whatever the turks put in their hot sauce,it was potent,and the effects were ugly.gamze bulut grew an adams apple,she was covered in acne,and she looked like she was beginning to get hair loss.elvan abeleygesse also had a large adams apple,was covered in acne,and she looked more extra terrestrial,than female.
Renato Canova wrote:
In October 2015 I was called by Vadim Zelechenok, at that time functioning as Chairman of Russian Federation "ad interim", for going Moscow for a clinic, with the goal to explain Russian coaches "how it's possible running fast in clean way". When I arrived Moscow, Vadim and Yuriy Borzakovskiy honestly explained me that there was a serious problem of doping in Russia, because doping was "part of the training plans" and was not administrated by doctors, but directly by coaches, maintaining the behavior of the old Soviet Union.
The main used doping regarded steroids, not EPO, and for that reason the best advantages where in events lasting no longer than 10 minutes, where the level of muscular strength had more importance.
Every doped athlete was guilty about steroids. In some case (for example, some marathon runner as Shobukhova) there was also EPO, but this substance had the goal to support a percentage of the aerobic power (no higher than 90% of what possible to reach with training only, but in shorter time) at the base of the increase of specific training.
In all this picture, my first approach with Russian coaches was to point out the fact that NO RUSSIAN DISTANCE RUNNERS, with all their sophisticated doping strategy, was able to run in 2015 fast as Vladimir Kuts in 1957 (13'35" WR alone in Rome) or Pyotr Bolotnikov in 1960-62 (Olympic Gold in Rome and WR of 10000 in 28'18"). What I explained is that Russian coaches, such as many other coaches in different Countries in the World, FORGOT THE HISTORY OF ATHLETICS OF THEIR OWN COUNTRY, cancelling the basic knowledge that allowed athletes running fast 60 years ago, and replacing it with a "doping culture" that in the endurance events doesn't produce real advantages, apart the mental idea that, using these substances, you can train more and can recovery quicker.
Different is the case of doped Kenyans. At first, 41 doped in 6 years, considering a population of more than 1000 runners around the world, is absolutely inside the average of doped athletes in every Country. But, most important, it's possible to see how this doping is casual, including different substances without a real strategy. Many athletes were very weak for the Kenyan parameters, and were caught in small races (mainly South America of Asia) with very little prizes. Many of these athletes didn't have any manager. Many of them were positive for taking some medicine for flu or cough. The most part were women.
Which is the difference between doped men and doped women ? Men go directly to ask for PEDs, finding unethical doctors supporting them in that direction. Women NEVER ask for some PED, but accept without discussing what their coach (that in the most part of cases is their husband, normally not a coach) gives them, saying it's something legal for supporting their training.
I well understand we can't, and we must not, apply different penalties to doped athletes, if they ASK directly, or ACCEPT from other people, but, under moral point of view, there is a deep difference between the two behaviors : one thing is TO LOOK FOR DOPING, another thing to accept everything it's administrated, or because there is excess of confidence in the husband-coach, or because there is not real interest in what they are doing.
The managements don't have, generally, any control on their athletes, when the training is over. The most part of athletes go back in their houses, only few remain in their training camp for the night. In Kapsabet, that is the center of the doping scandal in Kenya, athletes like Jemima, Purity Rionoripo, Visiline Jepkesho, Agnes Barsosio (all athletes running impressive times in Paris) go in the camp for the time of the day connected with their training only, and later go home. Nobody can control what they do when alone, and under this point of view the management don't have any responsibility, apart the one to choose wrong local persons for following the athletes.
So, while I well know there is a doping problem (not in Kenya, but mainly in Kapsabet), that really nobody in the old Federation wanted to face (I spoke about this directly with Isaia Kiplagat in 2012, giving also the names of one doctor who everybody knew was a cheater, and the answer was "this is not a problem for a mzungu"), I refuse to look at "Kenyans" as doped athletes, since I know very well what the best athletes think about doping. To think every top Kenyan athlete is doped, and to ask to demonstrate you are clean, is a total nonsense : it's like to ask everybody doing his own job to demonstrate that is honest, while the right thing is to be honest, and is task of who has some doubt to demonstrate he is not honest.
Renato, professional sport has this problem, if someone uses doping because makes difference, all must do it to mantain their level to others.
Pantani that probably has been the greatest talent of endurance sport in history once he said talking with girlfriend "mi tocca prendere queste schifezze", because he knew that not taking it , his talent wouldnt be expressed, he would be with fatigue a normal pro in the rear of peloton.
This is not true in athletics, when we speak about endurance. Since I know very well athletes at the top of the World who are totally clean (I coached, and continue to coach, some of them), it's for me obvious that the dogma "top runners = top dopers" is a stereotype that I can't accept.
For me, the hypothetical limits that many of the athletes having the current WR (due to clean training only) had, in almost every event, were superior than what achieved in reality. This strong opinion comes from the analysis of the training they did (including problems of different nature that who superficially wants to reduce everything to training and doping doesn't know), and of the development of the performance itself.
If in Pantani's era it was not possible to be competitive in a long competition (like Tour de France, Giro d'Italia or Vuelta de Espana) without doping (in these events, the recovery is at the base of the final result), but was in any case possible to win some "classic" of one day with reduced doping, for the results of runners the situation is very different, because the most part of the top well know the other tops are clean, and don't need to take anything extra (if really strong) for being the bests.
I have the proof of many performances, which were far from the possibilities of the athletes. For example, the WR of steeple of Shaheen is very far from his possibilities, and in this case it's easy to see a big difference between the shape he had in 2004 (when bettered the WR) and the one he had in 2006, when was 20% stronger, but we looked at the WR in one occasion only (Zurich), and for reasons connected with bad weather and bad pacing he ran only 7'55" running the last two laps very annoyed, because he saw his real goal (running under 7'50") cancelled when saw the split at 2 km.
Ot rhe WR of Moses Mosop in 30 km on track, when he went (about 15 km) for two laps in 61" because disturbed by one of the pacers who followed him instead running in front of him.
Or the WR of Florence Kiplagat in HM (Barcelona 2015), when, looking at the WR of Tirunesh Dibaba in 15 km, she ran alone (without pacers) the 4 km between 11 km and 15 km in 11'57", and after almost jogged for two km, starting running again only when I told her that after 17 km was still 2 seconds better than the record of the previous year (so, looking for the HM with even pace, instead at the WR of 15 km, already she could have run in 64:40 or faster).
Or the performance of Eliud Kipchoge in London last year, with 5 km very slow for controlling Stanley Biwott, when was clear he already could have run in 2:02:30 if the mind was on the WR and not on winning the race.
And among the athletes everybody knows who is totally clean, while there are suspicions about other athletes. For example, in 2002, during African Champs in Tunis, after their warm-up, Stephen Cherono (that was the last time he represented Kenya) and Wilson Boit Kipketer came to me saying they could not go immediately in the dressing room because the door was closed from inside, and that after some minute they continued to knock finally the door was open, and Brahim Boulami went outside together with a doctor from Belgium, and in the toilette there were syringes clearly used by Boulami itself (after 10 days, Boulami bettered the WR in Zurich and then was banned for EPO). In the last 3 years, many Kenyan athletes had suspicions about Jemima Sumgong, like in the past about some other marathon runner (Georgina Rono, for example), casually both in Kapsabet.
Don't think can be so easy to hide this type of mentality when you are in training with other athletes, and when you run frequently races together. When some athlete is on doping, always it's possible to see something particular around him : his or her behavior, the behavior of the coach, the fact he or she are not open with other groups, and also, from their training, sudden improvement that their training can't justify.
I repeat that I strongly believe that the effects of EPO can't produce any advantage looking at the hypothetical best performances an athlete born, living and training in altitude can achieve. But taking EPO when the personal training is not really tough can help the athlete to achieve in short time a high level of aerobic power, and it's true that can help to quickly recover. This is something not directly important for the performance, but is the key for changing the mind of some athlete, who can finally decide to have more hard training (before never tried) because now can recover.
Speaking about marathon runners, be sure that Mary Keitany, Florence Kiplagat, Vivian Cheruiyot, Geoffrey and Abel Kirui, Eliud Kipchoge and Kenenisa Bekele (among the athletes I well know, also if in some case I'm not their coach) are completely clean, while we can have some suspicion about other athletes, that of course I don't name because there are not proves. And, in opposite way of the normal trend in LR, when there are no proves I don't go to accuse anybody, using the strange idea that athletes need to "prove they are clean" (not that who has some suspicion has to prove they are doped...).
bla bla bla bla bla,
all i see now when conova posts.
the chinese dont do bullshit , didnt last long there.
shaheen and micera go together ,, and the real doped w.r is the morrocan
i cant help myself today ,
weakmind .,
absolute joke , bekele clean
this is more of your endless lies .....................
bekele is by far the athlete that benefitted most form CERA .
one of few athletes that was hand picked to use a pre approved drug
now that is dirty .
iaaf know all about it ,probably hand picked the athletes themselves
and come 2008 had to shut it down due to finding in athletes in other sports
those approx 2'03'' marathons also have the hallmark of
super charged nervous system , igf-1 lr3 ................
but forgot wada pretends doesnt exist and sure you do too.
makes me think if all these italian coaches are put there specifically by iaaf .
Renato Canova wrote:
And, in opposite way of the normal trend in LR, when there are no proves I don't go to accuse anybody, using the strange idea that athletes need to "prove they are clean" (not that who has some suspicion has to prove they are doped...).
I agree with you Renato, that must be normal behaviour, like in everyday law and life.
I don't accuse anybody, i see professional sport with some admiration but also with some agnosticism.
Good work and Saluti dall'Italia :-)
Bla bla bla.... the absolute joke is you pretending to know everything and writing a lot of stupidities without any foundation and any knowledge.
You are obsessed by this igf-1 lr3 that you put in any post like tomatoes on a pizza. You are obsessed by CERA, speaking about athletes that never met, and you seem to know every kind of secrets of IAAF and WADA.
You probably can see in your crystal globe, like wizards in the middle eve.
But when you speak about Shaheen and CERA, I have to tell you that your crystal globe doesn't work very well, and you make confusion between your imagination and the reality.
I think you need some mental therapy, in order to become able to enjoy your life without creating in your mind pictures of crimes that never existed.
aduck2022 wrote:
i cant help myself today ,
weakmind .,
absolute joke , bekele clean
this is more of your endless lies .....................
bekele is by far the athlete that benefitted most form CERA .
one of few athletes that was hand picked to use a pre approved drug
now that is dirty .
iaaf know all about it ,probably hand picked the athletes themselves
and come 2008 had to shut it down due to finding in athletes in other sports
those approx 2'03'' marathons also have the hallmark of
super charged nervous system , igf-1 lr3 ................
but forgot wada pretends doesnt exist and sure you do too.
makes me think if all these italian coaches are put there specifically by iaaf .
Meesa tinks dat Messta Canova beez smoke'n da Naboo happyz grass.
Dat Messta Kenenisa heesa been Sith'n dat dark side over zee long times.
Heesa hematocritsa strong in zee midichlorians, Thisa very bad.
Dat smells stinkerwhiff
Renato Canova wrote:
I repeat that I strongly believe that the effects of EPO can't produce any advantage looking at the hypothetical best performances an athlete born, living and training in altitude can achieve. But taking EPO when the personal training is not really tough can help the athlete to achieve in short time a high level of aerobic power, and it's true that can help to quickly recover. This is something not directly important for the performance, but is the key for changing the mind of some athlete, who can finally decide to have more hard training (before never tried) because now can recover.
A little confused on your repeated "properly trained" altitude natives living & training at altitude: Are you referring to their presumed hematological advantage & VO2max that these athletes would have over their sea-level counterparts? If so, that may not be the case. Prommer et al. demonstrated that Kenyan elite distance runners when acclimatized at sea-level (2 - 3 days), showed similar hematological values and VO2max's as their German Caucasian counterparts at sea-level in this particular study:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19952848So, if I understand the study correctly, the higher baseline hematological values & VO2max of Kenyan elites living & training at home altitude is quickly neutralized once they have adapted to sea-level conditions, and usually just over a few days. Studies with altitude-natives from Columbia & Venezuela have shown similar results in a short time frame once these athletes have adapted to sea-level conditions.
Secondly, are you suggesting rHuEPO/blood doping is only effecive with elites whose training "is not really tough?" Wouldn't that imply that the athlete hasn't or doesn't want to train hard, in which case how you know that is tbe case for each athlete over the last 2 decades that has been caught using rHuEPO or sanctioned for ABP Irregularities? This would imply that they're all on the same substandard training program, which I don’t believe for one minute is the case. And elites have different aerobic capicity levels, biomechanics & injury potential which all influences the foundation of their training, i.e., some can do more mileage & train harder simply because of better genetics. Athletes using 02-vector doping simply may reached their highest aerobic capicity possible given their genetics and therefore pushed through barriers that they normally couldn't have accomplished clean. Many of these athletes may have not been capable of medaling at a major competition or even making the finals without dope. This is, IMO, what makes rHuEPO so dangerous is that it can elevate high-responders to level they never would have been at regardless of any proper training, altitude training, dietary principles and so forth.
And there's also the issue of recovery doping with rHuEPO. As you know there's "sports anemia" associated with a repeated high volume of high mileage and intense training, particulary with females. This could be detrimental to the athlete that competes year round. Unable to train at a high level due to suppressed hematological values = illness and injury = limited racing.
aduck2022 wrote:
i cant help myself today ,
weakmind .,
absolute joke , bekele clean
this is more of your endless lies .....................
bekele is by far the athlete that benefitted most form CERA .
one of few athletes that was hand picked to use a pre approved drug
now that is dirty .
iaaf know all about it ,probably hand picked the athletes themselves
and come 2008 had to shut it down due to finding in athletes in other sports
those approx 2'03'' marathons also have the hallmark of
super charged nervous system , igf-1 lr3 ................
but forgot wada pretends doesnt exist and sure you do too.
makes me think if all these italian coaches are put there specifically by iaaf .
And CERA is still being used; last year two athletes, a Brazilian cyclist & Belarus distance runner, tested positive for it at the Rio drug control pre-test.
And looks like HGH is definitely out there; three (3) MILLION doses confiscated in a Spanish anti-doping investigation:
https://www.thelocal.es/20170324/spanish-police-arrest-14-and-seize-massive-doping-stashVO2maximum wrote:
And looks like HGH is definitely out there; three (3) MILLION doses confiscated in a Spanish anti-doping investigation
It will all ended like with Jama Aden - it wasn't EPO but vitamins, now it will be probably orange JUICE.
Spain is dopers heaven - now when we now that we just need to list all those athletes going there for training and we have our dopers. Very simple and of course those which goes regularly in Africa for altitude training as well.
Now when we make a list of suspects then we should check for improvements like 9 min in marathon time... names will start coming... but there will be no statistical anomaly since running 10.03s one year and 9.69s next is, well, completely achievable according to someone's statistics, also 9 min i marathon is just a piece of cake (orange JUICE).
So I suppose that statistics you can twist just as you like, no anomalies of any kind.
The article you posted can be very interesting, because is the clear demonstration that the most part of these researches can give different results if carried out with different subjects.
At first, we need to consider that athletes running 10000m in 28'27" ARE NOT ELITE. For example, in 2016 with this time a runner was number 170 in the world and 55 in Kenya. If these athletes run ONLY 28'27" because are not strong like the best in the world, or because their training is not enough in both the direction (volume and intensity), is something we don't know, but the fact they are by far (2 minutes) worse than the best is evident, so they are not part of the subjects I'm speaking about.
Secondly, the fact they change their blood values going at sea level is correct, but it's an absolute bullshit that this happens after 2-3 days. This change is very gradual, and top athletes living and training in altitude reach this level 2-3 months after going (and staying) at sea level.
Now, I want to show how the conclusions NEVER have validity for everyone, depending on the system of the research, and on the subjects who are investigated.
Look at the next two abstracts about the role of Folic Acid in connection with Erythropoietin :
Folic acid supplementation improves erythropoietin response.
Pronai W1, Riegler-Keil M, Silberbauer K, Stockenhuber F.
Author information
1
Department of Internal Medicine, Krankenhaus der Barmherzigen Brüder, Eisenstadt, Austria.
Abstract
Therapy with recombinant human erythropoietin (rhEPO) has become most valuable for the treatment of renal anemia in patients with various chronic renal diseases. For the first time this study presents data showing that rhEPO affects the metabolism of folic acid. There were 13 patients enrolled; they suffered from different chronic renal diseases and showed an impaired responsiveness to rhEPO therapy. Before starting rhEPO therapy the mean corpuscular volume of erythrocytes (MCV) was measured; MCV was 90.4 fl. During rhEPO therapy the MCV increased significantly by 14.8 fl (p `` 0.05). The developing macrocytic anemia was overcome when folic acid was administered additionally for a mean period of 3.14 +/- 3 months. Hematocrit (Hct) also responded accordingly. Whereas Hct did not increase adequately during the exclusive treatment with rhEPO, an increase in Hct from 23 +/- 3.3 to 30 +/- 4.2% (p < 0.01) was observed after the addition of folic acid. These results are rather remarkable as folic acid serum levels were clearly within the normal range during the whole study period. So it can be concluded that rhEPO therapy results in an increased demand for folic acid. Even if serum concentrations are within the normal range, the administration of folic acid will enhance the effectiveness of rhEPO therapy so that the rhEPO dosage can be reduced.
How you can say, the research brings to the conclusion that
FOLIC ACID SUPPLEMENTATION IMPROVES ERYTHROPOIETIN RESPONSE.
Now, go to read the following research :
Abstract
Pronai et al. [1995] published an article in Nephron which claimed that folic acid supplementation improves erythropoietin (EPO) response. The authors studied 13 patients who were resistant to EPO given at a dosage of 75 U/kg (per week or per dose?). Eight patients responded with a fall in mean corpuscular volume (MCV) and a rise in hematocrit when they were given folic acid.
________________________________________
Untitled
Dear Sir,
Pronai et al. [1995] published an article in Nephron which claimed that folic acid supplementation improves erythropoietin (EPO) response. The authors studied 13 patients who were resistant to EPO given at a dosage of 75 U/kg (per week or per dose?). Eight patients responded with a fall in mean corpuscular volume (MCV) and a rise in hematocrit when they were given folic acid.
Based on this experience, we selected 14/71 patients on chronic hemodialysis who revealed an elevated MCV (%%99 fl). Hemodialysis had been performed for 4–216 months; all patients were receiving 3 × 4–5 h/week of hemodialysis with a high-flux, large surface area (>1.8 m2) dialyzer. All patients were on EPO treatment (duration 4 months to 10 years) given subcutaneously twice weekly in 12 (mean dose 100.5 U/kg/week) and 3 times weekly intravenously in 2 (mean dose 286 U/kg/week). Iron was intravenously replaced regularly whenever serum ferritin fell below 100 µg/l. The patients were studied before and after 1 month of a folic acid replacement of 5 mg/day orally.
The results (mean ± SD) are shown in table 1.
Table 1
Results
Before folic acid supplementation, plasma folate was slightly lowered in 5 patients but only 1 of them had a low red cell folate level (which is a better indicator of tissue folate), Plasma vitamin B12 concentrations were normal in all patients. Folate replacement increased plasma folate levels significantly. The EPO dose remained unchanged (98.0 s.c. and 286 i.v. U/kg/week). Neither mean MCV nor hemoglobin concentration changed significantly. Two patients of 13 had a moderate decrease of MCV (from 100 to 96 and 109 to 104 fl), but only 1 of the 2 patients showed a slight rise in hemoglobin from 136 to 141 g/l. The patient with low plasma and red cell folate levels showed a rise in plasma folate concentration from 4.3 to 21.5 nmol/l but her MCV (103 before, 101 fl after) and hemoglobin (132 before, 130 g/gl after) remained unchanged.
Although we agree with Pronai et al. that means of economizing EPO should be sought,
our own results favor the conclusion that folic acid supplementation only rarely improves response to EPO in hemodialysis patients with an elevated MCV.
How you can say again, this research goes to the conclusion that
FOLIC ACID SUPPLEMENTATION ONLY RARELY IMPROVES RESPONSE TO EPO.
I continue to repeat, from years, that we can only study DIRECTLY WITH SPECIFIC SUBJECTS SOMETHING REGARDING THE SUBJECTS THEMSELVES.
But, of course, for all blind people, whose experience is to read some book, or to work with people with specific diseases, or toe see the reactions in some average person, a pharma can produce on a champion at the top of his training the same improvement that produces in a person with a bad disease.
please ! i bet you hand out drugs to all your athletes like candy.all top runners are on cocktails of drugs.thats how records get broken.hard training,and loads of drugs.
I'm very sad for your obsession. If you love athletics, I can imagine how sad is for you to think all the best must be doped.
I well know this is not the case. It's possible to better WR and to be at the top with training only, and if you don't believe in this, you become a limiting factor for the development of any personal performance.
This is exactly what happens today : who doesn't want to use any illegal substance think not possible to be competitive, and loses the motivation for hard training, thinking with it only his performances can't be at the top, and for that reason sometimes, after many years of clean training, falls down in the trap of doping.
But, if you start with positive mind in a clean group, where the only goal is to train more and better, you don't have this mentality, and can achieve top results (of course related your talent, that too many times we don't considered at the base of every performance).
Renato Canova wrote:
At first, we need to consider that athletes running 10000m in 28'27" ARE NOT ELITE. For example, in 2016 with this time a runner was number 170 in the world and 55 in Kenya. If these athletes run ONLY 28'27" because are not strong like the best in the world, or because their training is not enough in both the direction (volume and intensity), is something we don't know, but the fact they are by far (2 minutes) worse than the best is evident, so they are not part of the subjects I'm speaking about.
What do you mean these runners are not elite? Granted, defining a runner as "elite" can be subjective, but Prommer et al. clearly uses word "elite" as the description of their test subjects (the word is used in the title of the study). The average time of the Kenyan test subjects is within 27 secs of the "A" standard qualifying for the Olympics/WCs...and that's not considered elite? And their average VO2max: ~71.5 (+/- 5.0) --- so some will be in the mid-70s, which is getting up there (elite male athletes typically have a VO2max between 70–85).
So what criteria do you use in classifying a runner as "elite?" A particular time cutoff for each discipline? A certain percentage of time of the top historical performances in each event? Or only the very top times run by Kenyans where everyone else is packfodder? Maybe an Olympic champion who *doesn't* test positive for PEDs?
Renato Canova wrote:
Secondly, the fact they change their blood values going at sea level is correct, but it's an absolute bullshit that this happens after 2-3 days. This change is very gradual, and top athletes living and training in altitude reach this level 2-3 months after going (and staying) at sea
Well then, according to Prommer et al., their Hg was recorded at 16.1g in Nairobi (1660m), and after 26-30 hrs adaptation period in Bayreuth, Germany their Hb mass was virtually NO different than their German counterparts (~14.2g.kg /~14.0g.kg).
And are you familiar with altitude adaptation/acclimatization paper by Zubieta-Calleja et al? His research on the linear principle of ascending & descending adaptation periods occurs much more expedient than 2 - 3 months (more like 18 - 23 days):
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18204195VO2maximum wrote:
What do you mean these runners are not elite? Granted, defining a runner as "elite" can be subjective, but Prommer et al. clearly uses word "elite" as the description of their test subjects (the word is used in the title of the study). The average time of the Kenyan test subjects is within 27 secs of the "A" standard qualifying for the Olympics/WCs...and that's not considered elite? And their average VO2max: ~71.5 (+/- 5.0) --- so some will be in the mid-70s, which is getting up there (elite male athletes typically have a VO2max between 70–85).
The application of certain words is very subjective in many occasions, but I still wouldn't put too must stress on thechoise of word of these researchers. If you'd be straight honest, the researchers used the word "elite" also when describing the German counterparts of the Kenyans, whose "10-km best time = 30:39 ± 00:24 min)".
VO2maximum wrote:
And are you familiar with altitude adaptation/acclimatization paper by Zubieta-Calleja et al? His research on the linear principle of ascending & descending adaptation periods occurs much more expedient than 2 - 3 months (more like 18 - 23 days):
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18204195
In the case of the altitude adaptation study you referred to, just the following sentence raises so many red flags to render the study basically meaningless from point-of-view of how elite Kenyans react to altitude training:
"In this study, hematocrit was analyzed in three persons that arrived to sea level or to a fixed altitude, where they remained sedentary and in comfortable living conditions."
I am myself occasionally guilty of the same, but it is very easy and tempting to cherrypick studies from PubMed for an ad hoc goal, because the sheer magnitude of the database renders it almost certain that there always exists more or less obscure studies providing evidence for almost any claim. This is my favourite example:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3001541/I actually agree that the 2-3 month timeframe provided by Mr. Canova sounds at first look very long. On the other hand, hypoxia is one of the subjects were there are large inter-group variations in adaptation mechanisms and correspondingly hematologic responses, if elevated red cell mass is even the main mechanism through which it elevates performance.
I have a recollection that author David Epstein had in his bestseller The Sports Gene several pages on this issue and if my memory is sound, Sherpas adapted differently than some other groups such as east Africans. In addition, when there was discussion whether artificial high altitude environments should be considered doping, a group of researchers pointed out in a published letter (Scand J Med Sci Sports 2006: 16: 297–301) the following about the issue:
It should be emphasized that the physiological outcome of EPO and blood doping are clear and certain. These drugs and methods bypass all the body’s natural feedback control mechanisms and overwhelm normal adaptive responses. Therefore virtually every individual will have an increase in red cell mass, increased maximal oxygen uptake, and endurance performance. In contrast, the physiological response to altitude is quite variable and unpredictable among individual athletes – for example, the increase in EPO levels at an equivalent altitude of 3000m may range from a 400% increase to a 40% decrease after 24 h. Consequently, the erythropoietic response to altitude exposure as well as the outcome in terms of performance is similarly quite variable with some athletes improving and others deteriorating, even under the most carefully controlled circumstances...
Aragon wrote:
The application of certain words is very subjective in many occasions, but I still wouldn't put too must stress on thechoise of word of these researchers. If you'd be straight honest, the researchers used the word "elite" also when describing the German counterparts of the Kenyans, whose "10-km best time = 30:39 ± 00:24 min)".
Don't be such a wise guy! The title of the study is: "Total hemoglobin mass and blood volume of elite Kenyan runners." That's elite KENYAN runners not German runners that's being referenced here. Canova distinctly says that average 28.27 time of the KENYAN runners in the study is not elite. So, maybe they're glorified "hobby joggers" or something by his standards 😄
VO2maximum wrote:
Aragon wrote:The application of certain words is very subjective in many occasions, but I still wouldn't put too must stress on thechoise of word of these researchers. If you'd be straight honest, the researchers used the word "elite" also when describing the German counterparts of the Kenyans, whose "10-km best time = 30:39 ± 00:24 min)".
Don't be such a wise guy! The title of the study is: "Total hemoglobin mass and blood volume of elite Kenyan runners." That's elite KENYAN runners not German runners that's being referenced here. Canova distinctly says that average 28.27 time of the KENYAN runners in the study is not elite. So, maybe they're glorified "hobby joggers" or something by his standards 😄
I'm pretty sure sub 14:50 for 5k is consider elite, I would to. The claim that 28:27 for 10k is sub-elite is ridiculous. There are a lot of great 800m runners, who possess incredible athletic and sporting talent who struggle to break 15 mins for 5k.