still difficult,sir...
I used translate page .still can't understand completely.So what you mean is 12 hours of life (no training)at low altitude and 12 hours of of life at high altitude is more effective than 24 hour of life at high altitude?interesting. So train low and live high is effective in several ways, isn't it?
if altitude tents are legal, then their is no reason blood doping should be illegal.
I think what makes this whole issue frustrating is western ethnocentricism. It parallels the genetic engineering issue. Bubba lard ass Clinton put a moratorium on cloning while the French and Italians are proceeding and leading the way similar to EPO. The science has exponentially outpaced our means of making laws and enforcement for perf enhancement and genetic engineering. Other cultures view this issue differently. Their is no concensus on morals even in our own culture.
Can't you please tell me how you got to that sensational conclusion...?
its simply another way for those who do not have access to high altitude, to perform as if they had trained at altitude.
fred wrote:
Alberto strapped on a plastic contraption called an
Altitude Simulator in the 80's. My buddy and I had one.
We called it the attitude stimulator. No one whined about
it, then, except for old ladies who were startled.
Do you think this device had any effect? I assume it was similar to the Powerlung, a device on the market now that is advertised as "resistance training for the respiratory system".
With the new research suggesting Intermittent Hypoxic Training (IHT) is more beneficial than steady state hypoxic training (ie, sleeping in a tent for 8 hrs), I wonder if using the Powerlung device can create a hypoxic state and have the same effect on EPO production?
Supposedly some type of barium crystals removed oxygen from
the air in the altitude simulator. I covered up half of
the hole, and puked for sixteen hours. I got oxygen at the
hospital, but whether I had altitude sickness or not I
don't know. I'm sure the manufacturer would have a pile of
lawsuits nowadays.
Yes, the next phase of hypoxic training will be breathing
into a paper bag in between intervals.
Do different percentages of nitrogen, oxygen and
carbon dioxide create subtle changes?
fred wrote:
Yes, the next phase of hypoxic training will be breathing
into a paper bag in between intervals.
Do different percentages of nitrogen, oxygen and
carbon dioxide create subtle changes?
Seriously though, why not? The new IHT machines produce air with 10% - 15% oxygen to stimulate 19,000 to about 12,000 feet elevation. An hour a day on the machine, while continutally going back and forth between low oxygen and normal air every few minutes, is supposed to have greater positive impact on EPO production.
It kind of makes sense. You are repeatedly in an extremely low oxygen environment for 5 minutes at a time so your body is stimulated to increase red blood cells so it can operate better when these hypoxic "intervals" occur.
If you could kind of do the same thing with a paper bag, or Powerlung, I don't know, but it would be so cheap and easy it is intriguing. Maybe kind of dangerous too, since you wouldn't know exactly how little oxygen you were getting, but still . . .
NO normal human being spends all that time running! all that going round and round and round on a track is just bizarre. Its not natural...BAN TRAINING NOW!
WeldonJ, WeldonJ, WeldonJ??. YOU(or was it your brother? You guys are the same person to me, I am sorry) insist that Regina Jacobs is on drugs, even though there is no proof or, as far as I am concerned, even no particularly strong arguments to say so (except that she skipped some meets), but then you JUMP to defend the new princess of running, Paula Radcliffe, as being beyond doubt. Just because Paul Radcliffe calls everyone else a cheater, does not mean she is clean (oh, and by the way, she is now recanting her statements that the Chinese 10k record holder was dirty. Why back down now?? ). What about Paula?s sudden insanely good times, huh? Where is the proof that she stopped using her tent (whether it is wrong or not is another question?.we will get to that)? Nowhere, but you seem awfully sure. There is no reason to give Paula Radcliffe a free pass on the drug issue and accuse all others. Her improvements are startling.
So, the tent thing?..is THAT the reason for her remarkable recent times?? Could be. And Waz?s point was right on: there are many gray areas in what should be considered legal, and what should not. This is one more, and rightfully so. It is very similar to the classic Blood doping and enhancing you own testosterone, believe me. EPO is a natural substance, so is testosterone, so is your own blood you took out of your own body, so is Ma Huang (ephedra), so is HGH, and so are LOTS of things that are ?banned substances.? But, as others pointed out, many other ?natural? supplements such as protein powders, creatine, etc., are not banned. People who brought up such ?artificial? things as sneakers, tracks, weight machines are out to lunch, because that is different. There is no equipment or clothes that is banned. But is an altitude tent a piece of equipment?? You are breathing in an artificial versions of natural substances found in the air? Isn?t this closer to using synthetic EPO than a using a weight machine? As far as substances taken into your body, where is the line drawn on what is legal & what is not? Is it about artificiality? In my mind, these seemingly arbitrary rules concerning legality appear to be based on 3 things:
Can the product GREATLY enhance one?s performance? Steroids & EPO (among many) fall under this category.
Are they considered very risky/dangerous to your health? Again, Steroids & EPO meet this standard, as does high amounts of such products of Ma Huang (ephedra) and other stimulants.
Is the product/tool unnaturally administered and/or can it be found in food? Things like EPO & Steroids are injected, which seems ?not natural,? and can not be found in food. Things like protein or creatine are found in food and are eaten/swallowed, a seemingly more natural process. Caffeine can be administered as a pill but is found in food/drink. It is banned above certain levels. I know there are exceptions to this rule, but this is a consideration I believe.
And I know what some are ready to say, but trust me, carbo or protein-loading above what the average person eats will not make the difference that high Steriod & EPO use will. And they do not pose the same health risks (of course there are risks of too much protein, as there is to too much anything practically) as using the banned substances. So if the above 3 points are the considerations, how does the altitude tent stack up?
It appears to greatly help performance
It COULD be dangerous for sure. Altitude sickness anyone?? If it is increasing your red-blood cells, and your blood thickness, aren?t these the same dangers as EPO overuse??
Is breathing in artificially changed, synthetically created ?air? unnatural? Sounds like it to me.
The IOC, and the world in general, accept environments that ?naturally? exist such at the air around mountains. But artificially ?recreating these environments to breathe in ?man-made air???? Isn?t that closer to using synthetic EPO (for the last time, a ?natural? substance) than just buying nice sneakers or eating lots of protein? It is DEFINITELY a gray area. And, yes, I believe this despite molfin?s well-meaning attempts at English and at contradicting Waz?s point. Lastly,
IF THE TENT RAISES YOUR RED-BLOOD CELL LEVELS TOO HIGH, IT IS A BANNED TOOL!! Since testing for EPO and its sister substances(especially) is nearly impossible, testers rely on a red-blood cell % of total blood volume as a test (at least in cycling). If you are above 50%, than you are targeted/considered to be doping (similar to the testosterone/epitestosterone ratio done in testing for ?Roids).
So??Paula better be careful, and I think these tents are at LEAST a gray area, if not flat out illegal. Maybe Paula is no more ?clean? than Regina or any others she has accused.
[quote]Kurdt wrote:
>>Just because Paul Radcliffe calls everyone else a cheater, does not mean she is clean (oh, and by the way, she is now recanting her statements that the Chinese 10k record holder was dirty. Why back down now?? ).
She is thought to be clean but not because she calls others cheaters(well not a few did but not is called so ).But because she fights against doping.
>>What about Paula?s sudden insanely good times, huh?
First ,as you know she has been good runners .insanely?how do you find those insane?8:22?14:31?30:01?
>> There is no reason to give Paula Radcliffe a free pass on the drug issue and accuse all others. Her improvements are startling.
where does free pass exist?She is allowed to accuse all others?I didn't know that.Are you really thinking her improvement so startling?As for 10000m do you remember how many times she ran last year?
Well she is stout and has grown consitently .This time,marathon exercise(as Deena said also,I don't know),and rest .Radcliffe apparently needed rest.Well it maybe good for training and improve her,but if one want to produce good results ,they need rest.
>> But is an altitude tent a piece of equipment?? You are breathing in an artificial versions of natural substances found in the air? Isn?t this closer to using synthetic EPO than a using a weight machine?
much more closer to high altitude training...?
>> Can the product GREATLY enhance one?s performance? Steroids & EPO (among many) fall under this category.
It seems to me wheather greatly or a little doesn't have much to do with whether they are doping or not .Forget that.It only means that if they don't have effect ,we usually don't need to talk about it ,and no one uses.
>> Is the product/tool unnaturally administered and/or can it be found in food?
Again even in food it is not main concern ,isn't it?What matter is whether they are found in body or not. if yes,it is abnormal amount or not or taken in abnormal ways or not.as doping rule goes.
>> It COULD be dangerous for sure. Altitude sickness anyone??
No one here said even it is dangerous apparently than high altitude training,we should not ban them.
>> Is breathing in artificially changed, synthetically created ?air?Eunnatural? Sounds like it to me.
mm.after all is it just nitorogen and oxygen .and it's different from substance doping case ?What they are breathing are just normal oxygen and nitorogen .Main problem here is not what we take ,but how ,isn't it?suppose there exist in nature quite same gas in some kind of unknown place where people rarely go?what would you do?
>>But artificially ?recreating these environments to breathe in ?man-made air?E?? Isn?t that closer to using synthetic EPO (for the last time, a ?natural?Esubstance) than just buying nice sneakers or eating lots of protein?
again here,it is different from substance doping.
And sorry if I expressed as if Engligh was strange language.I didn't mean and din't think so at all.
>> Maybe Paula is no more ?clean?Ethan Regina or any others she has accused.
Please don't treat some people who use grey (if I admit so),and people who use illegal way in same ways.they are different at all.
And at last,
sorry ,if my comment is rude.But your post is interesting and I felt good.
Kurdt,
What they test for is recombitant EPO or rEPO. It is not natural and is a synthetic substitute for naturally occuring EPO.
DougC
The fact that they only test for synthetic EPO shows that the test is already way out of date, there are already more advanced processes on the market which, when taken allow the kidneys to produce more EPO, this is naturally occuring EPO but in unnatural quantities, therefore having the same effects as a synthetic form.
------------------------------------------------------
'Even more worrying than the incidence of synthetic EPO are the very latest drugs which can be used to enhance endurance performance by stimulating the kidneys themselves to produce more erythropoietin. This is the body?s natural response to the drug and this is a very similar scenario to the body responing to breathing an artificially synthesised mixture of gases (which occurs using a hypoxic tent). The partial pressure of O2 can be specifically tailored within the tent to give a specific individual the maximum EPO response as individuals vary in their EPO response to different oxygen partial pressures. Practically speaking, it is harder to get this precise control in a high altitude environment because of varying climactic factors. '
-------------------------------------------------------
Waz is right - humans do vary in their erythropoetin response to a certain altitude.
There is considerable variation in this response even in a relatively homogenous group of people such as long distance runners. As WJ seems into studies here is just one reference for this (can be read on pub med or medlines):
Chapman RF, Stray-Gundersen J, Levine BD. Individual variation in response to altitude training.J Appl Physiol. 1998 Oct;85(4):1448-56.
It does not take much to work out that there will be an optimum altitude/partial pressure of oxygen to get a maximum EPO response from a certain individual. You can get a very precise control over the partial pressure of oxygen that you breath in when using a hypoxic altitude tent. More precise than you can get when training/living in a high altitude environment.
This level of control can be used to get the maximum epo response in an athlete using a hypoxic tent. Yes they could also live/train at a certain altitude which is best for them but there are factors such as climate which can intefere with the degree of precision that you have in this case.
Waz is also right about the latest generation of drugs being developed. In the 80's and 90's the big advances in pharmacology were seen in the development of synthetic proteins such rEPO or HGH (perhaps the two best examples I can give for this message board). Now pharmacology is moving on to work at the level of gene transcription and drugs are targeted to the molecular level and aim to stimulate the body itself to produce more of the desried hormone.
Yes, work has been done on the erythropoietin pathway and there are substances which can be taken and which will stimulate the kidneys themselves to produce more EPO. Because it is the body's own EPO being produced does this mean that these substances should be legal ?
When you consider the use of hypoxic tents we now have a very interesting dilemma:
! A person can take a drug that stimulates their kidneys to produce more EPO. They take a specific dose of this drug tailored for themselves to get the maximum amount of EPO production. This raises their red cell count and theoretically they have improved endurance.
2. A person breaths a artificially syhthesised mixture of gases which stimulates their kidneys to produce more epo. They can also alter the concentration of gases that breath quickly and precisely to get the maximum EPO production.
What is the difference ? Both of these processes are targeting a specific physiological pathway to improve endurance.
If people think that it is 'natural and not a drug' to just change the concentration of oxygen in gases that you breath remember that you can drink coffee, but you can also concentrate the caffeine found in the coffee plant and you have a caffeine pill. If you take over a certain amount of these it is thought to be illegal by the governing bodies because that level of caffeine is considered to be physiologically effective as a stimulant.
As I said this is a huge dilemma and not one that I see being resolved easily.
waz,
It seems pretty simple to me. Your claim is that athletes can now take a new drug "which can be used to enhance endurance performance by stimulating the kidneys themselves to produce more erythropoietin." That new drug needs to be banned and tested for. End of story. That is a lot different than sleeping at altitude (tent or in Flagstaff).
DougC
But as yet maybe it isn't possible to test for it, so at the moment the only people whoo are getting caught are those who are behind the game... You can guarantee that as the testing catches up the treatments will move on.
sorry,I can't have much time and can't write much.maybe ten days later
But I got it.I read Japanese article and understand the whole issue.I understand others wants to say.it's clearer than anythingelse to me.Forget all the things I said.
It's not even difficult to test ,how to ban,about tent ,about air.
so. all this debates. no mention of the Oregon Project.
Alberto, Dan Browne and the boys.
Also remember Reeser being touted as \\\"committed\\\"
by using a tent on these pages.
Radcliffe and Armstrong sure have stirred things up.
Randy, you don't get out much, do you? You're at least one presidency behind.