new study shows micro-doping can boost performance nearly 5% and impossible to detect

Placebo Mandingo wrote:

dopeology wrote:

So when I saw a letter to a cycling magazine from a senior lecturer in exercise physiology at a major universtiy accusing other researchers of writing pseudoscience about non-efficacy of EPO as a performance enhancer....

Well I just had to write to him and point out a few things. His reply showed me that indeed, he also had no clue about homeostasis and thermoregulation or even about elastic energy return.

And this Senior lecturer at a major university has published papers on, guess what? Oxygen kinetics.

So you people wonder what to do about the doping problem, but don't see how being ignorant of basic physiology has anything to do with it?

No Jon. Those guys know how things work. You don't.

Education. It matters.

No they don't and yes Education matters. Mr Senior lecture in ex phys was just plain ignorant. Instead of posting endless attention seeking crap on twitter, he should be educating himself and so should you.

Are people here actually denying issues of basic phsyiology?

dopeology wrote:

Placebo Mandingo wrote:

No Jon. Those guys know how things work. You don't.

Education. It matters.

No they don't and yes Education matters. Mr Senior lecture in ex phys was just plain ignorant. Instead of posting endless attention seeking crap on twitter, he should be educating himself and so should you.

Are people here actually denying issues of basic phsyiology?

Instead of posting endless repetition of the same trolling nonsense on here, you should be educating yourself.

The only person denying issues of basic physiology is you, Gary and Renato. And none of you are physiologists.

rekrunner wrote:

I think we are in agreement here too.

casual obsever wrote:

Showing that EPO is not much better than blood transfusions.

So how come it didn't work before 1990?

Placebo Mandingo wrote:

The only person denying issues of basic physiology is you, Gary and Renato. And none of you are physiologists.

If physiologists don't know what thermoregulation is then they are as ignorant as you.

BTW the guy's name is Mark Burnley

In this paper he even mentions homeostasis. So how come he doesn't understand how it applies in the blood boosting debate?

It's a question of being able to fit different concepts into whole, but when the dopey dogma is repeated so often, people can't see the wood for the trees.

So we need an accurate biomechanics/bioenergetics model that people can relate to.

Just saying " don't take drugs they make you faster" is the most idiotic and pseudoscientific nonsense, but that's the supposedly anti doping message.

It all comes down to Money, politics and reputation. Real physiology be damned.

Because thermoregulation and homeostasis is a non-issue. If you actually had ANY lab experience you would know this.

You don't have an accurate bioenergetics model people can relate to and you never will.

The guy who proves drugs don't work would be a wealthy man, but that's not you or anybody else.

dopeology wrote:

rekrunner wrote:

I think we are in agreement here too.

So how come it didn't work before 1990?

It did.

have you heard of him wrote:

dopeology wrote:

So how come it didn't work before 1990?

It did.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kyC73RYjoqc

Yes...it did:

Maybe it was just hard to distinguish from altitude training of the '70s and '80s.

dopeology wrote:

rekrunner wrote:

I think we are in agreement here too.

So how come it didn't work before 1990?

altitude kenyan runnerhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vY08Jk3CYZ0 Epo altitude kenyan runnerhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M6nbdCuXZFw

rekrunner wrote:

Maybe it was just hard to distinguish from altitude training of the '70s and '80s.

dopeology wrote:

So how come it didn't work before 1990?

rekrunner wrote:

Maybe it was just hard to distinguish from altitude training of the '70s and '80s.

dopeology wrote:

So how come it didn't work before 1990?

Not when you look at the numbers.

+1

Using his guidelines, decade by decade for non-African born male 5000 m runners, averaged over top-5 times (feel free to check the stats):

1960s: 13:22.5 -> some steroids, very few blood "dopers"

1970s: 13:13.4 -> -9s; unlimited blood transfusions + primitive steroids

1980s: 13:04.9 -> -8s; height of cold war doping era, unlimited blood transfusions, steroids virtually undetectable

1990s: 12:59.2 -> -6s; unlimited EPO, begin serious steroid testing

2000s: 12:56.3 -> -3s; begin EPO testing, partial ABP

2010s: 12:57.7 -> +2s; full ABP incl. steroid module - but still 2 years to go

-> Biggest jump in the 70s, times went backwards in the ABP era

Decade by decade for non-African born male 800 m runners, averaged over top-5 times (feel free to check the stats):

1960s: 1:44.6-> some steroids, very few blood "dopers"

1970s: 1:43.3 -> -1.3s; unlimited blood transfusions + primitive steroids

1980s: 1:42.2 -> -1.1s; height of cold war doping era, unlimited blood transfusions, steroids virtually undetectable

1990s: 1:42.8 -> +0.6s; unlimited EPO, begin serious steroid testing

2000s: 1:42.8 -> +/-0s; begin EPO testing, partial ABP

2010s: 1:42.8 -> +/-0s; full ABP incl. steroid module - but still 2 years to go

-> Biggest jump in the 70s, times went backwards since serious steroid testing

Some history about blood transfusions:

- 1st study about endurance benefits I am aware of is from the late 40s

- several more came in more rapid succession starting 1960

Here word for word from a 2004 review paper (doi: 10.1136/bjsm.2003.007195):

Here comes Gary in 5 triggered to do his Spanish dance with the numbers and nationalities.

Very interesting data there casual. And using the data from the 5000 that's illustrated, does this suggest that rekrunner is grossly mistaken when he repeatedly says that non-Africans did not improve post-90 over the top-5 averaged times pre-90s?

So, if I interpret this correctly the fastest time top-5 average of 13:04.9 comes from the 1980s where the preferred PED use would be blood transfusions & androgens, and perhaps EPO in the latter part of that decade? (there's evidence of EPO use at both the Calgary & Seoul Olympics in 88). In the 90s, the shift would have been away from transfusions and more to EPO primarily for the convenience of an ESA over transfusions, and the fact there was no test for it yet (it's the same 02-vector doping principles but becasuse of the convenience of use over transfusions more athletes would probably willing to use it). And your illustration shows a significant 6 second improvement from the 90s compared to the 80s. Then in the 2000s, the intitial test for EPO is introduced which precluded a shift back to transfusions for many dopers (e.g., Operations Puerto & Galgo in Europe), but still prevalent use of EPO is seen based on the high # of positive test cases with some nations (e.g., Morocco & Russia,) and an improvement of 3 seconds compared to the 90s.

So, total improvement in the 5000 in the up to the passport era compared to the pre-90s is ~1.1% (12:56 - 13:04), which is significant when you're comparing transfusions & EPO with transfusions pre-90s (i.e. O2-vector doping in different eras of use).

And Spain that rekrunner questions had two 5000 runners that exceeded the pre-90s average; García (13:02.54/2001 - positive for EPO in 03) & Jesús España (13:04.73/2011).

Here's the question: Is Rekrunner missing something on his analysis and seeing things differently? ?

Sigh. I repeatedly asked "why so few by so little?" It appears that what we see differently is what each of us think my argument was. It's as if the only way to argue with me is to pretend I said something else, and argue against the strawman.

Doping Discussion Roundtable wrote:

Very interesting data there casual. And using the data from the 5000 that's illustrated, does this suggest that rekrunner is grossly mistaken when he repeatedly says that non-Africans did not improve post-90 over the top-5 averaged times pre-90s?

...

Here's the question: Is Rekrunner missing something on his analysis and seeing things differently? ?

Before vouching for any timeline, there are some dissenting opinions when blood doping became widespread if it ever did until the advent of rHuEPO.

Whether he is right or wrong, S. Leigh-Smith isn't a historian and from the paper you quoted it isn't that clear how much expertise he has on that subject or how much thought process there is in his claim about blood doping becoming "widespread" after the 1968 games. Feargal McKay has pretty much debunked the Anquietil ("four times winner" of TDF) claim so he hasn't looked too deeply into the matter.

Historian John Gleaves on his part wrote about the history of blood doping in one paper ("Manufactured Dope") paying some attention on its history, going through the newspaper archives (dozens of footnotes) and other material, concluding that "in the doping world where rumours spread faster than practice, the relatively few cases that have surfaced indicate that it is unlikely blood transfusions for athletes had become widespread prior to the Los Angeles 1984 Games".

The "rapid succession" in the blood doping research since 1960 is also not that obvious because the first research paper to research specifically how elevated Hb affected Vo2max at sea level was from 1972, and it took until 1980 before a placebo-controlled study was published that proved its efficacy whereas there were a few of those studies showing no benefit in the 1970s.

facts and reason wrote:

They used 9 well-trained men in Denmark or wherever.

But they probably didn't compare them with well-trained men who live at altitude.

It's possible that too much blood can actually decrease performance if the heart has to work harder to pump the extra fluid that's not supposed to be there.

Didn't seem to slow down those high altitude elites caught EPO doping.

The extra fluid quickly dissipates its the red blood count that remains high.

In the microinfusion study itself, it is strange why performance (mean watts) is increased by 4.7 % when hemoglobin count is partially recovered from 14.1 to 14.6 g/dl with the 135 ml infusion, whereas it is increased only by 0.9 % when it is increased further to 15.5 g/dl and beyond the "natural" value (15.0) with the extra 235 ml of RBCs even when Hb is elevated by some 6 %.

https://s3.eu-central-1.amazonaws.com/juoksufoorumi/monthly_2018_12/blooddoping135.jpg.8578bea050c6a5951874ef0bb5981bce.jpg

It is also noteworthy but unsurprising that the mean watt output is barely higher than the placebo group value in either of the tests and almost all the performance boost is from subnormal to normal.

Casual my friend, this was an excellent compilation with obvious conclusions, the only thing I would add is that many of these steriods (Nandrolone, Dianabol etc) were actually creations of the 1950s, but it was the likes of the East Germans experimenting throughout the 1970s and 1980s to find the best cycles of these drugs. In short there was a slow learning as to maximize the utility of these drugs. As testing/detectability has improved, cheats have learnt to do more with less.

Aragon wrote:

Before vouching for any timeline, there are some dissenting opinions when blood doping became widespread if it ever did until the advent of rHuEPO.

Yeah I remember your and others skepticism in that regard. Both Leigh-Smith and Gleaves were expressing their informed opinions, and might also have used "widespread" differently. I don't have a dog in this fight.

But with your "because"

Aragon wrote:

The "rapid succession" in the blood doping research since 1960 is also not that obvious because the first research paper to research specifically how elevated Hb affected Vo2max at sea level was from 1972, and it took until 1980 before a placebo-controlled study was published that proved its efficacy whereas there were a few of those studies showing no benefit in the 1970s.

you are moving (my!) goal posts because I wrote about blood transfusion studies in general, and nothing about "VO2max at sea level". Plus, Robinson published VO2 changes already in 1966 (but did not check for changes in performance).