Alex Hutchinson calls out CANOVA over study confirming EPO works on Kenyan runners

"Physical and physiological limitations" are just your words for ill defined and unscientific claims, or just faith built upon more faith. they have no content. the small difference in improvement between the two groups of runnrrs in the 2014 paper were not statistically significant.

rekrunner wrote:

Well, faith and intuition combined with physical and physiological limitations, and real time trial data supporting some decline.

Your intuition is not evidence, but just another word for faith.

read the study

Based on these discrepancies mentioned, it is evident that the almost 5 % improvement shouldn't be taken at face value and when the study is an interesting time trial experiment, most honest people would make at least the following conclusions:

- The novel data generated within the study

limitations, while useful for comparison with the literature, require further replication.

- Factors unrelated to rHuEpo such as altered motivation (e.g., placebo, order effect) may partly explain the reported performance effects and reflected in the small but significant rise in RPE after rHuEpo in KEN.

- Studies have shown that placebo can

improve 3,000 m race time by 1.2%.

Aragon wrote:

- Studies have shown that placebo can

improve 3,000 m race time by 1.2%.

What studies?

Out of curiosity, as everyone (including you) by now should be more-or-less aware of the RPE problem and the issue of 13.30 caliber guys running 9 minute 3K time trials, how many people here think that the first two propositions are total idiocy and anyone reaching those modest conclusions is a total moron?

I thought we discussed this already. If the abstract were more important, why have a study at all? I think I've been consistent that the study wins in cases of ambiguity. Regarding 5%, I'll direct you to the limitations sections of the studies for how to exercise caution when interpreting 5%.

Subway Surfers wrote:

rekrunner wrote:

I know from our discussions of the Tuebingen study how much you value the abstract with methods and results and conclusions for relaying the key findings. It's curious, if not hypocritical, to see you downplay the value now.

Nothing new here. I don't downplay that the abstract has the "key findings"; back then it was you who denied that!

Here the abstract provides the info of 5% improvement of altitude-living elite Kenyans after 4 weeks EPO, .

Wow! I can't wait for the arguments against this.[/quote]

Nice try. It is scientific to build models, even competing and conflicting models, and keep them up until conflicting real world observations have broken them beyond repair. "Diminishing returns" is a proposed model that fits well in the larger model of the physical world. Statistical insignificance falls short of the standard you need -- contradictory observation.

"Physical and physiological limitations" are just your words for ill defined and unscientific claims, or just faith built upon more faith. they have no content.

the small difference in improvement between the two groups of runnrrs in the 2014 paper were not statistically significant.

rekrunner wrote:

Well, faith and intuition combined with physical and physiological limitations, and real time trial data supporting some decline.

I don't want to discourage the use of studies, and talking about their findings. It's all the other personal attacks and drama that surrounds issues that are 1) completely manufactured, and 2) not relevant to the discussion, that I, if not anyone or everyone else, could do without. Take for example, these new "issues" of my degree, and now the "cowardice" of anonymity. It started in a post between "m!ndweak" and "JonO" -- nothing really to do with me -- where he makes a false statement about my credentials. I guess I could let it go, but that's not really correct either is it? This was an unprovoked personal attack, as a throwaway comment in a discussion that has nothing to do with me. Then, like gasoline on fire, because I dared to respond, and ask him to prove his claim (and not his bravery), he: 1) Claim I called him a coward -- you can clearly go back and see I did not 2) Use that as a basis to call me a coward It's a wrong reaction and an over-reaction based on a misperceived action on my part. Now if this follows the same pattern as previous dramas, this will be a recurring point in many future threads, where he will repeat that I called him a coward (which I did not), and that I am the real ball-less coward for hiding behind anonymity. It will somehow again become my fault for something he completely manufactured. I don't think that's what this forum is supposed to be about -- a playground for all these dramas. At the end of the day, my degree and my identity are not important to this forum, and not relevant to "Alex Hutchinson calls out CANOVA over study confirming EPO works on Kenyan runners". These were non-issues that should not have even come up in the first place. But getting back to your admiration of his use of studies, I recall a flurry of EPO studies which led to an opinion that Coe likely took EPO in the 1970s. While you are free to say "Wow! Impressive analysis", forgive me if I challenge how the studies support some of his opinions that follow. Regarding, "wordplay and psychological warfare, pretentious, sanctimonious, holier-than-thou attitude because he has some master degree in some undisclosed science field.", these also look like more manufactured diversions to escape the burden of arguing on the merits. I don't ask you to adopt my opinions because I say them, but only to the extent they are supported by other, professional, opinions, and/or real world data. If I say something like "5% is an over-estimation in this study" it is based on a set of limitations that the authors themselves expressed.

Um, OK. Thanks for the discussion.

Rekrunner is a liar wrote:

read the study

Aragon wrote:

Out of curiosity, as everyone (including you) by now should be more-or-less aware of the RPE problem and the issue of 13.30 caliber guys running 9 minute 3K time trials, how many people here think that the first two propositions are total idiocy and anyone reaching those modest conclusions is a total moron?

WTF? Who are the "13:30 caliber guys" you're referencing? If it's the Kenyan cohort - didn't Canova say they were just boys who are slow pokes compared to jr. elite Kenyan talent? And I thought rekrunner had said they're no faster than top HS girls (or was he referring to the Scot cohort?). How are the researchers measuring RPE? Are they measuring baseline MHR and then monitoring HR during the TTs? I hope they're not using some stupid questionnaire to measure rate of perceived effort.

rekrunner wrote:

The abstract does not seem to be completely in line with either the early draft version, nor the final version submitted.

But it does. If you could put your agenda aside for a moment, you could realize that these statements complement, not contradict each other:

1) There are most likely more than 44% dopers.

2) There would be at least 31% dopers if...

3) There could be as many as 63% dopers if...

ad 1) abstract, main part, interview about the results, commentary about the article in Sports Med.

ad 2) hypothesis in the main part, IAAF statement, NYT article

ad 3) supplementary data

rekrunner wrote:

If the abstract were more important, why have a study at all? I think I've been consistent that the study wins in cases of ambiguity.

You mean the article? To supplement the abstract of course, with background, tables, pictures, references, and discussion. There is no ambiguity there, just additional information that one should neither ignore nor consider to be the key findings.

I am referring to the research paper sparking this thread published not too long time ago, and as casual observer noticed, the Kenyans weren't recreational runners but some (certainly not all) had their PB's very good. Comments made by mr. Canova or rekrunner are not relevant to the issue and I do not draw my information from them.

As the researchers clearly had trust in their RPE method, perhaps you are implying that they were incompetent in which case there is a defector from the camp cheering the study?

Schweddy Science wrote:

Jon, Why don't you engage Hutchinson online and ask him the difficult questions and tell him he's wrong?

Do it on Sweatscience in the comments section.

Thanks!

I have no idea what his thoughts are on the subject. I tried to read through his blog, but it's all rather vague.

Writing to these people isn't productive, they have too many commercial interests.

If he wants to post here that's a different matter.

Back to my main point. Belief in PEDs defies the laws of physics. To get around this problem people make up numbers, such as Lance Armstrong's 7 watts per kilo ascent of Alpe d'Huez in 2004, when the real number is 6 watts per kilo.

There are no magic potions that give superhuman strength. But that's what you people believe. A fairy tale. And when confronted by real numbers, you desperately try to move the goal posts.

rekrunner wrote:

I thought we discussed this already.

If the abstract were more important, why have a study at all? I think I've been consistent that the study wins in cases of ambiguity.

Regarding 5%, I'll direct you to the limitations sections of the studies for how to exercise caution when interpreting 5%.

Subway Surfers wrote:

Nothing new here. I don't downplay that the abstract has the "key findings"; back then it was you who denied that!

Here the abstract provides the info of 5% improvement of altitude-living elite Kenyans after 4 weeks EPO, .

Wow! I can't wait for the arguments against this.

[/quote]

Forget abstract, sometimes your arguments are deliberately deceiving, admit it.

At a conference on exercise physiology and one of the speakers proposed a rule of 0.3%, anything above this gain should be sought and incorporated (though he wasn't advocating drugs). Year to year updates in spike/shoe models are unlikely to offer this. If I can recall properly his speech was on elite cyclists and altitude training and he found gains of less than 1% though he still claim it as worthwhile. So your argument that altitude training alone can explain the epo era is a shaky proposition.

I have always said a 1-2% gain is massive at an elite level, that is why epo is banned, WADA & the IOC have done their own testing and concluded with resources available to them (that are far greater than what you have available) and concluded the gains are significant. I have always said everything in this life abides by the law of diminishing returns but I can also easily see epo turning a 14:30 runner into a 13:30 runner, which is 6.9% I can also see a 13:55 becoming a 13:10 a 5.4% gain, enough for championship qualification. So 13:05 becoming 12:56, though smaller is enough to distort the outcome of the sport and therein lies the problem.

Gee, with a philosophy lime that, it might be important to actually read a study instead of dismissing it and arguing against it purely on the basis of an abstract...

rekrunner wrote:

I thought we discussed this already.

If the abstract were more important, why have a study at all? I think I've been consistent that the study wins in cases of ambiguity.

I completely agree.

Rekrunner is a liar wrote:

Gee, with a philosophy lime that, it might be important to actually read a study instead of dismissing it and arguing against it purely on the basis of an abstract...

rekrunner wrote:

I thought we discussed this already.

If the abstract were more important, why have a study at all? I think I've been consistent that the study wins in cases of ambiguity.

Discussion is unlikely to be productive with somebody who is so uninterested in facts that he would dismiss and argue against a study which contradicts his firmly held and dogmatically defended position without reading the study. You are so blinded in your faith based beliefs that you are actively avoiding any exposure to contradictary evidence.

rekrunner wrote:

Um, OK. Thanks for the discussion.

Rekrunner is a liar wrote:

read the study