Armstronglivs wrote:
In your ineffable stupidity, the point I made previously that you fail to comprehend is that you have no personal acquaintance with any doped athletes on which to base your claims that they are only guessing that doping will help them - and it won't really. Neither do your esteemed researchers.
Maybe you need to hash that out with Tom Cochrane, who "knows" Ramzi.
Do you "know" any doped distance running athletes in El G's league?
rekrunner wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
If your claim can be sustained that "altitude training tends to undermine the effects of EPO" this would have required a study of altitude-trained athletes who used EPO. Perhaps you could point us to such a study. I eagerly await your citation.
On the other hand, there is this less than effusive endorsement of the benefits of altitude training.
https://sportsscientists.com/2007/07/altitude-training-the-basics/But the evidence suggests that this live-high and train-low theory does work, though the effects are relatively small. There is also an interesting phenemenon of “responders” and “non-responders”, with some people showing improvements of about a minute over a 5km time-trial after a 4-week training period, while others show no improvement, or even get slower. So the jury is still out, scientifically at least. But the fact that so many athletes swear by it is a sign that there is something there, even if it is just a placebo effect.
Are you making my argument for me?
1 minute for 5km is 6.25% for the 16-minute runner. That's more than the Scots and the Kenyans on 4 weeks of EPO.
The usual assumption is that athletes can magically increas oxygen uptake by whatever means. Increase above what exactly?
This is the great Aerobic metabolic conundrum?
Why does nobody ask if some measurements are sub maximal and that it is quite normal to get sub maximal readings?
Armstronglivs wrote:
So there you go again, arguing the non-rationality of athletes who choose to dope, while making a claim about the relative merits or otherwise of EPO that is not based in any way on data derived from the experiences of altitude-trained athletes who have also used EPO, without which your assertion is merely specious speculation. So very "rational" of you.
You just gave us data from the sports scientists about altitude training, that corroborated the data I gave on altitude training, that is more than the gain from the Scottish/Kenyan study.
If altitude can provide 1 minute benefit for 5K, who would also rationally choose to take EPO?
High-Octane Dopers wrote:
rekrunner wrote:
A Daniels VDOT of 85 predicts a 3:23 for 1500m and a 12:37 for 5000m. He ran 3:29 and 13:10.
77% aerobic means 23% non-aerobic. How is that relevant to anything? (Rhetorical question -- it is not relevant.)
Winning 800m and 1500m suggests better speed than endurance.
Then how did Kiprop, Baala & Ali lose to Ramzi when Ali has slightly better speed (1:44.02) while Kiprop (1:43.15) & Baala (1:43.15) have much better speed than Ramzi? (1:44.05)
Because racing is the result of hundreds of factors. That's why they do them.
Tom Cochrane wrote:
rekrunner wrote:
Why do you think 10 seconds is connected to EPO?
There is a gap in your thinking.
Because when he took it he dropped that amount of time.
What other changes and factors have you considered?
how does that work? wrote:
The usual assumption is that athletes can magically increas oxygen uptake by whatever means. Increase above what exactly?
This is the great Aerobic metabolic conundrum?
Why does nobody ask if some measurements are sub maximal and that it is quite normal to get sub maximal readings?
If altitude gives more natural EPO, higher RBCs, training camp effect and placebo effect, why would anyone risk taking synthetic EPO?
I noted before in other threads, that both hi-lo and hi-hi groups increase VO2max, while only the hi-lo group improves performance. VO2max is one measure, but not the only one (and also fraught with many problems with the measurement itself), and not the one most connected to performance. Time trials at race pace are better measurements.
Aragon wrote:
It is also telling that there are many high caliber athletes who have trained but not doped, but none who have doped but not trained.
+1
rekrunner wrote:
They introduce risk when altitude is already providing high RBCs and benefit -- doesn't seem particularly smart. Is this what is considered rational?
You didn't read the paper I linked. EPO can increase Hb-mass above & beyond what altitude training can do.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30969231/"The desire to increase tHb-mass beyond levels that can be attained through altitude training (14) has led some athletes to use recombinant human erythropetin (rHuEpo). Within our group, rHuEpo has been shown to increase an individual’s V˙O2max by approximately 6% and endurance
performance by approximately 8% (15), with similar im-provements in V˙ O2max reported by others (16,17). The current method to detect rHuEpo involves longitudinal monitoring of an athlete’s hematological parameters, known as the Athlete Biological Passport (ABP), to detect changes that may indicate rHuEpo abuse (18). An aug-mented tHb-mass is considered the primary mechanism
responsible for the ergogenic effects of both rHuEpo use and altitude exposure (14). It is plausible that an athlete could administer rHuEpo to enhance the tHb-mass while attending an altitude training camp and attempt to explain any suspicious hematological change as a response to altitude. This tactic has previously been employed by an elite-level athlete, but it did not succeed as the height of the altitude (800Y1600 m) was insufficient to elicit a significant hematological response (19). The aim of this perspective is to highlight the pitfalls of current altitude training guidelines and summarize the difficulty antidoping agencies face in detecting rHuEpo abuse in athletes training at altitude."
how does that work? wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
High altitude also serves to undermine the effects of EPO, rendering EPO partly, if not completely, superfluous -- another reason, and basis, to think that athletes are not particularly well-informed or rational.
So there you go again, arguing the non-rationality of athletes who choose to dope, while making a claim about the relative merits or otherwise of EPO that is not based in any way on data derived from the experiences of altitude-trained athletes who have also used EPO, without which your assertion is merely specious speculation. So very "rational" of you.
Armstronglivs, the great oxygen kinetics expert.[/quote]
Jon Orange, the man who knew nothing about everything.
how does that work? wrote:
rekrunner wrote:
Are you making my argument for me?
1 minute for 5km is 6.25% for the 16-minute runner. That's more than the Scots and the Kenyans on 4 weeks of EPO.
The usual assumption is that athletes can magically increas oxygen uptake by whatever means. Increase above what exactly?
This is the great Aerobic metabolic conundrum?
Why does nobody ask if some measurements are sub maximal and that it is quite normal to get sub maximal readings?
Above their natural ability.
Not a conundrum at all.
rekrunner wrote:
Tom Cochrane wrote:
Because when he took it he dropped that amount of time.
What other changes and factors have you considered?
Citizenship to a country who can more readily get the good stuff for him.
rekrunner wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
So there you go again, arguing the non-rationality of athletes who choose to dope, while making a claim about the relative merits or otherwise of EPO that is not based in any way on data derived from the experiences of altitude-trained athletes who have also used EPO, without which your assertion is merely specious speculation. So very "rational" of you.
You just gave us data from the sports scientists about altitude training, that corroborated the data I gave on altitude training, that is more than the gain from the Scottish/Kenyan study.
If altitude can provide 1 minute benefit for 5K, who would also rationally choose to take EPO?
Those who want more than a minute of improvement.
Tom Cochrane wrote:
rekrunner wrote:
What other changes and factors have you considered?
Citizenship to a country who can more readily get the good stuff for him.
There are too many gaps. You don't have an accurate estimate for Ramzi's non-EPO ability.
This is one of the methods to over-estimate benefit.
High-Octane Dopers wrote:
rekrunner wrote:
They introduce risk when altitude is already providing high RBCs and benefit -- doesn't seem particularly smart. Is this what is considered rational?
You didn't read the paper I linked. EPO can increase Hb-mass above & beyond what altitude training can do.
These papers don't interest me. I'm not all that interested in Hb-mass, or strategies to avoid (and fail) anti-doping positives. The end goal is performance.
Can you fast forward and quote the part where they measured performance benefit in running time trials?
Because I have seen, and apparently Ross has too, 1 minute gains from hi-lo altitude training in 5km time trials, equivalent to more than 6%. This is more than was achieved by Pitsiladis in the Scottish/Kenyan trials.
rekrunner wrote:
Tom Cochrane wrote:
Citizenship to a country who can more readily get the good stuff for him.
There are too many gaps. You don't have an accurate estimate for Ramzi's non-EPO ability.
This is one of the methods to over-estimate benefit.
Accurate enough. Let's half it then. Five seconds.
Tom Cochrane wrote:
Accurate enough. Let's half it then. Five seconds.
I'd estimate you've cut your error in half.
My estimation is accurate enough.
Tom Cochrane wrote:
how does that work? wrote:
The usual assumption is that athletes can magically increas oxygen uptake by whatever means. Increase above what exactly?
This is the great Aerobic metabolic conundrum?
Why does nobody ask if some measurements are sub maximal and that it is quite normal to get sub maximal readings?
Above their natural ability.
Not a conundrum at all.
Beyond their Thermoregulatory limit?
Do you think you know more about oxygen kinetics than Jack Daniels?
rekrunner wrote:
Tom Cochrane wrote:
Accurate enough. Let's half it then. Five seconds.
I'd estimate you've cut your error in half.
My estimation is accurate enough.
As long as it's 3-5 seconds.
how does that work? wrote:
Tom Cochrane wrote:
Above their natural ability.
Not a conundrum at all.
Beyond their Thermoregulatory limit?
Do you think you know more about oxygen kinetics than Jack Daniels?
Up to their new drug enhanced limit.
Maybe if he's anything like you. I'm not aware of him having Dementia.
rekrunner wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
So there you go again, arguing the non-rationality of athletes who choose to dope, while making a claim about the relative merits or otherwise of EPO that is not based in any way on data derived from the experiences of altitude-trained athletes who have also used EPO, without which your assertion is merely specious speculation. So very "rational" of you.
You just gave us data from the sports scientists about altitude training, that corroborated the data I gave on altitude training, that is more than the gain from the Scottish/Kenyan study.
If altitude can provide 1 minute benefit for 5K, who would also rationally choose to take EPO?
Since you have no data on EPO you have nothing to base your comparison on. But athletes who dope do. I realise the perceptions of those who aren't you are beyond your ability to comprehend.