Genzebe Dibaba Out of Worlds

Anyone who needs as many words as you do to respond to a couple of sentences has nothing to say. A verbal haze.

The WC without top athletes wrote:

Didoper Detector wrote:

So, World's without:

Dibaba

Semenya

Wambui

Niyonsaba

Ayana?

Coleman (almost)

Gatlin?

Farah?

OTOH...Makhloufi! Returns from the grave!

It's going to be a boring Worlds - where's my remote and I'll watch football instead. ?

You're not much of a fan if that's your stance.

Armstronglivs wrote:

Anyone who needs as many words as you do to respond to a couple of sentences has nothing to say. A verbal haze.

Indeed, I have nothing MORE to say, as the referenced research now speaks huge volumes on my behalf.

I had already responded with only one sentence, which I thought should have sufficed, and was happy to drop the topic completely after I said "that won't be necessary".

But you keep responding with new personal attacks, and referring to contradictory research that may or may not even exist.

I needed the many words because of the depth of the volume of research, which does exist, that I have already referred to and relied upon.

You said you "would like to find the research the article refers to" which would be the only substantive way to continue the discussion -- a discussion I already said would be unnecessary.

Runners World, "How Does EPO Work". Alex Hutchinson.

"...a 54% boost in time to exhaustion compared to a 12% boost in VO2max doesn't necessarily seem out of line to me. Either way, it's a powerful drug."

How can he say that? We know it doesn't benefit runners.

Wow...a "54% boost in time to exhaustion" would be a game changer in a sub-maximal event like the marathon. During the latter fourth of a marathon is where most runners start feeling the effects of fatigue & exhaustion. But delaying that significantly is where a runner would feel strong and able maintain pace and even increase it the last few miles or so.

Even your example from Hutchinson disproves you.

First, I'm not sure how you "know it doesn't benefit runners". I don't know that, so "we" must exclude me. I think the established evidence shows a modest 4% increase from a 5% boost in VO2max. If a 5% boost in VO2max produces ~4% improvements in 10K times, then a 12% boost in VO2max should produce bigger improvements.

I'm aware of the 2007 Thomsen study that Hutchinson is referring to. Cyclists improved 12% in VO2max, and 13% Peak Power, which seems to fit well with the cycling meta-study I referenced before.

I have no idea how to translate a 54% increase in cycling TTE from 22 minutes to 33.5 minutes at 80% of peak power, to times for 10K runners. I do have a way of translating a 12% VO2max change (looks like in this case from about 54 to 61) by plugging the numbers into Daniels VDOT tables.

I don't see anything wrong with Hutchinson's statement. Furthermore, you cut off this part:

"Time-to-exhaustion tests generally produce percentage changes that are as much as 10 to 15 times bigger than time trials, ..."

Plugging these values in, we see time trial (I guess for cycling) improvements would be a much more modest 3.6% to 5.4%, this time from a much bigger 12% VO2max increase.

Once again, you have found another concrete peer-reviewed example that does not support a 10-15% 10K time improvement from a 5% VO2max increase.

I wouldn't get too excited about an increase to 33.5 minutes on a bicycle having game-changing implications for the marathon.

It would be interesting if these results would be repeatable for runners at marathon intensities, for marathon durations.

As far as I'm aware, no study exists at all, for the marathon.

How to tie yourself in knots. I wasn't referring to any previous discussion but to the observation Hutchinson made of what EPO is able to do to delay the onset of fatigue (which runners will experience as much as cyclists do) and his concluding remark, which clearly escaped you, that "either way, it's ( EPO) a powerful drug". Which is kind of the point about doping.