Alex Hutchinson calls out CANOVA over study confirming EPO works on Kenyan runners

Zede wrote:

JonO. wrote:

I'm not the one denying the laws of physics. You are.

EPO is not a performance enhancer or a short cut to better performance. EPO doping is Frankenstein phsyiology and shame on those scientists who themselves think they can prove othewise and re-write the laws of physics.

We have a thermoregulatory limit to oxygen consumption. Trying to prove otherwise is ridiculous. But that's what dishonest researchers will attempt.

No scientist in the world is going to argue the point about thermoregulation, they would quickly be exposed as the charlatans they are.

EPO is a performance enhancer because helps recovery. In the EPO era of cyclists, in every stage of Tour, they go fast like it was first stage. So EPO can increase the capacity of doing more training. Obviously when you reach very top level, there are diminishing returns. Sub elite athletes can have more advantages from doping than top elites.

casual obsever wrote:

1) a) I did play a positive role by providing the info about the experience/quality of the Kenyan runners already on page 3 - that you ignored.

b) I did play a positive role by providing the info about the consistent training of the Kenyan runners - that you ignored.

2) I did not troll you, instead I enjoyed watching you making those false claims. Repeatedly.

In the context of 1a, remember that the 1:03 was the average, not the best runner, before you claim the opposite again.

casual obsever wrote:

You pretended that their lower bound of 31% (earlier you claimed 29%) mentioned on page 2 under two hypotheses is more important/real/close to the truth than the key findings summarized in the abstract. For pages and pages. To date, you still haven't admitted that the real result of 44% is likely an underestimation, not an overestimation, as pointed out in the abstract, not even after I showed you the comments of the Harvard prof of that study.

Aragon wrote:

There is a very simple solution on this "elite" vs. "non-elite" status of the Kenyans where everyone is right in one sense. It is that the best Kenyan participants were at least almost elite level athletes, but that they could not've cared less to give their best effort during the first test.

It should be stated at first that the PB times reported in the 2018 version of the experiment are mean values, and even if one assumes that there were only two people in the PB groups, the standard deviation dictates that there were runners in the study with PBs of 13:35 at 5K, 3:45 at 1500m, 1:47 at 800 m in addition to the half and full marathon times. If there were more people in the groups, the fastest were naturally even further faster.

As rekrunner mentioned, the 3000 m times of the Kenyans weren't even close to their capabilities, but the three fastest baseline "control" times are around 8:40, 8:50 and 8:55 (based on the chart in the page 96 of the PhD), which doesn't appear to be anything reminiscent of their talent. The simple solution is that the Kenyans weren't giving their best effort, far from it, which is highlighted by the fact that the rate perceived effort (RPE) is very low, only 14.6 and with the standard deviation of 1.5, there were some who estimated their 3K TT effort (elites run at 100 % of their Vo2Max) as low as 12-13 corresponding "light" or "somewhat hard" at the Borg scale.

The Scottish runners considered that they gave roughly similar effort after the weeks of rHuEPO injections (~18), but Kenyans gave more effort after rHuEPO injections, because the authors state that "nlike SCO whose RPE post time trial remained relatively constant throughout the study, RPE in KEN increased after rHuEpo administration compared to pre-injections levels (16.1 ± 1.1 vs. 14.6 ±1.5)". Because RPE is usually considered to correlate roughly with heart rate with the coefficient of 10, this indicates that the Kenyans felt that the post-rHuEPO time trial felt like they ran with 15 BPM higher heart rate.

rekrunner wrote:

Thanks Aragon. That's a good point. While I thought that the 4.6% might surely include some non-EPO related contributions, I hadn't considered the possibility that the Kenyans simply weren't trying as hard as the Scots, especially on the first time trial.

Aragon wrote:

There is a very simple solution on this "elite" vs. "non-elite" status of the Kenyans where everyone is right in one sense. It is that the best Kenyan participants were at least almost elite level athletes, but that they could not've cared less to give their best effort during the first test.

It should be stated at first that the PB times reported in the 2018 version of the experiment are mean values, and even if one assumes that there were only two people in the PB groups, the standard deviation dictates that there were runners in the study with PBs of 13:35 at 5K, 3:45 at 1500m, 1:47 at 800 m in addition to the half and full marathon times. If there were more people in the groups, the fastest were naturally even further faster.

As rekrunner mentioned, the 3000 m times of the Kenyans weren't even close to their capabilities, but the three fastest baseline "control" times are around 8:40, 8:50 and 8:55 (based on the chart in the page 96 of the PhD), which doesn't appear to be anything reminiscent of their talent. The simple solution is that the Kenyans weren't giving their best effort, far from it, which is highlighted by the fact that the rate perceived effort (RPE) is very low, only 14.6 and with the standard deviation of 1.5, there were some who estimated their 3K TT effort (elites run at 100 % of their Vo2Max) as low as 12-13 corresponding "light" or "somewhat hard" at the Borg scale.

The Scottish runners considered that they gave roughly similar effort after the weeks of rHuEPO injections (~18), but Kenyans gave more effort after rHuEPO injections, because the authors state that "nlike SCO whose RPE post time trial remained relatively constant throughout the study, RPE in KEN increased after rHuEpo administration compared to pre-injections levels (16.1 ± 1.1 vs. 14.6 ±1.5)". Because RPE is usually considered to correlate roughly with heart rate with the coefficient of 10, this indicates that the Kenyans felt that the post-rHuEPO time trial felt like they ran with 15 BPM higher heart rate.

m!ndweak wrote:

wow page after page after page of some of the most childish arguments

"i know you are but what am i?"

thats what it reads like to me

wow just wow

and really rek, you say if you admit what college you went to and what science degree you got would be "too much and give it away"

wtf does that even mean? you really think hiding your identity is some f*cking patriotic duty? and call me out? you call me a coward and tell me to walk the walk...ok you spineless f*ck, i will guarantee you dont have the balls, actually i know you dont have the balls.

you think that im a coward and cant admit who i am? where i graduated and what degree i got? well are you ready you self righteous pretentious prick you ready?

chad beckelhymer

BA in exercise physciology, adams state college

BS in geology, adams state college

4 time national qualifier, 1 time all american

ended with life time PRs of

10.77

21.97

47.68

1:54.04

was a two time high school state champ.

while in college i had practice daily with

1:48 guys

3:40 guys

13:20 guys

28:00 guys

and you have the arrogance to call me out, call me a coward, act as if i have something to hide, as if i have something to gain from telling you your a liar.

im not a coward, nor a liar, nor do i have some bullsh*t annoying agenda to uphold

now please shut the f*ck up and move on, or tell us all the truth who you are and end this childish annoying behavior

my bett....is you will just mock me and continue to live in your cowardice lying anonymity

oh and that goes for you two JonO...dont spout off on me with your high and mighty bullsh*t either....you act so arrogant to call me out, well i just walked the walk you little b*tches

now, lets just wait for the next EPO bust shall we

casual obsever wrote:

rekrunner wrote:

You advised me to read the published study, where I found a pretty unambiguous description of the likely lower bound.

Correct, but that is only a small part of that exchange. Typical rekrunner obfuscation/deflection. You even went so far to boldly yet falsely claim (and use that false claim for yet another personal attack):

rekrunner wrote:

The main message is surely NOT in the abstract, but in the paper itself. Compared to the paper it is describing, the abstract looks misleading -- just the way you like it.

And then you went on and on and on, insisting that you were right, even after it came out that you - surprise surprise - had yet to read the actual article after peer review as published in Sports Medicine.

At least back then, you looked into a preliminary draft likely later submitted to Nature and rejected there, whereas here you kept arguing based on an abstract alone.

Now That's Telling It Like It Is wrote:

+1

Very impressive. You're the real deal and I believe you know what you're talking about. People may not like your posting style but that's too bad. You get the science across on rEPO and endurance excercise, and explain it in a fashion that is easy to understand.

Rekrunner, OTOH, uses wordplay and psychological warfare. IMO, he's merely tring to impress everyone with his pretentious, sanctimonious, holier-than-thou attitude because he has some master degree in some undisclosed science field.

It's funny...since there's not one single study on EPO and elite runners, everyone can have an opinion on what they think the performance benefits are with EPO usage & elites. Yet rekrunner belittles & demeans some of us who think the performance benefits are in 3% - 4% specturm, but yet expects us to respect and pay homage to his opinion of a performance benefit less than 1%.

So, here's a guy who reads books on logical fallacies, uses wordplay, cherry-picks data, manipulates stats, trash talks the studies with EPO & non-elites, and expects his opinion to be the only one that counts.

rekrunner wrote:

Yikes!

Now That's Telling It Like It Is wrote:

+1

Very impressive. You're the real deal and I believe you know what you're talking about. People may not like your posting style but that's too bad. You get the science across on rEPO and endurance excercise, and explain it in a fashion that is easy to understand.

Rekrunner, OTOH, uses wordplay and psychological warfare. IMO, he's merely tring to impress everyone with his pretentious, sanctimonious, holier-than-thou attitude because he has some master degree in some undisclosed science field.

It's funny...since there's not one single study on EPO and elite runners, everyone can have an opinion on what they think the performance benefits are with EPO usage & elites. Yet rekrunner belittles & demeans some of us who think the performance benefits are in 3% - 4% specturm, but yet expects us to respect and pay homage to his opinion of a performance benefit less than 1%.

So, here's a guy who reads books on logical fallacies, uses wordplay, cherry-picks data, manipulates stats, trash talks the studies with EPO & non-elites, and expects his opinion to be the only one that counts.