Runningart2004 wrote:
Jon Orange. wrote:
You won't get an honest answer. If you ask a well know exercise physiologist awkward questions, they won't admit you have a point. They will just ignore you. That's how they retain their status. By being disingenuous.
Being able to run faster at a specified VO2, ie: improved running economy, is beneficial for all runners. I would argue that steroids are more beneficial long term due to increased protein turnover.
PS: I’m no Ex.Phys...just a lame guy with a BS.
Alan
Thanks for the reply. I hope I can drag you away from the doping dogma. It's highly contagious.
Increased protein turnover? Well I think that fitness and recovery are inter related. You do less muscle damage the more energy efficient you become.
Kipchoge is a very cool character. He isn't going to be swayed by the same beliefs as younger more impressionable Kenyans who are victims of the exploitative European coaches pushing doping practice onto them.
I have no faith in any of the political hierarchy to educate themselves or the masses in basic physiology. Even ex phys 'experts' don't seem to undertand the difference between fuel use (oxygen and glycogen etc) and energy output. If I was in a room with 1000 of them, I would probably be the only one who knows the claims for EPO and blood boosting are complety impossible. Even 1% improvement is a thermoregulatory impossiblity, but they claim 3, 5, 10, 15% or even more. It's scary how bad the pseudoscience is.