dingle wrote:
Please provide a citation for this.
He'd like to, but he doesn't have the time.
He only has enough time to drop in and keep the thread going.
dingle wrote:
Please provide a citation for this.
He'd like to, but he doesn't have the time.
He only has enough time to drop in and keep the thread going.
Drug believers will go to any lengths to try and support their addictions.
nouse4aname wrote:
So lets imagine two runners running at a 4 hour marathon pace
Runner 1 is running with a VO2 of 2.5 L/min and a VCO2 of 2.3 L/min
Runner 2 is running with a VO2 of 2.6 L/min and a VCO2 of 2.1 L/min
Runner 1 has an RER of 0.77. They are burning more oxygen (2.6 L/min), but less glycogen. They are more efficient
Runner 2 has an RER of 0.92. They are burning less oxygen (2.5 L/min), but more glycogen. They are less efficient.
Both runners are burning approximately 12.4 kcal/min at the same speed. So basically their running economy is the same, but their metabolic efficiency is vastly different. Be very careful not to confuse running economy and metabolic efficiency. The two concepts are entirely different and influenced by different factors.
Paula was burning less glycogen at a fixed pace, but that in no way means she was using less oxygen! It just means that her RER was lower at that pace. She may have theoretically been using more oxygen at that pace, but the oxygen was burning a higher percentage of fat, thus sparing her glycogen breakdown. I haven't seen her data so i cannot comment. But my point is that less glycogen breakdown doesn't necessarily equate to less oxygen being used. So your original post is a load of nonsense...
ncepts.
Your example of the two 4 hour runners is a red herring. You can't compare different runners for an accurate evaluation of an individual's improvements in efficiency, in this case Paula Radcliffe. And by the way your definition of metabolic efficiency is wrong. Efficiecy is defined as the amount of work completed devided by the amount of energy required to do that work. You haven't included the anaerobic components, because you don't know the biochemistry or the bioenergetics. You don't know the anaerobic contriubution to marathon running as is shown by your lack of biochemistry knowledge in this and subsequent posts.
Yes Paula was using less oxygen. Less glycogen does mean less oxgyen also. Yes her fat burning percentage was higher, but fat is more energy efficient, 21.1 kj per liter of oxygen vs 19.6 for glycogen, so at a lower lactate level with less glycogen and more fat, she is more using less oxygen than her drug accusers realize. Which was my reason for starting this thread.
Don't presume to lecture me on bioenergetics or biochemistry, you are very lacking in knowledge.
nouse4aname wrote:
Let there be no doubt; EPO/blood doping improves aerobic performance in endurance athletes. We know this because we have a) countless "superhuman" performances from elite athletes that subsequently tested positive, b) a 20 year culture of EPO and blood doping at the highest levels of sport, and most importantly c) because all available scientific data points to this fact.
So how does it work? Based on the scientific literature, the evidence points to 2 main physiological mechanisms:
1) Increased maximal aerobic power (VO2max) mediated by a rise in blood oxygen content and systemic oxygen delivery (Ashenden et al., 2001; Audran et al., 1999; Conne et al., 2004). VO2max is primarily limited by cardiovascular system and not muscle diffusion capacity (Lundby et al. 2008). In other words, if we can get more O2 pumped to the muscles, the muscle cells will pick it up and use it! This is an important finding, because it means that EPO/blood doping would be as effective in elite athletes as lower level competitors. In fact it may even work better, since elite athletes have greater mitochodrial density, therefore greater capacity to utilize O2 once it has entered the muscle cell.
Why would elite runners have more mitochondrial density that well trained runers? That is dogma, elite runners are more oxygen efficient so why would they use more oxygen?
[quote]nouse4aname wrote:
2) Improved lactate clearance kinetics via increased expression of monocarboxylate transporters, specifically MCT-1 (Conne et al., 2004). By increasing the buffering of lactate, EPO significantly improves performance via an increase velocity at lactate threshold. Keep this point in mind, because the original poster on this forum has been arguing for days that EPO does nothing to the lactate curve. Conne's article categorically refutes this claim.
The article by Conne et al. (2004) is also important as it provides direct evidence that a 4 week regimen of EPO injections not only increased VO2max in highly trained athletes, but also improved the lactate response to exercise. These were well trained cyclists with VO2max's in the mid 60's before they were injected. So despite what Renato might argue, there is scientific evidence of EPO's effects across a wide spectrum of athletes and no available scientific evidence to the contrary. Until he provides scientific evidence that it doesn't work in high level athletes, i will continue read his comments with quite some amusement...
And why would elites have more monocarboylate transporters? More dogma. Less well trained runners are using more lactate for the same pace aren't they? they need MCT-1 and MCT-4 just as much if not more than elites.
The research by Conne is suspicious. Well trained cyclists will have a VO2 max in the low 70's as a group, not the mid 60's, even with noticeable higher BMI's than elites. You know as well as I do, how researchers alter data or cherry pick date to support their hypothesis, in their attempts to exaggerate their findings, get more attention, get published and get more funding.
Renato is coching the World's greatest distance runner for a good reason. He is respected as a good clean coach. He has also provided plenty of evidence that his athletes are not doping if you care to look.
Thanks for the brief responses. Overall, it is very interesting information -- I appreciate it. I also appreciate your honesty admitting what is "educated guesses", or maybe even "very educated guesses", rather than real observations.
nouse4aname wrote:
How many world world class times and gold medals have been erased from the history books because of subsequent positive test results? I'm talking about across the entire span of endurance sport.
I don't know -- I asked you. You said "countless", and you said "superhuman". Rather than lumping all "endurance sports" into one category, most of my comments are framed in the context of Renato's opinion regarding EPO and blood doping for top athletes, and especially for the marathon (where glycogen may or may not be a bigger issue). With respect to EPO (and any doubts I express) I'm mainly interested in long distance running (events greater than 3K, but we could even drop down to the 1500m for the purpose of discussion) on tracks, roads, and cross-country. These events seem severely under represented when it comes to doping, or drug busts. I can only think of a handful of names, like Rita Jeptoo, Lilya Shubokhova, and if you go as low as 1500m, Ramzi. If you want, we can include Matthew Kisorio, with a great half marathon time, but not a good marathon time, and Erupe. Who else? Mo Trafeh? When looking at the words "countless" and "superhuman", these numbers are not too big to count, and the performances are not "superhuman" outliers. Rather than happening "all too often", the relative scarcity of drug busts at the top, versus other events, leads me to wonder if they are just cleaner, or the drugs are not working. Also the recent busts coming from Kenya look to me like something new, that didn't exist in the 1990's or 2000's.
If you want to extend these comments to cycling, during the great EPO era, then in the purest scientific context, I struggle to isolate the benefits coming from EPO and blood transfusions, vs. with other steroids, testosterone, HGH, etc... And it's hard to say even Lance's performance was superhuman, as the Grand Tours are not timed as such, and never the same circuit twice. Many might not agree, but I'm not even convinced that Lance was the best American cyclist.
Also, I want to be clear that the demands of cycling and running are so different, I think it's not correct to just lump the two sports as "endurance sports" for the purpose of drawing conclusions about EPO/blood doping.
But still, you tell me -- which gold medals, or world records have been erased due to EPO, or blood doping? Any in long distance running?
nouse4aname wrote:
... but obviously Jeptoo and the Russian athletes are the most recent examples of positive tests. However, you'd be very gullible if you didn't question some of the performances from the turn of the millenium (prior to the introduction of EPO testing) from athletes that never tested positive.
What did the Russian athletes do again? Race walking? Women's 800m? Steeple? Pole Vault? Even here, if we accept that the 1990's was this great era of untestable EPO we come up only with a handful or so of "record breaking" performers in the long distance events: Gebrselassie, Tergat, Komon, who else? Kemboi?
The biggest question I have is, where were the Americans, Russians, Europeans, and Oceanians? All the record breakers of the 90's are East African. If EPO is so beneficial on the track, and was untestable, why didn't European descended athletes perform better in the 90's than the 70's and 80's? In cycling EPO knew no national boundaries: American, German, Kazhaks, Spanish, Italian, French, English, etc., etc., etc. So either the "Western" track athletes were clean, or EPO didn't help. Is there another explanation? Did they just stop trying because of the Africans?
Another big question -- can we assume EPO was universally used in all sports during the EPO era? Was it used in other cycling events? Did we see track cycling records, or other cycling world records, e.g. the 1 hour record, or the 1 day record? Maybe it existed in grand tour cycling for financial incentive reasons that didn't really exist in other events, including track.
nouse4aname wrote:
The anaerobic threshold is at submaximal intensity, yet it is the rate limiting factor for a great many aerobic events (up to and including half-marathon). So what happens metabolically at the anaerobic threshold?
Nice answer, but my question was, What happens at sub-anaerobic threshold, like for the marathon? I'm struggling to see how artifically bumping VO2max from 64-68 affects sub-VO2max O2 delivery requirements between 54-58. If oxygen delivery is the limiter, it is possible for a "clean" athlete with a 64 VO2max to deliver more than 54 ml/kg/min, up to his "anaerobic threshold". Why wouldn't that happen without EPO, for "sub-anaerobic threshold" efforts? I've seen people assume that something like "84% of VO2max" would be some ratio that is preserved going from clean to dirty -- bump up VO2max and all threshold go with it because 84% is 84%. If it's only about red blood cell count, how does that help for the marathon? (That leads me to think other benefits, like protective or recovery benefits, or even *gasp* placebo, must also exist, if we assume EPO is really helping).
nouse4aname wrote:
Lund (sic) et al. (2008) amongst other researchers have shown that providing more O2 to the muscle (via EPO) does allow for increased diffusion of O2 into the muscle cell ...
For healthy untrained males who did not participate in organized sports, who may or may not have participated in recreational jogging, and who were instructed not to train during the testing.
nouse4aname wrote:
Agreed. However it is BADDER science to ignore all available data and instead assume the opposite effect.
But you seem to want to conclude without a doubt. We can speculate, make educated guesses, by extrapolating from real measurements, but we cannot conclude without a doubt that which has never been observed.
Training might also increase diffusion of O2 into the muscle cells. Elite training might increase it up to its effective limit, where there is no longer margin for increased diffusion, or althernatively, performance improvements due to increased diffusion. It's pure hypothesis on my part (since no one has tested elite subjects) -- maybe it's all BS, but I think there are valid reasons to doubt that differences between test subjects in a study, and elite athletes, might produce different test results between the two groups, at least in magnitude.
nouse4aname wrote:
When you couple this with the world records that have been retroactively erased due positive tests
Help me out here -- which world records?
nouse4aname wrote:
Until this statement is demonstrated to be untrue in a subset of the population, it is logical to assume it holds true for all humans.
Here's an analogy: If I invent a "Atkins diet" pill which makes fat dissappear, what happens if I give it to 3 populations:
1) A 300 pound obese group
2) A 200 pound overweight group
3) A 130 pound elite group
If I test on the first two groups, can I assume, by extension, since all the participants are humans, and we all have fat, that the third group will respond similarly?
Here's another analogy. If I measure a group of university students to determine their average height, and arm length, and corresponding ratios, can I draw any conclusions about professional basketball players?
Elite athletes are a select group, and the factors that make them selective might also produce different results.
nouse4aname wrote:
Renato argues that we have no data on elite athletes, therefore there is no effect or even a negative effect. This is the scientific equivalent of an ostrich burying their head in the sand. Whats worse, the ostrich happens to be the world's most successful distance coach and is encouraging everyone else to bury their heads in the sand too...
That's his opinion, based on his experiences and observations and measurements of actually working with the elite athletes in question. He could be wrong. He hasn't proved it, and no one has disproved it. We can speculate, form hypotheses, make educated guesses, about the reasons behind, in spaces not yet supported by data and observations. He has his hypothesis, and speculates several mechanisms behind. This is what scientists do all the time. Renato hypothesizes that glycogen management and tissue elasticity are two reasons why blood doping won't work on selected elite athletes already fully trained. He could be wrong about the reasons, but right about EPO. He could be wrong about EPO. It's not an ostrich response to deny something that hasn't yet been shown or observed.
nouse4aname wrote:
Also, your logic about the 2.10 runner is flawed. If a 2.10 runner goes out at 2.05 pace, then they will accumulate excess lactate and fatigue long before they glycogen deplete. Again, that is why lactate concentrations at submaximal intensity are such an important variable in determining marathon performance.
OK, pick 2:08 pace then. Are you saying that no 2:10 runner has ever hit the wall, because they have perfected fat:glycogen balance? Does muscle glycogen and liver glycogen get fully depleted during any effort? That could be fatal, and I guess your brain (Central Governor model) will prevent complete depletion.
nouse4aname wrote:
So if fuel is not an issue, what does determine the result of a marathon? The number one factor is their speed/pace at 2.0 - 3.0 mmol blood lactate. Elite level marathon runners can race a marathon at a speed of 19 - 21 km/hr and maintain a stable blood lactate concentration somewhere between 2 - 3 mmol throughout. Try to run faster, and the lactate accumulates, leading to fatigue. So any intervention which increases the pace at which they can maintain this stable lactate concentration, will undoubtedly improve performance.
Does EPO have the power to do this? As i mentioned above, absolutely it does! By increasing O2 delivery to the mitochondria, we reduce the need to convert pyruvate into lactate at submaximal paces. So you can run faster before your muscles need to start producing lactate. In addition, as Conne et al. (2004) demonstrated, EPO also increases lactate efflux via MCT-1 transporters. So it also has the ability to buffer existing lactate.
So EPO positively influences the most important factor in marathon performance which is the pace you run with stable 2-3 mmol lactate in your system.
Any questions?
Elite runners will use less lactate than the normal 2-3 mmols because they are more efficient.
Lacate isn't buffered. Learn some biochemistry. Lactate does not function as an acid, it does not have a proton to dissociate. You don't even know what lactate is do you?
You are still using Meyerhoff's glycolytic model from 1920, you cite Brookes' lactate shuttle hypothesis but you haven't studied it, if you had you would know that he advocates that lactate not pyruvate is the end product of glycolysis and glycogenolysis.
nouse4aname wrote:
If Jones was comparing Radcliffe's running economy over a 12 year period then it would be measured via a reduction in O2 consumption at a fixed speed. Running economy is measured in kcal/m or mL/kg/m. So an improvement in running economy equates to a reduction in O2 consumption at a fixed pace. If we look at factors which influence running economy, most are biomechanical and/or neuromuscular. Such factors include:
-Reduced vertical displacement
-Improved activation of the gastrocnemius to enhance stretch-shortening cycle
-Enhanced leg stiffness during the stance phase
-Enhanced passive knee flexion during the swing phase of the stride cycle
In comparison, a shift in a lactate curves is primarily physiological. All athletes will show improvements in their lactate profile over a period of years but that may or may not occur alongside an improvement in running economy. This shift to higher speeds for the same lactate concentration occurs independently of running economy and is a result of substantial changes to your body's physiology and biochemistry. Factors which improve your lactate curve include:
- Increase in Type I muscle fiber proportions
- Increase in mitochondrial density within Type I and Type IIa fibers.
- Increase in MCT-4 and MCT-1 expression (this is a big factor)
- Increased O2 delivery capacity via increased ventricular volume, blood volume and muscle capillary density
All these factors should improve in every endurance athlete over the years, resulting in alterations in the lactate curve. In fact i would be shocked if a runner was training for 12 years and didn't see a marked improvement in their lactate curve. That is why lactate concentrations at fixed speeds are such an accurate predictor of long distance running performance. If i see a lactate curve from an incremental test, i can make a VERY educated guess as to their finishing time in a half or full marathon. This guess is usually quite accurate. It takes a lot of training and time to see significant shifts in the lactate curve (or you could just take EPO and see more rapid improvements). In either case, the original poster probably sat through Jones's talk and then completely misinterpreted the information. Running economy and metabolic efficiency are entirely different variables and to argue that EPO cannot influence lactate kinetics is entirely false, for the reasons stated previously.
" Increased O2 delivery capacity via increased ventricular volume, blood volume and muscle capillary density. "
More dogma. Ventricular volume only increases for a very unfit person, and even then it only takes a few weeks. Increased plasma volume will increase ventricular filling and stroke volume, but this only takes a few days.
Capillary density is ongoing throughout our lives. A healthy active person has as much as they need.
So tell us about your training, or do you even run?
blah blah blah.... wrote:
Drug believers will go to any lengths to try and support their addictions.
They are suffering from a deadly disease.
Good science, bad science wrote:
Efficiecy is defined as the amount of work completed devided by the amount of energy required to do that work.
Firstly, please stop using the term "efficiency" when you are talking about "economy". They are not the same thing! Andrew Jones was measuring running economy in Paula Radcliffe, and never mentioned metabolic efficiency at any point. In fact he only mentioned glycogen once in his entire discussion..
Here is a link to the article for those in doubt:
Jones (2006) The physiology of the world record holder for the women's marathon. Int J Sports Sci Coach, 1 (2); 101 - 116
https://www.exeter.ac.uk/media/universityofexeter/internationalexeter/documents/iss/paula_ijssc_paper.pdfGood science, bad science wrote:.
Yes Paula was using less oxygen. Less glycogen does mean less oxgyen
Please stop saying that!!! The statement is absolutely false! It was false in your initial post and it is still false. Fat requires more oxygen to burn than glycogen. That is a measurable fact!
The oxidation of 1 mol of glucose requires 6 mol of O2, generating 38 mol of ATP. That equates to 6.3 mol ATP per mol of O2.
The oxidation of 1 mol of palmitate (16-C fatty acid chain) requires 31 mol of O2, generating 129 mol of ATP. That equates to 4.1 mol ATP per mol of O2.
Once again, here's a reference for those that doubt what i'm saying:
Kessler & Friedman (1998) Metabolism of fatty acids and glucose. Circulation, 98; 1350a - 1353
http://circ.ahajournals.org/content/98/13/1350a.fullGood science, bad science wrote:
fat is more energy efficient, 21.1 kj per liter of oxygen vs 19.6 for glycogen
Dear God man!!!! You do realise you have those numbers backwards, right?
Fat is 19.6 kj/L and glucose is 21.1 kj/L. And you think my biochemistry is bad?
Once again, an article for those that doubt what i'm saying:
http://www.asep.org/asep/asep/ScottJEPonlineAugust2008.pdfGood science, bad science wrote:
Yes Paula was using less oxygen. Less glycogen does mean less oxgyen also. Yes her fat burning percentage was higher, but fat is more energy efficient, 21.1 kj per liter of oxygen vs 19.6 for glycogen, so at a lower lactate level with less glycogen and more fat, she is more using less oxygen than her drug accusers realize. Which was my reason for starting this thread.
As you said yourself, you started this thread based on a theory that Paula Radcliffe is burning less O2 therefore using less glycogen. That statement is factually incorrect. You have your numbers backwards and don't know what you're talking about...
One final article to prove my point that improved running economy is not related to a decrease in glycogen metabolism. Saunders et al. (2004) suggested that increased glucose metabolism due to altitude exposure was the likely explanation for decreased oxygen consumption which they saw in elite runners. So more glucose, less oxygen burned. That conclusion is the exact opposite of what you stated.
Here is a link to the Saunders article:
Saunders et al. (2004). Improved running economy in elite runners after 20 days of simulated moderate-altitude exposure. J Appl Physiol, 96; 931 - 937
http://www.sportingedgeuk.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/Saunders-running-economy-JAP-2004.pdfGood science, bad science wrote:
Don't presume to lecture me on bioenergetics or biochemistry, you are very lacking in knowledge.
Once again, thanks for that critical evaluation. Coming from the guy who has his basic biochemistry ass backward, you'll forgive me if i ignore your opinion...
I get the point, but can you double check your math, and your runners? By my calculations:Runner 2 has an RER of 0.81. They are burning more oxygen (2.6 L/min), but less glycogen. They are more efficientRunner 1 has an RER of 0.92. They are burning less oxygen (2.5 L/min), but more glycogen. They are less efficient.
nouse4aname wrote:
So lets imagine two runners running at a 4 hour marathon pace
Runner 1 is running with a VO2 of 2.5 L/min and a VCO2 of 2.3 L/min
Runner 2 is running with a VO2 of 2.6 L/min and a VCO2 of 2.1 L/min
Runner 1 has an RER of 0.77. They are burning more oxygen (2.6 L/min), but less glycogen. They are more efficient
Runner 2 has an RER of 0.92. They are burning less oxygen (2.5 L/min), but more glycogen. They are less efficient.
Do you remember the name Cathal Lombard? He was a pretty average athlete Before getting on EPO. Once on it he skyrocketed straight to a national record in the 10k. I'd say it helps! The best part of this story is that he admitted to wanting to see how good he could be with the help of EPO.
GWT wrote:
Do you remember the name Cathal Lombard? He was a pretty average athlete Before getting on EPO. Once on it he skyrocketed straight to a national record in the 10k. I'd say it helps! The best part of this story is that he admitted to wanting to see how good he could be with the help of EPO.
Oh goodness don't bring this up again - you will be banging your head against a brick wall. Lombard was an athlete entering his late 20s who was worth 29-30 to 30 mins and who had been training hard for several years with altitude stays in Kenya. Then he changed coach and in the space of about 18 months he improved to 27-30 for 10k. He then tested positive for EPO and he was still improving when news of his positive test became public.
People like Rekrunner believe that Lombard's breakthrough was because he tweaked his training and because taking EPO had a remarkable "placebo effect" in that it removed any "psychological barriers" that Lombard had to running fast. This is despite the facts that no one else under Lombard's "new" coach ever made anything like the same sort of breakthrough in such a short space of time and no one else who trained under this coach ever tested positive for EPO.
GWT wrote:
Do you remember the name Cathal Lombard? He was a pretty average athlete Before getting on EPO. Once on it he skyrocketed straight to a national record in the 10k. I'd say it helps! The best part of this story is that he admitted to wanting to see how good he could be with the help of EPO.
Radcliffe used to get beat all the time; then she started ranting about drugs and shot out in front of everyone else.
Coincidence? I think not. wrote:
GWT wrote:Do you remember the name Cathal Lombard? He was a pretty average athlete Before getting on EPO. Once on it he skyrocketed straight to a national record in the 10k. I'd say it helps! The best part of this story is that he admitted to wanting to see how good he could be with the help of EPO.
Radcliffe used to get beat all the time; then she started ranting about drugs and shot out in front of everyone else.
Linford Christie wore a tee-shirt emblazoned with the words DRUG-FREE
He also said drug cheats should be 'thrown in jail'
All this before he got busted himself
Good science bad science is currently looking for some drugs to soothe the beating he just took by real scientists..
The problem with the case of Lombard is that 3 minutes is too much. Does anyone believe the physiological benefits of EPO can lead to a 3:00 improvement over 10K? That's a case you have to make.Usually, EPO is estimated for something like a 40-45 second benefit for a 10K. That can explain about 25% of the observed improvement. For Lombard, the expected EPO benefit is at best a minor factor. It's up to you to explain how the observed improvement is so far beyond (400%) the expected improvement.You don't have to look long to find significant non-EPO factors. Lombard radically changed his training:http://www.independent.ie/sport/cathal-lombards-athletics-progression-25901242.html"Lombard's breakthrough year, which he attributed it to joining up with Joe Doonan, ... and completely changing his training regime.""Credited this to halving his heavy mileage (100 miles a week) in favour of more speed work, bounding and stretching."He improved so much, because his training was the wrong training before.This has partly to do with the new coach, and really nothing to do with others under the same coach, and everything to do with what was the wrong training versus the right training for Lombard. To talk about others, we'd have to know more about there training before and after, and their performances before and after.
Europhile wrote:
...
People like Rekrunner believe that Lombard's breakthrough was because he tweaked his training and because taking EPO had a remarkable "placebo effect" in that it removed any "psychological barriers" that Lombard had to running fast. This is despite the facts that no one else under Lombard's "new" coach ever made anything like the same sort of breakthrough in such a short space of time and no one else who trained under this coach ever tested positive for EPO.
So OP ??? "Lactate curves of elite athletes show that EPO/ Blood boosting is pointless."
Where is the double blinded clinical trial?
If you cannot provide such info your point is weak.
"For Lombard, the expected EPO benefit is at best a minor factor".
It was 100% responsible for him being able and inspired to train better.
Aaah, the psychological and placebo effects...
Lombardy wrote:
"For Lombard, the expected EPO benefit is at best a minor factor".
It was 100% responsible for him being able and inspired to train better.