would one of you average runners start taking EPO pls?

You don't understand science much do you?

The Verve were wrong wrote:

There's no need for a placebo effect with a drug that's proven to work.

EPO is used in the treatment of anemia. The goal of treatment is to increase the amount of oxygen that your blood can carry. This is done by raising the red blood cell count and/or hemoglobin level.

Presently, the market for anemia treatments is estimated at $10 billion a year.

This is serious business and these drugs fking work!

Lots of info here:

http://anemiapatientgroup.blogspot.ie/

Pretty much a step by step guide. Looks like this guy used to sell the stuff.

GW-501516 is extremely available. Google research chemicals and you will come up with dozens of site that sell it.

Googled research chemicals, didn't find it, but I do feel like the DEA is probably watching me now.

$88 per mg but I don't think you can buy this as a regular end-user. You need to be a laboratory I imagine.

rillbodgers wrote:

Googled research chemicals, didn't find it, but I do feel like the DEA is probably watching me now.

Who done it? wrote:

How effective is AICAR/Gw1516? These are cheap compared to EPO and readily available. I've heard rumors of that being used in elite circles now. Anyone have information regarding these drugs (real info, not googled articles)?

Aicar is already in TDF. The french or was it italian pol ice dug through cyclists trash and found bottles of the stuff. It is safe to say it is effective.

I'm looking at a site right now with 150mg of GW for 150.

If you guys are too dense to google or add a few phrases to the search to find the numerous sites, I don't know what to tell you.

Go to the bodybuilding forums and they have muscle heads running logs with GW1516 and/or AICAR as part of the cycle.

AiCar is even cheaper

http://www.sigmaaldrich.com/catalog/product/sigma/a9978?lang=en&region=US

$51 for 50 mg.

But like I said you can't just buy these things from the chemical companies as a regular user.

Sigma for instance sells methamphetamine

http://www.sigmaaldrich.com/catalog/product/sigma/m8750?lang=en&region=US

The other issue with drugs like Aicar is that they have not been proven to be effective PEDs. There have been some studies, mostly in rodents, but there is a big leap from being effective in rodents and working in humans. I would imagine that >50% of any effect of these drugs on performance is placebo.

As the other poster mentioned, if professional cyclists are using them, they are effective. How effective? That was my original question.

So what's the deal with HIF-PH Inhibitors? I hear these are the drugs of choice these days.

I give you a water pill. I tell you that it's EPO and will make you faster. You run faster out of your expectancy that EPO will make you faster. That is the placebo effect. No one ever thought that HGH gave you better eye sight, or made you sleep more easily, therefore, these claims can not be explained with the concept of placebos.

You're lack of understanding of the placebo effect is vexing. The total lack of simple logic and knowledge of the scientific method by the public is very worrisome.

Stefan Hahking wrote:

I give you a water pill. I tell you that it's EPO and will make you faster. You run faster out of your expectancy that EPO will make you faster. That is the placebo effect. No one ever thought that HGH gave you better eye sight, or made you sleep more easily, therefore, these claims can not be explained with the concept of placebos.

Aghast, maybe give you own opinions instead of being a condescending jerk to everyone you disagree with.

Shower us with your knowledge, oh logical one. Teach us the virtues of this scientific method which you alone understand. Help us see the error of our ways, great 14 year old with a computer.

Aghast wrote:

You're lack of understanding of the placebo effect is vexing. The total lack of simple logic and knowledge of the scientific method by the public is very worrisome.

YOUR piss poor command of the english language is even more vexing.

fair enough. I am sure that all sorts of PEDs offer great advantages however a number of effects (eyesight improvements) can also be due to a placebo effect. Unlike what that other poster suggested you don't need to believe a priori that a drug will have a certain effect for there to be a placebo. When you are taking a pill, especially one you think will improve you, then any slight natural change you are likely to attribute to the drug. This is the problem with the entire premise of this thread. One or two people taking these drugs and reporting back will most likely tell us very little about the actual effects of the drug. Furthermore, taking drugs that have not been established to improve performance (e.g., Aicar) will tell us even less. As a side note, to the poster who said cyclists use Aicar so it must work - this is faulty logic. Cyclists believe it will work and if they know their competitors are taking then they will take it. The very fact they are using does not speak to its effectiveness.

Holbrook wrote:

Aghast, maybe give you own opinions instead of being a condescending jerk to everyone you disagree with.

In order to establish how much and it what ways these drugs improve the performance of the average runner, we cannot take the anecdotal evidence of a few people- this is worse than useless. It would offer us very little real information. We would need at the very least assign 10 people to be randomly to use EPO and assign 10 people to believe they taking EPO. We would then need to compare pre versus post usage performance and question them about any observed effects.

Caveat: It is possible that those taking EPO will know due to side effects (e.g., headache). This will limit the degree to which the results are believable.

To the poster who said that we already know that EPO increases hemotocrit levels so no study is needed - we cannot use this intermediate end point.

You try to sound smart, but you are not smart.

Thanks, it is good to know.

The Truth Hurts wrote:

You try to sound smart, but you are not smart.