understood. For native English speakers, it is just a statement of fact that should be possible to make without insult. In face-to-face conversations, you can add non-verbal cues, but in a written forum, all you have are the words. It is no more insulting to say you can't understand someone over the phone because of a noisy phone line. And since when did writing a treatise in Portuguese (is Antonio Cabral Portugese or Spanish?) on lactate buffering become a prerequisite for recognizing when someone has great ideas, but they aren't being communicated fully because of noise in the medium?
If you take away posts written in self-defense, I have only seen Tinman come up with interesting discussions, and helpful formulas to help zero in on the paces or efforts he's talking about, only to be bashed by others, not because of his words, but because he hasn't posted his credentials, or coached elite athletes, and uses a pseudonym. In an anonymous public forum, posts should be judged by their content, not by unauthenticable credentials. No amount of muckraking old posts out of context can change that.
I accept that there is probably a small oxygen debt, but the old oxygen debt hypothesis is yet another of A.V. Hill's ideas from the early 1920's and his explanation has been proven to be false.
So has his concept of lactic acidosis and his concept of going from totally aerobically derived energy to totally anaerobically derived energy.
I am reporting the work of great physiologists, click on the links I have posted, and read about them, and then maybe you will understand that I am NOT talking black and white here. I am disapointed that you would say that about me, check my sources, you will see I have done my research.