Discussing the effects of proper training : why athletes are able to improve ?

It's rather convenient to say you don't believe PEDs are effective for elite athletes in the absence of proof from scientific research given that it would be impossible from an ethical and practical standpoint to conduct such research. Common sense should be enough for anyone, let alone a top level coach, to know that the ability to manipulate blood parameters and stimulate muscle regeneration would be enormously beneficial for an athlete.

Again you do the mistake to look at "categories", like Caucasic people, Eastern-African, Asian etc.

Instead, the category are made of people having similar attitude for doing something. In this case, people with a very high aerobic ability.

Of course EPO can work with an elite East African runner having a chronic kidney disease. But when he has a chronic kidney disease he's no more an elite runner, is a "normal sick person", so doesn't represent the "category" we are speaking about.

Lol etc..., you seem to know something about physiology. I ask you to stop to be polemic, and to give some contribution to the discussion, using your knowledge but, at the same time, forgetting some "stereotype" that you have already in your mind.

Please, try to answer some question I ask in very precise way.

For example, I wrote before that Hct is the same if you have 5 millions RBC with the volume of 80 (MCV), or 4 millions RBC with the volume of 100.

Question : do you think these two Hct (seemingly identical) can produce the same effects in transporting O2, or there is some difference ? I ask you this because the increase of the number of erytrocytes is typical reaction of the body (it happens in 80% of the cases) when a person (not only athlete) moves from sea level to altitude with an exposure longer than 3 weeks, while the increase of the MCV is the result of adaptation to altitude, as in people living in that situation.

Please, give your opinion about this first question. After this, I have many other question for you and who can be able to answer.

Thank you.

Explanations wrote:

But surely training increases the number of porters?

We know runners stagnate from monotonous training. So it's clear that different types of training will influence the body differently. And the fact that varied training is necessary implies that there are many different limiting factors.

lol lol lol lol wrote:

The above idea is reasonable and correct, but all the anecdotal evidence I've encountered, and the studies that have been done on low-dose EPO use and blood doping suggest that the "optimal" blood composition WRT RBC (red blood cells) is far, far above physiological levels--those found in non-drug or blood-doping aided people.

This is interesting. I hope you continue to contribute in a serious way.

And of course it's just not one limiting factor. There are many ways to make a car run faster. And probably many more to make a human run faster.

Once again, I am an idiot about this biology stuff. I have a serious question though.

But I have heard that Viagra supposedly helps people perform better at altitude.

If this is true, would a runner who obtains more "lorries" by using EPO also benefit from taking something like Viagra?

Renato Canova wrote:

Of course EPO can work with an elite East African runner having a chronic kidney disease. But when he has a chronic kidney disease he's no more an elite runner, is a "normal sick person", so doesn't represent the "category" we are speaking about.

So, you appear to be saying that EPO will boost RBC count in a formerly elite runner whose RBC count has been depleted by illness, but not the same person who is in ideal shape. This suggests that you are saying that with the right intensity and blend of smart training, and maybe enough "io," these athletes can attain a blood profile and oxygen-transport capacity that is so superb that EPO can't add anything more to it.

In short, these unusually gifted and well-coached athletes can literally outpace the diabolical methods of modern sports pharmacology.

'

I wonder if this occurs in other sports -- say, weightlifting. If a power-lifter trains wisely, eats a diet consisting of the right proportion of protein, carbs and fats, sleeps enough, and has that intangible desire to win about him, he both won't benefit from steroids and will be able to beat those who use steroids. Is this a suitable analogy?

Renato, I assume that having a higher plasma volume with the same absolute number of RBCs is advantageous. Lower viscosity for one, but also able to sweat more before the stroke volume, blood pressure, dehydration, etc. sets in, yes?

When I moved from sea-level to 1900m my hct went from 40 to about 43. My blood volume wasn't tested, but I would guess it rose as well. Mostly I remember being able to build up a very high level of lactate (caused by attacking in a cycling race) and about 30-60 seconds later I would be ready to do it again. When at sea-level I would need 2-3 minutes in between the same sort of attack.

So my experience is that living and training at altitude helps to "buffer" or possibly use the lactate as fuel quicker. Maybe through a rise in 2,3-BPG?

KMB, we are specifically discussing about EPO, not about generalized effects of doping.

I already wrote several times that, with the best possible training only, NEVER an athlete can reach the same level of muscle strength and explosivity, and this fact is well documented by the list of WR : no WR in throwing, few WR in jumping, and no WR for women in every event where the main physical quality is the muscle strength (practically any events but long distances) were established after 1988, when the antidoping became more effective vs/ steroids (Ben Johnson docet).

But blood doping is something else. While the increase of muscle strength is directly connected with the improvement of the performance in all the events where muscle strength has the main role, with EPO we have the increase of ability to transport Oxygen, and there is no real demonstration that this characteristic is ALWAYS connected with the increase in performance.

For example, many speak about VO2, but the importance of VO2 in middle distances is not fundamental. In other words, the best performances are not depending on the level of VO2, of course for goups of athletes with medium-high level of this value.

For example, the first athlete running Marathon under 2:10 (the Aussie Derek Clayton), had a VO2 under 70, which we can find in several athletes of medium level, and a lot of athletes with better VO2 never were able running so fast.

The final question is : which is the most important limiting factor for running fast long distances ? It's the transportation of Oxygen, or is some other factor ?

I think there is something else, more important of the ability to transport O2, and, looking at all the data I have (from Italian, Ukrainian, Kenyan, Ethiopian and Chinese runners), I think the limiting factor is in the ability to EXTRACT Oxygen from the air, rather than the ability to transport it.

This means that to increase over some level the ability to transport something that you don't have is obviously useless, and EPO doesn't increase the ability to extract O2 from the Air.

Renato Canova wrote:

I already wrote several times that, with the best possible training only, NEVER an athlete can reach the same level of muscle strength and explosivity, and this fact is well documented by the list of WR : no WR in throwing, few WR in jumping, and no WR for women in every event where the main physical quality is the muscle strength (practically any events but long distances) were established after 1988, when the antidoping became more effective vs/ steroids (Ben Johnson docet).

From competing and training with National and International competitors in a major strength event, also having studied this at various Universities, I know from my personal experience that this IS possible to do without steriods or any another synthetic aid and depends entirely on ability and the proper training of the athlete.

However that issue is of totally no interest to me and I have no interest to waste time in discussing it. I do understand that many people BELIEVE such steroids to be required for strength events, but that is entirely not the case.

Renato Canova wrote:

.. and this fact is well documented by the list of WR : no WR in throwing, few WR in jumping, and no WR for women in every event where the main physical quality is the muscle strength (practically any events but long distances) were established after 1988, when the antidoping became more effective vs/ steroids (Ben Johnson docet).

.

That is not true. Both male and female javelin WRs were set long after 1988. The female one is very recent actually. I am quite convinced that both of them were clean. If you look at the male javelin WR holder you can see he doesn't look like a typical steroid user.

Renato:

What about drugs aiding with recovery? Sure everyone can improve their recovery with the use of PED and in that way train:

- Harder and improve more

- Stay more healthy and recover faster from injury

- Be in shape more often

Even though you you are Kenyan or not?

Read more:

http://www.letsrun.com/forum/flat_read.php?thread=6548516&page=2#ixzz3ck5pDbCp

Smoke&mirrors wrote:

It's rather convenient to say you don't believe PEDs are effective for elite athletes in the absence of proof from scientific research given that it would be impossible from an ethical and practical standpoint to conduct such research. Common sense should be enough for anyone, let alone a top level coach, to know that the ability to manipulate blood parameters and stimulate muscle regeneration would be enormously beneficial for an athlete.

Similarly, Renato lies because it is in his benefit to convince others that 1) his athletes are clean, and 2) doping is not a big deal anyway, because it doesn't do much. Hell--it wouldn't do anything at all of value to his clean clean CLEAN athletes, according to the Italian Scallion.

Now...how many ***genuinely*** clean athletes and clean coaches do you know who believe that EPO is of little or no value to top distance runners???

Now it's clear you don't know anything. In spite of what I requested (your opinion about a FACT), you again can't do anything else than to attack without any base and any knowledge. You are a clown.

Of course both the WR of javelin were set after 1988. Do you know that IAAF changed the javelin, two times for men (after the WR of 104.80 by Uwe Hohn in 1984) and one time for women in 1999 (after the WR of 80,00m of Petra Felke) ?

Also the WR of Triple Jump and Pole Vault for women were after 1988 : before these events didn't exist....

You need to know a little more about the athletic history before arriving to some conclusion, based on wrong hypothesis !

I'd be the most happy person if what you say could be true.

Unfortunately, the list of the best performances in all the athletic events based on high level of muscle strength seems to tell a different story...

Renato Canova wrote:

Of course both the WR of javelin were set after 1988. Do you know that IAAF changed the javelin, two times for men (after the WR of 104.80 by Uwe Hohn in 1984) and one time for women in 1999 (after the WR of 80,00m of Petra Felke) ?

Also the WR of Triple Jump and Pole Vault for women were after 1988 : before these events didn't exist....

You need to know a little more about the athletic history before arriving to some conclusion, based on wrong hypothesis !

OK, I understand what you meant, I stand corrected.

Yes, there are everal kinds of drugs which can help the recovery, and this happens for Kenyans and Ethiopians too.

But the point is : are we sure, methodologically speaking, that the BEST type of training is to continue to increase volume and intensity over some limit, inside which we don't need to "force" the recovery ?

In other word, are we sure that training hard 3 times per week can produce better results than training hard 2 times per week ?

Don't forget that one of the most important rules of training is to use a very high modulation, in order to have the better "overcompensation" or "supercompensation". For having the best interpretation of this rule, we need to give more attention to the rest in order to maintain the ability to produce the maximal individual quality.

Training with too much density has the only effect to "kill" the body ability to produce high quality, and without high quality it's not possible to be one of the best in the World.

Thanks for the thread; it is really interesting to hear your views on training.

I have no expertise on elite endurance athletes but do have some experience with exercise limitations in disease. I think that your idea that the limiting factor in elite runners may not be the hemoglobin level make sense physiologically, although I'm not sure of evidence for it beyond your observations.

Forgive me if I am misunderstanding your explanation, but I do, however, doubt that the specific limiting factor is transport of oxygen onto the hgb. If this were a limitation, it seems that it would result in low oxygen saturations (decreased percent of hgb attached to oxygen after passing through the lungs). This would be very easy to measure with 50 dollar pulse oximetry that can be bought at any pharmacy. My strong suspicion is that oxygen saturation would not drop in elite athletes after intense exercise, as this is, to my knowledge, not been described to occur in healthy people.

The cause of exercise limitation in super elite endurance athletes is a interesting question. As I said before, I know very little about the literature regarding studies of extremely fit individuals. However, testing the cause of the limitations of exercise is relatively easy, with noninvasive but somewhat involved cardiopulmonary exercise testing. This would differentiate oxygen uptake versus oxygen delivery versus something else as the cause of exercise limits. My guess is that top athletes would be similar to other healthy people, with oxygen delivery as the limit.

However, that still leaves the question of whether or not epo would improve oxygen delivery in top athletes.

If you take someone with a hematocrit of 45 with a 99% saturation level and you boost his hematocrit to 55 (same blood volume), you will still get a saturation level of 99%.

So **that** is not a problem.