EPO Helps Mid D More than Long Distance?

conte had about as much scientific qualification or coaching experience as my pet goldfish, who's been sadly deceased 20y

the man was a career bongo player !!!

he suggested the athlete threw the bucket at it, providing it was undetectable, as epo effectively was back then

i'm surprised he didn't suggest to dwain to drink fermented rancid stallion p!ss as the equine testosterone in it woud make him faster !!!

i doubt an elite 100 guy, doping only with epo & proper doses woud improve his 100 by more than ~ 0.3 - 0.4 %

-> for a clean 10.00 guy ->

~ 9.97 - 9.98

as for micro-dosing :

it is nonsense

anything with "micro" in it is going to have "micro" effects

complete waste of time & just placebo effect

if you are going to dope, you have to dope properly with serious dosages !!!

ventolin^3 wrote:

i doubt an elite 100 guy, doping only with epo & proper doses woud improve his 100 by more than ~ 0.3 - 0.4 %

Perhaps you are right on the quoted part.

But otherwise, for someone calling Conte uncscientific, your math is really sloppy and your understanding of microdosing, well, micro.

EPO does more than that wrote:But otherwise, for someone calling Conte uncscientific, your math is really sloppy and your understanding of microdosing, well, micro.

eh ???

go fetch me his phd in pharmacology/physiology/biochemistry

any will do !

as for my understanding of maths, where is it sloppy ???

as for "micro-dosing", you really have no clue about pharmacology

it is called micro & will have micro effects

it is complete waste of time & nothing more than placebo

epo does nothing worthwhile unless given in proper therapeutic doses

i used to adminster this stuff to anaemic patients from chronic uraemia in early '90s

if i suggested to my boss back then that i shoud microdose it & it woud have useful haemopoetic effect, he wouda booted me outta the hospital !!!

Aragon, your last sentence is actually a reference to the proper scientific method of investigation is it not?

My point is that scientists talk as much pseudosciene as non scientists.

Regarding noradrenaline as the natural performance enhancer all of us should be discussing, and with reference to amphetamines; methamphetamine use was considered essential by Tour de France winners Fausto Coppi and Jacques Anquetil in the 40s/50s and 60s. It should be obvious that they were somewhat brainwashed by pseudoscience, don't you agree?

Jon Orange wrote:

Aragon, your last sentence is actually a reference to the proper scientific method of investigation is it not?

My point is that scientists talk as much pseudosciene as non scientists.

Regarding noradrenaline as the natural performance enhancer all of us should be discussing, and with reference to amphetamines; methamphetamine use was considered essential by Tour de France winners Fausto Coppi and Jacques Anquetil in the 40s/50s and 60s. It should be obvious that they were somewhat brainwashed by pseudoscience, don't you agree?

I'm not sure I follow your post, but my point was this: If there are vague references to some effect here and there (EPO = more noradrenalin), it doesn't count as a concluding evidence. Even if there are one or two studies on increased heat tolerance associated with blood doping, I wouldn't think that the effect proven.

On the Vo2Max increasing effect of blood doping, practically every study has found a positive effect. In 1970s, there were a handful of studies that didn't find a positive effect and when the flaws of these dead end - studies were identified in late 1970s, every study from that point onward has found a positive effect, as far as I know. So I think there we do have a consensus albeit some debate exists whether you can apply the effect to well-trained athletes or even on the role of Vo2Max as an independent factor on performance.

On sports circles being ”pseudoscientific”, there are occasions when evidence for efficacy and mechanism are more better understood within the user community than in the scientific arena. Maybe, as you put it, users were operating on pseudoscientific grounds.

The users of (met)amphetamine were mostly likely operating solely on well-known positive experiences. If the mechanism of (met)amphetamine wasn't known, the positive effect was known withing the cycling community. In addition, during the the Second World War, there were literally millions of people, who used these substances for stimulation and elevated alertness.

Users were far ahead the ”scientific consensus” also with steroids. Already in 1960s and 1970s almost every user was certain that they helped to increase the exercise load, recovery and performance, but even in early 1980s there were scientific papers that concluded that it was all only a placebo-effect if effect at all. It is said that some bodybuilders covered their gym walls with these studies and read portions of them when they wanted a good laugh and a boost on performance.

No. They won. Doping works and you're a moron for believing otherwise.

A bit out of the scientific argument.

The doubts from the biological passport tests were opened by the biologic passport himself, that is introduced by inaccuracy or incapacity from detect the illegal substance.

Remember that Armstrong by the way, he passed more than 200 tests with negative results rom the classic test to find the illegal substance.

While transfer the owner of proof from the detected substance (classical doping test) to this new biologic passport, that is based in variations, the anti-doping agency opens the door to spread the dope usage. In a sport as athletics is where what really matters about the decision of who wins and lost is the competition day, in some cases we need to wait 2-3 years to know if that the competitors are doped or they don´t, with all tricky and doubtful conclusions ? ! This is a joke.

We read about Armstrong, that the Nike gave 500000 dollars to the UCI to catch one positive test in 1999, the anti-doping authorities will decide from now on in 2016, if he lost the Cycling World Champ of 93 ! ! They are declassifying the Turkish distance runner Elvan Abeyesse from the 10000m of the 2007 World Champs ! 8 years after to the run was done. With the biological passport, might be that if will know in 2020 how many there are doped in this 2015 Beijing World Champs, but with doubt. In 2018, 2020 who really cares that the winner did test positive in 2016 ?

What this means ? It means that we are debating about a kind of test that is doubtful and inappropriate and ineffective to detect doping and to detect in time. It means that we might suspect from every medal from this Beijing World Champs, because ther´s the chance that in several years from now we will know that they were doped. And the show must go on. Or we have a clear, undoubtful and universal doping test in time, or this kind of method is a charade.

We are all debating what´s the benefit of EPO in top runners and if what the science says is right or wrong, and meanwhile there are people doping that we will know in a few years on. The benefits (or don´t) of EPO for middle and long distance runs is interesting for the intellectual capacity, but useless to the prove who does and who doesn´t use illegal substances.

Thanks.

Jon Orange wrote:

The obvious point that everyone misses is that more oxygen uptake = more glycogen uptake and more heat production. So you tire more quickly.

Talk about pseudoscience?

And why ask a hematologist? How would they understand all of this?

I'll assume you are both stupid and ignorant enough to actually be serious.

Look it up under medical uses- the original use for EPO:

Elvan Abeylegesse seemed to think blood doping worked

Sporting performance is boosted or impaired by our emotional state.

The real performance ehancing effect of naturally produced adrenaline/noradrenalin and its effects on all energy systems must be considered.

The point here is that adrenaline/noradrenaline improves performance by increasing both oxygen economy through improved performance skills and oxygen delivery by increased glycogen and glucose uptake, and metabolism both aerobic and anaerobic.

What most of the researchers don't seem to realize is that lactate is the end product of glycolysis and glycogenolysis and thus there is no increase in aerobic metabolism without an increase in anaerobic metabolism. At the highest oxygen uptake levels, both are happening, along with increased noradrenaline concentration.

Regarding steroids and amptemamines, there seems to be no limit to the delusional thinking attributed to their 'efficacy'.

What amazes me, is just how little respect is given to the humand natural body's ability to improve and recover.

As another poster has pointed out, the belief that we can only reach our highest levels of performance with drugs, is the product of brainwashing.

ventolin^3 wrote:

conte had about as much scientific qualification or coaching experience as my pet goldfish, who's been sadly deceased 20y

I give you a lot of crap about a lot of your posts but just wanted to say I agree 100% with you about Conte--dude was good at marketing but hasn't displayed any real expertise with science.

Also, very sorry about Goldy...

Bad Wigins wrote:

. There's something new going on, some sort of metabolic accelerator that allows some elites to compete at a weight that would normally lead to injury or overtraining. And/or a new stimulant. Only the poorer countries are still recklessly using blood boosters.

Something after AICAR and GW150 that doesn't lead to cancer

That is GW501516. It's been a few years. They probably modified it.

EPO in concert with HGH and Test is killer though.

As "memo" stated in a very old interview, it's more about finding the right combination that works.

Sprinters would benefit from EPO. They have to deal with time to exhaustion too. EPO dramatically improves that.

Antonio Cabral wrote:

In a sport as athletics is where what really matters about the decision of who wins and lost is the competition day, in some cases we need to wait 2-3 years to know if that the competitors are doped or they don�t, with all tricky and doubtful conclusions ? ! This is a joke.

It has always been this way and not just since the introduction of the biological passport. The East Germans were dominant in the 1970s in several sporting disciplines and it was never officially proven until 20 years later that they were doping, the same for the members of the American 1984 Olympic team who tested positive but the results were covered up and this was only brought to light over 20 years later, the same for the Spanish Olympic team at the Barcelona Olympics with the Fuentes scandal, you can go on and on.

It is not an ideal situation but at least someone who is cheating can be caught later rather than not caught at all. You have another problem with the rules being equally applied. For example a Russian has abnormal biological passport tests and they get banned, Then you have Radcliffe with at least three abnormal biological passport tests and they say that they were training at alttude (when they were taking part in races at sea level) or that they we dehydrated and no one investigates the issue further...

Jon, speaking of being brain washed, you have not presented one bit of science yet. Pretty comical.

fred, you're obsessed with drugs. That much is obvious. Do you really not believe in efficiency? I have presented the evidence. You just don't want to admit it.

I haven't followed other Kenya-EPO-Renato-threads too closely, but as I have been in this thread one of Mr. Canova's opponents, I feel need to conclude my own contibution with a slight restatement of my earlier position with following claims (It is another story whether anyone actually reads this attempt to be devil's advocate):

1) There is a strong likelihood that the effect of blood doping (EPO) on perfomance of elite athletes is overstated.

2) There is a strong likelihood that the effect of blood doping (EPO) on Vo2MAX of elite athletes is overstated.

3) Apart from the prevalent use of EPO, there is still very little scientific data that the substance works on elite level Kenyan runners.

In the following parapraphs I will give the reasons for my restatement on the issue.

1.1) It is a scientific consensus that blood doping elevates Vo2MAX and direct performance of endurance athletes. For instance, a 1987 study found that reinfusion of 800 ml of blood cut the 10K time by 69 seconds (~3.5 %) while only elevating Hb by 5 percent. A Swedish study concluded that the actual performance was elevated by staggering 5.3 % with roughly similar increase in Hb.

That is definitely a strong effect, especially for a Hb elevation so low. If we assume that further increases of Hb elevate performance almost linearly, when we take into account high amount of entry of talented Africans, developments in equipment, training methods and track material plus the entry of pacemakers, the speed increase from "clean" 1960s to the EPO-era has been significantly lower than what it should've been, only some 3-4 percentages.

In cycling, one could also point to the fact that the 1972 cycling one hour world record (49,431 m) by Eddy Merckx has been proven to be very difficult or nearly impossible to beat with similar equipment even after the wide range access to EPO and transfusions since 1980s.

2.1) "Most studies investigating the effects of EPO on performance have evaluated maximal oxygen uptake”, states a 2011 reserch paper on the subject, ”When haematocrit is increased from base values to around 50%, Vo2MAX is increased by 8–12%" (Lundby, Olsen, 2011). Due to conflicting data, there should be some doubt whether this effect is seen in elite subjects as the measured Vo2MAX values of elite athletes haven't been significantly higher in EPO-1990s than in earlier decades. For instance, the mean Vo2MAX of elite Swedish male XC-skiers increased only slightly from 1970s to EPO-1990s (85 --> 88, Finnish equivalents 83 --> 86). And one remembers easily Greg LeMond and his magical figure of 92.5 ml/kg/min from pre-EPO late 80s. Still one should keep in mind that the phenomenom could partly be explained by the fact that a bulk of the Vo2MAX data is from OFF-season.

2.2) It is highly unlikely that one could elevate hemoglobin concentration ad infinitum through EPO or blood transfusions with beneficial effects. Finnish Cross-country skier Eero Mäntyranta had hematocrit level of 68 and by plotting some other of his hematological data on classic charts showing the correlation between total hemoglobin mass and Vo2Max, his "theoretical" Vo2MAX should've been somewhere between 8 and 9 litres (ie. ~120 ml/kg/min). I've never seen a figure even close to this in the literature on him with a reliable source even claiming that his Vo2MAX could've been slightly below 5 litres (~72-75 ml/kg/min).

2.3) Apparently the use of EPO has been prevalent in some types of sports and there it was almost impossible to succeed without use of the substance (cycling). Even there it is possible that the positive mechanism has been more to counteract the stress-induced fall of hematocrit than through the hypothethical Vo2MAX turbo mechanism. This is exactly what cyclist Tyler Hamilton tells in his autobiography The Secret Race:

"Was it possible to win a professional bike race clean during this era?... The answer is, depends on the race. For shorter races, even week-long stage races, I think the answer is a qualified yes... But once you get past a one-week race, it quickly becomes impossible for clean riders to compete with riders using [EPO]... The reason is cost, in the physiological sense. Big efforts - winning Alpine stages, winning time trials - cost too much energy; they cause the body to break down, hematocrit to drop, testosterone to dwindle."

From the Vo2MAX elevating mechanism exactly the opposite should be true as one-day races are ridden in a speed much closer to the maximal oxygen uptake and lactate threshold. It is also interesting that speed of TDF didn't fall even after the hematocrit rule was introduced in 1997 and after maximal hematocrits fell significantly (>60 % --> slightly above 50 %).

3.1) I should share a word about the widely touted study on the effects of EPO on Kenyans (Wondimu et all, 2013). After going through the short summary, there were some questionable parts (no blind-protocol, the Scots were far slower athletes then the Kenyans, Kenyans weren't absolutely elite athletes while still had relatively high Vo2MAX mean of 66.0 ml/kg/min).

Then there is the main discrepancy, which the authors also notice - while there was a significantly different hematocrit response between Europeans and Kenyans, (+19.4 % vs. +8.4 %) the performance response in actual time was only slightly better in Europeans (5.7 % vs. 4.5 %). This is suspicious, as the speed increase of Kenyans is strikingly high in relation to the increase of the Hct. Were the response similar with hematocrits elevated still further, the Kenyan group would cut amazingly additional 54 seconds of their 3K time if their mean hematocrit had been elevated up to 60 %, which is hard to believe. The study is interesting, but unfortunately it hasn't been published fully, as far as I know.

(to clarify, Hct increases are in percentages [ie. 19.4 % = coefficient 1.194], not percentage points).

To summarize this post in one paragraph, my reading of the literature on the subject of EPO (blood doping) indicates heavily that the effect of blood doping on elite athletes is at least limited. And because some Kenyans are through their talents the best of the world, there could be the possibility - as Renato Canova points out - that their physiologal responce to elevated hematocrit is different from the rest of us.

I wouldn't follow the path that far, but at least we shouldn't dismiss Mr. Canova's opinion altogether. This is just additional thinking for everyone (including me) who have taken some ideas as granted, perhaps too easily.

Canova is definitely right in his claim that the subject is simultaneously very under- and overresearched as there has been little or no studies on elite athletes and a bulk of the existing literature doesn't even use any blind-protocol at all. Thus German exercise physiologist Dieter Böning points out in a research paper as late as 2010 that "[a]stonishingly we could find only few true double-blind investigations on ergogenic effects of blood transfusion and Epo".

Hopefully we know one day better.

Lundby, Olsen (2011):

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3082090/

Wondimu (2013):

http://journals.lww.com/acsm-msse/Fulltext/2013/05001/D_57_Thematic_Poster___Running_Performance__.107.aspx

Have at it, fellas. This that new age ish.

PEDS?