Yes... Schumacher said, up to 1 minute over 10,000 - a whopping 4%.
But, if you are on the AIU's radar, then you have to stay under 25 IU per kg. Probably only 2% then, unless you inject daily.
A while back, I think Ross Tucker said perhaps up to 7%. I’m not sure if he meant a 7% improvement in time or running economy. Ross,if you are reading this, could you correct/clarify?
You can tell your ‘friend’ that there is an ‘Outdoor’ magazine article where one of the writers takes it for a few months. Basically said that he never got tired and pretty much felt invincible while on it. Victor Conte talks about it too. Instant recovery and allows for multiple hard workouts in short period of time which would otherwise not be possible. There is a reason athletes use it. Basically, it just makes it easier to work harder.
What are the negative effects?
Armstronglivs and Rekrunner argue about you on letsrun but other than that no negative effects apart from the possibility of blood clots which can be avoided by controlling dosage and monitoring your blood for them and acting quickly if they appear.
1% increase in hematocrit with no increase in blood volume, thus a 1% increase in "global hemoglobin" (it's difficult/expensive to measure so not viable for most of us), will net ~ .62% increase in aerobic power output, which in turn will net an approximate .38% increase in speed at aerobic-dominant pace some things to consider with that info an event like the 1500 taps into a considerable amount of power through the anaerobic process (can be over 40% for anaerobic monsters, closer to 20% for anaerobically challenged), and epo even before it has time to make more rbcs has shown that it helps shuttle lactate and/or allow one to sustain higher lactate levels without "tying up", but generally speaking one can still get a close approximation assuming it won't increase aerobic power (even though it actually does somewhat) ... of course we know that a clean 2:12 runner is not going to suddenly run 2:00-2:01, so what gives? well, for starters how fast we can run is not just due to oxygen-carrying capacity, absolute speed (flying 150-200 speed is a good metric) matters, tendon elasticity matters, other things matter, but i find it very hard to quantify and i think my experience and knowledge with the substance has led me to believe to some extent (of course he can't completely tell the truth don't be naive) that Renato saying the best of the best east africans (many many generations of ancestors lived at altitude in generally warm weather with very consistent moderately high UV exposure year-round) simply do not benefit (as much) as people who come from sea-level-ish ancestors so as one gets faster, i would say it is indeed true it helps them less by %, but there are such small gaps among the very best that a small % can make a drastic difference so it's still a game changer ... there are of course other factors, especially psychological like the potential of taking training, diet, recovery much more seriously when using because "now you're being serious and want to maximize gains and make it worth it", and doing the same in craces who is helped most by increasing hematocrit (again, global hemoglobin for you sticklers)? people born, raised and descended from sea-level ancestors, with a lot of basic/max/raw speed reserve in the tank (like a 4:30 miler that can run a 23-flat 200 as opposed to 4:30 miler with 26-flat 200 speed) and an aerobic system that has not been fully maximized (either short-term in your own single life, or long-term in the many lives of your ancestors due to living at sea-level and doing viking stuff with swords and boats instead of running around and generally trying to not overheat or die of thirst/starvation) it's not super complicated, but generally this is all just sitting in my head and i don't have discussions in words with myself about it so am not used to writing it all out thus it comes across a bit convoluted surely TLDR: can't properly estimate the OPs examples of 4:30 or 4:10 miler because i can't accurately calculate their aerobic:anaerobic power output ratio without another pb being provided and i don't know how much absolute speed reserve they are working with or what their starting hct is and how high they are willing to go (still lots of room for improvement beyond 50%, can't recommend going above the upper 50s though it gets a little dicey especially if you sweat profusely) anyway, feel free to ama, i promise i know more about this than over 99% of the forum (and nobody ever lies on here so it's legit for sure for sure)
Ooooh math! My favorite! You said ask you anything, so here goes ...
First, I genuinely appreciate that you give a long list of other non-aerobic considerations which can also play a significant role as to whether any aerobic potential can be realized. In short, I would agree that EPO can only theoretically help if the athlete is limited by aerobic weakness. But this is not the only factor that can limit performance.
Next, ignoring your moniker, where does your model that 1% hematocrit/hemoglobin is equivalent to 0.62% power and 0.38% speed come from, and how would that be considered valid across the 25% jump from 40 to 50 (or a 50% jump from 40 to 60)? My gut tells me that anemia below a normal range can lead to significant loss of both power and speed, perhaps matching your model, but above a normal range, the gains will be comparatively much smaller, and at some point polycythemia will even reverse any benefit.
What does research and history say? They are far more conservative than your 8.7%.
Most blood doping researchers do not reach the peak levels you do in your calculations, limiting their upper bound estimates to 3% or 5%. We see above "experts" like Schumacher say "up to 1 minute" for a 10K, which is about 3%, apparently basing it off other studies like a blood transfusion study on 32-34 minute runners (n=6, no controls), and the infamous 5% from Pitsiladis on Kenyans (no controls), when researchers took an estimated 8:00 caliber runners, got them to tempo 3K for 9:20 (marathon pace) as a "clean baseline", then improve to 9:00 (half-marathon pace) after 4 weeks of EPO. (In my opinion, even these "conservative" estimates for "elite" benefit are "optimistic" for reasons I have explained in detail elsewhere, but the short version is the complete lack of data and experience with elite performances. Blood doping research experts are not elite performance experts, and we should not pretend otherwise.)
It's interesting that your gut says that sea-level athletes descended from sea-level ancestors stand to benefit the most, as we did not historically see any of this EPO benefit for sea-level athletes during the EPO-era, even in nations with a reputation for blood doping.
Everyone can do their own performance analysis, but my historical investigation of the top times from 1990-2018 showed East Africans (men) improving 3x more, relative to a 1990 benchmark (average of top-5), than sea-level athletes (men) from 5-continents combined, across all events from 1500m to the marathon. The number of quality runners (above the 1990 benchmark) from East Africa outnumbered the sea-level 5-continents by a factor of 11x. In a second analysis, going back to the 1960s, looking just at men's 1500m, 5000m, and the marathon, East Africans and non-Africans were fairly equal until 1992 (1500m and 5000m) and 2000 (marathon), but then East Africans kept improving while non-Africans did not.
Say I'm a 4:30 miler. will EPO get me to 4:10? What if i'm a 4:10 miler, will EPO get me a sub-4? Asking for a friend.
Didn't they have EPO in the 1960s and 1970s? Wasn't it used for recovering from injuries? If that is true than the substance is GOLDEN!
That isn't correct. It wasn't available as a drug in sports in the '60's and '70's. It was developed as a medicine to treat chronic kidney disease in 1987. It began being used as a ped in the late '80's.
So many words to say what you always have - EPO isn't really a performance enhancing drug. (Those you say it helps, who are "aerobically weak", aren't elite athletes). However, the decades of its use as a ped by so many top athletes says you are bamboozled by your own selective arguments. What so many athletes choose to do trumps anything you say.
Didn't they have EPO in the 1960s and 1970s? Wasn't it used for recovering from injuries? If that is true than the substance is GOLDEN!
That isn't correct. It wasn't available as a drug in sports in the '60's and '70's. It was developed as a medicine to treat chronic kidney disease in 1987. It began being used as a ped in the late '80's.
Not EPO, but ask any fan about Lasse Viren's "double double" in the '72 and '76 Olympics.
Turns out Russia was also using blood transfusions since the '70s.
"Poor man's" EPO is altitude training since 1968, not to mention injecting plasma from anemic rabbits since 1906.
So many words to say what you always have - EPO isn't really a performance enhancing drug. (Those you say it helps, who are "aerobically weak", aren't elite athletes). However, the decades of its use as a ped by so many top athletes says you are bamboozled by your own selective arguments. What so many athletes choose to do trumps anything you say.
We know from experience you have a problem with "so many words". Indeed you only want succinct views without any supporting discussion. You should leave the detailed discussions to the grownups.
I only agreed with a math guy that "there are of course other factors" and about "who is helped most by increasing hematocrit", and asked him some follow up questions about his math model, compared to research and history. Your answers don't support his model nor do they explain history.
How athletes ultimately perform trumps what athletes choose to do, and what you say about it.
That isn't correct. It wasn't available as a drug in sports in the '60's and '70's. It was developed as a medicine to treat chronic kidney disease in 1987. It began being used as a ped in the late '80's.
Not EPO, but ask any fan about Lasse Viren's "double double" in the '72 and '76 Olympics.
Turns out Russia was also using blood transfusions since the '70s.
"Poor man's" EPO is altitude training since 1968, not to mention injecting plasma from anemic rabbits since 1906.
"Poor's man's EPO" doesn't compete with the real thing. If it did athletes wouldn't bother with it and take the risk of a ban.
So many words to say what you always have - EPO isn't really a performance enhancing drug. (Those you say it helps, who are "aerobically weak", aren't elite athletes). However, the decades of its use as a ped by so many top athletes says you are bamboozled by your own selective arguments. What so many athletes choose to do trumps anything you say.
We know from experience you have a problem with "so many words". Indeed you only want succinct views without any supporting discussion. You should leave the detailed discussions to the grownups.
I only agreed with a math guy that "there are of course other factors" and about "who is helped most by increasing hematocrit", and asked him some follow up questions about his math model, compared to research and history. Your answers don't support his model nor do they explain history.
How athletes ultimately perform trumps what athletes choose to do, and what you say about it.
Your lengthy waffle doesn't improve your arguments - or disguise them. ("Doping doesn't work for altitude trained distance runners, only Soviet era women 800 runners"...)
Mathematical models aren't the athletes who have been using EPO since the late '80's.
This post was edited 1 minute after it was posted.
It is the same with losing weight, for example. If I lose 25 lbs, I would be much better. If Nuguse lost 25 pounds, he would be dead.
Upping my mileage from 40 to 80 mpw might bring me huge gains. Grant Fisher going from 110 to 150 might not have the same benefit because there are upper limits for all these things.
Laughed very hard at this. Of course 40 to 80 for an oldish dude like yourself might much more likely get you injured :)
It is the same with losing weight, for example. If I lose 25 lbs, I would be much better. If Nuguse lost 25 pounds, he would be dead.
Upping my mileage from 40 to 80 mpw might bring me huge gains. Grant Fisher going from 110 to 150 might not have the same benefit because there are upper limits for all these things.
Laughed very hard at this. Of course 40 to 80 for an oldish dude like yourself might much more likely get you injured :)
When are you going to go from 0 to 40 and run your sub-3 marathon?
Thanks for all the detailed information on calculating possible improvements. I don't quite understand the math, so it would be great if you could help me better understand.
Let's say someone has a natural hematocrit level of 50 and a marathon pr of 2h5min. Could they increase hematocrit to 60? Would there be any way EPO could get them under 2:00:35?
What if there natural hematocrit level was 45 with the same 2h5min PR? How much faster could EPO make them run. (I understand that there are additional variables - please fill them as you think appropriate.
Not EPO, but ask any fan about Lasse Viren's "double double" in the '72 and '76 Olympics.
Turns out Russia was also using blood transfusions since the '70s.
"Poor man's" EPO is altitude training since 1968, not to mention injecting plasma from anemic rabbits since 1906.
"Poor's man's EPO" doesn't compete with the real thing. If it did athletes wouldn't bother with it and take the risk of a ban.
That's a popular belief, not only among ignorant fans, but also among athletes, and/or their support staff, who perceive the benefit is worth the risk.
rojo wrote: Laughed very hard at this. Of course 40 to 80 for an oldish dude like yourself might much more likely get you injured :)
So true! I laugh every day at the old version of myself I've become. Growing old is not for the faint of heart, as they say; but staying young forever is not actually possible, and dying is worse, so I guess that is why I am laughing about growing old (and not crying).
But it is true, everything in training has diminishing returns. Otherwise we'd see pros running 200 miles a week. They don't because it doesn't work. We'd see people taking so much EPO that their hematocrit was at 80. Or losing weight until they weighed 90 lbs. We'd do 60x400 like Quinton Cassidy every time we stepped on the track...The law of diminishing returns is just a fact in all these areas.
This post was edited 10 minutes after it was posted.
Help us build the best running shoe review site for a chance to win a LetsRun t-shirt.Help us build the best running shoe review site for a chance to win one of 10 LetsRun t-shirts.