Lactate curves of elite athletes show that EPO/ Blood boosting is pointless.

IF epo does not benefit you then why is it illegal? Why were athletes running soo much faster fifteen to twenty years ago when there were people known using this stuff? Why use it and risk your career and reputation, and life on something that isn't going to help you? All things included there are multiple ways to improve as an athlete... best way to solve this is to get an elite athlete take it for a few months and study them top to bottom find IF there are improvements... also nobody has mentioned the psychology of running, if you're taking something that you truly believe is going to help you there's always that chance that you will improve because you have more confidence... just a thought

Care to share the source of those "different figures" with the rest of us? You keep making statements but refuse to supply any supporting references. That is definitely bad science...

And by the way, it doesn't matter what form of fatty acid chain you look at (palmitic acid, linoleic acid, etc.); carbon for carbon, fat requires more oxygen to metabolise than glycogen. That is a measurable fact! Actually, you don't even need to perform the calorimetry; just look at the chemical structure of fat and carbs! If you cannot accept this, then there is really no point in continuing the discussion.

I'm sorry to keep calling you out, but you are once again making false statements. High altitude exposure and acclimatization results in a net INCREASE in glucose metabolism, not a decrease. This was demonstrated by Brooks et al. (1991) and confirmed by both Roberts et al. (1996) and Kennedy et al. (2001). The increased utilization of glucose at higher altitude is actually the primary mechanism proposed for the lactate paradox.

Please read Bartlett & Lehnhard's (2010) review of the lactate paradox, because once again you don't seem to understand your physiology. While the paradox is still widely debated, the most agreed upon mechanism to explain it is that glycolysis is MORE relied upon at altitude, therefore leading to an adaptation which better matches pyruvate decarboxilation and oxidative phosphorylation.

Finally, please read the Saunders (2004) article again. Increased running economy due to high altitude exposure cannot be explained by decreased glycogen utilization. Improved running economy is measured as a reduction in O2 consumption. Therefore, improved running economy CANNOT be explained through increased fat utilization, since fat requires more O2 to burn; a point you still have trouble accepting...

TO SUMMARIZE:

1) Fat requires more O2 to burn than glucose. Therefore glucose is considered more oxygen efficient than fat. You can deny this point all day long but it is a measurable FACT!

2) Due to the greater oxygen efficiency of glucose, it is the preferred fuel source at high altitudes, where there is less available oxygen to breathe.

3) Increased use of glucose at high altitude results in adaptations which increase its oxidative breakdown, therefore reducing the requirement to produce lactate. This is the most agreed upon mechanism to explain the lactate paradox.

REFERENCES

Brooks et al. (1991). Decreased reliance on lactate during exercise after acclimatization to 4300 m. Journal of Applied Physiology 71: 333–341.

Roberts et al. (1996). Acclimatization to 4,300-m altitude decreases reliance on fat as a substrate. Journal of Applied Physiology 81: 1762–1771.

Kennedy et al. (2001). Alterations in enzymes involved in fat metabolism after acute and chronic altitude exposure. Journal of Applied Physiology. 90: 17-22.

Bartlett & Lehnhard (2010). The lactate paradox: A review. Comparative Exercise Physiology 7(1); 1-13

Saunders et al. (2004) Improved running economy in elite runners after 20 days of simulated moderate-altitude exposure. Journal of Applied Physiology. 96: 931-937

Cobalt from the blue wrote:

mo'pak wrote:

I have good first hand knowledge of horse racing and have seen quite obvious improvement in racehorse performance when given "blood boosting" agents. I suspect these horses aren"t falling for the placebo effect so I think it is the EPO or the blood bags or the Blue Magic that is doing it.

Some trainer in Australia had a horse busted for too much Cobalt (the Blue Magic I presume).

http://www.smh.com.au/sport/horseracing/racing-struggling-to-counter-new-drug-fear-20140202-31v5x.html

Do you know exactly how the cobalt stimulates the body to produce EPO?

I have had it explained to me but I am no scientist so won't try to explain it in detail.

Basically large doses of cobalt chloride trick the body into believing it is in a hypoxic state resulting in the body producing more RBC.

3 of our biggest name trainers here in Oz have been busted. A threshold of 200 mcg per litre was established and they have had horses test above that mark. I believe 40 to 50 is a typical level. Of the 5 horses that returned high readings 4 of them ran career best performances.

Thanks for that. Wasn't the latest trainer to be busted the trainer of the unbeatable Black Caviar? If so, now we know why.

BTW, Scorchers making a good start in their quest to win back-to-back Big Bash finals.

Yep, Peter Moody was one of them. Brad Hogg might be on some of those eternal youth peptides.

I'm sorry, which runners did you have in mind 15 to 20 years ago? I can only think of a handful. Does that mean the rest were clean?As a group, Western runners ran slower in the 90's than in previous decades -- something I find curious, since Western cyclists were more competitive in this same era.Which runners were "known using this stuff"?Athletes/coaches use it, when they are not winning, and believe there will be enought benefit to make a difference. It has more to do with belief, than actual proved benefit.And lastly, I already mentioned the pyschological benefit of taking EPO.

GORUN1600 wrote:

IF epo does not benefit you then why is it illegal? Why were athletes running soo much faster fifteen to twenty years ago when there were people known using this stuff? Why use it and risk your career and reputation, and life on something that isn't going to help you? All things included there are multiple ways to improve as an athlete... best way to solve this is to get an elite athlete take it for a few months and study them top to bottom find IF there are improvements... also nobody has mentioned the psychology of running, if you're taking something that you truly believe is going to help you there's always that chance that you will improve because you have more confidence... just a thought

Drop the pompous attitude, it just shows your insecurity.

Yes I will share my figures for oxygen consumption of glucose vs fat metabolism for you again and explain them:

You gave me the number 38 ATP for glycolysis, but that is the total number of ATP generated, not the number for oxidative phosphorylation which is 34.

2 ATP are used up by substrate level phosphorylation in glycolysis, 2 ATP are produced at the end for anaerobic phosphorylation or 3 when the subsrate is glycogen and the totatal number is 39 and 34 are generated by oxidative phosphorylation in the mitochondria.

Also, you can't use palmitate for your example of fat metabolism because , it needs to be further metabolised to triglycerides before it is metabolised in the mitochondria.

34 ATP for aerobic respiration of glucose for 6 02 molecules (2 or 3 ATP provided anaerobically) 5.66 ATP per 02 molecule and 26 molecules of 02 providing 147 of ATP 5.7 per 02 02molecule. So you can't say that fat metabolism uses more oxygen.

Regarding the lactate paradox, lacate production is reduced not increased at altitude:

It's not a paradox if you accept that lactate is the end point of glycolysis/glycogenolysis as Brookes states and thus is a substrate for aerobic respiration, which is of course reduced at altitude due to the reduction in oxygen availability.

As for the study by Saunders, it does not make the claim you are stating. It does not give a reason for improved oxygen economy after altitude training and says the reasons are unclear. Maybe he should ask an exercise phsyiologist who has studied neuroscience? Improved economy or efficiency is know to have a considerable neural component is it not?

GORUN1600 wrote:

IF epo does not benefit you then why is it illegal? Why were athletes running soo much faster fifteen to twenty years ago when there were people known using this stuff? Why use it and risk your career and reputation, and life on something that isn't going to help you? All things included there are multiple ways to improve as an athlete... best way to solve this is to get an elite athlete take it for a few months and study them top to bottom find IF there are improvements... also nobody has mentioned the psychology of running, if you're taking something that you truly believe is going to help you there's always that chance that you will improve because you have more confidence... just a thought

Your last point; psychology. Lance Armstrong must have had many sleepless nights before he went on the EPO. Once he started injecting the stuff, he would have felt very different psychologically.

Look at the figures provided, better trained athletes use less oxygen, nor more. This is the insanity of the EPO dogma which has blinded so many people.

Gary Oldman wrote:

Oh, so cardio based just like everyone already knows.

BTW, Why don't you know how to spell exercise?

Exercize is the new cardio everyone's doing it. Don't you know nothing?

nouse4abrain, from the article by Jones:

Figure 4 shows that the O2 cost of running at 16 km · h–1, expressed in units of mL · kg–1 · km–1, has decreased markedly between 1992 (when it was approximately 205 mL · kg–1 · km–1) and 2003 (when it was approximately 175 mL · kg–1 · km–1), with this representing a 15% improvement in RE. This improvement in RE shows no sign of abating; most recently, RE was measured at 165 mL · kg–1 · km–1. These results share similarities with

those recently reported by Coyle [38] for Lance Armstrong, the multiple Tour de France cycle champion. It appears, therefore, that the physiological adaptations which permit a reduction in the O2 cost of sub-maximal exercise are the key to continued improvements in endurance exercise performance over the longer term.

There you have it, Both Paula and Lance improved their performance, by improving oxygen economy, which would also have resulted in a decreased anaerobic component. Paula is known to have done this without drugs, Lance was using stuff that did not increase his oxygen uptake.

But the insanity goes on. It will go on in your head also as you continue to deny the facts in favor of the pseudoscience. How far are you and other nutters going to take this before you get wise?

mo'pak wrote:

I have good first hand knowledge of horse racing and have seen quite obvious improvement in racehorse performance when given "blood boosting" agents. I suspect these horses aren"t falling for the placebo effect so I think it is the EPO or the blood bags or the Blue Magic that is doing it.

Total BS.

Horse racing is full of gimmicks, innuendo, hearsay and quacks.

However, no boosted horse has come close to Secretariat's record at Belmont.

The difference is that most people work race horses lightly, if at all.

Yet, the trainers worked Secretariat hard, right up to the day of the race.

rekrunner wrote:

I'm sorry, which runners did you have in mind 15 to 20 years ago? I can only think of a handful. Does that mean the rest were clean?

As a group, Western runners ran slower in the 90's than in previous decades -- something I find curious, since Western cyclists were more competitive in this same era.

Which runners were "known using this stuff"?

Athletes/coaches use it, when they are not winning, and believe there will be enought benefit to make a difference. It has more to do with belief, than actual proved benefit.

... just a thought

[/quote]

You are partially correct

When the athletes who are not winning are doped

The athletes who are winning are also doped

Basically when doping is rife in a sporting discipline and the dope is effective, then only a doper can win

Now ask yourself how did the East Africans beat all the doped up Spanish and Moroccans on the track when there was lite or no testing for EPO

Answer:They were doing the exact same thing themselves, It's that simple

mo'pak wrote:

I am not sure whether or not everyone realises that Renato Canova has stated on this forum that EPO WILL improve African elites at 5000 and 10000m. I specifically asked him whether Geb would be advantaged by it in such events and he said yes.

Good science, bad science wrote:

I asked him on this forum about Haile about 10 years ago and he said the opposite, that Haile had a normal hematocrit of 41.

You're obviously trying to confuse the issue, by using reality.

GORUN1600 wrote:

IF epo does not benefit you then why is it illegal?

Because it's an issue of marketing.

The more hype, the more money changes hands, invariably from the poor to the rich.

I asked you to share the SOURCE of your figures for that statement, not another one of your explanations. Glucose is more oxygen efficient than fat. It is basic chemical entropy. I have seen no scientific source argue differently on that point, and unless you can provide us with a SOURCE then your explanations are a waste of time...

Good God, man, tell me you're joking!!! You've come out with some stupid statements throughout this thread, but this one takes the biscuit...

A triglyceride CANNOT be broken down by the mitochondria, because a triglyceride is composed of 3 fatty acids and a glycerol molecule. Mitochondria metabolise fatty acids. And what is palmitate??? That's right folks, palmitate (or palmitic acid) is a 16-carbon fatty acid, which was already broken down from a triglyceride, before it even entered the cell.

Are you sure you've studied biochemistry because if you did, then your level of knowledge is truly appalling...

I never argued differently about lactate production at altitude. You stated that glycogen metabolism is reduced with altitude. This is absolutely untrue. Brooks demonstrated that it was untrue in 1991.

Please read again your previous post. You stated "at altitude we use less glycogen not more". Did i misread you or something?

Saunders put forward several possible mechanisms for improved running economy, none of which were definitively accepted or rejected. I'm going to quote directly from Saunders because i want you to read the important statement which i was trying to show you:

"A potential mechanism that could conceivably improve economy is greater carbohydrate utilization for oxidative phosphorylation after a period of altitude acclimatization. It has been suggested that a shift toward increased dependence on glucose metabolism and away from reliance on fatty acid consumption under conditions of acute and chronic hypoxia is advantageous because glucose is a more efficient fuel in terms of generating ATP per mole of O2. "

Secretariat ~ 1973

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V18ui3Rtjz4

Secretariat was said to be on steroids. He had fertility trouble until his testicles started functioning properly again.

Well since lactate can be used as a fuel and better transported via methods which are increased through doping , it can be easily transported to acceptkrs and converted back to a glycogen type substrate, thus less glycogen use. So if you're using less glycogen and oxygen as an elite, you could become infinitely more efficient by having the ability to burn/transport/and use even less to run just as hard by using PEDs

Gary Oldman wrote:

Secretariat was said to be on steroids. He had fertility trouble until his testicles started functioning properly again.

I heard he was descended from Unicorn flying aliens, from a far distant universe.