In high-altitude environments, you draw in less oxygen per breath than you would at lower altitudes. ... When they compete at lower altitudes, they get a natural boost to the muscles when additional oxygen is available. This blood expanding effect can enhance performance in elite athletes by 1 to 2 percent.
Training does most of it. Pacing is incredibly important for fast performances and El G and Bekele often did that in their era for other athletes. But there are 55 Kenyan athletes serving doping suspensions, including many very heavy hitters. That's the tip of the iceberg. Ethiopia has barely been caught, yet its Jos Hermens athletes, a morally dubious agent with morally dubious doctors, often dominate.
While nothing you say has any factual basis Renato (you are speculating), I do not believe that these athletes doped.
Of course, that's on me - I simply don't believe it though realize that it could be true. I just don't see much fun in a sport where I have to suspect everyone of breaking the rules.
Dr EPO wrote:
rekrunner wrote:
A higher volume of blood means more red blood cells available, without increased viscosity.
Adding more red blood cells in that state trades off any additional marginal benefit of more red blood cells, with the increased viscosity reducing the blood flow.
That's a theoretical explanation. With significantly increased red blood cells in the increased blood volume , the viscosity changes only significantly and there will be more red blood cells per blood unit , witch more than offsets increased viscosity. That's another theoretical explanation .
So, no one of us knows exactly what happens if EPO is added in this mode. It stays with more or less qualified speculations.
As Dr EPO tells we can only speculate in this matter. And what I think unfortunately still will happen in future is that so called "proper trained" athletes at high altitude will be found guilty of doping ( such as Abraham Kiptum).
Jan Stensson , Coach JS wrote:
Dr EPO wrote:
That's a theoretical explanation. With significantly increased red blood cells in the increased blood volume , the viscosity changes only significantly and there will be more red blood cells per blood unit , witch more than offsets increased viscosity. That's another theoretical explanation .
So, no one of us knows exactly what happens if EPO is added in this mode. It stays with more or less qualified speculations.
As Dr EPO tells we can only speculate in this matter. And what I think unfortunately still will happen in future is that so called "proper trained" athletes at high altitude will be found guilty of doping ( such as Abraham Kiptum).
No kidding. Doper Kiptum was pushing 60% Hct on his ABP profile. In his hearing, he denied any doping (geez... imagine that) and stated he was training at a high level at altitude, and even doing some racing also at altitude. So, there's the properly trained Kenyan athlete at altitude fortified with blood doping who went on to run a HM WR and a 2:04 marathon. Lol.
rekrunner wrote:
Renato Canova wrote:
Do you continue to have the stupid idea that these results are produced by doping, or that the two most important factors (a part the individual talent) are the training methodology, and the pace during the competition ?
As you can see, most, if not all, people will continue to hold their previous ideas.
Some try to hold you to a standard of proof that they themselves have not met. Nor for that matter, has any scientist or study met that standard for observing the effects of EPO on any runner's (African or not, elite or not) best performances. WADA itself also publishes its applicable standard: "improve or potential to improve". This standard falls far short of allowing us to make conclusive statements about EPO's effect on fully trained elite distance runners. Note also that those scientists who have observed short term improvements in amateur athletes of an unknown state of training are careful to caution against projecting any findings onto elites.
We have seen an altitude study which showed improvements in a group of 9 men from training at sea-level (3.5%), then further improvement with hi-lo training at altitude (an additional 3%). The most relevant question completely unexamined by science is how much more EPO or blood transfusions would help those athletes who have already benefited from intense aerobic training at altitude. It is this kind of answer that should help us determine if 12:47 could be achieved by natural means, or must necessarily be artifically enhanced.
My favorite viewpoint is the poster who choses to expressly ignore the words of a coach with direct knowledge and experience, preferring instead to assume the worst and rely on his unproven ideas about cycling applying also to running, in order to compensate for ignoring knowledge about running.
Regardless of what science has shown, I tried to look at historical performances to see examples the large effects of EPO performances, predicting that over nearly three decades, we should see large quantities and quality of universal relative improvements in Africans and non-Africans alike, as EPO was universally available and largely undetectable. But, taking the example of 5000m women, among all non-African women world wide for nearly three decades, I found only 10 women (and now we have two more) running faster than Ingrid Kristiansen. Among countries highly suspected of doping, we find 3 Chinese women in Ma's Army, 3 Russians, 2 Moroccans (Africans), and 1 Romanian. These numbers look rather small compared to 32 women from Kenya and Ethiopia, running up to 12 seconds faster than Houlihan.
When Ingrid Kristiansen runs 14:37 in 1986, when women's distance events were immature, we should not be too surprised at Americans running 14:24 and 14:26 some 34 years later.
Similar patterns were observed for every event I looked at, except for the women's 1500m and 3000m, where the Chinese women dominated in just 2 events, based in China.
It is my experience that these kinds of looks at all time performances were not persuasive enough to get anyone to re-examine and change their own ideas about EPO effects that have not been reliably observed or proven by science.
My favorite viewpoint is looking at what renowned scientists have discovered with their extensive research in the field (e.g., Schumacher & Malm).
And Francesco Concini had done extensive research with elites and blood doping:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francesco_Conconi"It was on 14 August 1980 that Conconi submitted a proposal to the Italian National Olympic Committee (CONI) proposing that selected Italian athletes be assisted by staff of the University to improve their performance. Conconi proposed that he help athletes in the sports of cycling, canoeing, rowing, long distance skiing, speed skating, swimming and wrestling. CONI accepted the offer. According to Sandro Donati, a coach of the middle distance running team from 1981 onwards, this method of preparation was blood doping.[2] Professor Conconi approached Donati regarding improving the performances of his athletes with estimations of the improvements at 3 to 5 seconds for 1,500 metre races, 15 to 20 seconds for 5,000 metre races and 30 to 40 seconds for 10,000 metre races.[3] There was a partnership between the Olympic Committee and Professor Conconi's biomedical research centre at the University of Ferrara and the Olympic Committee financed his research.[4] According to Donati, Professor Conconi together with the Italian Athletics Federation and a major Italian Research Institute administered testosterone and anabolic steroids to athletes for events in the 1980s.[3] Over several years, CONI funded the research of Conconi with over two million euros. The work of Conconi and his many assistants at the Ferrara University produced great results in sport. In the 1992 and 1994 Winter Olympics, Italy won 34 medals. Many of the athletes had hematocrit levels of over 50%.[2]"
https://www.ergogenics.org/donati.htmlrekrunner wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
Renato, I appreciate the comprehensiveness of your response and the effort you have taken to explain your thinking in a language that you are not native to.
However, I am not sure that you fully addressed my question relating to what source of information beyond your own experiences are you relying upon when you conclude that EPO/blood doping will not increase the endurance of the best altitude-trained athletes. As another commenter above has pointed out, there has been no direct scientific research of top elites on that point.
I fully understand you when you say that athletes will be different "responders" - and that will apply to training as much as to doping. On that, something I would like to clarify with you is do you consider each athlete will have an inherent aerobic "ceiling" that they will be unable to exceed, whether it is by training or doping? Are you further saying that altitude training may enable them to better achieve that ceiling than through doping? I appreciate that your experience has led you to conclude that the benefits of altitude training may be greater than many might think, but it seems to me there remains an area of inquiry that is unresolved, which is the actual measured effect of EPO/blood doping on the best altitude-trained athletes. I don't see that we can get a conclusive answer to that question without research on the effects of EPO that includes those athletes (which obviously they would not consent to participating in). So far, I understand the research suggests there will likely be benefits to some athletes and perhaps more so those at sea-level.
If I also understood correctly your additional comments about training, you emphasised the importance of a programme that focussed on the degree of effort involved, with rest and recovery periods, and you maintain that EPO would not assist that process. My point about that is not to differ with your description of the training process but to suggest that EPO might enable this to be performed at a higher rate, through increased endurance and recovery. Would it not be to the advantage to the athlete in training if their capacity at 90% effort, say, was able to be achieved at either a faster pace or for a longer period - because those two factors are crucial to higher race performance?
Lastly, in your comments you have emphasised the value of highly-focussed altitude training, as we have discussed above, but I don't see how that necessarily relates to the performances by Houlihan and Schweizer you identified at the beginning of the thread - unless their training followed that method. If they didn't, it is quite possible they used some other means to achieve an increase in aerobic endurance consistent with altitude training; they took a "short-cut", in other words.
Armstronglivs, why do you continue to ask the same questions that have already been answered many times.
With respect to EPO and blood-doping (not steroids and not HGH):
Renato has said many times that this is his thinking, without scientific proof, based on his lifelong experience.
He has said many times that science also lacks proof.
He has said that EPO will quickly get you to 90% of your aerobic ability -- the rest must come from the right training. This implies that 100% is possible with or without EPO. If anything, those inclined to rely on EPO lack self-confidence, and this mental weakness is what was holding them back.
He said current research doesn't answer the right questions, and tests the wrong subjects -- we need better research on the right subjects by those who know about training.
Alternative mechanisms, such as improvements from the higher training load allowed by EPO remain completely unstudied by science. A well designed study in this direction could confirm: 1) that EPO allows, or not, a higher training load, and 2) that the higher training load leads to faster race times, or not.
Well, now I know your opinions but I am sure Renato can speak for himself - since it was him the comments were directed to.
European agents and their doctors are guiding a lot of the African doping of the top athletes.
Doped to the Max wrote:
My favorite viewpoint is looking at what renowned scientists have discovered with their extensive research in the field (e.g., Schumacher & Malm).
And Francesco Concini had done extensive research with elites and blood doping:
+1
And, the positive long time experiences of various athletes at the very top with blood doping, including Ramzi, Jeptoo and Kiptum.
And, coaches like Epo-Aden and Salazar despite all the risk, with Salazar claiming that doping provides a two minute advantage in the marathon - recall that Salazar already used testo during his running career, and that one of his pupils was subsequently banned for testo.
And, the faith and or experience of countless athletes, including e.g. Radcliffe and Willis, that doping provides an unfair advantage.
This is all in contrast to the faith of RC that e.g. Bekele is clean and that doping, whether testo or blood, would not have helped him. RC also has faith that Jeptoo was clean in Boston 2014, although she was DQ'ed there because of proof of her doping directly before Boston 2014.
RC also had faith that none of Sang's athletes would ever dope, which also turned out to be too optimistic:
https://www.letsrun.com/news/2019/04/kenyan-5000m-runner-cyrus-rutto-suspended-for-abp-violation-what-does-it-mean-for-the-sport-and-for-his-coach-patrick-sang/In conclusion, I do not share RC’s faith/optimism at all.
Armstronglivs wrote:
Well, now I know your opinions but I am sure Renato can speak for himself - since it was him the comments were directed to.
The point is that he has spoken for himself, answering these questions many times.
Renato, please tell me you're writing an autobiography. PLEASE. If you're not, I'm ready to follow you around and do it for you. Let's do thisssss!!!!!
Seriously though, it would be the most fascinating look into endurance sport ever.
Doped to the Max wrote:
My favorite viewpoint is looking at what renowned scientists have discovered with their extensive research in the field (e.g., Schumacher & Malm).
And Francesco Concini had done extensive research with elites and blood doping:
They are experts in an unrelated field.
Schumacher and Malm have made no discoveries about elite running performance. Just estimates.
Similarly with Conconi you provided estimates, relative to 1980 performances.
Armstronglivs wrote:
rekrunner wrote:
Armstronglivs, why do you continue to ask the same questions that have already been answered many times.
With respect to EPO and blood-doping (not steroids and not HGH):
Renato has said many times that this is his thinking, without scientific proof, based on his lifelong experience.
He has said many times that science also lacks proof.
He has said that EPO will quickly get you to 90% of your aerobic ability -- the rest must come from the right training. This implies that 100% is possible with or without EPO. If anything, those inclined to rely on EPO lack self-confidence, and this mental weakness is what was holding them back.
He said current research doesn't answer the right questions, and tests the wrong subjects -- we need better research on the right subjects by those who know about training.
Alternative mechanisms, such as improvements from the higher training load allowed by EPO remain completely unstudied by science. A well designed study in this direction could confirm: 1) that EPO allows, or not, a higher training load, and 2) that the higher training load leads to faster race times, or not.
Well, now I know your opinions but I am sure Renato can speak for himself - since it was him the comments were directed to.
Why do you think he doesn’t respond to you?
rekrunner wrote:
Schumacher and Malm have made no discoveries about elite running performance. Just estimates.
In addition, Schumacher has made plenty observations of various blood tests of elite runners and their performances over an extended period of time. The AIU continues to rely on his expertise, which thus far was always accepted by CAS.
Yes, that is the very same professor who "estimated" based on his experiences that blood doping alone may provide a boost of up to one minute over 10,000 m.
Just because Mo ran 12:57 does not mean he was even in the discussion to win a medal at the next WC far far less win all those double golds. Kincaid just ran 12:58 how many people here would be suspicious if he had qualified for the team and suddenly took up the 10k and won double gold next year? Not a single one of you would buy that it was done clean. I don't believe Salazar and his group followed the rules and there is not doubt that they did not follow the spirit of the rules.
You may not realize how less stressful is to race just with your teammates, picking time and place as you wish. Not worrying about anything but running. Compare that flying to Europe. Staying in a random hotel. Following someone else's pace. I understand some may say, you're not 12-whatever runner unless you're doing it in the big meet. But I don't agree with that. However, I believe the 12:47 will give Mo extra motivation and belief he really belongs.
Why not all of them? Obviously pacing and training help. Moh Ahmed is 29 and he's been a professional athlete for many years, he's been in many rabbited races and he's gotten dropped on his way to slower times every other race of his life. So it's not training. That means his training has been recently revolutionized? How many people run lifetime bests at age 29? Even Mo Farah PR'd at a younger age.
casual obsever wrote:
rekrunner wrote:
Schumacher and Malm have made no discoveries about elite running performance. Just estimates.
In addition, Schumacher has made plenty observations of various blood tests of elite runners and their performances over an extended period of time. The AIU continues to rely on his expertise, which thus far was always accepted by CAS.
Yes, that is the very same professor who "estimated" based on his experiences that blood doping alone may provide a boost of up to one minute over 10,000 m.
You've said this several times, so I have no doubt you actually believe it.
The AIU relies on his anti-doping expertise in anti-doping cases.
Correct, kind of, rekrunner, good job. But, anti-doping cases? I just showed you a few days ago that the official saying is: doping cases.
slripe111 wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
Well, now I know your opinions but I am sure Renato can speak for himself - since it was him the comments were directed to.
Why do you think he doesn’t respond to you?
He has previously, on several occasions - even when I didn't seek his response. And at great length. I was interested in his views. I am not aware he has appointed surrogates to speak on his behalf - whose views don't interest me.
rekrunner wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
Well, now I know your opinions but I am sure Renato can speak for himself - since it was him the comments were directed to.
The point is that he has spoken for himself, answering these questions many times.
You are sounding like the WH press secretary defending her boss. Renato responded directly to my previous comments; I paid him the same courtesy. It was he who also originated this thread. Unlike you, perhaps, I don't keep a record of everything said on every doping thread.