veg wrote:
What exactly is the power of this study, if in your estimation it is inadequate, and what would in your opinion be an adequately powered RCT?
Depends on the effect size you're looking for, etc. I think it's safe to say 12 (really???) is not adequate for this or any other RCT design.
There are dozens of calculators available for this, or you can do it by hand if it helps make the concepts more clear for you.
Just as a reminder, exercise induced asthma can kill you:
A horrible way to die.
People with asthma who use inhalers are not just being wimps.
rupp-certified saladbar wrote:
Depends on the effect size you're looking for, etc. I think it's safe to say 12 (really???) is not adequate for this or any other RCT design.
There are dozens of calculators available for this, or you can do it by hand if it helps make the concepts more clear for you.
So what effect size would you be looking for in a PED, and what sensitivity to detect such an effect would you require (i.e. power) in order to agree that an RCT to find a performance enhancing effect is adequately powered?
Guys, this will probably get overlooked but I feel I need to at least say something. Not every runner with an inhaler is using it to get an advantage. I can run around 16:00 in the 5k right now and if I didnt use my inhaler I couldn't run a 6 minute mile. My chest and lungs close up almost instantly. There are many like this sadly. I'm sure some people have varying degrees of 'real' asthma, while some probably dont need it AT ALL, but use it for a supposed advantage. Who knows. Just remember some people have a legitimate claim to be using their inhaler.
i love star wars and lotr wrote:
Guys, this will probably get overlooked but I feel I need to at least say something. Not every runner with an inhaler is using it to get an advantage. I can run around 16:00 in the 5k right now and if I didnt use my inhaler I couldn't run a 6 minute mile. My chest and lungs close up almost instantly. There are many like this sadly. I'm sure some people have varying degrees of 'real' asthma, while some probably dont need it AT ALL, but use it for a supposed advantage. Who knows. Just remember some people have a legitimate claim to be using their inhaler.
We all know that not every runner is trying to get an advantage and some need it for asthma. We are talking about PEDs for healthy runners.
Facts about asthma:http://www.americanasthmafoundation.org/impact-asthmahttp://www.aaaai.org/about-the-aaaai/newsroom/asthma-statistics.aspxAs the second link says:
The number of people with asthma continues to grow. One in 12 people (about 25 million, or 8% of the U.S. population) had asthma in 2009, compared with 1 in 14 (about 20 million, or 7%) in 2001.
Recent story in the news wrote:
The number of people with asthma continues to grow. One in 12 people (about 25 million, or 8% of the U.S. population) had asthma in 2009, compared with 1 in 14 (about 20 million, or 7%) in 2001.
Those 2 million could have just been undiagnosed. Like me for instance.
rupp-certified saladbar wrote:
Depends on the effect size you're looking for, etc. I think it's safe to say 12 (really???) is not adequate for this or any other RCT design.
There are dozens of calculators available for this, or you can do it by hand if it helps make the concepts more clear for you.
veg wrote:
So what effect size would you be looking for in a PED, and what sensitivity to detect such an effect would you require (i.e. power) in order to agree that an RCT to find a performance enhancing effect is adequately powered?
You tell me. What effect size would be relevant to you? 5%? 1%? 0.1%? Because I think even that could make a difference in long distance events, and there is no possibility you can reliably detect that with this tiny sample size.
Really, the authors should have a statement about exactly this, as well as their power/sample size calculations, but don't seem to. Pretty fundamental stuff.
why would there be undiagnosed now than a decade ago?
It is probably the farmaceutical-industrial complex pushing it.
veg wrote:
Where are all of these studies published? The authors of peer reviewed meta-analyses were unable to find them anywhere, that's for sure.
my pdf collection is huge and i don't have the time to go through them all for some random person on the internet. WADA seems convinced they're a problem. huge laundry list of banned b-2 a's. don't forget the research said steroids didn't work for the longest time but that didn't stop them from being banned. unethical for coaches and doctors to push athletes towards inhalers in my opinion.
yes wrote:
my pdf collection is huge and i don't have the time to go through them all for some random person on the internet. WADA seems convinced they're a problem. huge laundry list of banned b-2 a's. don't forget the research said steroids didn't work for the longest time but that didn't stop them from being banned. unethical for coaches and doctors to push athletes towards inhalers in my opinion.
If you've got some treasure trove of research, at least post the titles so people can look it up. Just looking around I don't see much support for the idea that acute use of asthma inhalers is performance enhancing. Research may have failed to support the use of steroids for endurance athletes, but that doesn't mean that everything else is automatically ergogenic.
Ho Hum wrote:
If you've got some treasure trove of research, at least post the titles so people can look it up. Just looking around I don't see much support for the idea that acute use of asthma inhalers is performance enhancing. Research may have failed to support the use of steroids for endurance athletes, but that doesn't mean that everything else is automatically ergogenic.
I'd recommend the book Drugs in Sport 5th Edition by David Mottram. I got my copy from amazon.com. The references listed in that book is where my search for research studies started. Could have spent weeks reading studies on B2A's alone. It's hard to explain unless you've spend the time doing the research I did but I can't just post the name of study for you. I'd need to read over everything again. It's also not fair to the people I've traded my pfd collection with in exchange for some of their collections. Sorry.
i love star wars and lotr wrote:
Guys, this will probably get overlooked but I feel I need to at least say something. Not every runner with an inhaler is using it to get an advantage. I can run around 16:00 in the 5k right now and if I didnt use my inhaler I couldn't run a 6 minute mile. My chest and lungs close up almost instantly. There are many like this sadly. I'm sure some people have varying degrees of 'real' asthma, while some probably dont need it AT ALL, but use it for a supposed advantage. Who knows. Just remember some people have a legitimate claim to be using their inhaler.
what are you taking and at what dosage?
People like you are who I was referring to in my initial posts of this thread. If I were you I wouldn't use the inhaler to be able to run a 16min 5km. Not worth it for the side effects in my opinion. I'd find something else to do for fun that didn't require the use or an inhaler. But if I was running 2 minutes faster then I'd consider using it.
Doctors are too liberal diagnosing athletes with EIA especially without doing the proper diagnostic testing protocol.
i love star wars and lotr wrote: Not every runner with an inhaler is using it to get an advantage. I can run around 16:00 in the 5k right now and if I didnt use my inhaler I couldn't run a 6 minute mile. My chest and lungs close up almost instantly.
The inhaler provides a performance benefit. It opens up your lungs and increases your O2 intake.
At some point, the PED-police need to stop worrying about drug-free. Caffeine (stimulate), inhalants (increased lung capacity), Vaseline (prevents natural occurrence of blisters); these all help improve performance.
Bene Fitted wrote:
The inhaler provides a performance benefit. It opens up your lungs and increases your O2 intake.
Also body composition changes.
Bene Fitted wrote:
At some point, the PED-police need to stop worrying about drug-free. Caffeine (stimulate), inhalants (increased lung capacity), Vaseline (prevents natural occurrence of blisters); these all help improve performance.
I agree but think the use of inhalants should be curtailed for athletes due to the side effects. Couldn't care less if Rupp uses them but it gets out of hand when entire track and soccer teams have them.
yes wrote:
i love star wars and lotr wrote:Guys, this will probably get overlooked but I feel I need to at least say something. Not every runner with an inhaler is using it to get an advantage. I can run around 16:00 in the 5k right now and if I didnt use my inhaler I couldn't run a 6 minute mile. My chest and lungs close up almost instantly. There are many like this sadly. I'm sure some people have varying degrees of 'real' asthma, while some probably dont need it AT ALL, but use it for a supposed advantage. Who knows. Just remember some people have a legitimate claim to be using their inhaler.
what are you taking and at what dosage?
People like you are who I was referring to in my initial posts of this thread. If I were you I wouldn't use the inhaler to be able to run a 16min 5km. Not worth it for the side effects in my opinion. I'd find something else to do for fun that didn't require the use or an inhaler. But if I was running 2 minutes faster then I'd consider using it.
Doctors are too liberal diagnosing athletes with EIA especially without doing the proper diagnostic testing protocol.
What are the side effects?
side effects are listed. use google.
The answer is no and it has been studied many times. If the answer was yes, it would have been banned a long time ago.
TrackCoach wrote:
The answer is no and it has been studied many times. If the answer was yes, it would have been banned a long time ago.
Then why has the status of B2A flip-flopped many times by WADA. Why are there maximum allowable dosages and TUEs?
Are athletes wrong who swear it gives them a performance boost wrong when mega-dosing during training and untested races?
rupp-certified saladbar wrote:
yes wrote:just saying i don't get how ppl take salbutamol for recreational running and fitness when at least a scholarship athlete is getting something in exchange for health risks and side effects.
crazy talk wrote:
no, you're saying a scholarship is worth using illicit substances that can jeopardize your health.
No, he's not.
He's saying that is makes more sense to do it for a scholarhsip than for 3rd place in your age group at the local Run for Tennis Elbow.
This seemed obvious to me.
Wow, your critical thinking skills are abysmal.
So, per your explanation, he's saying a scholarship is worth using illicit substances that can jeopardize your health (but just running for recreation or fitness isn't).
There, does that help get it through your thick skull?