Joshua asking his corner, "Why do I feel like this, though?"

Jun 4, 2013
7,237
682
What!? So performance enhancing drugs don’t enhance performance? So the EPO/HGH/Test cocktail Shane Mosely was in when he fought Oscar DeLaHoya those times didn’t help him finish the fight as hard as he started? Wow!
You do know that the evidence shows HGH hinders performance right? You do know the effects of EPO are negligible/non-existent in a 36 minute contest right? That’s a sport that helps top up levels in elite endurance atheltes over consecutive days of competition, not in a damn boxing match.

 
Nov 14, 2015
8,944
8,946
You do know that the evidence shows HGH hinders performance right? You do know the effects of EPO are negligible/non-existent in a 36 minute contest right? That’s a sport that helps top up levels in elite endurance atheltes over consecutive days of competition, not in a damn boxing match.

That’s the facts you fucking dummy.
Do you want me to read and explain anything to you sweetheart?
:rofl:rofl:rofl
 
Reactions: DBerry
Jun 4, 2013
7,237
682
Aye, but that's not really relevant to criticising his post.
What he’s saying is his appeal to authority/tradition has as good as settled the conversation, he doesn’t care about physiology or any scientific evidence if it was good enough for Jack Dempsey.
 
Jun 4, 2013
7,237
682
So boxers taking drugs aren't cheating then?
Their intentions might be to cheat, but they’re not doing themselves any favours. The banned list is predominantly to protect atheletes from taking substances with unknown health risks. Nothing makes the list because there’s evidence for it, substances are placed there because there are potential mechanisms (usually from clinical population studies, not healthy populations, certainly not elite athletes) that could hypothetically alter physiology in a favourable way, or detrimental way. Anything that has a physiological effect also carries side effects.

Healthy people don’t tend to benefit from additional substances beyond an adequate level. Low anything (as in clinical populations) necessitates a massive boost in whatever measure when that is returned to baseline. Taking creatine, vitamins, minerals, carbohydrate when you’re deficient makes a huge difference. In a balanced diet you’re pissing your money away by taking those things.

The same way the German woman’s swimming team is going to get a massive boost by taking testosterone, while a 22 year old male athlete would have a negligible benefit in the best case scenario.

If you’re in an elite anaerobic or aerobic dominated sport then those negligible differences could benefit perfomance. In a sport like boxing, let anyone take anything and it makes no difference to the outcome (unless it’s a diuretic to get to a weight division they wouldn’t be able to make otherwise).
 
Last edited:
Jun 4, 2013
7,237
682
I love it when you hit full retard mode.

Running doesn't help boxers. PEDs don't enhance performance. Any other gems you'd like to share?
For running I’ve given you a basic explanation for why that’s a physiological fact. You could educate yourself a bit, have a look yourself and come to understand that.
You could start with reading that meta-analysis from a scientific journal that I posted, try to understand it or ask for my help in explaining it to you. Shit, even just go look at the wada banned substances list and look at their mission statement, and then you could stop saying ‘PEDs’. There is no such list or thing anywhere, that’s the layman term for drugs not allowed in competition.

If you want to stay dumb and keep repeating dumb things, makes no difference to me.
 
Jun 4, 2012
27,119
17,648
What he’s saying is his appeal to authority/tradition has as good as settled the conversation, he doesn’t care about physiology or any scientific evidence if it was good enough for Jack Dempsey.
Aye, it was a classic appeal to authority argument.
 
Jun 4, 2012
27,119
17,648
Sorry, here’s the full article

This is a bit more complex than you're suggesting though. For a kick of it simply states that of 23 classes of banned substance, there is only good evidence for performance enhancing effects in 5 of them. One of those 5 are anabolic agents, which are probably the most widely abused PED in history. It's what we saw smashing women's world records in the 80's and it's what many cheating athletes in explosive sports are caught using. And the evidence for their efficacy is very strong.

EPO is less strong, but primarily (according to that paper) because most studies done have been lab based and show increases in markers such as VO2 Max, but are not tested on actual athletes in a sport, because obviously that's hard to do. The entire basis for finding that EPO didn't transfer the jumps in VO2 Max and P max into better cycling times was ONE study. A multitude of factors could account for that, and while it's definitely interesting, it certainly doesn't say anything that is remotely concrete. Quite simply, there hasn't been enough double blind studies on EPO within a sport to test it. And in fairness to the paper, it says in it's penultimate paragraph on EPO:

"but one should be cautious about extrapolating these findings to all performance types in elite athletes—not all performance aspects of endurance have been studied, and the target population has not been included."

Basically, there's a lot of logic to the notion that EPO will enhance stamina based sport's performance, but the jury is out on whether it actually does.

However, the stuff on HGH is very interesting, the evidence there is that it's detrimental, and it could well be that people are trying to cheat while actually doing themselves no favours at all, and potentially causing harm in the long term. I still think we'd need larger studies, but the evidence shown in that paper is pretty strong. I don't know why this would be the case, but I am guessing that there is basically a innate limiter within the body to how much HGH can be used. Similar to how people think they need ludicrous amounts of protein when training, or by people thinking that taking 35g of creatine a day is going to boost the effects of the creatine, when all they will do is piss it out as creatinine.

I am assuming that if your body produces the right amount of HGH to get you to full, adult development, then further HGH is simply blocked from having the same effects by some sort of internal switch.
 
Reactions: Okoye and oldjoe
Jun 25, 2017
543
249
39
I know for a fact that they don’t, for the vast majority of sports and cases. Anybody who understands science/physiology can realise that.

Studies involving the anabolic steroid androgen showed that, even in doses much lower than those used by athletes, muscular strength could be improved by 5–20%