How can you read a statement that says "I'm not advocating drugs" and conclude that he's saying EPO is okay? I'm not the one twisting into knots. the statement is not walking back. It's in the original article.
How can you read a statement that says "I'm not advocating drugs" and conclude that he's saying EPO is okay? I'm not the one twisting into knots. the statement is not walking back. It's in the original article.
rekrunner wrote:
Everyone's an expert. wrote:
There is no reason for anyone with healthy hematology to inject EPO. So why glorify it?
That's why I ask the question "what is the optimal number of red blood cells?"
Nobody on this thread is capable of discussing this in a non sensational way. So all this moralizing is phoney and an abuse of young peoples' educational needs.
Did you see my response earlier, with the details of the hi-lo study at 4 different altitudes, and a link to the study itself?
If someone had answered a 7% increase from a sea-level is optimal, you can now point them to that hi-lo altitude study and show them that a 7% increase in RBC count, and a 2-5% increase in VO2max, resulted in no significant improvement in a 3000m time trial, for 2 out of 4 groups, and we have to look beyond red blood cells and oxygen, for other mechanisms, or other variables, to explain the different performances.
But the fact is that 2 groups did improve -- what are your non-sensational thoughts on the different outcomes between the 4 groups, as a function of elevation?
The big question you should be asking here is why their RBC count is so unstable?
I believe that mine is always very stable. That is partly genetics, I'm lucky enough to have good haematological health, but also not travelling to extreme altitudes means that I'm not having big reticulocyte fluctuations.
JD studied all of this for years, so his advice is probably much more reliable than someone who thinks they have made some big breakthrough in finding some imaginary performance enhancing method.
The whole 'Performance Enhancement' mentality is what you should be questioning. The beliefs that there is some Bioenergetic boost you need to discover. Think in terms of calories burned per minute and how that affects homeostasis.
And stop feeding trolls. They enjoy it and have nothing better to do with their time. So why waste yours giving
them they attention they so desperately crave?
Everyone's an expert. wrote:
The big question you should be asking here is why their RBC count is so unstable?
I believe that mine is always very stable. That is partly genetics, I'm lucky enough to have good haematological health, but also not travelling to extreme altitudes means that I'm not having big reticulocyte fluctuations.
JD studied all of this for years, so his advice is probably much more reliable than someone who thinks they have made some big breakthrough in finding some imaginary performance enhancing method.
The whole 'Performance Enhancement' mentality is what you should be questioning. The beliefs that there is some Bioenergetic boost you need to discover. Think in terms of calories burned per minute and how that affects homeostasis.
And stop feeding trolls. They enjoy it and have nothing better to do with their time. So why waste yours giving
them they attention they so desperately crave?
The question I have is why are you obsessed with RBC count and not performance. I've told you twice already I don't care about RBC count, because it was proved in a study that increasing RBC and increased VO2 can lead to improved performance, or not, depending on other, more relevant factors than RBC.
Your big question is not all that big, and we already know the answer. We know RBC varies for many reasons, such as increased plasma volume, intense exercise, and "footsrike hemolysis". Because of this wide variability absolute values of hematocrit and RBC are not important. Stimulating the production of new red blood cells results in an increased number under all the varying conditions.
But none of that is important if it does not result in performance. The big question has nothing to do with RBC count variations, but about how to optimize all the factors that maximize performance.
Training is part of the "performance enhancement" mentality -- and every athlete is concerned with maximizing their performance.
Why are you moving the goalposts again?
Attention seeking nonsense. Get a life.
Everyone's an expert. wrote:
Why are you moving the goalposts again?
Attention seeking nonsense. Get a life.
Help me out here -- everyone talks about moving goalposts, but this always looks to me like a childish diversion to avoid the merits. If I am wrong, what was the original goalpost, and what is the new one I created?
You said you wanted a serious conversation. I've told you twice that I don't care about red blood cells, pointing you to a study that increased RBC and increased VO2 doesn't always lead to improved performance, something I do care about, and you keep coming back with this obsession of red blood cells, saying it is the "big question", while at the same time telling us that if we are healthy, we should not be obsessed about red blood cells.
What is your goalpost then? You can start your serious conversation by describing how homeostasis is impacted by anemia, and by polycythemia.