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

JonO. wrote:

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.

Why do you bring up Armstrong's Alpe d' Huez climb almost every time you post? This thread is about EPO and running. Your stuff is getting old. ?

Models are find.

What you have are castles in the air.

What's the thermoregulatory limit and how would it be exceeded? Explain with physics please.

Rekrunner is a liar wrote:

Rekrunner has repeatedly tole us that running is not cycling. So he cannot point to that study as any sort of basis for his belief, which is purely based on faith.

OLD SMTC SOB wrote:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3690100/

Well, of course cycling isn't running. However the only relative differences are the biomechanics of the activity, and the elimination of bodyweight factors on connective tissue breakdown. The effect of evaporative cooling is also different, with the high speeds associated with cycling. They are, however both forms of physical exercise, and as such the body will respond physiologically and biochemically to training stimuli in a similar manner. Thus there is cross correlation from the studies done on cyclists and runners, assuming the study design is sound. The study design of the EPO/running study being discussed does not negate Mr. Canova's assertion, IE that lifetime altitude trained and adapted, world class runners do not benefit from EPO administration. The study in question does not address the effects of EPO that subset of athletes. So the discussion pretty much is moot.

OLD SMTC SOB wrote:

The study design of the EPO/running study being discussed does not negate Mr. Canova's assertion, IE that lifetime altitude trained and adapted, world class runners do not benefit from EPO administration. The study in question does not address the effects of EPO that subset of athletes. So the discussion pretty much is moot.

I agree with your observation, but the discussion is not moot; just calling out Canova is not correct.

Here we have an observation that a group of altitude-trained Kenyans with an average training experience of 5 years and average personal bests of 1:03/2:12 improved after 4 weeks with EPO doping and unchanged training by 5%.

I find that noteworthy. Furthermore, as we know from Ashenden, their Hct increases would not have triggered these generous ABP thresholds, i.e. the blood passport would not have helped here. Such dopers can only be caught by OOC tests (if there are tests during that period, if the testers can't be bribed, and if the athlete opens the door).

And yes, the lack of a control group and the differing RPEs from 15 to 16 are disappointing - maybe next time!

You should address these arguments to Rekrunner. He is the one who denies there is any similarity of validity in comparing how cyclists and runners respond to EPO.

OLD SMTC SOB wrote:

They are, however both forms of physical exercise, and as such the body will respond physiologically and biochemically to training stimuli in a similar manner. Thus there is cross correlation from the studies done on cyclists and runners, assuming the study design is sound.

Rekrunner is a liar wrote:

You should address these arguments to Rekrunner. He is the one who denies there is any similarity of validity in comparing how cyclists and runners respond to EPO.

OLD SMTC SOB wrote:

They are, however both forms of physical exercise, and as such the body will respond physiologically and biochemically to training stimuli in a similar manner. Thus there is cross correlation from the studies done on cyclists and runners, assuming the study design is sound.

Well, my comments were directed to no one in particular but just relative to the topic in general.

It may be noteworthy, however only for that group of runners, not the ones Mr Canova was referencing in his earlier posts. I will also say that the study design didn't impress me, so at least in my mid the results are suspect. As I stated before, there are way to many variables one has to take into consideration, thus the design of the study is critical if the results and conclusions are to be considered valid. And its tough to design a study to look at this type of thing, and do it right.

casual obsever wrote:

Here we have an observation that a group of altitude-trained Kenyans with an average training experience of 5 years and average personal bests of 1:03/2:12 improved after 4 weeks with EPO doping and unchanged training by 5%.

...And yes, the lack of a control group and the differing RPEs from 15 to 16 are disappointing - maybe next time!

Here is a version that doesn't cherry-pick details from here-and-there and the conclusion doesn't sound that obvious suddenly:

The best times PBs were 1:47-3:45-13:35-1:02-2:11 quality, but the 5 % improvement didn't take place in the event where they had reported their PB but instead in a 3 km run where during the first pre-EPO test:

1) At least the fastest runners were noticeable slower than what might've been predicted from their PBs even when one takes into account altitude etc.

2) And correspondingly the subjects themselves reported that their subjective RPE was on average 14.6 ("Somewhat hard - Hard") with some participants having the RPE's possibly as low as 12-13 (estimated from the SD). This corresponds on average to heart rate of 140-150 which is nothing reminiscent of a serious "all in" time trial.

In the post-EPO run where the roughly 5 % improvement was reported they self estimated that the effort was 1.5 RPE points higher corresponding that they felt that their heart rate had been some 15 beats higher. The average RPE of even this test was significantly lower than that of the Scottish 3K group, so the Kenyans most likely didn't give their best effort (on average).

If your conclusion is that a group of runners not giving their full effort (on average) improve their submaximal test run after knowing having been administered with (possibly) the most potent endurance drug ever and still doing submaximal effort (on average) while giving more effort (on average), then we are on the same page.

I didn't dismiss are argue against the 2018 study, for that very reason. On the contrary, bring me contradictory evidence, but spare me the false accusations and personal attacks.

Rekrunner is a liar wrote:

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.

Huh? Who suggested Coe used EPO in the 70s when it wasn't even around back then. I remember m!ndweak floating some crazy idea that EPO was available as early in the 70s...but that's about it.

Despite the many differences and conflicts here, I don't think there is one single poster that can say with a straight face that EPO was available in the 70s. So, who in their right mind would ever suggest that "Coe likely took EPO in the 1970s?"

Subway Surfers wrote:

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

There is no deception in my arguments.

Subway Surfers wrote:

So your argument that altitude training alone can explain the epo era is a shaky proposition.

That doesn't look like my argument. I'm sure I never argued "altitude training alone" can explain the EPO era.

I don't even believe "EPO+drugs+altitude training" together can explain the EPO-era.

I have often said EPO is a bad explanation for the EPO-era, based on the globalness of EPO and ease of evading testing, compared to the localness of great performances during the EPO-era.

I have also suggested that whatever EPO can do, "hi-lo" training can do legally, at least in large part.

I pretty much agree with OLD SMTC SOB. There are a lot of similarities between running and cycling, but also some significant differences, especially when overcoming the various factors that limits performance.

Rekrunner is a liar wrote:

You should address these arguments to Rekrunner. He is the one who denies there is any similarity of validity in comparing how cyclists and runners respond to EPO.

OLD SMTC SOB wrote:

They are, however both forms of physical exercise, and as such the body will respond physiologically and biochemically to training stimuli in a similar manner. Thus there is cross correlation from the studies done on cyclists and runners, assuming the study design is sound.

rekrunner wrote:

Subway Surfers wrote:

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

There is no deception in my arguments.

Subway Surfers wrote:

So your argument that altitude training alone can explain the epo era is a shaky proposition.

That doesn't look like my argument. I'm sure I never argued "altitude training alone" can explain the EPO era.

I don't even believe "EPO+drugs+altitude training" together can explain the EPO-era.

I have often said EPO is a bad explanation for the EPO-era, based on the globalness of EPO and ease of evading testing, compared to the localness of great performances during the EPO-era.

I have also suggested that whatever EPO can do, "hi-lo" training can do legally, at least in large part.

LOl. You really covered all your bases there to the point of contradicting yourself.

I don't want to mischaracterize it:

rekrunner wrote:

I don't even believe "EPO+drugs+altitude training" together can explain the EPO-era.

I have often said EPO is a bad explanation for the EPO-era, based on the globalness of EPO and ease of evading testing, compared to the localness of great performances during the EPO-era.

Then what is your explanation? Look at the number of EPO positives since the first ban with Barbi waaaaay back in 2001 - something like close to 200 positives since then. In addition, you have 80 or so ABP sanctions for hematological anomalies since the implementation of the passport in 09. And you know neither of these numbers represents the actual number of EPO users & blood dopers who have evaded detection, and continue to evade detection.

So, therefore, why so many athletes banned & sanctioned for EPO/blood doping for a drug and method that according to you, yields very little or nothing at all, in improving performance?

Are runners really that stupid to juice up on a drug that is of no, or very little benefit, when they could have improved so easily with just harder training? Are unscrupulous coaches & doping doctors that stupid to recommend & administer EPO/blood doping to athletes when the risks of getting caught would outweigh the little or no benefit received from the use? This just didn't start overnight but has been going on now for almost 3 decades strong and is continuing with a recent fury of top elites getting popped (e.g., Kiprop, Jebett, Bett, etc.).

If EPO/blood doping is as ineffective as you postulate you would have thought that athletes & coaches would have figured this out by now...and this PED/doping method would have stopped a long time ago. ?

It would have stopped if Jon Orange had just finished what he started but he is content to troll doping threads rather than taking his rants into the mainstream.

For some reason he won't ask the difficult questions to researchers and WADA.

He must be worried that he'll get blown out of the water when he stammers out his "Drugs don't work...uh thermoregulatory limits! Lance only did 6.0 like an average Joe! HOMEOSTASIS BITCHES!"

Repeat ad infinitum.

That's a joke, right? You have post after post after post...

rekrunner wrote:

I didn't dismiss are argue against the 2018 study, for that very reason.

JonO pops up periodically after learning a new word or concept and inserting it into his argument and repeating it ad naseum.

His new word now is thermoregulatory limit. It does not appear in any of his previous writings but now is the key to his whole "theory" if it can be called that. He previously did the same thing with homeostasis.

I honestly think ignoring him is the best thing. I think he is likely mentally ill.