Jon will be here tomorrow to let you know that more and larger mitochondria coupled with a higher blood count will just make you really hot.
Of course he'll overlook that you'll be done minutes before the clean guys and already taking a cool shower.
Jon will be here tomorrow to let you know that more and larger mitochondria coupled with a higher blood count will just make you really hot.
Of course he'll overlook that you'll be done minutes before the clean guys and already taking a cool shower.
Renato Canova wrote:
No, I don't have any formal scientific training.
Have the researchers and the scientists any formal methodological training ?
I'm not interested to know if EPO works or not with top athletes.
Yes, scientists and researchers have formal training in methodology, which puts them way ahead of you.
You sure seem to jave strong opinions on woo working for somebody uninterested in the question
m!ndweak wrote:
yeah and if rhEPO gives you an unnatural amount of mitochondria then baaabooom
[]
burp
So, you've used your google skills and found out how does EPO works and you feel the need to share to the world this amazing breakthrough.
Happy for you that there's a bunch of morans to follow you in the LR cesspool.
Enjoy!
congratulations! wrote:
m!ndweak wrote:
yeah and if rhEPO gives you an unnatural amount of mitochondria then baaabooom
[]
burp
So, you've used your google skills and found out how does EPO works and you feel the need to share to the world this amazing breakthrough.
Happy for you that there's a bunch of morans to follow you in the LR cesspool.
Enjoy!
You should use a bit of Google too.
Renato, you're right that EPO alone will improve runners and that training alone will improve them--in fact by more than EPO.
Those things are not in dispute. But most would think that the correct training, coupled with EPO, on talented athletes would produce further improvements. So, the crux of your claim is that there is a type of athlete for whom the right type of training alone can allow them to reach an optimal level at which their blood levels can be altered only to the detriment of their performance, so that EPO at that point does not help them. Now, in the example you give, the HCT is ideal at 43 and has dropped to 41 with training. Recovery and shorter, sharper training bring it back to 43 at top shape and performance. Presumably, EPO would do the same, and maybe the other elements of training, balanced with the HCT of 43, don't allow one to get higher because of the costs and benefits of hard training/recovery, so that at that point raising the HCT level further would be an advantage. Since no one has ever brought an athlete to 12:37 or 12:39 shape without giving him EPO, since you have not been able to bring your very talented, disciplined athletes to that level clean, does it not suggest to you that EPO made the difference and that training alone can't do it? Don't you think there is a reason other than training alone that 12:40s and 12:50s were attainable for so many athletes, including a number outside Ethiopia and Kenya in the 1990s?
Renato Canova wrote:
Mindweak, all your studies about CLINIC situations have the only effect to produce headache for everybody tries to read without understanding what you write. A lot of formula that everybody can find in internet, that don't have any connection with the training methodology.
We are not speaking about sick people, but about ATHLETES whose goal is to achieve their best RUNNING (and not doing some other sport).
The day that people here start to speak about training, we can have a normal discussion. But, till when you attack with idiotic and not fair allegation, without accepting the results of the coaching of many top athletes (and not only MY coaching), we never can have any point of contact.
Simply, you don't know anything about training, while I speak about training.
And the athletes run fast because of their training, not because EPO. We have fast athletes with clean training, and slow athletes taking EPO. We also have fast athletes taking EPO, and slow athletes with clean training. This is the reality of athletics : everybody looks for the best way for running fast, but often HIS best way is not really the best way.
The fact that some top athletes take EPO is not a proof that EPO works, but is a proof that, in their mind, EPO can give some advantage, and for that reason they take.
There are researches that the smoke of cigarettes can increase the risk of cancer ; however, there are a lot of people who smoke 60 cigarettes every day, because for them this risk doesn't exist.
What we think is not always the truth, and we create OUR truth in our mind.
The REAL facts are that is possible to have WR with clean training. This doesn't exclude the possibility that somebody can run fast using EPO, but doesn't prove that EPO can give him some advantage, if we don't know the following facts :
1) His training BEFORE taking EPO
2) When he started to take EPO
3) His training DURING taking EPO
All the other suppositions are not facts, but simple speculations.
No...some athletes can train harder and have significantly improved recovery with rEPO.
Being able to train harder and recover more efficiently translates to an athlete going beyond thier physiological limitations and improving their performance - this is all reported in the scientific literature (nothing new there).
It's more about the effects of rEPO over a long-term training block, where again their recovery from hard workouts improves exponentially. Then the dopers know exactly the washout period so as to not be glowing IC. The doper shows up to competition "fresh as a daisy" ready to run their best and faster than their physiological limitations would dictate - it's really as simple as that coach. ?
zxcvzxcv wrote:
Renato, you're right that EPO alone will improve runners and that training alone will improve them--in fact by more than EPO.
Those things are not in dispute. But most would think that the correct training, coupled with EPO, on talented athletes would produce further improvements. So, the crux of your claim is that there is a type of athlete for whom the right type of training alone can allow them to reach an optimal level at which their blood levels can be altered only to the detriment of their performance, so that EPO at that point does not help them. Now, in the example you give, the HCT is ideal at 43 and has dropped to 41 with training. Recovery and shorter, sharper training bring it back to 43 at top shape and performance. Presumably, EPO would do the same, and maybe the other elements of training, balanced with the HCT of 43, don't allow one to get higher because of the costs and benefits of hard training/recovery, so that at that point raising the HCT level further would be an advantage. Since no one has ever brought an athlete to 12:37 or 12:39 shape without giving him EPO, since you have not been able to bring your very talented, disciplined athletes to that level clean, does it not suggest to you that EPO made the difference and that training alone can't do it? Don't you think there is a reason other than training alone that 12:40s and 12:50s were attainable for so many athletes, including a number outside Ethiopia and Kenya in the 1990s?
What is the scientific basis for hct of 43 being optimal? During the epo era free-for-all in cycling the fastest riders would run hct all the way up to 60 and dominate.
I find El K’s posts and perspective to be extremely interesting and valuable. And to single him out as being racist and annoying given all the other junk that sometimes gets posted here is nothing short of bizarre.
lovely the expert input by canova, brojos etc.
but no, if you want to know the effects of EPO, take it yourself.
take testosterone yourself.
take peptides yourself.
then come back.
then you have something to say that's real.
i've taken less than 1/10 of a protocol, and the results are quite something.
having above probably average level of testosterone, it's not something to do in practice personally, you're talking side effects... which are less than most pharmaceuticals to be very sure.
but come those elderly years, a bit of PEDs is better than moping around like an invalid. where's the humanity here, where's the science, where's the learning.
give me a break and do your research personally before you spout off, all respect the the great conova. and the wonderful brojos.
grow up and get real silly boys,
i be silly too. it's the human condition. obviously.
having said what i said, i'm thinking track and field has never been more real and better.
i'm youtubing ovett, walker, coe and the rest, it's awesome.
throwing things at some who's who, and trailer trash.
i'm seeing results.
people are getting it.
how about that. who'd a thunk?
artojas wrote:
Talent = regional level
Hard work = regional level
Talent + hard work = world class
Talent + hard work + microdosing = world class elite
Talent + hard + full EPO = WR attempt level.
Simple and true for 99.9999% distance runners.
There, a slight correction.
hmm. wrote:
Now That's Telling It Like It Is wrote:
Great post & well said m!ndweak!
Rek & JonO are in their own little fantasy world - same old song & dance. And Canova continues to minimize the effects EPO has on top Kenyan elites...all part of the damage control due to all the recent pops, IMO (just wait till the next big name comes out. Lol).
Lets talk motives here;
Some Canova possibilities:
- He knows epo works and it is just a smokescreen with all the posts. It is good business if others don't suspect you and also others don't think they need to dope to compete with you.
- Although it seems he has recently changed his stance so that only those born and living at his specific area of the world are immune to epo. So maybe it then follows that he knows epo works and is just trying to keep everyone in iten from using it outside of his top guys.
- He doesn't really understand his athletes are doping and is blind like a parent who never thinks their child did that horrible thing they actually did. Insisting that it wouldn't work anyway further insulates them from wrong doing even if caught.
Some John Orange possibilities:
- He is a crackpot style flat earther who truly thinks he is the only person on the planet that "really" understands physiology.
- He is an IAAF shill whose job is to convince athletes to not dope by spreading misinformation.
- He is a basic troll with too much time on his hands.
Yes & Yes.
Renato Canova wrote:
I'm tired to explain again (what I already did one hundred times) my position about this research.
3) I changed this assertion last year, after coaching the Norwegian athletes SONDRE MOEN to beat the European Record in Marathon (2:05'48"), coming from 2:12 of previous PB, AFTER 270 days of altitude during 2017 (including Kenya in Iten, Italy in Sestriere and Switzerland in St. Moritz). Now, my assertion is that "EPO DOESN'T WORK FOR TOP ATHLETES LIVING AND TRAINING IN ALTITUDE FOR LONG CONTINUOUS PERIODS, IF THEY USE PROPER TRAINING".
8) : WE CAN REACH THE SAME RESULTS THAT WE CAN ACHIEVE WITH BETTER TRAINING ONLY.
9) I give here some example :
1) In top athletes, with PROPER AEROBIC TRAINING (that the scientists absolutely don't know, and NEVER went to study), the total volume of blood can increase of 25% (while in the "official" books of physiology the limit is about 10%). This means more than 1.5 liter of blood, increasing the ability to transport Oxygen WHILE at the same time THE HCT GOES DOWN.
3) The heart rate between somebody taking EPO and athletes using clean training is different : in the case of athletes taking EPO is about 10% lower, and the heart has to do higher effort pur pumping the same quantity of blood.
4) Increasing the viscosity with EPO, the athlete is not able to increase his total volume of blood of the same percentage, losing a part of the advantage connected with the natural increase of plasma.
IMPROVING THE PERFORMANCES, the Hct goes down. So, we can say that there is an OPTIMAL INDIVIDUAL RANGE of Hct and Hb for everybody, and, of course, when an athlete is able to compete at the HIGHER PERSONAL LEVEL he can run better than when his level is lower, BIT IT'S NOT TRUE THAT, IF HE OVERTAKE HIS OPTIMAL LEVEL, HE CAN RUN FASTER.
For example, an athlete can have a level between 41 and 43. When is not in training, maybe can reach 45. With training, his level starts to go down till 41. At this point, increasing the modulation of the intensity in his training, and giving more room to the recovery, his Hct goes up till 43, and this is his value for the top shape.
If we bring him near 50 giving EPO, he can't run faster (when we speak about distances requiring long duration), while it's not clear the effect in short distances (for example, 1500m).
Conclusion : The research doesn't mean anything, and is not able to demonstrate anything about the effect with top runners training in altitude.
People need to understand that top runners have several differences with normal athletes :
1) More natural talent (the question is : which is the difference between somebody who can run fast and the average people ? Which is the "physiological talent" that makes runners so different one from another ?)
2) More volume of training (due to the stronger motivation, because they can reach top results moving to a professional level that can change their life)
3) More intensity in training (see the above reason)
The last two factors produce deep modifications in the individual physiology, while less volume and less intensity produce little modifications, giving room to the effects of EPO for aerobic improvements.
The City car is the amateur of the athlete of medium level, the F. 1 is the top athlete already using full training at the highest level. For him, there is no room of improvement using EPO.
.
There are some issues with this Renato, you have pushed the pre-epo argument that athletes with greater stroke volume have lower Hct. But the data you provide for Moen shows his performances have improved over the years with an increasing Hct. BTW why is he being target tested this year? And why have his performances dropped off? You also claim Kwemoi has an Hct of 53 and you claim that is the source of his talent.
Epo athletes have a lower heart rate because they have a stronger stroke volume, at race pace their heart rate is lower because their maximum is now higher so they can conserve energy at this old maximum output, hence the energy to muster 52-55s last laps off a fast pace and an ability to be fresh after running 12:40s times.
EPO helps you train harder to increase your stroke volume, thus creating a circular/positive feedback loop.
Define proper training? Sounds like your training is proper training.
Formula One cars using stuff far better than epo.
The Yougooglizer wrote:
congratulations! wrote:
So, you've used your google skills and found out how does EPO works and you feel the need to share to the world this amazing breakthrough.
Happy for you that there's a bunch of morans to follow you in the LR cesspool.
Enjoy!
You should use a bit of Google too.
+1
Lets Tell It Like It Is wrote:
No...some athletes can train harder and have significantly improved recovery with rEPO.
Being able to train harder and recover more efficiently translates to an athlete going beyond thier physiological limitations and improving their performance - this is all reported in the scientific literature (nothing new there).
It's more about the effects of rEPO over a long-term training block, where again their recovery from hard workouts improves exponentially. Then the dopers know exactly the washout period so as to not be glowing IC. The doper shows up to competition "fresh as a daisy" ready to run their best and faster than their physiological limitations would dictate - it's really as simple as that coach. ?
This is true, if they take the time to needle themselves with epo, they'll likely take time to needle themselves with a form of testosterone to strengthen their core and make their form more efficient (and recover from proper training that epo provides).
JonO. wrote:
Zede wrote:
So, everyone could be potentially a champion?
You are assuming that oxygen uptake determines our potential. I'm saying something very different, that normal oxygen uptake is essential for basic health and that the best athletes don't have or need superior oxygen delivery, just norml oxygen delivery. They are fast because they are super efficient biomechanically. Running is a skill that takes huge amount of training to develop from a baby to an adult.
I usually stay away from your inane ramblings but your argument is moot as soon as you mention that the best athletes do not have superior oxygen delivery or uptake. A very direct and proven consequence of training is vascular endothelial growth factor(creating new veins and blood vessels to help transport more oxygen to the muscles at a given time) and angiogenesis, Training also elicits a huge change in the muscle cells where both the activity and density of Mitochondria is increased and the Mitochondrial organelles move closer to the cell membrane to allow for faster and more efficient oxygen uptake. These are physiological adaptions that are conclusively proven to result from training, To deny them from your armchair is height of ignorance.
The process of angiogenesis is accelerated at altitude due to the cellular response to hypoxia where transcription factors called hypoxia-inducible factors trigger the genes responsible for an adaptive response to hypoxia to go through the process of angiogenesis, Increasing the production of natural EPO and increasing the supply of Iron as well as improving cell efficiency through density and activity of which many are also a adaptive response to training. If an athletes body now has more oxygen flowing through it to more capillaries which then deliver more oxygen to closer mitochondria, the carbohydrate metabolism has been greatly improved and the athlete has become more energy efficient. Biomechanical efficiency is important and plays a role in economy but not the all and everything.
rEPO and its effects can be debated but to argue against the above is to argue against the whole medical world and not simply the ex phys you clearly have an agenda with.
If you do chose to reply to me this time, I would appreciate if you refrained from saying I was just taught wrong and turn this into another bashing on ex phys as my background is not just physiology. I would ask you for a scientifically concise explanation of the mechanism at play in your theory and not just you spinning your way through a conclusion without any meaningful explanation of the mechanisms at play that brought you to it like usual. If you cannot do that, do not waste both of our time.
Sorry, scientists and researchers DON'T HAVE ANY FORMAL TRAINING IN METHODOLOGY.
They don't know ANYTHING about training, because is not their job. They can only studying what really happens in the human body in the subjects they can control, because physiology is a "deductive", or "experimental" science, and can only study the reality.
The fact is that ALL THE TOP ATHLETES never are studied, because these studies don't give them any useful information.
I said this a lot of times : the researchers need to overtake their protocols (always the same), and need to follow the evolution of physiological parameters of top athletes, according to their real training. This means, for example, to have a group of scientists in Kenya, following the training of some of the top runners and making tests every short period (for example, every 2 weeks) in order to understand WHY training can change the internal characteristics of the athletes.
For example, they can study the following factors :
1) How much the VOLUME of mileage at intensity of 80% of the PB of a marathon runner can change the number of capillary vessels ?
2) For how much long time this can happen ?
3) What happens if we maintain the same volume of mileage, increasing the intensity from 80 to 90% ?
4) What happens in the body after a session of long intervals with the double of the volume of the race (in the case of 10000m) at intensity 98% with short recovery ?
5) What happens if the same training is carried out in altitude or at sea level ?
6) What happens using variations of speed at the level of the cellular membrane ?
7) How short sprints uphill can influence the ability to "fuel" for a marathon ?
8) How easy aerobic run can influence the ability to do lactic tests ?
9) How the combination between general aerobic training, specific aerobic training, speed endurance and speed can be optimized, looking at the level of cortisol the athletes can reach ?
10) How a right modulation between volume and intensity can increase the shape ?
11) Which is the role of the recovery in the training at top level ?
12) Which is the role of the supercompensation and when this a winning application ?
13) Why athletes go in overtraining ?
14) What is the effects of overtraining on physiological parameters ?
I can continue for more than 100 points. These are the points at the base of any METHODOLOGICAL KNOWLEDGE, and scientists and researchers are not able to give a precise answer to the most part of these questions, FOR THE SAMPLE REASON THAT NEVER HAD THE WILL AND THE OPPORTUNITY TO STUDY THE ABOVE PHENOMENS WITH TOP ATHLETES.
There is an assumption they I can't share with you :
Since no one has ever brought an athlete to 12:37 or 12:39 shape without giving him EPO, since you have not been able to bring your very talented, disciplined athletes to that level clean, does it not suggest to you that EPO made the difference and that training alone can't do it? Don't you think there is a reason other than training alone that 12:40s and 12:50s were attainable for so many athletes, including a number outside Ethiopia and Kenya in the 1990s?
1) Your supposition that Bekele (when you speak about 12:37 of course you speak about him) used EPO is totally arbitrary, and part of speculations that many people who think to know everything about EPO and athletics can do, especially if posters of LR. Not only Bekele was clean, but when he bettered the WR of 10000m, one time was in little shape, and the other time was sick. How I told Kenenisa himself, after he showed me his training at that time, the WR of 10000m is "ridiculous" for an athlete with his specific attitude, if we consider times (for example 26'30" Abebe Dinkessa) achieved by other athletes, by far less talented and motivated.
2) In the 1990s, only 3 athletes ran under 12:40 and 5 under 12:50 :
Haile Gebrselassie 12:39.36 (1998)
Daniel Komen 12:39.74 (1997)
Brahim Lahlafi 12:49.28 (2000)
Mourhit 12:49.71 (2000)
Paul Tergat 12:49.87 (1997)
All these performances were achieved BEFORE the beginning of the direct antidoping for EPO, that started in 2001.
3) AFTER the institution of the specific antidoping for EPO, the list of athletes able running under 12:50 became very much longer :
Kenenisa Bekele 12:37.35 (2004)
Selemon Barega 12:43.02 (2018)
Gebriwhet 12:45.82 (2018)
Eliud Kipchoge 12:46.53 (2004)
Kejelcha 12:46.79 (2018)
Gebremeskel 12:46.81 (2012)
Sihine 12:47.04 (2004)
Isaiah Koech 12:48.64 (2012)
Alamirew 12:48.77 (2012)
Stephen Cherono (Shaheen) 12:48.81 (2003)
Longosiwa 12:49.04 (2012)
John Kipkoech 12:49.50 (2012)
This clear demonstrates two possibilities only :
a) The athletes continued to take EPO, not fearing the controls, so the antidoping didn't work
b) The athletes (tested a lot of time) didn't take any EPO, and were clean.
In this list, I have two athletes (Shaheen and Longosiwa) that always were clean (Shaheen refusing any legal supplement too, and this was only one of the 2 serious attempts he had in 5000m. If he could run sometimes the event, instead running always steeple, his value could probably do the same of Kenenisa in this distance).
But what instead is interesting to see is that the most part of these performances were achieved in the same race :
Gebremeskel (12:46.81), Koech (12:48.64), Alamirew (12:48.77), Longosiwa (12:49.04) and Kipkoech (12:49.50) in Paris 2012, Barega (12:43.02), Gebrihwet (12:45.82) and Kejelcha (12:46.79) this year, few days ago.
This means that at the base of top performances there is not EPO, but the organization of the race, the pace and the stimulus for running fast. The most part of performances under 3'30" were achieved in races won by El Guerrouj and paced for running fast ; the most part of under 13:00 in races won by Bekele, who became the perfect pacer for the other athletes ; the same for the most part of under 27:00 in 10000m.
Scientific literature falls far short of showing improved performance beyond physiological limitations. The literature rarely looks at training at all, let alone showing that the improved recovery will allow athletes to train harder, which lead to performance beyond their physical limit. (Not to mention, harder training does not always mean better training). When we say "nothing new here", it is more like "nothing here at all". Take for example this study on Kenyans and Scotts -- we know they improved in the short span of the study, but we do not know if they trained harder, and we do not know if this improvement exceeded their physiological limit.
Subway Surfers wrote:
Lets Tell It Like It Is wrote:
No...some athletes can train harder and have significantly improved recovery with rEPO.
Being able to train harder and recover more efficiently translates to an athlete going beyond thier physiological limitations and improving their performance - this is all reported in the scientific literature (nothing new there).
It's more about the effects of rEPO over a long-term training block, where again their recovery from hard workouts improves exponentially. Then the dopers know exactly the washout period so as to not be glowing IC. The doper shows up to competition "fresh as a daisy" ready to run their best and faster than their physiological limitations would dictate - it's really as simple as that coach. ?
This is true, if they take the time to needle themselves with epo, they'll likely take time to needle themselves with a form of testosterone to strengthen their core and make their form more efficient (and recover from proper training that epo provides).
Supposing that some athlete can train harder having significantly improved recovery with EPO, this doesn't answer to my question, that I repeat again, because it seems you were not able to read :
a) His training BEFORE taking EPO
b) At which point he started taking EPO
c) His training DURING taking EPO
If the athlete was able to train harder, we can see this looking at his training BEFORE and DURING. The words "well trained" don't mean absolutely anything, and any research, without these data, can't be considered "scientific", but a pure useless article in order to increase the number of useless publications.