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

rekrunner wrote:

Scientific literature falls far short of showing improved performance beyond physiological limitations.

The literature rarely looks at training at all, let alone showing that the improved recovery will allow athletes to train harder, which lead to performance beyond their physical limit.

(Not to mention, harder training does not always mean better training).

When we say "nothing new here", it is more like "nothing here at all".

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.

Here is what the main purpose of the study was for. As casual alluded to WADA funded the study to help with gene signature identification of EPO use. And if you're so supportive of WADA like you say you are - why do you trash this study everytime it's referenced? Are you supportive in the fight against doping or not? And just because you don't concur with the study's findings doesn't mean we can't reference and quote from it.

4.4 Discussion:

"The main aim of this study was to determine whether the effects of rHuEpo administration on blood parameters, O2max and running time trial performance in Kenyan endurance runners living and training at moderate altitude (~2,150 m) would be similar to those observed in Caucasian trained males living and training at or near sea-level (Chapter 2) (Durussel et al.2013a). The main finding of this study was that, although baseline values were markedly different between groups and blood parameters did not change as much in KEN as in SCO, the relative improvements in running performance post rHuEpo (~5%) and 4 weeks post administration (~3%) were not significantly different between both groups."

What's up with this? wrote:

Canova doesn't walk on water and know everything about the effects of rEPO/blood doping and endurance athletes.

Ah but you (under any of your obvious aliases) and SSA, m!ndturd, casual, you all do walk on water and know everything about rEPO, the training of Kenyan elites, etc.

Bow to the experts.

dghr wrote:

What's up with this? wrote:

Canova doesn't walk on water and know everything about the effects of rEPO/blood doping and endurance athletes.

Ah but you (under any of your obvious aliases) and SSA, m!ndturd, casual, you all do walk on water and know everything about rEPO, the training of Kenyan elites, etc.

Bow to the experts.

Right JO (you're not fooling anyone. ?).

Which article? All I saw were two tweets attacking a strawman, and an abstract, with the same methods, results, and conclusions as studies conducted years ago by the same people. Regarding ""we do not know if this improvement exceeded their physiological limit"? What the? Pointless. We don't ever know that," -- I think we both agree. This was directed at "Lets Tell It Like It Is" who was attempting to lecture Renato about EPO by saying "some athletes can train harder and have significantly improved recovery with rEPO. Being able to train harder and recover more efficiently translates to an athlete going beyond their physiological limitations" and we should know this because "this is all reported in the scientific literature". I don't know where "I thought you trust WADA?" comes from. It's not who says something that makes me trust what is said, but how will it can be supported, and equally important, the lack of well supported contradictions. In any case, WADA may have approved the study, or commissioned it, but they did not conduct it, or write the paper.

As a point in fact, I was taking about the Kenyan and Scottish studies conducted years ago. My firmly held conclusion is that the design of these studies lacked the kinds of controls necessary to accurately quantify the effect of the intervention.

Rekrunner is a liar wrote:

casual obsever wrote:

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.

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.

Here's an interesting study with Malm et al: "Autologous Doping with Cryopreserved Red Blood Cells – Effects on Physical Performance and Detection by Multivariate Statistics," from the introduction:

? "Initially, blood transfusion was used to enhance military aviation pilots’ work capacity to fly at high altitude during WWII, when pressurized cockpits were not used [21]. Later, submaximal [22] and maximal [23] running performance was shown to improve with blood transfusion. The discovery of erythropoietin (EPO) [24] simplified blood doping in sports, supplementing blood donation, storage and re-infusion. Similar performance enhancements of 6–12% could now be achieved by a simple recombinant human (rh) EPO injection [25–27]. In a review on blood doping published in 1989, Jones and Tunstall [28] describe increases in performance and VO2max ranging between 0% and 40%, depending on the subjects included and methods used for both testing and doping. From the summarized literature, it can be estimated that elite athletes may improve performance by up to 3% with blood doping, regardless of method [29–31]. This enhancement is equivalent to, for example, seven minutes faster winning time in the 90 km cross country ski race Vasaloppet, 20–30 seconds faster time in any given 5000 m run at world class level, and four minutes faster finishing time in a marathon race. In cycling, a 3% increase in performance translate to a more than two hour faster winning time in Tour de France 2014."

What does "like I say I do" mean? I'm curious what you guys think I said? What is it about "trashing this study" makes you question my support for WADA, and the fight against doping? The study is fine for detecting genetic markers. I guess this research is fine for developing new testing, kind of like ABP, but using genes instead of blood. I support WADA's efforts to develop new tests, to detect doping, and to sanction athletes who dope. But people are using these studies to make firm conclusions about performance: - That EPO caused the +/-5% improvement (can't be sure without a control group reference, and controlling pre-study training) - It would therefore cause a +/-5% improvement in elite athletes - That athletes who do improve by +/-5% can only have done it with EPO These questions about "performance" have nothing to do with my support of WADA, and the fight against doping.

rekrunner wrote:

As a point in fact, I was taking about the Kenyan and Scottish studies conducted years ago. My firmly held conclusion is that the design of these studies lacked the kinds of controls necessary to accurately quantify the effect of the intervention.

I don't understand - what exactly are you challenging with the study? (other than design). Are you challenging the #'s reported from the increases in Hct & Hgb and/or improvement in running performance?

"Conclusion: Four weeks of rHuEpo increased the HGB and HCT of Kenyan endurance runners to a lesser extent than in SCO (~17% vs ~10%, respectively) and these alterations were associated with similar improvements in running performance immediately after the rHuEpo administration (~5%) and 4 weeks after rHuEpo (~3%)."

rekrunner wrote:

What does "like I say I do" mean? I'm curious what you guys think I said?

What is it about "trashing this study" makes you question my support for WADA, and the fight against doping?

The study is fine for detecting genetic markers. I guess this research is fine for developing new testing, kind of like ABP, but using genes instead of blood. I support WADA's efforts to develop new tests, to detect doping, and to sanction athletes who dope.

But people are using these studies to make firm conclusions about performance:

- That EPO caused the +/-5% improvement (can't be sure without a control group reference, and controlling pre-study training)

- It would therefore cause a +/-5% improvement in elite athletes

- That athletes who do improve by +/-5% can only have done it with EPO

C'mon man...you trash this study at every opportunity you get because the part with the Kenyans and EPO seems to get you nervous. You've always want to defend & undermine some of these Kenyan doping cases...does Jeptoo come to mind? ?

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!

JonO. wrote:

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.

Is this a joke? Not the main author of the tweet, but the main author of the study.

rekrunner wrote:

Which article?

Oh boy. I really should stop responding to you. Anyway, here you go again:

DOI: 10.1249/MSS.0000000000001777

Published 09/04/2018. 2018, not years ago. September, not months ago.

You are welcome.

Try to read it before you argue against it.

casual obsever 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!

JonO. wrote:

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.

Is this a joke? Not the main author of the tweet, but the main author of the study.

Jon is not known for his ability to reed good.

About Ronald : he is one of the athletes having natural very high Hct, and this is of course an important characteristic, but not fundamental. I several times pointed out that, when I was the head coach in Italy for middle and long distances, we had athletes winning Olympic in Marathon like Gelindo Bordin with 12.9 Hb and 39.7 Hct, and athletes bettering the National Record of 1500m like Gennaro Di Napoli with Hct 52 and Hb 18.8, and when was at 17.5 had problems of anaemia.

So, we can have in the same event athletes at the top with complete different blood values. Since there is no doubt that, with higher Hct, you can have a higher ability to transport Oxygen, if with this superior characteristic you are not able to run faster than somebody with a very lower value, is because there is some other factor in the body that goes to limit the performance.

And no, athletes taking EPO don't have lower heart rate because have a stronger stroke volume. The stroke volume is directly connected with the dimension of the heart, and the heart becomes bigger because of the aerobic activity, not because the assumption of EPO without activity. So, EPO can help the activity, but is not able to increase the stroke volume.

Remember that the heart is a muscle, and, how any other muscle, can increase size with the activity. Other problem is to look not at the size of the heart, but also at the cardiac wall thickness : the elasticity of the cardiac walls have great importance for determining the stroke volume, and this has nothing to do with EPO.

This means that there is no reason because athletes taking EPO have a lower heart rate than athletes NOT taking EPO, other than the increased viscosity, that means increased peripheral resistance to the blood circulation, with reduction of the velocity of the circulation (that is a limiting factor).

What you explain as "product of EPO" is exactly what happens as "product of training".

So said, I go again to the PRATIC preparation of scientists and researchers, when we speak about training methodology.

When I give some workout to an athlete, I well know the final effect ON HIS PERFORMANCE : so, I can say that with the combination of training A + B + C, in a proper proportion, and in different volume and intensity looking at the different period of preparation, I know what I go to produce under technical point of view. However, I don't know WHY. It's clear this training produces physiological variations, in combined way, BUT NOBODY IS ABLE TO EXPLAIN WHY.

Why what is perfect for one athlete, can be dangerous for another, able to run the same distance in the same time ?

Why we speak about INDIVIDUALISATION of training as one of the most important factors ?

So, I know which performance I go to produce with my training, but I don't know the scientific reason.

On the other side, scientists and researchers DON'T know what a specific training can produce, but also don't know the scientific reason, simply because they NEVER went to study the training and the INDIVIDUALISATION of it.

This is called METHODOLOGY, and is something belonging to the PRACTIC ABILITY to coach.

And, again, scientists and researchers don't have any formal preparation in that direction. If they had, didn't do so many researches without any final clue, repeating thousand times the same tests and the same protocols.

I read everything that was linked -- I didn't think it was my burden to do more. I didn't yet argue against this new study, but asked what was new about it, besides the date and the publisher. I argued against the previous studies, that I did read, and asked if this new study addressed these issues. Because if it doesn't, then it would be a waste of time, because my responses would be the same.

casual obsever wrote:

rekrunner wrote:

Which article?

Oh boy. I really should stop responding to you. Anyway, here you go again:

DOI: 10.1249/MSS.0000000000001777

Published 09/04/2018. 2018, not years ago. September, not months ago.

You are welcome.

Try to read it before you argue against it.

Your response doesn't really address anything my post. A "new study with Kenyans and EPO" is not a "Kenyan doping case". What is it about pointing out the lack of controls (a legitimate observation) makes you question my support for WADA, and the fight against doping? It's possible to do both.

rekrunner wrote:

I read everything that was linked -- I didn't think it was my burden to do more.

I didn't yet argue against this new study, but asked what was new about it, besides the date and the publisher.

Fact 1): this was linked several times on page 1 of this thread alone.

Fact 2): after that, you wrote, in this thread:

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.

Keep this up, this is fun.

To be clear once again, I did not yet provide any comments on the 2018 publication, but on the earlier studies based on earlier time trials. I'm never concerned about Hgb and Hct, but about performance. Without control, we are limited in our ability to interpret the observed 5% improvement (the figure from previous studies), to the EPO intervention.

RFM wrote:

rekrunner wrote:

As a point in fact, I was taking about the Kenyan and Scottish studies conducted years ago. My firmly held conclusion is that the design of these studies lacked the kinds of controls necessary to accurately quantify the effect of the intervention.

I don't understand - what exactly are you challenging with the study? (other than design). Are you challenging the #'s reported from the increases in Hct & Hgb and/or improvement in running performance?

"Conclusion: Four weeks of rHuEpo increased the HGB and HCT of Kenyan endurance runners to a lesser extent than in SCO (~17% vs ~10%, respectively) and these alterations were associated with similar improvements in running performance immediately after the rHuEpo administration (~5%) and 4 weeks after rHuEpo (~3%)."

Maybe fun, but not completely honest. Fact 1) Again, I followed the links, and read them. Fact 2) For context, the original claim that I responded to was that that EPO allowed athletes to train harder, and that training harder was the cause of a performance that exceeded a physiological limit. When viewed in the context of EPO enabling harder training and extra-physiological performance, I said we do not know that EPO allowed any of the athletes to train harder (than without EPO), and resulted in a performance not physiologically possible (without EPO). You still have failed to say what is new with this study. Are you suggesting it would contradict Fact 2, because they used a non-EPO control group, and increased the training load of the EPO group to a level not possible without EPO?

casual obsever wrote:

rekrunner wrote:

I read everything that was linked -- I didn't think it was my burden to do more.

I didn't yet argue against this new study, but asked what was new about it, besides the date and the publisher.

Fact 1): this was linked several times on page 1 of this thread alone.

Fact 2): after that, you wrote, in this thread:

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.

Keep this up, this is fun.

The control group is the same damned guys when they were clean.