Discussing the effects of proper training : why athletes are able to improve ?

When Webb set the mile AR it was unexpected. Yes, he was trying to run fast that day, but it was a low-key meet, so pressure was low, and he went for broke. Based on his up and down career, I think Webb was always clean.

I am basically an idiot about this doping stuff, but I have a question. so tell me where I am being a fool. Here goes:

I know that EPO raises your hematocrit number.

I believe that too high of a hemocrit number can lead to death as your blood has too many red blood cells.

My question is: are the top athletes on the verge of dying from having too many red blood cells? Otherwise, couldn't they stand to make gains from higher hematocrit levels?

Here is my reasoning . . . a doper can improve their performance by injecting EPO and getting their hematocrit number higher. Their performance improves until they have too many red blood cells and die.

If you are saying that a naturally perfect athlete does not benefit from EPO, that is - there is no room for improvement - does that mean that their hematocrit level is on the verge of killing them? If not, then why couldn't they stand to improve with more red blood cells?

Thanks.

Renato

Of course training is important, but so can doping be. Both are necessary for the best performances. In fact doping can help one train more. Surely you understand this?

I'm not sure doping can help to train more. Maybe can help to recover better, and this can increase the "density" of training, but the real question is :

"are we sure that increasing the density of training can be the right way for improving performances in athletic distances ?".

Every time we compare running and cycling, we forget that, in running, situation like Tour de France, Giro d'Italia or Vuelta, when cyclists have to compete for 20-22 stages with only one-two days resting (and, of course, if you want to have a high final classification, EVERY stage is important, because the level of intensity doesn't depend on your personal choice, like in training, but on the tactic that other copetitors can use), don't exist.

So, are we sure recovery is so important ? Are we sure that, for example, using 3 days of intensive training per week is better than to use two times, or, in some case (as I use during the final specific period for Marathon), one very tough session followed by 4-5 days of easy training ?

This is part of methodology, and methodology can change. Of sure, the methodology used by clean athletes is not the same used by doped athletes.

Train hard, win easy, is not correct. Train "smart and well", win easy, is very much better.

Renato Canova wrote:

I have had the pleasure to work with Sara Hall and seen Ryan Hall train, again clean. The fact that he can run 2:04 speaks volumes to what the human body is capable of. It does not take too much imagination to understand that someone with slightly more talent, with better training, and so forth could run 2:02.

Steve Magness has been spending too much time around Letsrun if he can glibly refer to a 2:04:58 on a course with a significant elevation drop and featuring a strong tailwind that year as just "2:04," without qualifiers. In using this as a basis for the statement that a more talented man training more intelligently could run 2:02, he is in effect saying that a more gifted, better-trained marathoner could run 2:02:58 downhill with a zephyr at his back. We already know that; 2:02:58 is within seconds of what G. Mutai and Mosop did in the same race where Hall ran 2:04:58.

Renato,

You sound sincere to me. As does Magness. In my opinion that is how we should be viewing the situation. Unable to wrap your mind around a performance and therefore it must be doping. How weak our minds are sometimes, as I've certainly been guilty of that at times.

Interestingly, whenever I'm extremely fit I tend towards believing top performances are clean or at least could be if someone was really all-in with their entire lifestyle. But when I'm out of shape after being hurt or sick my mind will veer towards thinking top performances are a fraud.

I have to imagine most top athletes, at least when they are in great shape, would think they could be as good as the best in the world, no matter how the best in the world are achieving it. Because what top athletes has a flawless buildup of training every time? None of them. They all have human problems emotionally and in their training. But some have dramatically less problems than others and I suspect those with more simple stable lives would go further than most and see clearer than most a great vision that is possible.

I think for the most part discussing doping is a waste of your time and talent. I hope you'll spend your energy on this forum giving us anecdotes of the great athletes you've worked regarding their time away from training what they do and are like personally, and of course the training itself is read with much interest.

Training actually lowers hematocrit by increasing blood volume...the increase in plasma is greater than the increase in RBCs thus a lower % of total blood that is RBCs. So, in theory you could use EPO or blood dope to raise hematocrit to a "normal" level.

Alan

Correct, training lowers hematocrit by increasing blood volume. Now, forget for a moment the second part of your assertion (you could use EPO or blood dope to raise hematocrit to a "normal" level), and go to see what "normally" happens with athletes well trained, using their training only :

1) Their performances continue to grow (they are interested in the EFFECTS of training on the performance, not on the effects of training on their blood values)

2) Their blood values continue to decrease

I had several blood tests, some year ago, at the beginning of my "African period", because from 1998 and 2003 i could work with the University in Torino, connected with researchers interested to understand the blood variations in top athletes (better if born and training in altitude).

Specifically, in 1999 I had data regarding 4 different blood tests each one with the following athletes :

Christopher Kosgei (he won the only Gold Medal for Kenya in WCh 1999) -

Kenneth Kimwetich (he was 5th in the final of 800m, ran 1'43" in 800 and 2'13"46 in 1000m, and had an unbelievable average of 1'45"6 in 27 competitions during the season !)

Wilson Boit Kipketer (he was 2nd behind Christopher in WCh for steeple)

David Lelei (at that time he worked as a pacer for 1500m, but during the winter 1999-2000 ran under 1'44" in 800m)

We started to test a lot of parameters, connecting them with the shape of the athletes : if the fluctuation of these parameters didn't show any connection with the shape, we cancelled this type of test from the protocol.

At the end, about 20 test remained. Looking at the most common values (Hg and Hct), in ALL these athletes, growing their shape, the values decresed. Interesting is that, about other parameters (for example, MCV, the volume of the Cells), we instead had the opposite trend (in Christopher this parameter moved from about 86 to 106). All the training of these athletes in 1999 was carried out in altitude (St. Moritz, 1800m).

In this case, I had no proof that, giving EPO, they could not run also faster. But this remains a pure hypothesis : the fact is they were able to improve a lot, completely clean, using training only, and Hematocrit and Hemoglobin when they were in shape were consistently lower than when they were not in shape.

Renato, I know your view on EPO, but on testosterone, do you not think that even the most talented clean distance runner could benefit from exogenous testosterone? Isn't the difference in testosterone in the formative and current years the main reason for differences between male and female performances? Therefore women on testosterone perform more like men, and men on testosterone perform more like "super-men"?

Renato,

Good to see you posting again.

James777 wrote:

Renato, I know your view on EPO, but on testosterone, do you not think that even the most talented clean distance runner could benefit from exogenous testosterone? Isn't the difference in testosterone in the formative and current years the main reason for differences between male and female performances? Therefore women on testosterone perform more like men, and men on testosterone perform more like "super-men"?

If testosterone is so effective, and the doping then why are womens' records not being broken, and why are they 8-10% slower than men?

You, as a man don't need more testosterone, nor does any elite runner. Your natural level, if it is healthy is the right level for improving performance.

Jon Orange wrote:

Renato, I know your view on EPO, but on testosterone, do you not think that even the most talented clean distance runner could benefit from exogenous testosterone? Isn't the difference in testosterone in the formative and current years the main reason for differences between male and female performances? Therefore women on testosterone perform more like men, and men on testosterone perform more like "super-men"?

If testosterone is so effective, and the doping then why are womens' records not being broken, and why are they 8-10% slower than men?

You, as a man don't need more testosterone, nor does any elite runner. Your natural level, if it is healthy is the right level for improving performance.

Actually, no. Elite powerlifters have natural testosterone levels far above the normal range, and they still benefit from exogenous testosterone more than any other steroid.

The benefits of doping is a myth perpetuated by Big Pharma to help boost product sales. Everyone who believes in 'performance enhancement' has been duped

Good for you Renato, and Steve Magness. I agree.

Regarding blood manipulations, I believe that the higher plasma volume improves endurance. EPO injections will increase total blood volume also, but with less plasma. The increases in blood volume, either natural or artificial send a message to the sympathetic nervous system, which in turn lowers heart rate for a given energy output. The extra blood volume also increases cardiac output.

There are so many parameters involved in oxygen transport, that anyone who comes on this message board pretending to be an expert on the subject subject is going to be asked some very awkward questions by me that they won't be able to answer.

People are easily brainwashed by bad science. New records and Gold medals can be won without drugs. People are weak minded, and closed minded so they don't believe this. Also journalists can write a lot more stories about drug scandals than they can about a strong minded philosophy by yourself or someone like Lydiard. The drug hype will continue to increase, it's a fact of life, but thank you for sharing your thoughts.

"At the end, about 20 test remained."

This is important. Training changes many things. Taking EPO or testosterone also changes many things, some for the better and some for the worse. The question is what to take and how long before it starts to go beyond the short term boost and starts to teach your body it doesn't have to make whatever you are taking. The vast majority of people doping just take something and hope. This is not a plan for long term improvement, training works in the long term.

Renato do you have any experience of athletes becoming overtrained with marathon training or not recoverying after an event.

I have experienced running 100- 120 mile per week with some fatigue but not overly unusual experience. Then after running the marathon I could not recover and eventually when trying to return to training found I could no longer even jog.

I have had all blood checked by my doctor including, hormones, thyroids, muscle enzymes and everything is normal range, yet my legs are not functioning normal. Does this suggest some other area IE central nervous system or nerves are responsible for lack of leg function.

My upper body is functioning normal with no fatige and strength is improving with training.

This experience has now lasted 3 months, my legs are in the same condition as they were 5 days after the marathon.

This soed show blood values is not always the cause of performance and that sometimes we may be trainign to optimise other parameters that are poorly understood. Any thoughts most welcome.

This is a crucial point: improvement can come from eliminating weaknesses, not only from maximizing a single trait. This applies to increasing the performance of the individual, but also to lowering world records. Breaking a world record does not require any "superhuman" traits, but could be done by an athlete who just has fewer weaknesses than the previous record holder.

This makes me think of Bolt, who's height gives him an advantage only because he does not have the weaknesses of other tall athletes. (I know very little about sprinting so that might just be wrong).

I think it depends on what we mean by recovery. If something helps recovery, but only in the sense that the athlete is able to repeat the effort sooner, then there is no benefit. But if something improves recovery in the sense of allowing the body to make physiological adaptations faster then a higher density of training should lead to quicker improvement.

Thank you Renato, I'm interested to hear if you have any answers for us!

Top runners have a very high level of homeostatis, both when training and racing.

Anything added that knocks the body out of this homeostasis is going to make things worse, potentially much worse, which is why many people have already died using drugs. PED drugs are the same thing, no different, as that is just a made up laboratory name to sell products, nothing to do with reality.

People with low levels of fitness can be aided very easily, with improved habits, improved diet and exercise, maybe some supplement but only because almost anything would help at that point, not because of it being something special (ignoring things that improve because of some other reasons, habits etc) - but not beyond the level of many other things that help more.

PED drugs are just a poor imitation of what can be done much better naturally, i.e. optimal homeostatis, but are certainly not as good. You cannot take someone of poor homeostasis and make them a top athlete, though you can in reverse without using any drugs which is by far the best way.

Renato, it's always great to have your posts on here. Can you share more thoughts on how physiologically athletes improve from training? For instance, more about your comments on density of training and how that relates to improvement/adaptation.