Tour da Lance wrote:
Don't start with the Armstrong stuff
Lance is the perfect example of how EPO is NOT a performance enhancer. His much touted supposedly impossible Alpe d'Huez climb was 6 watts per kilo, a normal power output for an elite cyclist.
Get Durianrider on here or someone who at least knows something about cycling.
You want to sustain a fairy tale scenario of magic potions giving superhuman strength.
You need a reality check.
JonO. wrote:
Tour da Lance wrote:
Don't start with the Armstrong stuff
Lance is the perfect example of how EPO is NOT a performance enhancer. His much touted supposedly impossible Alpe d'Huez climb was 6 watts per kilo, a normal power output for an elite cyclist.
Get Durianrider on here or someone who at least knows something about cycling.
You want to sustain a fairy tale scenario of magic potions giving superhuman strength.
You need a reality check.
Um, Durianrider was all about KIpchoge being doped to the eyeballs to approach 2:00.
So there's that.
JonO. wrote:
Tour da Lance wrote:
Don't start with the Armstrong stuff
Lance is the perfect example of how EPO is NOT a performance enhancer. His much touted supposedly impossible Alpe d'Huez climb was 6 watts per kilo, a normal power output for an elite cyclist.
Get Durianrider on here or someone who at least knows something about cycling.
You want to sustain a fairy tale scenario of magic potions giving superhuman strength.
You need a reality check.
Cheesy post JO....LA is the perfect example of how EPO & other PEDs are performance enhancing. Has your memory slipped a little bit?
https://youtu.be/mddOkbr2cyYwqqqqqqqq wrote:
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.
I'm fairly sure he mentions it in either the recent Magness & Marcus podcast or one of the first few chapters of his book (I'm not done yet).
Here's an article he wrote about the possibility that VO2max and running economy are inversely related:
https://www.runnersworld.com/training/a20808764/does-getting-fitter-make-you-run-less-efficiently/Whoops, he's a doping believer wrote:
JonO. wrote:
Lance is the perfect example of how EPO is NOT a performance enhancer. His much touted supposedly impossible Alpe d'Huez climb was 6 watts per kilo, a normal power output for an elite cyclist.
Get Durianrider on here or someone who at least knows something about cycling.
You want to sustain a fairy tale scenario of magic potions giving superhuman strength.
You need a reality check.
Um, Durianrider was all about KIpchoge being doped to the eyeballs to approach 2:00.
So there's that.
I know, but he also questions things. And I was naive about this stuff too back in 1991 so I know what we are supposed to believe and why you have to think a lot deeper than that.
He pointed out the same thing as I did here in his vlog about LA and G doing the same times on Alpe d'Huez in 2003 and 2018.
Sky and British cycling are years ahead of brjos and their olde worlde doping obsession. Heads need to be removed from anuses and education of what Renato has been trying to describe here for 15 years has to be intelligently evaluated.
Otherwise, ye olde world doping obsession just make more people wanna dope. Kinda obvious to anyone who actually thinks logically instead of just preaching holier than thou platitudes.
Every comment I have is along the same lines as "pointing out "the needs for controls"". This is not mocking studies, undermining results, or criticizing the authors, but pointing out that the studies mean what they mean under the conditions in the studies, for the subjects in the study, at their current level of fitness, to the extent that all external factors are controlled -- there are many reasons to be cautious about applying these observations to real world elite situations. I guess we don't agree on the value of an expert opinion (expert in which field exactly? elite athletics performance?), that says "it can be estimated" ... "may improve" ... "is equivalent to", in an introduction of a study that did not measure running performance. This looks like three layers of cautioned estimate. In the best case, such opinions about what "can be estimated" look like hypotheses that would still require being confirmed by real observations to gain more weight. I'm not mocking the "experts" that they offered such an opinion, but disagreeing with you that such an opinion has real value in practical real world contexts.
Lets Tell It Like It Is wrote:
rekrunner wrote:
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.
It's more than just pointing out "the needs for controls." You mock the studies, undermine the results and criticize the authors. You put no value on the outcome of the studies in reference to what the objective is by the authors. And in a few studies researchers will extrapolate from the data and give an estimation of what performance benefits of EPO/blood doping might be for an elite, i.e. professional opinion.
Malm et al provides us a unique estimation of what the benefits might be for a world class athlete. It's a professional opinion by qualified researchers in the field. If you don't like their opinion why don't contact the authors and criticize them instead belittling some of us who reference & quote from these studies.
(link deleted)
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."
camphor wrote:
wqqqqqqqq wrote:
I'm fairly sure he mentions it in either the recent Magness & Marcus podcast or one of the first few chapters of his book (I'm not done yet).
Here's an article he wrote about the possibility that VO2max and running economy are inversely related:
https://www.runnersworld.com/training/a20808764/does-getting-fitter-make-you-run-less-efficiently/
Ok thanks. That's a good explanation. What I read on his twitter feed was somewhat abridged.
JonO. wrote:
Whoops, he's a doping believer wrote:
Um, Durianrider was all about KIpchoge being doped to the eyeballs to approach 2:00.
So there's that.
I know, but he also questions things. And I was naive about this stuff too back in 1991 so I know what we are supposed to believe and why you have to think a lot deeper than that.
He pointed out the same thing as I did here in his vlog about LA and G doing the same times on Alpe d'Huez in 2003 and 2018.
Sky and British cycling are years ahead of brjos and their olde worlde doping obsession. Heads need to be removed from anuses and education of what Renato has been trying to describe here for 15 years has to be intelligently evaluated.
Otherwise, ye olde world doping obsession just make more people wanna dope. Kinda obvious to anyone who actually thinks logically instead of just preaching holier than thou platitudes.
You're even more naïve now.
Sky and British cycling are new age dopers for sure.
Or have you been in the lab busy while all that swirls around?
JonO. wrote:
Lance is the perfect example of how EPO is NOT a performance enhancer. His much touted supposedly impossible Alpe d'Huez climb was 6 watts per kilo, a normal power output for an elite cyclist.
.
So why didn't at least half the field match his time? It's just an ol' run of the mill roll up a mountain after all.
Despite repeated accusations, it is not my style to harass, antagonize, badger, insult, mock and instigate, but it seems to be your style to do these things, then accuse me of it and play the victim. I never had a problem with your magical 4%, or how you got it and I didn't ignore your papers -- but just disagreed with your interpretations. It is not my claim, but here is some backing of Red Skies:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZCM4_5uB1ww
m!ndweak wrote:
and rek always would harass, antagonize, badger, insult, mock and instigate "how i got my magical 4%"
and any time i would link these papers he would ignore it, and then post with quotes within quotes and say "i refuted all these points in my "a closer look" thread...the dude is a joke, troll, and an annoying child. if this was an argument if the sky was blue, he would tell you without ANY backing that the sky is not blue but in fact it is red.
OLD SMTC SOB wrote:
artojas wrote:
Oh, the "know it all" Canova. Did you conduct the experiment where you trained athletes, measured their times, then gave them EPO and measured their times again to compare?
Then in no way you can tell that EPO doesn't work on somebody.
Maybe Sondre is a 2:03 runner on EPO, you don't know. Nobody knows.
It may or may not work in high altitude adjusted world class athletes. One would have to take these trained world class athletes, exercise challenge them both before and after EPO, with the response to the challenge evaluated based on physiological parameters as well as actual performances, with all variables controlled, IE point in the training cycle, altitude, temperature, humidity, distance (if a track run) shoes, etc. They would in effect, act as their own control group. Comparing between two disparate groups of athletes of varying abilities, probably in different parts of their training cycle and inferring cause and effect is tough, if not impossible. Additionally, when running as we all know, the same conditions and training can result in vary different performances, even when all variables that are known to affect performance are well controlled. Thats why its hard to find a well done study looking at athletes and the effects of change by any one variable that affects performance. I recall a conversation with Frank Shorter I had quite a few years ago. When he found out I was a physiologist he laughed and said that he bet I was wondering how he could run so fast with the VO2 max that he had, as he was told repeatedly he shouldn't run that fast and be as successful as he was. The physiologists are black and white, performance capability is based on pure science. Thats not the way it is, as we all know. I also have no way of knowing, based on the available data, whether EPO works or not in world class runners who are already high altitude acclimated, and have been their entire lives. And if so, what those performance and physiological improvements might be. There are no published studies that I'm aware of to date that answer those questions, and given the difficulties in study design there probably won't be anytime soon.
If I was a betting man however, I'd bet that Mr. Canova is right.
That would be the wise bet.
My take is that if you VO2 max (accurately measured, which it often obviously is not) is say 5.0 liters per minute, it will stay at 5.0 liters per minute and not go up to 5.1 or down to 4.9 if you train more or less, because that 5.0 liters/minute is what your body needs to maintain cell homeostasis and mitochondrial function in every cell in your body.
What does change, quite obviously is plasma volume and thus stroke volume and concomitant endurance improvement and cell signalling functionality. So we can stay longer at a certain intensity.
But anyone can maintain a high intensity for the duration of a race. The pace or the aerobic power is another matter. The top East African runners were probably able to run a sub 5 minute mile before they were 10 years old because they loved to race each other and had lot of local rivals. That's where they get their superior pace, from their training and racing rivalry.
Sub 13 minute times are to be expected from them in ideal conditons. Dave Moorcroft ran 13.00 on his own in 1982. What is that worth with pace makers?
He also ran 1.46 for 800 which would be about what Bekele could have run. These sustained power outputs requires a high level of neuromotor skill. Why don't the researchers look into that? Can WADA not fund some studies that don't have a PED confirmation bias?
I don't think your brain is getting enough oxygen, Jon.
3hr-marathoner wrote:
m!ndweak wrote:
how he [Canova] can say so much of what EPO does yet never ONCE has he explained how he knows so much about it.
My understanding is that Canova's confidence that EPO doesn't work on the highest level athletes who are correctly trained at altitude comes from three points he repeatedly makes:
1) some of the greatest performances have been achieved by clean athletes
2) some high-level performances have been achieved by athletes with relatively modest hematocrits
3) physiological systems other than oxygen delivery are likely more important in limiting performance at the highest levels.
It's worth noting that all three of these points can be true without proving Canova's conclusion. Regarding (1), how do we know that some of the greatest performances couldn't have been greater still with a little help from EPO? Regarding (3), small differences in performance matter. Oxygen delivery doesn't need to be the most important physiological factor for a EPO to cause a slight boost in performance. (2) is a case of confusing correlation with causation. For example training improves performance but tends to suppress hematocrit leading to a possible negative correlation between performance and hematocrit. This in no way implies that artificially increasing hematocrit will not improve performance.
Your body knows what it's doing. Exercise physiologists are often so wrapped up in their research that they downplay just how amazingly complex....well read a good book on the subject
Your body knows how many red blood cells are optimal. Many exercise physiologists don't seem to believe this. They have some psychological issues that need to be addressed, this is not rational thinking. I think a lot of them are narcissists and really don't care if they are talking nonsense or not as long as it fits in with the current vogue of whatever pseudosicence is being bandied about.
This stupid obsession with red blood cells is about 50 years old. The top runners don't have a longer stride because they have more red blood cells. Think about why that might be?
Still nothing new.
In 1972, a group of scientists decided to investigate which was the best physiological age for using the quality of sprinters at their top.
They went to analyse the age of all the Olympic finalists of 100m from 1948 and 1972 (so, 6 in 1948 - 1952 - 1956 - 1960 - 1964 and 8 in 1968 and 1972, for a total amount of 46 subjects) and discovered that the average age of the sprinters was 21 years 8 months and some day (now I don't remember exactly the number).
So, from a STATISTIC investigation they wanted to study a PHYSIOLOGICAL situation.
The problem is that didn't know anything about athletics.
If they knew something about the athletics' history, could, for example, know that in 1972 the 3rd sprinters of US in the 4x100m was Mel Pender, already 37 years old, who for long time didn't run because was soldier in Vietnam.
And they could know that in 1964 the winner of 400m was Mike Larrabee (in 45"1), who was already 32, after failing to be selected in 1952, 1956 and 1960. He decided to have 6 months of total training, without working, and won Olympics.
The reason because the average age was under 22 years was very simple : the best sprinters were students in the US Universities, athletics was not professional but purely amatorial, and when they had finished the University their interest was not in running, but to look for a profession in order to have a salary and to start their normal life.
When athletics became professional, also sprinters and jumpers (athletes using at top level the qualities more evident in young people) became able to last for a full career, and we had winners older than 30 years like absolutely normality (without speaking about exceptions as Kim Collins, national record with 9"93 when 40 years old, or Merlene Ottey, who had her best in 100m (10"74) when 36, bettered the NR of Slovenia with 11"09 and 22"72 when 44, and was still able running in 11"82 when 52 years old. Michael Johnson won in Atlanta 200 and 400m when 29, and bettered the WR of 400m when 32. The Italian triple jumper Fabrizio Donato, NR holder with 17,60 in 2000, did his best peformance (17.73 indoor) when 35, and won Silver in European Indoor Champs 2017 with 17.32 when 41.
What do these data mean ? It means that athletics is frequently used for studies about the human body and the human characteristics, BECAUSE IS THE ONLY DISCIPLINE (together with swimming, that is athletics in the water) with precise numbers. But if there is not a deep and specific knowledge about THE SITUATIONS BEHIND THE NUMBERS, every study risk to arrive to wrong conclusions.
All the evaluations coming from the study :
(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)
for who works in athletics at the higher level are clearly total bullshits, because who estimated this improvement DOESN'T HAVE ANY KNOWLEDGE OF THE ATHLETIC REALITY.
If I have athletes able running the WR in steeple (7'53"63) without EVER taking a vitamin ; if I have 8 athletes who ran 10000m between 26'30" and 26'55" only eating Ugali and vegetables, sometimes chicken, and drinking milk ; if today I have, after one year of training, athletes running 58'42" - 59'06" - 59'19" in HM coming from other events or totally new, who train in the camp where there is full control about everything : if I KNOW that all these performances are CLEAN, for applying the formula of 3% I have to start from their CLEAN performances, and this means that, according to the BELIEVERS of blood doping, if I give them EPO their PB had to be 7'39" in steeple, 25'43" in 10000m and 56'57" in HM(and for Sondre 2:02 in the Marathon).
I don't say that the research is wrong or useless. I say that, if these data are transferred to professional athletes who train at their best in clean way, of course in altitude, the final estimations are totally ridiculous, and can be done only by somebody NOT KNOWING ANYTHING about the final object of the research itself.
While it's correct to have researches, for every medicine, connected with the different kinds of sicknesses, it's really ridiculous to give idiotic percentages about performances in athletics, from people who don't know what athletics is.
Must be clear that I don't forgive and not excuse doped athletes : according to me, they must be banned for life, and ALL their results (from the beginning of the career, not important if at that time were clean) must be cancelled.
But I can't accept this over evaluation of the effects of blood doping, clearly possible only if there is a total ignorance of talent, training and other factors at the base of any performance.
And, who wants to speak WITH NUMBERS about something that doesn't know, is not a scientist, but a CLOWN.
the mitochondria in the cycle of combining 02 with guclose creates ATP, and the byproducts of h20 and C02...but you didnt answer my question did you? why? because you dont know sh*t about anatomy and physiology or chemistry for that matter
and i didnt make things up...i linked them from ACTUAL medical research papers, written by and the tests performed by Phds not some troll douche on LR
you have just one upped rek as the most annoying "know it all" on LR, congrats bra
camphor wrote:
Here's an article he wrote about the possibility that VO2max and running economy are inversely related:
runnersworld.com/training/a20808764/does-getting-fitter-make-you-run-less-efficiently/
So, the problem for normal people is that they are overweight?
Because I've never seen a man winning races with low Vo2max.
If you are talking about me, I have a masters degree in science.
m!ndweak wrote:
but you like rek dont have any SCIENCE degrees,
rekrunner wrote:
If you are talking about me, I have a masters degree in science.
From eBay?
Back then, eBay wasn't formed yet.
Don't get fooled wrote:
rekrunner wrote:
If you are talking about me, I have a masters degree in science.
From eBay?