And bernie should have his A sample struck out
And bernie should have his A sample struck out
Gary Oldman wrote:
And Ben Johnson should get his medal back.
Here's an actually interesting discussion thanks to the great Ross Tucker. Can we call an end to this troll thread now?
Rod Munch wrote:
I'm not sure you even fully understand what "efficiency" means. Physiologically, you're more efficient when you are more aerobic, meaning you are using more type I or IIa fibers, meaning you're using less glycogen (which you said). Type I fibers use less ATP (fuel) per unit force production. But then you also mention using less oxygen, which contradicts the natural adaptation/shift to more type I and IIa fibers. I don't understand your point, plus I also don't understand what you mean by "controlling our nervous system", which you have stated a handful of times. Please elaborate.
Efficiency relates to both aerobic and anaerobic energy use. More pace for the same amount of fuel. Nervous system control with regards to biomechanical and bioenergetic efficiency is the ability to produce more force for the same energy output, and to keep this going, i.e. speed endurance. This applies to all runners regardless of distance, sprinters, middle distance, long distace, ultra distance.
dingle wrote:
I'm not trying intentionally to be dense. But do you have a specific metabolic mechanism that provides the upper limit for an individual in a given race? I've heard people say the number of mitochondria is important. Is this what you think?
No, I don't believe that elite runners have more mitochondria than much slower runners. But anyway, you seem to be missing the point of the thread. It's not about using more oxygen than normal to run faster for longer, it's about using oxygen and glycogen more efficiently. That's what lactate curves show.
Bad Wigins wrote:
half logic wrote:At a given blood volume and HR Max, more EPO = More Red Cells and = more oxygen delivery capacity = higher VO2MAX
Higher Vo2Max means the Vo2 at a given pace is lower percentage of max and therefore 'easier'. This would be measured as a lower HR at given speed after EPO. It would also translate into shifting of 4MMol LT to a higher speed for any athlete that has an increase in red cells following EPO use.
Higher Vo2Max, all other things being equal also enables runner to run faster in training which stimulates other training adaptations (in muscle) so runner becomes more 'fit'.
This is false and a training error for many. VO2max is a measure of oxygen consumption, not delivery. It doesn't matter how much oxygen you can dump on working type 1 muscle if there's not enough to use it all. And even if there is enough, the concurrent action of acid-producing muscle limits its use. It is vital in middle distance, but you can't run long distances at VO2max.
good science bad science wrote:
The real performance enhancers are adrenalin/noradrenalin, controlling your efficiency ... They push the cardivascular system too hard to early in the run, not allowing for the neural efficiency to take effect.
The real performance enhancers were amphetamines, but in-competition testing forced athletes to look for others.
marathon WR, 1920-1947 2:32 -> 2:25, - 7 minutes
1947-1969 (amphetamine era) 2:25 -> 2:09, - 16 minutes
1969-1999 (steroid/blood boost era) 2:09 -> 2:05, -4 minutes
This is true of almost every record progression from sprints to marathon - massive progress from right after WW2 to around 1968 when in-competition testing started. It's also the elephant in the doping room - nobody wants to believe their gods from that era were dirty, even though it was legal then, so they ignore it.
Anyhow you're right, nervous system enhancement is more effective than anything else. Even caffeine can make a big difference. Which makes me wonder about qat, which is legal out of competition. Maybe qat makes a difference in the training of East Africans.
More drug dogma. Yes Amphetamines give a huge adrenalin boost, but what the heck is wrong with your normal adrenalin/noradrenalin production? Nothing. What you need to improve your performance is to learn how to use it effectively.
And... wrote:
I'm not going to argue with your scientific basis of your claim that boosting red blood cell count would not improve performance in elite athletes who are already efficient. Other posters have made reasonable objections (that I agree with) that you have rejected.
But if we accept your theory as true, what is your overall point?
That the most successful distance runners are successful because of their talent and training alone and are either
1) Completely clean, or
2) using EPO, CERA, etc but that this not really cheating because it doesn't help them and has nothing to do with their performance.
If that's your point then:
Should the IAAF and WADA should just stop testing for EPO because its a waste of time? Should the IAAF be focusing more on other drugs like hgh, test., or mystery new designer drugs?
Should we feel sorry for athletes like Rita Jeptoo who were "tricked" into using drugs that didn't help?
Is there some unidentified poorly understood "neurological component" to training/ talent that a few runners have lucked into? (One other poster has raised this question)
What do you suggest that aspiring athletes should do to unlock this neural component?
I'm honestly interested on your thoughts. Thanks-
I don't what to get into the morality issue of drugs in sport today. Another day perhaps, if I have time.
The neurological component is no secret. It's force production when your foot is in contact with the ground, and relaxation when your foot is off the ground. That's an oversimplification, but it gives the general idea. The way to improve this is to train smarter by letting the pace come to you and not try to force it to come. Most runners do the opposite and simply try to hard to run fast, which just makes you tire easily.
Coach.. wrote:
Good science, bad science wrote:Elite athletes use less glycogen to run or ride a bike a given pace. Less glycogen mean less oxygen. The concept of a higher oxygen uptake or more efficient oxygen uptake as a result of blood boosting is just plain bad science.
Paula Radcliffe's tests by Professor Andy Jones show this; she was super efficient at 2.15 marathon pace, using less glycogen, less oxygen. The result of better training, not blood boosting.
You do realise that the old Soviet union had a documented state sponsored blood-doping regimen for r the 1976 and 1980 Olympics involving track,cycling, biathlon, speed skating,xc skiing, rowing with the science to back it up
Professor conconi was doing the same thing with the Italians and stated the performance gains
The finns were at it too
You can multiply those effects x10 when unregulated EPO use started in the 90s
Yes, I do know.
placebo domingo wrote:
http://sportsscientists.com/2007/11/the-effect-of-epo-on-performance/Here's an actually interesting discussion thanks to the great Ross Tucker. Can we call an end to this troll thread now?
Ross Tucker is not my idea of 'great'.
I wouldn't say that blood boosting is pointless, but there is an interesting placebo effect with EPO and other PEDs. I wrote about it briefly here:
http://endurancenerd.com/epo-placebo/
Fact is we can't account for exactly how EPO improves performance even when we correct for the placebo effect. So far studies haven't definitively nailed down all the ways it boosts performance.
BUT, it's pretty safe to say that it absolutely does boost performance. Even anecdotally: Online you can find first-hand accounts from dopers in every sport, and they all tell a similar enough tale that you'd be hard-pressed to call a fluke -- drastically faster recovery, ability to complete punishing workouts, having not just one or two, but three or four higher "gears" you didn't have 3 months ago.
It likely works more in the way described by other posters relating to changing maximums so that at a given workload you're at a lower percentage of your maximum compared to pre-doping.
To reference only lactate curves is one dimensional in any assessment of performance.
Good science, bad science wrote:
Yes Amphetamines give a huge adrenalin boost, but what the heck is wrong with your normal adrenalin/noradrenalin production? Nothing.
Nothing if a bear is trying to kill you. Not so reliable in a mere sporting competition. And it's too short-lived to be effective in training, where the nervous system is spurred to develop by multiple fast reps.
There are two natural sources of amphetamine still widely used today, ephedra and qat. Both are "specified" substances, sprinters get off the hook for ephedra pretty easily. Yohan Blake went down 6 months for methylhexanamine.
Epinephrine/adrenaline is one of these specified substances. There is not even a dosage limit as there is with ephedra and qat. Amphetamine is non-specified. Clearly WADA agrees it's the more effective PED.
endurance nerd wrote:
I wouldn't say that blood boosting is pointless, but there is an interesting placebo effect with EPO and other PEDs. I wrote about it briefly here:
http://endurancenerd.com/epo-placebo/Fact is we can't account for exactly how EPO improves performance even when we correct for the placebo effect. So far studies haven't definitively nailed down all the ways it boosts performance.
BUT, it's pretty safe to say that it absolutely does boost performance. Even anecdotally: Online you can find first-hand accounts from dopers in every sport, and they all tell a similar enough tale that you'd be hard-pressed to call a fluke -- drastically faster recovery, ability to complete punishing workouts, having not just one or two, but three or four higher "gears" you didn't have 3 months ago.
It likely works more in the way described by other posters relating to changing maximums so that at a given workload you're at a lower percentage of your maximum compared to pre-doping.
To reference only lactate curves is one dimensional in any assessment of performance.
One injection of (probably a trivial dose of) EPO with a test one week later? Talk about a study intentionally designed to fail. Why not take two groups of untrained subjects, have both groups run a 400 all out on day one, have both groups run a mile all out on day three, and have the "training" group run 10 miles all out on day 2, while the "no training" group does nothing. I'm sure this "study" will "prove" that training impairs running performance.
Bad Wigins wrote:
Good science, bad science wrote:Yes Amphetamines give a huge adrenalin boost, but what the heck is wrong with your normal adrenalin/noradrenalin production? Nothing.
Nothing if a bear is trying to kill you. Not so reliable in a mere sporting competition. And it's too short-lived to be effective in training, where the nervous system is spurred to develop by multiple fast reps.
There are two natural sources of amphetamine still widely used today, ephedra and qat. Both are "specified" substances, sprinters get off the hook for ephedra pretty easily. Yohan Blake went down 6 months for methylhexanamine.
Epinephrine/adrenaline is one of these specified substances. There is not even a dosage limit as there is with ephedra and qat. Amphetamine is non-specified. Clearly WADA agrees it's the more effective PED.
I picture Good Science bad science as the Timothy Treadwell type.
lol lol lol lol wrote:
One injection of (probably a trivial dose of) EPO with a test one week later? Talk about a study intentionally designed to fail. Why not take two groups of untrained subjects, have both groups run a 400 all out on day one, have both groups run a mile all out on day three, and have the "training" group run 10 miles all out on day 2, while the "no training" group does nothing. I'm sure this "study" will "prove" that training impairs running performance.
I need to clarify....you think they actually gave them a small one-time dose of EPO?
They weren't given any EPO (trivial dose or otherwise) but rather were given a fake. Hence the "placebo" study.
I think they did a good job of keeping their study focus appropriately narrow. Perfect? No. But pretty good and interesting to boot.
Alcohol doesn't actually impair your motor functions and Advil isn't really an anti inflammatory. It's all the placebo effect and snake oil salesmen.
Bad Wigins wrote:
Nothing if a bear is trying to kill you blah blah blah more nosense about drugs.
Drug Believer wrote:
Bad Wigins wrote:Nothing if a bear is trying to kill you blah blah blah more nosense about drugs.
I think you mean nonsense, JR.
endurance nerd wrote:
lol lol lol lol wrote:One injection of (probably a trivial dose of) EPO with a test one week later? Talk about a study intentionally designed to fail. Why not take two groups of untrained subjects, have both groups run a 400 all out on day one, have both groups run a mile all out on day three, and have the "training" group run 10 miles all out on day 2, while the "no training" group does nothing. I'm sure this "study" will "prove" that training impairs running performance.
I need to clarify....you think they actually gave them a small one-time dose of EPO?
They weren't given any EPO (trivial dose or otherwise) but rather were given a fake. Hence the "placebo" study.
I think they did a good job of keeping their study focus appropriately narrow. Perfect? No. But pretty good and interesting to boot.
You're right, I'm wrong (I got about 2 hours sleep last night ;) ).
Endurance nerd, I read your blog, now would you do the courtesy of reading what I have written here, then perhaps you will give something more insightful than:
endurance nerd wrote:
To reference only lactate curves is one dimensional in any assessment of performance.
Bad Wigins wrote:
Good science, bad science wrote:Yes Amphetamines give a huge adrenalin boost, but what the heck is wrong with your normal adrenalin/noradrenalin production? Nothing.
Nothing if a bear is trying to kill you. Not so reliable in a mere sporting competition. And it's too short-lived to be effective in training, where the nervous system is spurred to develop by multiple fast reps.
There are two natural sources of amphetamine still widely used today, ephedra and qat. Both are "specified" substances, sprinters get off the hook for ephedra pretty easily. Yohan Blake went down 6 months for methylhexanamine.
Epinephrine/adrenaline is one of these specified substances. There is not even a dosage limit as there is with ephedra and qat. Amphetamine is non-specified. Clearly WADA agrees it's the more effective PED.
Get off the drug obsession, it's crazy.