new study shows micro-doping can boost performance nearly 5% and impossible to detect

rekrunner wrote:

You might ask "casual obsever" -- he's the one with easy access to studies.

I have absolutely no interest in a cycling study that finds similar gains to altitude studies.

I am curious why you think 5% power "would net a 3% increase in running speeds" -- for which events? -- and only about 2% for cycling.

Inquiring minds want to know wrote:

Does anyone have the link to the original study? Rekrunner? (you're usually on top of these studies?). This study is being discussed over at "Cyclingnews' The Clinic," but no one has posted any links to study there either:

Thank you to the person who posted the study.

Let me help you guys out a little since most of you have no clue when it comes to cycling.

The time trial was reportedly 650kcal. What that means is the cyclist completed 650kcal of work as fast as they could. The average power output was 213 watts before the transfusion and 223 watts after. I question whether it was really 650kcal, as that is much more difficult to measure than 650kj. The fact they are measuring power output would lead me to believe they are in fact saying 650kcal but really were having them do 650kj. Measuring the amount of calories an athlete is using is very difficult, whereas measuring the kj's is very easy when you have a power meter.

650kj would be attained at 213w in 50 minutes and 51 seconds. 650kj at 223w takes 48 minutes and 35 seconds.

Remember that is not measuring a distance, but amount of energy output. When it comes to cycling on flat ground remember Pi, which is ~3.14. A 10% increase in power will net approximately a 3.14% increase in speed on flat ground. Thus, a 4.7% increase in power will net an approximate 1.5% increase in speed. If the DISTANCE to cover a time trial is going to take 50 minutes and 51 seconds it's reasonable to expect that same DISTANCE to take 45 seconds less going from 213w up to 223w assuming all other factors were identical. The article states "approximately 1 minute", it does not say exactly 1 minute.

Running is not affected by wind resistance due to the lower speeds. In general, when it comes to running think of Phi. More specifically, use ~6.18% increase in speed for every 10% increase in power. Thus, a 4.7% increase in power will net approximately a 2.9% increase in speed. The equivalent performance of someone doing 213 to 223w for 50 minutes is roughly that of someone running a 10K in 50 minutes, as elite power outputs for your typical 150 pound man are closer to 375-400+ watts. Therefore someone running a 10K in 50 minutes would chop about 1:27 off their 10K time.

You're welcome.

I really hate that you can't edit.

The post above should read "Running is not affected by wind resistance as much as cycling due to the lower speeds."

this is how you are so confused...PEDs dont give you more "energy" mr jonO. PEDs "enhance" certain aspects of the human body, there are other things out there that do this as well but arnt considered a performance enhancer.

- morphine mimics hormones in your body, the ones that cause you to feel euphoric and a pain blocker.

- steroids can cause hypertrophy or hyperplasia, this isnt "energy" you f*ck stick, if you have more and larger muscles, they can do more WORK...since your so f*cking arrogant on your physics you should be able to comprehend that

- rh EPO increases the number of rbs and has now been shown to INCREASE the size and number of mitochondria, again this isnt "energy", but if you were smarter you would be able to conclude that if the body has more rbs, there can be a higher % of dissolved 02 in the blood than "normal" and with larger and more numerous mitochondria, more cell functions can happen, this is CRUCIAL in exercise as the mitochondria uses the 02 from the blood, combines it with glucose which then results in the creation of h20 c02 and ATP, and ATP is broken down and that energy powers the muscle to contract/ extend. aslo the mitochondria stores Ca and K ions, which are CRUCIAL on the molecular level of the muscle in regards to actin and myosin filaments.

PEDs do not create "energy" out of thin air, your lack of knowledge and understand causes your dumba$$ to think thats how PEDs work, thus making you and arrogant and ignorant douche.

have you ever heard of acromegaly? its a disorder caused by the body producing and releasing too much HGH...HGH is used as a performance enhancing drug....why? how? according to your 3rd grade intelligance, HGH shouldnt do anything cause it would break the laws of physics and thermoregulation etc etc blah blah blah.

"Growth hormone (GH), also known as somatotropin (or as human growth hormone [hGH or HGH] in its human form), is a peptide hormone that stimulates growth, cell reproduction, and cell regeneration in humans and other animals."

can you read that? where the f*ck does it say "creates energy from nothing and breaks the laws of physics if injected into an athlete"?

you see what HGH does?

- hormone that stimulates growth....so you mix with roids and booom more muscles and muscle cells, mix with rhEPO and booom more mitochondria (and rhEPO already make more and larger)

- stimulates cell reproduction, see above

- and helps cell regeneration....so cells destroyed during hard anaerobic exercise, maximal exercise and the build up of free radicals, HGH helps restore the cells....how is that good? RECOVERY num nuts

this is WHY the main stack even when micro dosing is HGH, rhEPO, and ROIDS....people like gary and rek want to argue for trolling sake, but tell me why kenyans are getting popped for roids and EPO? well i will bett my potato farm they are on HGH as well....and that goes for the NOP group...what is one side effect of HGH use? thyroid issues, and it seems all sorts of runners from NOP have a thyroid issue.

so what have we learned? PEDs give a persons body more muscle cells, blood cells and mitochondria than they were NATURALLY born with. what the annoying trolls will argue is training and training at altitude can as well...but what their moran f*ck stick brains wont accept is what happens when a HIGHLY TALENTED (ie someone born with more of these needed cells naturally) who is and has been fit and highly trained for years and at altitude uses PEDs. this is the part these a$$holes dont want to accept. they think that PEDs can only get you to your highest NATURAL level faster. there is a reason why gatlin can still run this fast if he is clean...PEDs will forever alter your body. you think when you make more bigger and more numerous muscles and mitochondria, that they just vanish into thin air when you stop injecting? sure some of those cells will die off, but the ones that remain are NOT NATURAL.

but what am i fussing about, its a placebo and you cant make "energy" from nothing....you my friend need to read way more into physiology and the hormones that people use to enhance their bodies, its not magic unless you think the world is flat

rekrunner wrote:

Some observations:

- not important, but 135/450 is 30%, and 235/450 is ~52%.

I thought you don't care about this work?

In any case:

- I expect the times/time changes to be mentioned in the main text. I'll tell you tomorrow after reading it thoroughly.

- The math works out, because it's 135 mL RBC compared to 450 mL total blood. Normally one takes the RBCs out via centrifuges. No point in re-inserting the rest, on the contrary. Don't you ever listen to your wife?

Article Please? wrote:

I question whether it was really 650kcal, as that is much more difficult to measure than 650kj.

...

650kj would be attained at 213w in 50 minutes and 51 seconds. 650kj at 223w takes 48 minutes and 35 seconds.

...

Remember that is not measuring a distance, but amount of energy output. When it comes to cycling on flat ground remember Pi, which is ~3.14. A 10% increase in power will net approximately a 3.14% increase in speed on flat ground.

I hope you are trolling rekrunner.

Our esteemed statiscian rekrunner isn't going to like that one bit!

casual obsever wrote:

Article Please? wrote:

I question whether it was really 650kcal, as that is much more difficult to measure than 650kj.

...

650kj would be attained at 213w in 50 minutes and 51 seconds. 650kj at 223w takes 48 minutes and 35 seconds.

...

Remember that is not measuring a distance, but amount of energy output. When it comes to cycling on flat ground remember Pi, which is ~3.14. A 10% increase in power will net approximately a 3.14% increase in speed on flat ground.

I hope you are trolling rekrunner.

I am not, although rekrunner and many others may take it that way. I’ve got about 15 years of experience using a power meter and am pretty handy with numbers so have a great deal of confidence in what’s I’ve stated here.

dopeology wrote:

It's based on pseudoscience. Drugs can't give you more energy, but that is the PED belief.

Where do you think this supposed extra energy is coming from? Does it just appear by magic.

Jon Orange IN THE HOUSE!

Hey Gary, remember you were always saying you only came on these threads because someone called you out and you felt obligated to respond? That was a lie, wasn't it?

Article Please? wrote:

casual obsever wrote:

I hope you are trolling rekrunner.

I am not, although rekrunner and many others may take it that way. I’ve got about 15 years of experience using a power meter and am pretty handy with numbers so have a great deal of confidence in what’s I’ve stated here.

Are you Alex by chance who posts periodically over at "cyclingnews' The Clinic?" I think he's a scientist who does some coaching, and he knows this stuff really well.

Before that, I said I would ask two questions: 1) 4.7% of what? and 2) how did the controls perform? The abstract answered these, confirming it was power a measure of power and not time. The improvement in power for cycling doesn't interest me too much, as I expect some improvements for cycling, but distinguishing that the measure was 4.7% power and not 4.7% time does interest me. History shows that, like the Kenyan study where the almost elite Kenyans ran like school girls, this study will come up from time to time, in attempts to argue the relevance of 4% or 3-5%, as if time and power were interchangeable 1 for 1. Good point about separating the RBCs -- that makes more sense.

casual obsever wrote:

rekrunner wrote:

Some observations:

- not important, but 135/450 is 30%, and 235/450 is ~52%.

I thought you don't care about this work?

In any case:

- I expect the times/time changes to be mentioned in the main text. I'll tell you tomorrow after reading it thoroughly.

- The math works out, because it's 135 mL RBC compared to 450 mL total blood. Normally one takes the RBCs out via centrifuges. No point in re-inserting the rest, on the contrary.

I expect a 50 minute 10K runner has a lot of room for improvement, compared to the 27:30 runner already trained at altitude.

On the outside looking in wrote:

Our esteemed statiscian rekrunner isn't going to like that one bit!

Not at all. I don't have much experience in cycling, but I do know how to ride a bike, and have cycled up some of the climbs in the Alps. And I have no experience with cycling power measurements. I'm not going to nitpick the models, but expected and accepted that 4.7% power would translate to smaller percentages of time improvement.

Article Please? wrote:

I am not, although rekrunner and many others may take it that way. I’ve got about 15 years of experience using a power meter and am pretty handy with numbers so have a great deal of confidence in what’s I’ve stated here.

No, your'e missing the point. You are just buying into the mythology that we can utilize more energy if we dope, but just re-wording it, just as I said you would.

And you haven't answered the question of where does the extra energy supposedly come from? I've read a lot more physiology than you and the circular reasoning you present is exactly what I'm trying to point out as a construct, a fantasy of metabolic rates beyond what is thermodaynamically feasible. You're not knowldedgeable enough to know that this defies the laws of physics.

What you are really talking about is normal variability of performance, but what you imagine in that variablitly is that the higher metabolic rate are from so called PEDs

You wrote: "PEDs do not create "energy" out of thin air, your lack of knowledge and understand causes your dumba$$ to think thats how PEDs work, thus making you and arrogant and ignorant douche."

That's exactly the stupidity of the doping contruct I'm pointing out, but you don't have the sense to see it. You've just restated the stupidity.

rekrunner, where is the extra energy coming from? You're not thinking, just repeating idiotic dogma. Do you understand what calories are? A unit of measurement of HEAT PRODUCTION. The PED dogma IMPLIES that heat production and dissipation can be increased beyond natural levels, thus circumventing the laws of physics. But everyone stating the PED dogma is completely oblivious to the basic physiology of thermoregulation.

Please address the issue and stop avoiding it.

WTF is this Talk about extra energy? EPO and blood transfusions work by making your body more efficient. Like how adding a turbo charger to a car makes it more powerful and faster. Are you going deny the performance enhancing effect turbo chargers have on cars next? Your blood supplies oxygen to your muscles. I.e. your muscles can work at a higher rate due to the increase of oxygen. How do you not understand this?

You're not answering the question, just restating the dopey dogma. Where is that extra metabolism supposed to come from if you are oxidising more fuel? From Santa Claus, or the Tooth Fairy?

Stop and think about it for once in your life: If you are running a 5k race 96% of VO2 max you are at your limit of your metabolic rate for that distance/time run say 15 minutes, You are at your thermoregulatory limit. How are you supposed to run at a 5% higher metabolic rate? It's impossible. It's a fantasy, a construct.

To produce 5% more power in the same conditions, you need to be 5% more efficient. Elite runners have better control of muscle stiffness which gives greater power for the same amount of energy. When they lose that to the point where they are at your level, they still have the same oxygen uptake but less efficiency.

Sand Dunes, if you really care about learning this stuff, you will, but you have to stop listening to pseudoscience and get to read the stuff from the real ex phys experts, not the broscientists.

As I said, I am at your service. Be patient please, I had other things to do yesterday.

Here you go:

PLA = placebo group

So, the doped group delivered 4.7% more power and was 4.4% faster, while there was no placebo effect.

4.4% faster: 0.044 x 40 min = 1.76 min = 1 min 46 s faster

Some other tidbits taken from the tables in the article:

After the smaller transfusion, Hb increased from 14.1 to 14.6 g/dL, and ret-% decreased from 1.62 to 1.45%. Adding the larger RBC amount led to a further jump to Hb = 15.5 g/dL and decline to 1.21 ret-% (Table 1). The Hb change was not (just) a concentration effect, because the Hb mass increased also, from 833 g to 906 g (Table 2). That's a 9% increase in mass and a 10% increase in concentration.

All indeed well below the ABP thresholds. See Ashenden's 2011 paper (doi 10.1007/s00421-011-1867-6). See also this Kenyan study you enjoyed even less than I did.

Fun exercise: compare the changes here (from 14.1 to 15.5 g/dL, and 1.62% to 1.21%) with Paula's from 2003 (from 12 to 15.6 g/dL, and 0.59% to 0.47%, within a few days, not at altitude).

P.S. As for micro-doping/dosing I laughed about earlier: that came from the journalist, not the authors (or you) who never used "micro". Their point is "low volume", in contrast to the two bags normally used (see the fun exercise above).

For the motivation, as well as a brief summary of other studies, see the intro:

Finally, "dishonest athletes are suspected to utilize low (≤150-200 ml) ABT volumes" is exactly what I wrote here in October (200 ml is standard nowadays, except for too ambitious drug cheats).

Casual observer, how results didn't show these effects?

Are you aware of the variablitly in and kind of test situation?

Don't worry, I won't expect you to answer the question. Feel free to ignore awkward questions. After all, you're just a casual observer, who just happened to be passing by and have no real interest in the subject.