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

Renato Canova wrote:

Sorry, scientists and researchers DON'T HAVE ANY FORMAL TRAINING IN METHODOLOGY.

...

I can continue for more than 100 points. These are the points at the base of any METHODOLOGICAL KNOWLEDGE, and scientists and researchers are not able to give a precise answer to the most part of these questions, FOR THE SAMPLE REASON THAT NEVER HAD THE WILL AND THE OPPORTUNITY TO STUDY THE ABOVE PHENOMENS WITH TOP ATHLETES.

I would like to point that you clearly meant something different by 'methodological knowledge' than the people who replied to you earlier.

By 'methodological knowledge' others believed you meant the training that scientists are given to design and perform good studies, etc.; I would guess that most would have taken that meaning. I had not

I am sure you and they both agree that scientists are trained in the methods of doing science. This is different from 'knowledge of the methods of training' (which, it is now clear, is what you meant).

It appeared very strange that you would say this (even more strange than the other points of contention), until this difference in meaning became clear.

Hey Canova, why'd your boy Moen DNF at the European Championships???

That would be the wrong way to do it.

Stuck in a rut and then poof! wrote:

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

rekrunner wrote:

That would be the wrong way to do it.

Well then...why don't you contact them and tell them how to do it? In fact, why don't you hook up with Canova and take a road trip from your home base in London to the Univ. of Glasgow where the study originated from. There over some tasty tea you can give them your bullet points step by step and tell them how they should have done the study correctly...the rekrunner way. ?

You crack me up rekrunner - many of us here reference and quote from peer-reviewed multi-authored studies published in journals and all you do is trash talk them from your Ivory Tower. So, go contact them - tell them your criticism. Interview them and make a full report and come back and tell us all about it...I'll be all ears. ?

The thing is, I'm not criticizing the study, but I'm criticizing you and others, for trying to use these studies to draw conclusions that the studies cannot show, and even the authors did not draw, explaining fundamentally why such conclusions are risky. If you want a study to show that EPO causes 5% improvement in elite athletes already highly trained at altitude, this is not up to me to organize. For all this talk about trying to catch Renato in a "trained in methodology" versus "methodology in training" word trap, you have to wonder about their training in methodology for conducting an EPO study that did not contain a control group, did not control training, and was not double-blinded.

Don't just criticize! wrote:

rekrunner wrote:

That would be the wrong way to do it.

Well then...why don't you contact them and tell them how to do it? In fact, why don't you hook up with Canova and take a road trip from your home base in London to the Univ. of Glasgow where the study originated from. There over some tasty tea you can give them your bullet points step by step and tell them how they should have done the study correctly...the rekrunner way. ?

You crack me up rekrunner - many of us here reference and quote from peer-reviewed multi-authored studies published in journals and all you do is trash talk them from your Ivory Tower. So, go contact them - tell them your criticism. Interview them and make a full report and come back and tell us all about it...I'll be all ears. ?

Renato, it is all about the weight/mass of Hgb/Hct.

I very much doubt someone with Hgb of 18 has anemia unless they have some ferritin saturation level % disorder or hemochromatosis, even then the evidence would doubt this.

Actually I don't doubt that altitude training is beneficial but in the order of 1-2% (a worthwhile advantage on the margins). An athlete with a Hct of 45 ceteris Paribas will not be able to complete with an athlete with an Hct ramped up to 53, 55, or 58. Heck 50 will be a massive advantage.

You've said proper training repeatedly, then admit all athletes need individualized programs. But surely you must admit it is subjective to say "proper training."

If altitude training is as effective as epo, wouldn't it make sense to make altitude natives spend a period of say 2-3 weeks at sea level, to even out the contest?

rekrunner wrote:

The thing is, I'm not criticizing the study, but I'm criticizing you and others, for trying to use these studies to draw conclusions that the studies cannot show, and even the authors did not draw, explaining fundamentally why such conclusions are risky.

If you want a study to show that EPO causes 5% improvement in elite athletes already highly trained at altitude, this is not up to me to organize.

For all this talk about trying to catch Renato in a "trained in methodology" versus "methodology in training" word trap, you have to wonder about their training in methodology for conducting an EPO study that did not contain a control group, did not control training, and was not double-blinded.

"Draw conclusions that the study does not show?" Well then...lets take a closer look at the conclusion:

"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%)."

It sounds like to me that a one month rHuEPO dosing schedule increased the Hct of Kenyan endurance runners (non-elite) but to lesser extent of the Scots (non-elite/ sea level) which was associated with similar improvements in performance in running immediately after the EPO administration.

I know this study gets you nervous because it involves Kenyan runners at altitude - and all you do is trash talk it at every opportunity you get. This thread will probably die down in a short time and the next time someone references & quotes from the study you'll be first to come out of your Ivory Tower and trash talk it. ?

If you (all) only said that, I wouldn't respond, but the conclusions don't stop there. It is not "trash talk", but a legitimate comment, to point out the need for controls, and the interpretation risks associated without them.

Across the pond wrote:

Hey Canova, why'd your boy Moen DNF at the European Championships???

He's been struggling with injuries or sickness basically all season. It was a stress reaction in his femur that prevented him from finishing the European Championship and he is currently cross training in hopes of avoiding surgery.

I'm not permitted to post links, but google (and translate) "Nordstad moen nrk treningssmell" for an article with more information.

rekrunner wrote:

You still have failed to say what is new with this study.

Fact 1: That is a lie.

Fact 2: I am not your servant, so I have not told you everything that is new with this study.

Fact 3: I am a nice guy, so I tell you another news: in addition to 1:03 half marathoners (news that I provided earlier, despite your claim to the contrary), they also included two mid-distance runners.

Again, since I am a nice guy, I am repeating the same humble advice to you: read the article before criticizing it.

Then you would not only have learned about the training of the group, but also seen the viscosity discussion.

When Renato, Gary and Jon Orange join forces it's like the Holy Trinity of EPO denying morans.

rekrunner wrote:

The thing is, I'm not criticizing the study,

...

If you want a study to show that EPO causes 5% improvement in elite athletes already highly trained at altitude, this is not up to me to organize.

...

For all this talk about trying to catch Renato in a "trained in methodology" versus "methodology in training" word trap, you have to wonder about their training in methodology for conducting an EPO study that did not contain a control group, did not control training, and was not double-blinded.

Wow, just wow. Again, read the study!

And what, you are "not criticizing the study"? LOL.

Why do you lie so much?

casual obsever wrote:

rekrunner wrote:

The thing is, I'm not criticizing the study,

...

If you want a study to show that EPO causes 5% improvement in elite athletes already highly trained at altitude, this is not up to me to organize.

...

For all this talk about trying to catch Renato in a "trained in methodology" versus "methodology in training" word trap, you have to wonder about their training in methodology for conducting an EPO study that did not contain a control group, did not control training, and was not double-blinded.

Wow, just wow. Again, read the study!

And what, you are "not criticizing the study"? LOL.

Why do you lie so much?

Look Rek will never accept any study that shows epo (or any PED for that matter) working. He's already compartmentalized Jeptoo, Sumgong, Erupe, Chepchumba, Jebet, Kisorio, Kiprop, Jepchumba, and Bett into some dark memory bank at the end of a long narrow corridor that nobody has a map to. They simply never happened.

The Father, The Son and the Holy Moran wrote:

When Renato, Gary and Jon Orange join forces it's like the Holy Trinity of EPO denying morans.

Hysterical! The only problem is which one is which?

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.

No, not a joke. Who is the main author of the study. There are 11 authors, which do you mean? I have no idea who you are refering to.

Subway Surfers wrote:

Renato, it is all about the weight/mass of Hgb/Hct.

I very much doubt someone with Hgb of 18 has anemia unless they have some ferritin saturation level % disorder or hemochromatosis, even then the evidence would doubt this.

Actually I don't doubt that altitude training is beneficial but in the order of 1-2% (a worthwhile advantage on the margins). An athlete with a Hct of 45 ceteris Paribas will not be able to complete with an athlete with an Hct ramped up to 53, 55, or 58. Heck 50 will be a massive advantage.

You've said proper training repeatedly, then admit all athletes need individualized programs. But surely you must admit it is subjective to say "proper training."

If altitude training is as effective as epo, wouldn't it make sense to make altitude natives spend a period of say 2-3 weeks at sea level, to even out the contest?

Sorry, but you're spouting the usual nonsense. This belief is not science. You can't re-write the laws of physics. Researchers showing their own confirmation bias on the subject can't re-write the laws of physics.

These people have no knowledge of how thermoregulation relates to running.

Nor do you have any idea how EPO influences thermoregulation.. Or maybe your lab has yet to release its latest peer reviewed study?

rEPO can't improve thermoregulation. You can't re-write the laws of physics.

None of these researchers take these things into consideration. They can come up with any numbers they want and you will quote them.

Get someone on this thread who is knowledgeable about how physics, chemistry and biology relate to running.

Good luck with that.

JonO. wrote:

rEPO can't improve thermoregulation. You can't re-write the laws of physics.

None of these researchers take these things into consideration. They can come up with any numbers they want and you will quote them.

Get someone on this thread who is knowledgeable about how physics, chemistry and biology relate to running.

Good luck with that.

Prove it.

Certainly you are not that person. lol

But you like to pretend you are.