Jessica Zelinka

[Hugh Januss]

This is so true. The haters here just don't understand. Here's a great example of a clean athlete making minor developments in his bodily composition and muskles over 5 years of dedicated training. The great Bruny Surin of Canada! I don't believe he ever tested positive. And he was never one of the absolutely elite 100 metre guys. You can tell it's the same guy by looking at his right knee. You can ONLY tell it's the same guy by looking at his right knee.

Kind of interesting how that dedicated training and weight loss made his neck and head appear so much bigger.

 

[sugarman]

That is an embarrassingly opposite of astute conclusion. Androgenic drugs help women more than men...

...which explains why the men are doing better compared to historical marks.

Yep absolutely, the relative advantage of anabolic steroids in women is far greater given their lower baseline testosterone levels...

 

[blackcat]

It's scary that women aren't hitting Flo Jo's times from 88. They are still 0.1 behind her second best and 0.25 behind her WR. This Zelinka lady is no where near that ball park in times. Her hurdles time was over 0.3 behind Pearson in an event where technique rules, not brute power. Pearson has the fourth fastest time in history and the only recent time to crack 12.3 in 20 years. Interestingly the top 4 times are all white women.

Yet in the mens pure sprint since Seould, Bolt has done 9.58, a whole 0.2 faster than Ben Johnson went. Blake, Bolt, Gatlin, Gay and Powell have all gone faster. Add in Greene and Montgomery and it's glaringly obvious the drugs help men more than women in explosive sports. The womens 400m WR from Canberra back in 87 by a Russian woman still stands. Perec and Freeman never even came close. Over a second off for Perec and almost 2 for Freeman. Actually that event is a lot slower now than 10 years back.

The 100m is about 11 intervals. The start and each subsequent 10m of the race. Adding Ben Johnson's PB's for each together, his fastest possible time if he put them all together would have been 9.55 seconds. I am not shocked Bolt is close to that. I bet in training he and the other four big boys will all be running faster than they do in actual events. They'd be literally glowing red during training. Hot enough to set off any Geiger counter and then cool down for the event and whatever testing. I reckon Bolt can run 9.4 if he wants and the rest can crack 9.6 no trouble...high 9.5 so one or two if they get their heads right.

When the ladies start beating Flo Jo's times and those of the former Soviet bloc countries, then we should starting crapping our pants.

Pearson's jaw heheheheheh.

and Pearson has her Sergei Bubka WR in sight (re: adding one centimetre to each pole vault WR to break it next golden league meet, so Sally has the WR to break for a media narrative and a Nike/Puma/Adidas bonus).

the drugs are better. I prefer Sally nee or, pun knee, Mclelland, before she was Pearson and the dope plan became hardcore. just maintenance regime. Then hardcore as McLelland.

But you are right on FJ.

they said strychnine too. But I dont think she had better stuff, apart from dangerous stuff like strychnine.

Only a mediocre olympic athlete, but a peerless androgren responder. Maybe like Usain Bolt. I know there is knew stuff that makes the men go quicker, but FJ, why did not Marion Jones beat her?

Well, the clear, some simple testo and steroid and growth hormone and epo for recovery, was a simple plan, that FJ would have met, and perhaps the out of competition controls were non existenet or she was given the wide berth Armstrong was. IQ tests and all. So she could dope more comprehensively than even Marion on the clear. And the strychnine.

I think FJ had an Armstrong type, comprehensive program, and no concern about circumventing tests. Just make sure half life is short for competitions. no need to even do contes duck n dive.

so two elements, peerless responder, plus comprehensive program not impinged by OOC testing by the vampires.

agree?

 

[blackcat]

oh yeah ben johnson. great responder talent.

and tyson gay has the best set of glutes on a man this side of kim kardashian's **** implants.

tyson gays glutes look like a thoroughbred.

bow down and respect tyson gays glutes,

no homo, but gay.

 

[blackcat]

This is so true. The haters here just don't understand. Here's a great example of a clean athlete making minor developments in his bodily composition and muskles over 5 years of dedicated training. The great Bruny Surin of Canada! I don't believe he ever tested positive. And he was never one of the absolutely elite 100 metre guys. You can tell it's the same guy by looking at his right knee. You can ONLY tell it's the same guy by looking at his right knee.

is this an example of NOT NORMAL

#NN

cant prove a negative dude. but you might book in to an optometrist and get your eyes checked.

 

[blackcat]

That is an embarrassingly opposite of astute conclusion. Androgenic drugs help women more than men...

...which explains why the men are doing better compared to historical marks.

yeah, Gallic, your flaw was lacking the comparison of "like to like".

ceteris paribus

I think the new stuff that is helping the men in the usain bolt explosive events are igf and insulin for recovery.

since women start from a lower baseline of hypertrophy, and the male strength hormones, it is sound reasoning, if they can have a simpler regime to raise these hormones, which will flow thru to results, before they hit the plateau or declining economies (in their cue Brailsford, marginal gains).

already before bolt broke the WR again in Beijing, physiologists and statisticians indicated that new WR's could only be achieved by a random performance from a self-proclaimed GOAT like Mo Greene. The theory was the human form had achieved terminal velocity in its genes. this is thousands of years evolution unless one is a young earth creationist.

but if both women and men went back to bread and water, women's performances would be (more) inferior relative to their doped performance than the men.

There is just less of a ceiling for men to dope to.

like in cycling, put a peloton on a 45 ceiling crit, and compare them to a 50 ceiling crit, and check out their power numbers, and the difference. women get more of a boost from these male androgens, cos they come off a low baseline. that is why the GDR could get such great results compared to performances today, when you think doping alchemy has improved. well, for women, just the raw ingredients of roids, and recovery stuff like cortisone, and (I know its a steroid) but testo, brought them to a near Armstrong/Flojo, ceiling on their comprehensivity potential. they might have hit 99% of their doping potential in the GDR, and all it was was marginal gains and declining economies after that. Being able to dope with no controls, besides medal positions, is an advantage seen in Armstrong's reign.

 

[Bumeington]

I'm not into track and field, but this post breaks her performance down into parts.

This means in fact Ennis out through Jenner reaching a staggering .83 meters per kg of body mass versus Jenner at .79 meters per kg of body mass.

http://www.zephyrglobalreport.com/wordpress/?p=11881

But WHAT A SHOW!!!!! GOOOOOOOLLLLLLLLDDDDDDD!!!!!

Women's Javelin weighs less (600g versus 800g)

 

[goggalor]

but there is a trade off. a happy medium.

should be a rough rule of thumb, more muscle mass = positive correlation to higher bodyfat percentage

It's more like, gaining muscle = gaining body fat. Once you've built the muscle you can lose the fat. This is why bodybuilders "bulk and cut".

 

[blackcat]

It's more like, gaining muscle = gaining body fat. Once you've built the muscle you can lose the fat. This is why bodybuilders "bulk and cut".

no. bigger athletes and individuals, tend to carry percentage higher. pro rata, their bf% goes up.

 

[arjanh]

no. bigger athletes and individuals, tend to carry percentage higher. pro rata, their bf% goes up.

Please explain. What makes the percentage go up for bigger persons? Oh, and is it a weight/mass percentage, or a volume percentage?

 

[D-Queued]

is this an example of NOT NORMAL

#NN

cant prove a negative dude. but you might book in to an optometrist and get your eyes checked.

Canadians are immune to doping.

His fat content is low because this photo was taken just after he woke up from winter hibernation.

Just like Jessica.

Dave.

 

[blackcat]

Canadians are immune to doping.

His fat content is low because this photo was taken just after he woke up from winter hibernation.

Just like Jessica.

Dave.

thanks. that clears things up

I know Ben Johnson had his urine spiked with the stanozolol.

canadians are in the commonwealth. they dont dope, like the australians dont dope

 

[blackcat]

Please explain. What makes the percentage go up for bigger persons? Oh, and is it a weight/mass percentage, or a volume percentage?

talking percentage of lean muscle to bf.

 

[D-Queued]

thanks. that clears things up

I know Ben Johnson had his urine spiked with the stanozolol.

canadians are in the commonwealth. they dont dope, like the australians dont dope

Exactly.

That fiction of an Australian study that suggested organized crime was behind widespread doping in Oz was nothing less than a CIA plot to diminish and besmirch the loyalist colonies that elected to retain ties to the Monarchy.

We call it 'Queen Envy'.

Dave.

 

[arjanh]

talking percentage of lean muscle to bf.

Weight or volume?

 

[Netserk]

Weight or volume?

I think it's standard to use weight, although it's just an assumption from my side...

 

[blackcat]

weight.

muscle is about twice the weight per volume measure, of fat.

 

[Netserk]

weight.

muscle is about twice the weight per volume measure, of fat.

Which is why I always sink in water

 

[truesport]

LOL. Just got a nasty PM from topsport. Guess that's Jesse Zelinka's handle.

Nasty?

just called you out for the pathetic commentary you delivered... amazing someone with such comfort posting ill-informed and obnoxious commentary while hiding behind a keyboard could be so thin-skinned...

sorry dude, nasty is defaming and insulting a real athlete out of jealousy because one's greatest contact with real sport is lurking around a message board while sitting on mom & dad's couch.

 

[truesport]

It is impossible for women because women's physiology doesn't allow them to have such muscle mass by their own training and efforts. This is how women's body is made and being a woman athlete from my youth I can assure you that there's no chance to have such appearance without doping.

only impossible for someone who doesn't know how to train properly, or with too little self-control to follow a proper diet.

discipline, hard work, and genetics... just because you lack them doesn't mean others do as well.

It sure is easy, with the right "preparation".

Yeah, that's a "small amount of upper body muscle". LOL.

well, compared to a cyclist, a 5 year old girl has a "large" amount of muscle mass... you really need to get out into the wider world of sports a little more often, broadening ones perspectives is never a bad thing.

 

[silverrocket]

I agree with Truesport, and totally disagree with alitogata. I don't know if Zelinka dopes or not, all I know is that it is remarkably ignorant, if not stupid, to make the statement that it is "impossible" to achieve a Zelinka-like figure without doping. What are you basing that on alitogata? The fact that YOU couldn't, or perhaps don't know anyone who could? That's a pretty myopic perspective on which to accuse someone of cheating.

I have been "very close " to two women who had Zelinka-type figures, achieved solely through good diet and dedicated training. Both took protein and vitamin supplements, and were perhaps obsessive with their training, but both also had full-time jobs at the same time. One of them, who is now my wife, achieved the cut shoulders and defined abs without even going to the gym, and simply doing home workouts with a single set of dumb-bells, a mat for ab work, and a physical job as a massage therapist. I have no idea whether Zelinka DID, but I am 100% positive that Jessica Zelinka COULD have achieved her body with nothing but hard work and dedication to diet.

 

[D-Queued]

Nasty?

just called you out for the pathetic commentary you delivered... amazing someone with such comfort posting ill-informed and obnoxious commentary while hiding behind a keyboard could be so thin-skinned...

sorry dude, nasty is defaming and insulting a real athlete out of jealousy because one's greatest contact with real sport is lurking around a message board while sitting on mom & dad's couch.

You are new here.

A suggestion: learn about ad hominems.

You may not yet appreciate it, but there are rules even here.

Dave.

 

[Zam_Olyas]

You are new here.

A suggestion: learn about ad hominems.

You may not yet appreciate it, but there are rules even here.

Dave.

And he/she should also read hiero2 doing a FTP http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showpost.php?p=1135257&postcount=3297

 

[Dear Wiggo]

I have been "very close " to two women who had Zelinka-type figures, achieved solely through good diet and dedicated training. Both took protein and vitamin supplements, and were perhaps obsessive with their training, but both also had full-time jobs at the same time. One of them, who is now my wife, achieved the cut shoulders and defined abs without even going to the gym, and simply doing home workouts with a single set of dumb-bells, a mat for ab work, and a physical job as a massage therapist. I have no idea whether Zelinka DID, but I am 100% positive that Jessica Zelinka COULD have achieved her body with nothing but hard work and dedication to diet.

Pics, or it didn't happen.

 

[Galic Ho]

weight.

muscle is about twice the weight per volume measure, of fat.

It's closer to four fold, but it doesn't matter. Muscle takes up less volume than fat does.

Also Blackcat and Tyler's Twin, you two are right about anabolic steroids and women. It wasn't my intention to suggest that female's do not get a bigger boost than men, only that time wise, they hadn't caught up to the roaring 80s.

You explanation for why that hasn't happened Blackcat was good. Less testing on women like Flo Jo, more opportunity to go the whole hog and also newer drugs like HGH and IGF-1 may benefit men more. I only wanted to highlight that men are doping better than they have ever done so in track and field and women are not. But what you both said stands. I was trying to understand why it was that men are peaking time wise now and why women are still way behind the records. Your explanation was sufficient enough given the lack of investigation into what was going on back in the 70 and 80s versus today in the new millennium.

Cheers