rekrunner wrote:
rekrunner wrote:
Are you kidding? Didn't you read Hopkins? That is a game-changer.
Whoops - needed to fix the Armstronglivs style mangled nested quotes
So you do it too.
rekrunner wrote:
rekrunner wrote:
Are you kidding? Didn't you read Hopkins? That is a game-changer.
Whoops - needed to fix the Armstronglivs style mangled nested quotes
So you do it too.
Shopping hour wrote:
rekrunner wrote:
Whoops - needed to fix the Armstronglivs style mangled nested quotes
So you do it too.
Like I said:
"I can understand once or twice, because of the manual editing nature of it,"
Shopping hour wrote:
It took you 20 plus years to find that readily available paper and you still needed help. Do you think some later studies did not address those issues?
It only took about a minute once I started looking.
I never felt like I need to look for this paper, because I already know things like "amateurs are not elites" and "cycling is not running" and "time to exhaustion is not a race" and "men are not women". It should be "common sense", but it doesn't seem so common here in letsrun's forums.
Do I think later studies did not address those issues? I think they did not. When we are talking here about a couple of cycling time to exhaustion studies being good estimators for 1500m elite runners, these studies, and posters like you and Armstronglivs, surely didn't address those issues.
rekrunner wrote:
Shopping hour wrote:
So you do it too.
Like I said:
"I can understand once or twice, because of the manual editing nature of it,"
You've done it more than twice.
rekrunner wrote:
Shopping hour wrote:
It took you 20 plus years to find that readily available paper and you still needed help. Do you think some later studies did not address those issues?
It only took about a minute once I started looking.
I never felt like I need to look for this paper, because I already know things like "amateurs are not elites" and "cycling is not running" and "time to exhaustion is not a race" and "men are not women". It should be "common sense", but it doesn't seem so common here in letsrun's forums.
Do I think later studies did not address those issues? I think they did not. When we are talking here about a couple of cycling time to exhaustion studies being good estimators for 1500m elite runners, these studies, and posters like you and Armstronglivs, surely didn't address those issues.
We are talking about every study ever done since.
Same answer: I think they did not.
And how many have you read?
That have addressed all the issues? How many are there?
Since it appears you haven't progressed beyond asking questions in 30 pages I think it's time your claim to be guided by science was put to the test and you give us the benefit of your knowledge rather than your curiosity.
1. Can you explain on a scientific/physiological basis how EPO works?
2. Since you appear disinclined to believe it works for elite runners, can you explain on a scientific/physiological basis the reason why it works for non-elites (or in other sports like cycling) does not also apply to elite runners?
The power of EPO is best shown by its ability to turn non-elites into elites. That makes the whole "does it also work on elites?" moot. That divisive line is entirely eliminated.
The perfect human running specimen has never existed Everyone can be artificially enhanced.
Armstronglivs wrote:
Since it appears you haven't progressed beyond asking questions in 30 pages I think it's time your claim to be guided by science was put to the test and you give us the benefit of your knowledge rather than your curiosity.
1. Can you explain on a scientific/physiological basis how EPO works?
2. Since you appear disinclined to believe it works for elite runners, can you explain on a scientific/physiological basis the reason why it works for non-elites (or in other sports like cycling) does not also apply to elite runners?
"EPO works" is a new "goalpost" -- I guess we abandon the one with spider webs.
Can you make your questions more precise with details and definitions and context? I don't know what "works" means.
1) EPO stimulates red blood cell production and is thought to provide aerobic benefits, protective benefits, cognitive benefits, recovery benefits, and last but not least, placebo.
2) Notwithstanding all that, I am disinclined to believe it "works" for non-elite runners too, when they are highly trained to their personal best shape, especially if training at altitude. I assume a model of diminishing benefit as talent level increases. Developing maximum performance is a system optimization problem, not a single factor maximization problem. Elite athletes are already strong in many factors, with fewer weakness, and have smaller margins for potential improvement. Running has a non-aerobic mechanical coordination energy losing component with every step not present in sports like cycling. Cycling in grand tours over the course of several weeks may benefit more from the protective and recovery mechanisms, delaying or preventing the breakdown of fitness, rather than aerobic mechanisms, in a way that doesn't apply to running events that start and finish the same day, lasting only minutes or hours.
Yes, and it still works because it is a multi system optimizer.
Training is like a Grand Tour.
Think.
Shopping hour wrote:
Yes, and it still works because it is a multi system optimizer.
Training is like a Grand Tour.
Think.
I do think.
I think "multi system optimizer" doesn't make any sense.
I think you can tailor your training to get adequate recovery as needed -- you cannot control recovery days in a Grand Tour, without losing time.
rekrunner wrote:
Shopping hour wrote:
Yes, and it still works because it is a multi system optimizer.
Training is like a Grand Tour.
Think.
I do think.
I think "multi system optimizer" doesn't make any sense.
I think you can tailor your training to get adequate recovery as needed -- you cannot control recovery days in a Grand Tour, without losing time.
Multi-system optimizer makes perfect sense. In the ways listed.
You can get better recovery with drugs.
When I asked how does EPO "work" that means how does it affect an athlete biologically. Explain the processes involved. Secondly, how is it performance enhancing (which is why it is banned). What does it do that isn't naturally achievable. As one who is informed about the science involved these should be simple questions for you to answer. I am also interested in the scientific consensus on these questions, not outlier opinion. Oh - and don't forget the appropriate citations.
Can you explain your experience of professional cycling that enables you to make your observations about that sport and how it differs from elite running?
Do you also have experience of elite running and altitude training that you can make the observations you do concerning elites, non elites and cyclists?
Shopping hour wrote:
Multi-system optimizer makes perfect sense. In the ways listed.
You can get better recovery with drugs.
It doesn't make sense because with "system optimization" there is only one system.
You didn't list any ways.
The question then becomes if better recovery will lead to higher performance.
Before addressing your new questions, I'll take a moment to point out that you are conflating the application of the "scientific method" (my claim) with some alternate notion of "guided by science" (your claim).
The nature of my questions was not to get you to explain performance to me, as some sort of educational tutorial, but to get you to explain why you believe the things you say, or perhaps more importantly to me, why should I be persuaded by anything you say?
I could be snippy and tell you to get off your lazy backside and go back to the library and do your own research, but I believe I am bigger than that.
For perspective:
About 15 years ago, I took a heightened interest into the inner workings of the cell and the different processes used to produce energy from creatine phosphate, anaerobic breakdown of carbs, subsequent accumulation of lactate, aerobic breakdown of carbs and lactate, and aerobic breakdown of fat, with all kinds of names, like Krebs cycle, and diagrams, etc. After about 2 years of that, I realized that aerobics was only one small part of the big picture, and I decided that I was more interested in an overall performance model and real world performance results, which were influenced by many other factors: non-aerobic factors that improve economy and efficiency, and external factors like pacing, and drafting, and nutrition, and body weight, and the factors that can limit performance, such as heat accumulation, over-training, fatigued lower back muscles resulting in unstable hips and breakdown of form, fuel depletion (in marathons and ultras), low iron levels, etc. and various ways to prevent that, such as phased training with adequate recovery, cross-training, proper clothing, and in-race hydration and nutrition, including timing of nutrition, and iron supplementation, and other "legal" supplementation.
Now to address in part your questions:
Biologically, the production of EPO, or introduction of exogenous EPO, stimulates the production of red-blood cells. The exact biological processes don't interest me, because there is enough evidence that hematocrit increases, and Hgb levels increase. More red blood cells can improve delivery of oxygen from the lungs to the muscles, and carrying away CO2 from the muscles, back to the lungs. The exact biological processes here don't interest me either, as there is enough evidence that VO2max and sub-maximal VO2 improves measurably in the short term, with the blood changes, and correct training. Too many red blood cells can thicken the blood, like syrup, reducing blood flow to the muscles, undermining, or even reversing, this benefit, as evidenced by thrombosis. This is one part of "optimization", and in order to see any improvement, we must first be sub-optimal, which is more likely the case with random study subjects in various states of fitness, than with elite athletes.
"Secondly, how is it performance enhancing (which is why it is banned)?"
Some loaded assumptions here. First we must answer, is it performance enhancing, and if so, when is it performance enhancing, and for whom, in which events? Second, is it banned because it is performance enhancing? As I pointed out to you at the beginning of the thread, and in many other threads, WADA bans substances by committee consensus, based on (any 2 of) a potential to enhance performance (and/or potential to harm health and/or violating spirit of the sport), considering not just distance running, but a broad spectrum of all Olympic sports, and some non-Olympic sports.
The most studied benefit of EPO is how it enhances aerobic systems. If the athlete has a relative weakness "aerobically", and this is limiting his performance, than strengthening the aerobic component can improve overall "system optimization" in the short term, resulting in improved overall performance.
Another well studied benefit is placebo effect. Just deciding that you are taking a drug widely believed to enhance endurance performance can remove mental barriers that were limiting your performance, unleashing a potential that was always there.
I'm unaware of the research behind the other proposed benefits, such as protective, cognitive, and regenerative, but these don't seem to be of much concern to scientists.
"What does it do that is not naturally achievable?"
Another loaded assumption. I don't know if it does anything that is not naturally achievable. High altitude can stimulate EPO production naturally. If you go high enough, you can thicken the blood and get altitude sickness.
Some direction for further reading: an introduction to Exercise Physiology and an Endurance Performance Model:
http://www.owascoveloclub.com/Education_files/EXERCISE%20PHYSIOLOGY.pdfIf you want to boost your RBCs, I encourage everyone to do it legally. Here is a citation that may convince you:
https://journals.physiology.org/doi/full/10.1152/jappl.1997.83.1.102Armstronglivs wrote:
Can you explain your experience of professional cycling that enables you to make your observations about that sport and how it differs from elite running?
Do you also have experience of elite running and altitude training that you can make the observations you do concerning elites, non elites and cyclists?
These are particularly odd questions. How much experience does one need with elites to realize that these two sports are different, with different physiological demands, and different performance limiters?
"Can you explain your experience of professional cycling that enables you to make your observations about that sport and how it differs from elite running?"
I have directly witnessed the position of the feet in both cyclists and runners. For cyclists they are firmly fixed to the pedals, often with clip-on shoes for lowest energy loss, and are generally constrained to remain in a smooth, no impact, circular motion, while for runners, they are not fixed, and are in frequently repetitive contact with the ground, with high impact, and a high energy transmission into the ground with each footstep.
These differ observably and undeniably.
I am familiar with several papers that have analyzed the gait of running, and the many things that happen with each footstep to prepare the tendons and muscles to absorb energy on impact with the ground, and then return that energy passively, upon lift-off. This is a well-studied and well-known benefit of long term training, independent of the state of the aerobic cardio-vascular system. On a bicycle, there is no repetitive impact of the foot with the ground, and the importance of muscle and tendon elasticity, and factors like the "stretch-shortening cycle", which return lost energy passively, are, at the very least, different for the two events.
We have recently seen the importance of this particular aspect with the new shoes, which do not produce new energy, but help to passively reduce the losses of the existing energy.
Other observed differences:
- Grand Tours last 3 weeks, while most running events are over in minutes, or hours, not counting multi-day ultra events (where there seems to be little public concern of EPO or blood doping abuse).
- Aerobic/anaerobic balance differs in various events in running, from 800m to the marathon (and beyond). In the grand tours it is more like fartlek, with a variety of efforts in random sequence -- much of it "coasting" in a peloton, sparsely punctuated by short bursts of intensity, with a few continuous effort climbs thrown in.
- Cycling involves higher speeds, making overcoming wind-resistance a bigger factor and a bigger energy cost
"Do you also have experience of elite running and altitude training that you can make the observations you do concerning elites, non elites and cyclists?"
In your previous question, you tried to characterize what seems to you what I was inclined to believe. It was important for me to correct your characterization and properly characterize what I am inclined to believe, which includes a model based on diminishing benefits with increasing talent. This is a general principle that occurs in nature everywhere.
It's also a "consensus" assumption among scientists. For example, in the sports science blog posting you referenced earlier, Ross makes the same assumption and argument that the effects would be smaller for elite cyclists.
For elite running and training at altitude, I have the experiences that "performance expert" Renato has shared about the benefits of training at altitude, and, like everyone, I have access to historical all time performances.
For cycling, this same data, such as all-time performances at fixed distances, doesn't exist, but I have anecdotes from cyclists like Tyler Hamilton, who says that clean cyclists can win 1-day events, but not the grand tours, where a cyclist can extend a hard effort one day, and be fresh to attack again, the next day. Also for cycling Michele Ferrari has a blog where he explains some of the science, and some of the myths of doping and professional cycling.
In short, you don't have experience of either sport at any higher level. I guess that makes you an armchair expert at best.