Attention Brojos! Scientists now say EPO does not work any better than Placebo...

No the article say it "may" not help cyclists. Comprendo?

I think it's fair to say that the mechanism of EPO causing performance enhancement is not well understood.

rekrunner wrote:

I think it's fair to say that the mechanism of EPO causing performance enhancement is not well understood.

…by you.

Has anyone ever done a study on the effects of placebos on performance? If EPO is "no better" than placebo, maybe that just means placebos work really well.

“Participants were injected with EPO or a placebo for 8 weeks, during which they completed seven endurance tests in the lab.”

What were the results from these endurance tests?

They have not released that data yet, but we already know what the results will be.

If the only requirement to be a great cyclist were having a phenomenal cardiovascular system, then all champion endurance runners would also be champion cyclists.

Have you ever tried cycling up a mountain?

You need a lot more than a good cardiovascular system.

Lance Armstrong was using several PEDs.

NIH PhD, you need to return your PhD and ask for a refund.

rekrunner wrote:

I think it's fair to say that the mechanism of EPO causing performance enhancement is not well understood.

Oxygen delivery is not well understood either. Especially by exercise physiologists, which is rather strange.

Oh -- good one. LOL.Nevermind me, scientists too ...I just wonder what role the extra red blood cells can play in endurance events that are "rarely performed at maximum uptake", like the grand tours, or the marathon, where performance is not obviously limited by a lack of oxygen delivery capacity.I think, like Bengt Kayser suggests below, if EPO is truly effective at "sub-VO2 max" disciplines, that EPO might also provide alternative mechanisms.Selected quotes from the article:"On average, riders on EPO were 38 seconds slower than the control group, a non
significant difference. And the EPO users hardly felt like they were running on rocket fuel; 62% guessed they were on a placebo.""It’s conceivable, Cohen says. Riders may only remember winning with EPO and forget the losses, he notes. The drug could also be a strong placebo; after all, sports are a test of the mind as well as the body.It’s indisputable that the new red blood cells spawned by EPO increase the body’s maximum oxygen uptake (VO2max). But such an increase may not boost cycling performance, Cohen says. In long-distance races like the Tour, riders rarely perform at maximum uptake. Yet in a review of 13 previous EPO studies, the CHDR scientists found that all focused on VO2max instead of performance. Some weren’t controlled, only two had more than 20 participants, and none left the lab for a real-world race. “It’s not what you would normally consider clear evidence,” Cohen says.Others are reserving judgment until the publication is in, but say they find it hard to believe EPO does nothing. There are biological reasons to suggest that increasing VO2max has an effect, says Bengt Kayser, a doping expert at the University of Lausanne in Switzerland. Transfusions with a rider’s own blood have been shown to boost VO2max and performance, he says. And he notes that the body has EPO receptors in many places, including the brain, which might provide alternative mechanisms for the drug to have an effect."Referenced review of 13 previous EPO studies finding current studies lacking:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3690100/

Recreational Vehicle Runner wrote:

rekrunner wrote:

I think it's fair to say that the mechanism of EPO causing performance enhancement is not well understood.

…by you.

As an interesting sidenote, it is also very subjective when EPO actually did make a change on the speed of peloton. One would assume that there would be a consensus on the matter, but the following quotes from cyclists of that era highlight that this isn't necessarily so:

Be my quest and take your own pick.

Strict Logician wrote:

Has anyone ever done a study on the effects of placebos on performance? If EPO is "no better" than placebo, maybe that just means placebos work really well.

Actually, yes, scientists have recently started to study why placebos so routinely outperform cases where no intervention is given. It appears to be a real phenomenon especially in cases where the outcome is subjectively determined by the patient (pain levels are an example of this). Interestingly a placebo effect continues even if the subject is told they are taking a placebo suggesting a deeply subconscious mechanism.

Actually, yes, scientists have recently started to study why placebos so routinely outperform cases where no intervention is given. It appears to be a real phenomenon especially in cases where the outcome is subjectively determined by the patient (pain levels are an example of this). Interestingly a placebo effect continues even if the subject is told they are taking a placebo suggesting a deeply subconscious mechanism.

I knew it! This explains why Sky&Froome are #1 while staying clean. They use better placebos than the other guys.

Jon Orange wrote:

rekrunner wrote:

I think it's fair to say that the mechanism of EPO causing performance enhancement is not well understood.

Oxygen delivery is not well understood either. Especially by exercise physiologists, which is rather strange.

You and rekrunner should start your own physiology journal.

You can form a troll club and eat cookies together.

I'm curious who is providing Jon with his correct source of how oxygen delivery works..

If physiologists don't understand, who does?

Apart from Jon alone of course, the great unpublished genius.

rekrunner wrote:

Referenced review of 13 previous EPO studies finding current studies lacking:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3690100/

Recreational Vehicle Runner wrote:

…by you.

Thanks rekrunner, that's a nice review article. Scanning it, it seems that most of the argument against EPO's gains are for sub-VO2max cycling performances. Until given a reason to think otherwise I'm going to assume cycling and running are similar but what about supra-maximal exercise: are you aware of a similar level of skepticism in the scientific communing th for the beneficial effects of EPO at say 1500m or 3k?

Jon Orange wrote:

rekrunner wrote:

I think it's fair to say that the mechanism of EPO causing performance enhancement is not well understood.

Oxygen delivery is not well understood either. Especially by exercise physiologists, which is rather strange.

Hey J.O.

Please explain these results to start:

Jon Orange wrote:

rekrunner wrote:

I think it's fair to say that the mechanism of EPO causing performance enhancement is not well understood.

Oxygen delivery is not well understood either. Especially by exercise physiologists, which is rather strange.

Hey J.O.

Here is one more study from 2016 for you to explain:

OK?

On behalf of J.O., I can quote limitations of the studies from the actual publications:

Brien, 1987

The subjects in this study, although good-caliber runners, were not elite distance runners, and the results obtained in this study may or may not be applicable to the latter.

Williams, 1981

[T]he runners in this study, although good local road runners, were not elite distance runners and the results may not be applicable to the latter. Second, results from a laboratory test cannot always be generalized to actual athletic competition where a number of other variables may influence performance.

In the third and most recent paper, there was actually very little enhancement in comparison to the control group. In addition, there were problems with recovery after blood donation and when you add training effect, the study is very questionable as a proof that blood doping works. As an inquiry on possibly limitations of current methods in detecting the autotransfusions, the paper is very interesting.

Why stop the crusade or give Armstrong back his medals? EPO is still illegal and people taking it are getting an assist even if the assist is for a different reason than they think.

No I'm not aware of any skepticism levels, but it seems logical to me:- if the benefit comes from increasing oxygen delivery by increasing red blood cells, then events at higher intensities, like the 1500m or 3K or 5K would benefit more than longer events, like the marathon- if the benefit comes from some alternative mechanism, like faster recovery during training, or some kind of protective mechanism, this is something studied even less, and certainly rarely discussed in common forum discussions of EPO.Most of the performance studies on EPO seem to be short time trials between 10 and 20 minutes, so that's where most of the data should be (putting aside skepticism due to amateur test subjects, or lack of controls).

test2 wrote:

Thanks rekrunner, that's a nice review article. Scanning it, it seems that most of the argument against EPO's gains are for sub-VO2max cycling performances. Until given a reason to think otherwise I'm going to assume cycling and running are similar but what about supra-maximal exercise: are you aware of a similar level of skepticism in the scientific communing th for the beneficial effects of EPO at say 1500m or 3k?

1000 wrote:

“Participants were injected with EPO or a placebo for 8 weeks

Stop reading there.

How much of a training adaptation do you expect to happen in 8 weeks? Enough for a 1% performance gain to become evident in a small group of cyclists?