Alex Hutchinson calls out CANOVA over study confirming EPO works on Kenyan runners

Maybe I was not clear. The 43 of Hct of Sondre is an example. There is not some scientific base for showing which is the optimal level of Hct, that is something absolutely individual. About the optimal individual level, the only proof is to see this level connected with the level of performances. Which is the Hct of one athlete when he can run his PB ?

Athletics is not so complicated, and all the researches, instead giving some more specific knowledge, contribute to increase the confusion about what is important and what is useless.

The succession of actions must be the following :

a) The athlete must have talent. Without talent is not possible to achieve top results.

b) He must have a good training strategy. This is possible only with an expert coach.

c) The athlete must have continuity, and has to increase his training with graduality.

d) The athletes goes to compete at high level, and achieve good performances.

e) When he achieves his best performances, we can see his physiological data, and specifically the level of Hct and Hb

f) These are his OPTIMAL INDIVIDUAL LEVELS, and we can see that not always his PB depend on his higher personal level of Hct and Hb.

g) In the case of Sondre, his best performances were in the range of 44-45 directly coming from long periods in altitude, but in the past 43 (and under 14 of Hb) when his training was at sea level.

The data that I published in LR are all the official data of WADA valid for his Biological Passport. But we have several other blood tests, not from WADA or from some antidoping agency (so, without off-score), showing that frequently his values were low, and he was able to run fast.

About him, he suffered this year for a groin pain that didn't allow him to train well, and I did the mistake to try, with him, to arrive to run European Champs in any case. I never saw a miracle in my life about some injured athlete, but this time I hoped in a miracle which didn't happen. My fault, in spite I teach to the other coaches than, when there is some injury, the only option is to stop running and to put all the focus in the full recovery : "Injured athletes don't exist, injured persons exist. An injured person must have the only goal to become fit again. When is fit, can start to think what has to do for becoming an athlete again". This is what I explain, but this time I didn't follow...

You know I get frustrated by dogma, so it's not unreasonable of me to go ad hominem when it's repeated endlessly. My "inane ramblings" are the stuff you should know but don't because you don't really care.

These adaptions you write about are normal adaptions to training and as such are inveitably going to be greatly exaggerated in ex phys literature. How long do you think it takes for these adaptions to ocur? Go on have a wild guess. Days? Weeks? Months? Years?

How about days? How about Mitochondrial density is essential for normal cell function? How about researchers being over keen to prove a hypothesis?

I am aware of the literature stating an increase in natural erythropoiesis at altitude, but the number of RBCs in altitude trained athletes returns to normal after a very short time. Why would that be? Go on take another wild guess, or just apply a bit of logic for once instead of repeating the same old dogma year after year. How about giving me some credit for pointing out that natural adaptions to training is what every healthy runner has in a very short space of time. How about that? Too logical for you? Too simplistic? Too radical? Too iconoclastic? Or just too much common sense for you to process?

You're doing exactly what I say you're doing; projecting your own inferiority complex onto others and at the same time putting elite athletes on a pedestal of superhuman cardivascular development. They have no such thing, they have normal cardiovascular development but their massive 'Aerobic Power' comes from superior biomechanical efficiency. These elite athletes will be very ordinary in running and cycling ability just a few years after they retire from professional sport even if they continue to run and ride. But do you really think their cardiovascular sytems will be much different? I will bet you a decent amount they won't.

You want me to refrain from saying you were taught wrong? Well I read much of the same literature as you over the last 30 years and it all comes down to interpretation doesn't it?

Whatever cellular adaptions an elite needs for oxygen delivery are invetably going to be the subject of vast amounts of misinterpretation and worse. But the biomechanical efficiency factor is going to be largely ignored by those studying oxygen delivery. You brush it off by saying : "Biomechanical efficiency is important and plays a role in economy but not the all and everything." Well excuse me but I think you have no idea what all the training is for. You're caught up in the 'Aerobic development' dogma like everyone else and ignoring the fact that oxygen uptake levels are stable over time and only subject to very quick adaptions to environmental conditions that all healty people achive naturally and quickly. But what makes elite athletes special is their technical skill at running, cycling, rowing etc which takes many years and countless thousand of hours to achieve.

Now get looking at the data I provided and see how the rEPO nonsense is appallingly bad science. There is no performance enhancement it's a delusion. Don't preach at me, you're not insightful enough or knowledgeable enough to do that. Educate yourself about thermoregulation and biomechanical efficency.

You want a concise expalantion?

Elite athletes have more elastic energy return sustained for longer periods. Their skill level is higher at controlling tension and relaxation in the muscles. Elastic energy return has no oxygen cost. It's basic fukcin physiology. Get of the stupid PEDs bandwagon and educate yourself.

You said a whole lot of nothing there, Jon.

I hope that's not your thesis for the science degree you've been working on for the last 17 years.

Thanks Renato. We need some intelligent data on the subject but we don't get it. What we need is a count of total red blood cell volume instead of percentages. I say the optimal amount of red blood cells is a normal amount that every healthy active person has (individual variation included) and that this is enough to give the optimal deliver of oxygen to the muscles. The obssession with blood boosting has been around for nearly 50 years and it's very bad science because we have a limit to how much oxygen we can use and our body knows how to achive this and how many red blood cells it needs. We are limited by heat production, more oxygen uptake = more heat. Every exercise physiologist should know this, but I have written to some of the so called experts and it seems I was right, they have no idea. They are so caught up in the drugs obsession that they can't think straight.

Should I name these people or should I give them a chance to amend their ignorance? I don't think they will though, I don't think they care. They are all on twitter posting endless attention seeking nonsense, they don't have time or interest to study.

Go on, Jon. Prove it with your lab. You clearly have the time if they don't.

rekrunner wrote:

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.

Had you read the article, you would know the training part. But no, you gotta do your typical obfuscating despite the facts.

"we do not know if this improvement exceeded their physiological limit"? What the? Pointless. We don't ever know that, no matter whether we follow 1:03 half marathoners like here or 0:59 half marathoners (who would never agree to such a test).

More interesting is that this was a WADA study. I thought you trust WADA? Why do you then trash talk their study, without actually reading it?

I hope they noticed the 5% improvements of 1:03 half marathoners after just 4 weeks - without triggering the ridiculously generous ABP thresholds, and finally adjust them properly to at least catch a somewhat significant part of all the cheats.

Another curious point is that the main author not only has done quite a bit of research on EPO, who also recently had a grant to investigate...

thermoregulation!

Taa daa. And here I thought scientists are too ignorant to be aware of this sensational concept that renders all PEDs pointless. LOL.

Which author are you talking about?

casual obsever wrote:

Another curious point is that the main author not only has done quite a bit of research on EPO, who also recently had a grant to investigate...

thermoregulation!

Taa daa. And here I thought scientists are too ignorant to be aware of this sensational concept that renders all PEDs pointless. LOL.

I can hear Jon's single brain cell ricocheting around his skull.

Hutchinson? I have read some of his stuff, he didn't seem aware that those with the highest VO2 max also had the lowest oxygen economy. Not exactly a wll informed researcher. I won't be buying his new book.

That's right Jon, cover your ears whenever your theory is threatened and make some inane reference which disqualifies a researcher as valid.

casual obsever wrote:

rekrunner wrote:

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.

Had you read the article, you would know the training part. But no, you gotta do your typical obfuscating despite the facts.

This tells you all you need to know about Rekrunner. Pretends to be neutral and interested in facts, but disregards this study without reading it because it contradicts his firmly held conclusion.

Tyrone ReXXXing wrote:

JonO. wrote:,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.

.

Oh yes, the "running is a skill" myth. Everything is a "skill" then. I.E., you've said nothing.

(and in reality, if you look at any playground across America, you will see kids sprinting across the playground with perfect running form, untaught by coaches or "huge amounts of training" or years of practice. But I guess when they start to get tired due to lack of aerobic/anaeorbic development, they suddenly lose their "skill", and have to stop and take a rest. Hmmm....someone needs to teach them the "skill" of not getting tired.)

We all learn the basic skill as children. It's something innate to want to do that and enjoy it. But when we reach a certain age some of us lose that will and others retain it.

The superior running skill of elite runners is not something you or any serious researcher should ignore.

Stay Cool dopers wrote:

casual obsever wrote:

Another curious point is that the main author not only has done quite a bit of research on EPO, who also recently had a grant to investigate...

thermoregulation!

Taa daa. And here I thought scientists are too ignorant to be aware of this sensational concept that renders all PEDs pointless. LOL.

I can hear Jon's single brain cell ricocheting around his skull.

You guys are cracking me up...JO is the life of the party! ?

So where does thermoregulation fit into your thesis? How do we propose we use more oxygen and still thermoregulate?

And are you suggesting that Lance Armsrong's absolute VO2 went from 6 liters/min to 6.6? Or what imaginary number that you drug obsessives believe?

Cuz I'm saying it did not such thing. It stayed at 6 liters per minute and he was producing not producing more power than a normal RBC levels can sustain, even with cyclists who have a much lower VO2 max but much higher economy.

Renato, thanks again. I wonder if brojos respect you? It is disapointing that they turn this site into a trollfest. It is also disapointing that their own guru John Kellogg can't contribute to these debates.

Calling out Weldon and Robert Johnson and John Kellogg for being cowards.

It's well within the ability of the body to cope with that minor detail.

Besides the lowered breathing requirement of doped up blood means there is less oxygen demand in that area.

Sucking wind to no avail is a huge drain. Boost the blood and you greatly reduce that.

dghr wrote:

I Agree wrote:

He may a great coach and all but he loses my respect with a stupid comment like that.

You pair of coward morons, do you realize English is not his first language?

Like the other guy pointed out, what Renato means is that they have no formal training in coaching methodology.

But your agenda blinds you.

"Canova is a liar" - and who are you?

And don 't give me the usual crap that I am anonymous as well. I am not insulting someone whose name is on the line here.

Well said. I think ukathleticscoach is active here. No idea who he is. Don't want to know, another embittered nobody.

Yes, ridiculously high hematocrit does negatively affect oxygen transport, utilization, etc. There is a trade-off due to a thing so called blood viscosity. More hematocrit=higher viscosity=increased vessel resistance=higher required pressure for transport=more work performed by the heart. Look it up bro. It's not "bad science". It IS physics.