Probably because of the passport. I think being ill will allow for more.The Hitch said:Being I'll seems to be a common thing for some of the new gen of gt winners.
Probably because of the passport. I think being ill will allow for more.The Hitch said:Being I'll seems to be a common thing for some of the new gen of gt winners.
To be honest I really do not understand what you are trying to get at here. I didn't mention drugs at all. Not once. If I have made a mistake in my post, please point it out plainly - "you're wrong because" is a good pattern to use for someone like me who struggles with subtlety of what you are writing.zigmeister said:Always nice to see guys appearing from 20yrs in the past with information that has been known for that amount of time.
You post a lot on here with opinions that are often "expert" in tone. Yet, you are just now learning something about the human body, aging, health, drugs that can effect health and performance? I mean, at a very high level of knowledge? This is 101 basic knowledge for many what you stated above that are in the know with true knowledge and experience.
Not sure how you think you can continue to make posts like that and be taken seriously by anybody that really understands the science, and has utilized/experienced PEDs directly.
Note: it is not my opinion - it is simply what I read. The "decline after 30" is something I have been aware of for some time, so yes, it was something new to read that this "common knowledge" may in fact be wrong. I am not sure what you are going on about "true knowledge and experience".Dear Wiggo said:I have been reading research recently that indicates the muscle loss observed previously has been more due to reduced activity than an age-specific thing.Wallace said:*Sigh* The male body hits its peak at age 30. After that muscle mass, bone mineral and breathing capacity all decline, progressively. It isn't ageist to point this out, it's just the sad facts of mortality. This is why riders over the age of 40 have never (before CH) won GTs.
Not to say there are not age-related effects, but they are mitigatable far more than previously thought.
Now. This is a doctor, doing a study, on 40-81 year olds. It was her study that I was mentioning in my original post.Through a series of fitness tests on subjects between the ages of 40 and 81, Dr. Wright offered convincing evidence that the "typical" loss of muscle that begins in adults around the age of 40 has more to do with lack of use than aging alone. Two interesting points in this research: the subjects were Master athletes and Dr. Wright used MRI scans to measure muscle and fat content. Dr. Wright pointed to the fact that most research is typically studying sedentary subjects to draw broad conclusions about the intrinsic effects of aging.
http://phoenixfitnesskelowna.ca/articles/152/we_control_70_of_how_we_age.php
Except: I didn't mention PEDs, drugs, or anything of the sort. Nor was the post to which I was responding talking about drugs. To be honest, I find your post very confusing in this regard. I welcome further explanation.zigmeister said:Posts like the above really come off as complete amateurs and clueless about PEDs in general when statements about certain drugs, that have been studied an insane amount and published over the years, are so-well known their effects
Conclusion
The loss of lean muscle mass and the resulting subjective
and objective weakness experienced with sedentary aging
imposes signifi cant but modifi able personal, societal, and
economic burdens. As sports medicine clinicians, we must
encourage people to become or remain active at all ages. This
study, and those reviewed here, document the possibility to
maintain muscle mass and strength across the ages via simple
lifestyle changes.
https://physsportsmed.org/sites/default/files/rpsm.2011.09.1933_secure.pdf
Thanks DW...that answers the question I was asking. I'm aware of testosterone being used, but had not heard that the decline in natural t may be due to inactivity rather than just age. That was new to me. To whomever that was ranting on about google, sorry for asking a question. JeezDear Wiggo said:To be honest I really do not understand what you are trying to get at here. I didn't mention drugs at all. Not once. If I have made a mistake in my post, please point it out plainly - "you're wrong because" is a good pattern to use for someone like me who struggles with subtlety of what you are writing.
To keep this coherent, here's the post you were responding to, where Wallace claims muscle mass declines after 30 years of age, and I mention a study I read recently that found otherwise:
Note: it is not my opinion - it is simply what I read. The "decline after 30" is something I have been aware of for some time, so yes, it was something new to read that this "common knowledge" may in fact be wrong. I am not sure what you are going on about "true knowledge and experience".
As for "continuing to make posts like that" - well, all I did was post that I recently read about some research. I am really struggling to see the crime in writing something as innocuous as that?
The following summary of the study I was referring to does 2 things:
1. confirms that the "common understanding" was that people over 40 lose muscle mass
2. shows that that muscle loss was due to inactivity more than it was due to age.
Now. This is a doctor, doing a study, on 40-81 year olds. It was her study that I was mentioning in my original post.
Here's the original article where the study was mentioned that I read originally: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/life/health-and-fitness/fitness/with-muscles-use-it-or-lose-it-rings-true/article547007/
At no point am I putting anyone down. Insulting people. Or trolling. Just retelling what I read recently.
Now, it's possible the 40 to 81 year olds were doping, no question. But in the short term, I am open to the possibility that you can, in fact, continue to train and maintain muscle mass and fitness as you age, without drugs. That the established wisdom was looking in the wrong place for what is possible as you age - ie sedentary people.
Except: I didn't mention PEDs, drugs, or anything of the sort. Nor was the post to which I was responding talking about drugs. To be honest, I find your post very confusing in this regard. I welcome further explanation.
Here's a direct link to the study, and its conclusion:
Just to clarify - I have said nothing regarding testosterone decline. I am talking purely muscle mass. There were more studies referenced in the study I linked to above that may have more info.Energy Starr said:Thanks DW...that answers the question I was asking. I'm aware of testosterone being used, but had not heard that the decline in natural t may be due to inactivity rather than just age. That was new to me. To whomever that was ranting on about google, sorry for asking a question. Jeez
(also from memory)... this may be more related to fitness than specific exercise.Dear Wiggo said:Just to clarify - I have said nothing regarding testosterone decline. I am talking purely muscle mass. There were more studies referenced in the study I linked to above that may have more info.
That said - some exericses have been shown ( from memory ) to induce test production, so it may be possible that continues should you continue to exericse.
For sure - when you are fitter you also tend to eat better, etc. It's all intertwined.D-Queued said:(also from memory)... this may be more related to fitness than specific exercise.
If you are a fat coach potato, your T production isn't as high as if you are fit and exercising regularly.
Dear Wiggo said:For sure - when you are fitter you also tend to eat better, etc. It's all intertwined.
Not sure I agree, I know athletes who do eat very 'clean' and I also now some who eat chocolate/cake/pizza etc on a pretty much daily basis. I guess this depends very much on the individual though, I mean some people who have fast baseline metabolisms to begin with need an awful lot of calories when you add in lots of training and its difficult to do this when you stick to general nutritional guidelines.Dear Wiggo said:For sure - when you are fitter you also tend to eat better, etc. It's all intertwined.
Horner's comment is being mis - taken.Dave/Dim @dimspace 8m
Horner really dishing out the compliments "Everyone here can ride in the gruppetto, especially on my team."
Yeah I think Dim got the wrong end of the stick there.Cycle Chic said:Horner's comment is being mis - taken.
He is saying that his team riders are all perfectly competent to ride in the peloton - there is only one reason why they would hang on the back of cars and thats because they are sick or tired.
I see there is plenty of discussion on your point which is really thin. never read a geriatric study on the effect of exercise on oldsters?Wallace said:*Sigh* The male body hits its peak at age 30. After that muscle mass, bone mineral and breathing capacity all decline, progressively. It isn't ageist to point this out, it's just the sad facts of mortality. This is why riders over the age of 40 have never (before CH) won GTs. It has nothing to do with mindset or wanting to retire. It doesn't matter how talented Horner used to be/has always been. He is simply too old to be believably winning Grand Tours.
I know lots of totally hard-a$$ed vets who can climb, TT, race, put in major miles and stomp on killer group rides, but the difference between doing all that and racing professionally in Europe is like the difference between commuting and Formula 1 racing (as in: you may be using a similar kind of vehicle, but that's where the similarity ends).
Finally: GL can't get racing fit: he has lead pellets in his heart and his doctor has forbidden serious aerobic exercise as it leeches lead into his blood stream. If he could, I'm sure he'd be an awesome vet.
By your "logic", it is impossible for training to increase, e.g., VO2max, because according to you that would imply that there is no upper bound.ScienceIsCool said:This is almost as silly as Coggan's claim that muscular efficiency improves with training in pro cyclists. Why? Because of the logic - it implies there's no upper bound on efficiency, when clearly there is.
No, but there is plenty of scientific data to show that it can slow it down, even when considering fundamental aging-related processes such as telomere shortening, loss of satellite cells, etc.ScienceIsCool said:Similarly, exercise can not halt the effects of aging.
Well played sir! Not just the part I quoted either...ScienceIsCool said:If Chris Horner is able to slow these processes by cycling, he's an idiot to not form a billion dollar industry around his training methods.
Or, you know. Dope.
Simple question, why are my running times getting slower as I get older? I train the same as I've always done, but need more days to recover after hard efforts. I'm over 30acoggan said:By your "logic", it is impossible for training to increase, e.g., VO2max, because according to you that would imply that there is no upper bound.
Anyway, I'm not the only one who believes that efficiency can improve w/ training, e g.:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19941249
No, but there is plenty of scientific data to show that it can slow it down, even when considering fundamental aging-related processes such as telomere shortening, loss of satellite cells, etc.
You're entirely right: my reading list has never included any studies on the effect of exercise on older people. Somehow, I've never gotten around to that. I have had many discussions with doctors on the subject (I had knee surgery a while ago and am now in training for an ultra-marathon event) and they--and my physical therapists--have all given me the same lectures on the decline of the male body after age 30. Numbers, percentages, etc., the whole grim outlook. It seems like none of them have read the studies either. As it turns out, one of my doctors is a team surgeon for the Seattle Seahawks (he has a Superbowl ring, which is a very odd piece of bling to see on your physician), so you'd think he might know something about the decline of athletic abilities over time, but he seems to have missed out on the latest studies too. Why don't my doctors spend more time on the internet? They'd learn so much.Master50 said:I see there is plenty of discussion on your point which is really thin. never read a geriatric study on the effect of exercise on oldsters?
Not replying to you directly. This is the part of the fraud where the doper is granted some genetic anomaly to explain the doping transformation.peloton said:Simple question, why are my running times getting slower as I get older? I train the same as I've always done, but need more days to recover after hard efforts. I'm over 30
CEM forums?zigmeister said:There is so much information that is easily found out there, you just need to take some time and effort, years worth though, to become very knowledgeable and an expert of many of these topics related to drugs and the effects on the body, particularly as it relates to performance enhancing characteristics.
You mean like what we are learning here? Your football doctor also deals with endurance athletes I suppose? I get he might know a lot about power and strength athletes. I recently turned 58. For the last 29 years I have pretty regularly tried my hand at the airport sprint and I think I won one. This year I have won 3. My recorded max speed is about the same as 10 years ago. I suppose that means everyone else is getting slower? as for geriatric studies, no one is becoming super athletes but it is clear from the studies that well trained endurance people decline at very different rates and people who are sedentary can increase VO2 even in 70 and 80 year olds and all benefit from strength training. The fitter ones tend to decline much slower.Wallace said:You're entirely right: my reading list has never included any studies on the effect of exercise on older people. Somehow, I've never gotten around to that. I have had many discussions with doctors on the subject (I had knee surgery a while ago and am now in training for an ultra-marathon event) and they--and my physical therapists--have all given me the same lectures on the decline of the male body after age 30. Numbers, percentages, etc., the whole grim outlook. It seems like none of them have read the studies either. As it turns out, one of my doctors is a team surgeon for the Seattle Seahawks (he has a Superbowl ring, which is a very odd piece of bling to see on your physician), so you'd think he might know something about the decline of athletic abilities over time, but he seems to have missed out on the latest studies too. Why don't my doctors spend more time on the internet? They'd learn so much.
I have learnt beyond a shadow of doubt that doctors are simply humans, as fallible as anyone. That they may not know the latest facts from research is akin to the old skool coaches who still advocate 3 day starves pre-carbo loading.Master50 said:You mean like what we are learning here?
But do we know if the cause of this decline is physical? Could it not be players getting (relatively) lazy after getting rich?Merckx index said:There may be an effect of exercise on aging, but the age-associated decline of physical abilities is beyond question.