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

I think you misunderstand. I think he is saying something more basic. It's not about determining who wins a marathon, by measuring and comparing two runners. It's about one runner becoming their best. You don't need EPO to become your best because you can improve your running economy. What Jones shows us, with Paula's data, is that she improved over the years, due to factors independent of VO2max and LT. To the extent you want to take EPO to increase your oxygen uptake, and increase your performance, you are missing the point, because you should be training to increase your running economy, to run faster with the same VO2max (like Paula).

nouse4aname wrote:

Ignoring all the contradictions and other garbage that Bad Science keeps posting for a second. His entire argument is based on the theory that running economy is what determines the winner of a marathon. Since running economy is primarily influenced by biomechanics, EPO will have no effect on running economy. This is his basic point and i would agree in so far as biomechanics are the main influence on running economy and EPO won't change that...

Looks like a trick question. Obviously, at any instant, 10K pace consumes oxygen at a higher rate than marathon pace. This is true for all runners, including elites.In the long term, as running economy improves, runners:- use less oxygen (than before) for the same speed, or- go faster (than before) using the same oxygenSo you might find, when comparing you to your former self, that today you can go faster, with less oxygen.

Gary Oldman wrote:

Do elites use less oxygen the faster they go?

Last clarification. When you compare aerobic respiration of glucose to metabolism of fat, then 5.7 = 5.7. Glucose only looks more efficient when you add the anaerobic component, then you get 6.0 or 6.1 versus 5.7.Look at your "asep" paper again. The one that explains 19.6kJ/L and 21.1kJ/L. The analysis there explains something similar. Look at equations 8 and 9. The difference comes from the anaerobic respiration. (Since it's anaerobic, does that mean the efficiency is infinite?).

nouse4aname wrote:

Dude, your 3 calculations all contradict one another so i'm asking you again:

Which molecule requires more oxygen to burn? Fat or glycogen?

Stop being so childish and just answer the question...

[quote]rekrunner wrote:

Looks like a trick question. Obviously, at any instant, 10K pace consumes oxygen at a higher rate than marathon pace. This is true for all runners, including elites.

[quote]

And that's how and why EPO works..

That your better economy allows you to use less oxygen than before does not change the fact that running faster requires you to use more.

nouse4aname:

Great example! Just curious, is RER the best way to determine moment-to-moment the fuel mixture (sugar vs. fat, in layman's terms) or is there a better way? Also, can the RER distinguish between glycogen being burned and lactate being burned? Thanks.

Ross Tucker aspires to give science a kind of analysis you cannot find elsewhere. Surely his association with Dr. Noakes, and with Matt Fitzgerald has him prepared to think "out of the box", especially when it comes to areas outside of aerobic development.I don't recall Ross ever talking about the benefits of EPO for elite runners. I do recall him analyzing an EPO study with amateur cyclists, who improved both peak power and the ability to sustain 80% of peak power. The improvements were impressive, and he guessed even elite cyclists could still benefit somewhat, although not by the same percentage.But the energy demands of cycling are different than for running. Especially with respect to economy, running has an "elastic" component that is much more important than you can find in cycling. (One could even hypothesize that EPO is much less effective in elite long distance running for that reason.)

Good science, bad science wrote:

Now can someone tell me why Ross Tucker can write so well on the subject, yes still believe that EPO will benefit an elite runner? If he or she is using less

oxygen to run faster, why would they need EPO to supposedly run with more oxygen?

They don't.

Is there any chance that some more of you besided rekrunner might have a moment of Epiphany here?

rekrunner wrote:

Glucose only looks more efficient when you add the anaerobic component, then you get 6.0 or 6.1 versus 5.7.

other than at very long distances, it doesn't matter what's more efficient, you'll get more power from oxidizing glucose. What matters is which fire burns hotter.

The anaerobic component is relevant because the more oxygen you use, the more cations are taken up by the blood and shuttled away, so you can use more anaerobic power while burning glucose than fat.

Burning fats while running is an ultra or very-skinny-elite thing. Those races are more about conserving fuel than using lots of oxygen.

Great hypothesis. Now we just need a study on elites to confirm it.If running performance were determined by only one variable, oxygen consumption, it wouldn't be a subject for discussion.But if elite runners are being limited, say, by heat accumulation, or glycogen depletion, then increasing oxygen uptake will not address these non-oxygen barriers to performance.Or if elite runners have already achieved near maximum oxygen delivery/utilization potential, via organic and legal training, then increasing RBC, and oxygen uptake, may no longer be a significant factor for improving performance, that science shows it is for the 10:30 3K runner.

Gary Oldman wrote:

rekrunner wrote:

Looks like a trick question. Obviously, at any instant, 10K pace consumes oxygen at a higher rate than marathon pace. This is true for all runners, including elites.

And that's how and why EPO works..

That your better economy allows you to use less oxygen than before does not change the fact that running faster requires you to use more.

The phrase that stands out to me is the oxymoron "popular ex phys". Malcolm Gladwell is popular by any measure, but only tells half the story, filling in the other half with his vivid imagination. I don't expect popular to be right, and I don't expect the right exercise physiologist to be popular. David Epstein's Sports Genes (IMO) is much better science than Gladwell's Outliers, but I expect will be much less popular.I don't find training lacking in this aspect in any practical sense. Fortunately for coaches and athletes, if they train thinking about VO2max and LT (as vague as that concept may be), their running economy improves too, over time. Popular training, like Lydiard or Daniels, includes this emphasis on aerobic development, but also combining it with speedwork, sprint development (for improved form), and often drills for strength (hill training or plyometrics). From a training aspect, if you experiment enough to find out what works for you, than lacking in advanced topics like bioenergetics, biomechanics, neuroscience (what happened to neuro-muscular coordination?) is a problem for scientists, but not coaches or athletes.

Good science, bad science wrote:

Yes, a good text book deals with the neuroscience. But how many popular ex phys writers do or have done in the past 50 years? Conventional wisdom on running and cycling training is lacking in this most important aspect.

Not reading the whole thread. Who would have thought that troll of the year would already be locked up in January?

Good science, bad science wrote:

Is there any chance that some more of you besided rekrunner might have a moment of Epiphany here?

You're both the same person.

rekrunner wrote:

I think you misunderstand. I think he is saying something more basic. It's not about determining who wins a marathon, by measuring and comparing two runners. It's about one runner becoming their best. You don't need EPO to become your best because you can improve your running economy. What Jones shows us, with Paula's data, is that she improved over the years, due to factors independent of VO2max and LT . To the extent you want to take EPO to increase your oxygen uptake, and increase your performance, you are missing the point, because you should be training to increase your running economy, to run faster with the same VO2max (like Paula).

Her improvements were independent of lactate threshold? Really??? Please take a look at figure 6 of Jones's paper again.

Paula improved her speed at both 2mmol.L-1 and OBLA by 4km/h in 10 years. That is a MASSIVE improvement in speed at lactate threshold. Her predicted marathon time based off a nominal lactate concentration of 2mmol dropped from 2.53 (in 1992) to 2.16 (in 2001) based on this variable alone...

The paper by Jones also includes some wild generalizations and presumptions.

He also mentions continued cardiac development.

Good Science, bad science picked an odd paper to base his entire philosophy on.

Isn't that economy? I don't doubt LT improved too, but economy improves, for other reasons independent of LT. You even listed a few before.And I'm not trying to argue the point, but just tried to rephrase the main context the way I understood it, because it seemed like there were some gaps to fill, and that your rebuttal was missing the point, by trying to guess marathon winners.

rekrunner wrote:

Isn't that economy? I don't doubt LT improved too, but economy improves, for other reasons independent of LT. You even listed a few before.

And I'm not trying to argue the point, but just tried to rephrase the main context the way I understood it, because it seemed like there were some gaps to fill, and that your rebuttal was missing the point, by trying to guess marathon winners.

Figure 6 is the LT data. Figure 4 is the running economy data. You're correct that running economy improves primarily due to biomechanical and/or neuromuscular factors. But you stated the following:

"What Jones shows us, with Paula's data, is that she improved over the years, due to factors independent of VO2max and LT"

I agree that Paula's improvements were independent of VO2max (that is the case in almost every elite athlete i've worked with). But to say her improvements were independent of LT is a major misinterpretation of the data. There is a direct correlation between her speed at LT and her performances, as can be seen from Figure 6. Once again, this is also the case with every elite athlete i've worked with.

Paula's running economy did improve over the years, which is an interesting finding. But as you can see from Figure 4, most of the improvement in running economy came between 92 and 96. It is possible that can be explained entirely through anthropometric changes. Jones raises this possibility in his discussion. Another thing worth noting, is that Jones presents relative oxygen consumption data (ml.kg-1.km-1), which maybe slightly misleading as we don't know what Paula weighed on each test. Your body mass will definitely affect running economy. It would be more accurate to present absolute oxygen consumption or at least provide body mass so we can establish if it was a true improvement in economy.

In any case, the bottom line is while running economy is correlated with long distance performance, it is not as strong a correlation as LT. Either in comparison across athletes (which i gave an example of) or comparison within a single athlete (which Jones gives us an example of). I've seen plenty of runners make substantial improvements in performance with no change in running economy. But there was always an improvement in LT...

Again, I don't doubt or dispute her LT improved since 1992, and that some of the performance improvement is dependent on these LT improvements. That quote wasn't meant to be exclusive, but to emphasize that other factors besides VO2max and LT can improve performance. Some factors are dependent on LT, and some factors are independent. Perhaps this quote can be fixed by adding "in part" or "also".

In your discussion, you don't talk about LT, but rather vLT. Table 6 shows us that Paula got faster with the same Lactate levels, but Jones only speculates later what could have caused it. Some of the speculation involves improvements in LT, while others are independent.

My interpretation of Good/Bad Science's main message is, that an aspiring athlete has a choice:

1) Take EPO to improve aerobic parameters, therefore performance

2) Train to improve economy, therefore performance

The message here is that aerobics is not everything, and performance can improve significantly without choosing EPO.

Everyone is 100% focused on VO2max and LT, and he is trying to say -- don't forgot about economy. And here you are trying to say -- hey what about LT -- why are you ignoring LT?

rekrunner wrote:

My interpretation of Good/Bad Science's main message is, that an aspiring athlete has a choice:

1) Take EPO to improve aerobic parameters, therefore performance

2) Train to improve economy, therefore performance

The message here is that aerobics is not everything, and performance can improve significantly without choosing EPO.

Everyone is 100% focused on VO2max and LT, and he is trying to say -- don't forgot about economy. And here you are trying to say -- hey what about LT -- why are you ignoring LT?

You must have missed his comments about cardio development being minimal and of short duration.

There seems to be the thought that people who believe EPO works would take it in a heartbeat. None of us have actually said that.

Yes, I saw them, and I've seen them before. Back on page 8, I gave a link and reference to a chart that illustrates 3 waves of change. For me the concept is important, but discussing the timeframes is not. In the ideal case, your training develops all 3, if you found a good one that works for you.There is also a common thought that if you set a world record in the 90s, and early 2000s, EPO is the only plausible explanation. This is fueled by a popular belief that aerobics is the only important variable.

Gary Oldman wrote:

You must have missed his comments about cardio development being minimal and of short duration.

There seems to be the thought that people who believe EPO works would take it in a heartbeat. None of us have actually said that.

It seems that "running economy" has slipped in recent years then...