Study: EPO Effective, long-lasting- where's J.R.?

Sorry, wrong numbers, not sub-2 but still WR.

Yep, it puts the best from the 70s/80s on par with the best of today.

I already pointed out that all the so called studies are self serving psuedo science, totally wrong, intentionally misleading, and worthless at best.

Wouldn't 2:07 translate to about 2:02 with 4% (and the study said 6%), so not just on par, they'd go from 2:07 to World Record.

26mi235 wrote:

No, this is an incorrect conclusion. The VO2 transport is not the only factor, you also have the necessary energetics in the marathon. EPO might get you almost nothing if you do not get the fuel to the muscles, and that is a different set of systems. Better, yes; the % here, unlikely. Go see Noakes.

Uhhh, at well below sub maximal velocity (e.g., marathon pace), the predominantly used slow twitch fibers need OXYGEN for their metabolism, which is delivered by the blood. Furthermore, fat for fuel is preferred, which requires blood-delivered OXYGEN for its metabolism.

Of course how do we know the guys in the 80s weren't taking steroids?

Also, would taking steroids on top of EPO provide additional benefit? My guess is yes because you could recover even faster and thus do more miles and workouts.

J.R. wrote:

I already pointed out that all the so called studies are self serving psuedo science, totally wrong, intentionally misleading, and worthless at best.

Could there ever be a study or situation where you could accept that EPO did improve performances or are you standing by that viewpoint no matter how much evidence contradicts it?

[quote]long sox wrote:

Yeah, 4% improvement (the study said 6%) would also mean that if Carlos Lopes and Steve Jones running 2:07 in 1985 had EPO at that time, they could have run sub 2:00.

Well, I don't know about Jones, but I believe Carlos Lopes used epo and got the gold medal instead of John Treacy.

trollism wrote:

Could there ever be a study or situation where you could accept that EPO did improve performances or are you standing by that viewpoint no matter how much evidence contradicts it?

No. This twit has dug in his heels and the more his claims are shown to be false, the further entrenched he becomes. He uses the term "pointed out" as a synonym for "proved" for god's sake.

I actually do not think he believes any of the shit he says, but you never know, there are serious cranks out there, like that Richard Power Run guy.

EPO cheats out wrote:

Ugh, thanks for pointing it out. 2:20 turns into 2:14:30 and 2:10 into sub 2:05. 3% turns 2:20 into 2:15:40 and 2:10 into 2:06.

And 2:07:30 turns into 2:03:38.

The real question is how much better is EPO compared to altitude training in highly trained athletes:

1. when used right before the race

2. when used during prep only (since 1 isn't really possible anymore)

A study with 9:40 3000m runners is sh|t.

wq40r89asdjh;kla wrote:

[quote]long sox wrote:

Well, I don't know about Jones, but I believe Carlos Lopes used epo and got the gold medal instead of John Treacy.

No artificial EPO in the '80's, but steroids and blood bagging were alive and well throughout the '70's and '80's.

Well, even if EPO gave only a 2% benefit in times, it would make a huge different amongst elite runners. 13:15 5000m runners would become 13:00 runners. 27:30+ 10000m runners would become 27:00 runners - the difference between being pretty good on the world scene and a potential medal-winner. Just think what clean guys like Rupp and Farah must be thinking - "Man, I'm winning all these medals and running fast times, and as eveybody knows I'm clean as the driven snow - imagine what I could do with EPO". Probably sub-12:30 and sub 26.

I think its very far fetched to infer that the percentage of improvement would be exactly the same regardless of the level of the runner!

High Wire wrote:

O2 transport is still THE determining factor for fast times in the marathon, as it allows relaxed pace and conservation of fuel throughout. AEROBIC means "with oxygen", and the marathon is almost entirely aerobic. If one runner runs it 1% anaerobically and the other has to run 2% anaerobically at the same pace, the former will win.

EPO cheats out wrote:

True about the energetics, but EPO turns the 2:07-10 guys from the 1970s/80s into 2:03-05 guys (possibly taking EPO) of today.

You run a 10,000 at below your max VO2 threshold. You are going to be using oxygen for respiration with or without EPO. It will not take any less work for move your body over the course, so there is no real gain in the energetics except to the extent that using it has assisted your training and you are either more efficient (no direct EPO effect) or have better muscle storage etc.

As for the move from 2:07 in the 70s and 80s to now, do not discount the effects of faster courses (compare NYC times and those from, say, Berlin or Chicago); training technology and knowledge; and equipment.

J.R. wrote:

I already pointed out that all the so called studies are self serving psuedo science, totally wrong, intentionally misleading, and worthless at best.

Rather than 'name calling', do you have anything to back up your stance?

You fail to recognize the basic fact that even at submaximal paces, the heart would not have to work as hard with EPO enhancement, since more OXYGEN is being delivered each stroke. Thus, it makes sense bicyclists not working close to their VO2max would greatly benefit as well.

Bicyclists are not as constrained on the energetics front was marathon runners are. I can eat while racing, I cannot when I am racing a marathon. (well, my racing days in both are passed, but...). I have ridden over three hours on many hundreds of occasions, including in races. I have never run for three hours in my life [training runs typically topped out at 2:30, 2:45+ was the longest, similar to my first marathon time]

I am not saying that it will not be beneficial, but that the factor for gains is constrained. So, you gain a little on heart muscle use, but the major motor muscles have to do the same amount of work and you need to have the same about of energy to drive them, and there is a constraint on what you can do in this regard that does not affect the results of the test at 3000 meters.

High Wire wrote:

wq40r89asdjh;kla wrote:

[quote]long sox wrote:

Well, I don't know about Jones, but I believe Carlos Lopes used epo and got the gold medal instead of John Treacy.

No artificial EPO in the '80's, but steroids and blood bagging were alive and well throughout the '70's and '80's.

Firstly, there was testing for steroids in the 70's and 80's, with several high profile athletes getting caught. Ok, it wasn't random out of season testing until 89 by the IAAF, but some countries like Britain were conducting random out of competition testing from 81. Steve Jones would have been tested many times. As far as Lopez is concerned, I don't know what drug testing programme was in affect in Portugal at the time.

Secondly, how many long distance guys have ever tested positive for steroids anyway? I can't imagine that they can result in much improvement, unlike for springs and power events?

What benefits, if any, would long distance guys in the 70s & 80's perceive steroids use would bring them?

Thirdly, I think the use of blood doping is generally over exaggerated for that time. With hindsight it would seem that a few of the national Italian coaches dabbled with it, and one or two finns have admitted to it. It's a highly dangerous procedure by all accounts I have read and I just don't think it was as widespread as some make out. Perhaps some of the communist regimes, with likely state sponsored doping, may have been at it too, but personally I think the likes of Lopez, Jones, Rono, Yifter, Virgin, Shorter, etc were all clean.

It is not of little significance that a marathoner (Eddy H.) who started using EPO late in his career claimed his PR for the distance would have been 4.5% better (i.e., a 2:06 if on) if he had used EPO in his prime. Speaking from personal experience, he stated, "That's what EPO gives you, endurance."