Although not in the strictest sense a placebo, because it is a real drug, the placebo effect is still an appropriate name for what is being discussed above.
Your thoughts, rants, abuse etc?
Interesting, although I'm not certain I can understand everything in the report. I never graduated Harvard. The conclusion of the report would seem to go against the results of people that have used it, such as Mr. Hellebuyck. He was convinced EPO helped his endurance.
It is an interesting theory though. The people that would use it are those that would be motivated to train very intensely and it is the intense training that gets the results and not the EPO.
Thanks for the intelligent reply Jon. I agree with your rationale. For someone like Eddy H, who was undoubtedly a great athlete, there was also an attitude of desperation, and suspicion about the actions of others. A very common theme on this messageboard.
The authors are basically saying that the idea that EPO increases oxygen uptake is a basic misunderstaning of how we use oxygen. For an increase in oxygen uptake we have to use more mitochondria, where oxygen is processed and for this to happen we have to use more muscle fibers. In effect, this would mean that to run faster, we have to work harder.
As Jack Daniels phD has shown, we must rely on better use of oxygen to gain long term improvements, i.e. better oxygen economy. Through this improvement in economy, we can maintain a given pace for longer.
What the authors are implying is probably too much for the typical letsrun poster to take on board, so I'm not expecting this thread to go beyond a few posts at the most. However, if anyone out there has something intelligent to say on the matter..........?
This is ridiculous. First of all, the bibliography is filled with editorials, not studies. This article is just one guy's opinion on whether EPO *should not* work. There is *zero* data to back up his assertion.
Ultimately, this is the problem with understanding human performance, and performance enhancement. Instead of doing actual science, and going out and doing double-blind, placebo-controlled studies, guys like this are sitting around in a coffee shop, reading a few papers, and publishing their sh1tty opinions in sh1tty journals. This isn't science, it's a third grader's book report.
$10 says the OP is J.R.
No doubt.
placebo is not a real effect. it is a scam of the pharmaceutical industry to make money by selling more sugar coated pills.
I won't take that bet.
IMO the best testimonial on the effectiveness of EPO is still the Outside magazine article.
http://www.outsideonline.com/fitness/Drug-Test.html?page=all
EPO has a mechanism of action that is entirely consistent with the effects that users report. Placebos can have very interesting and real effects as well, but I've never heard of someone experiencing instant recovery from a hard workout just because he/she believed it was possible.
Blood packing (autologous RBC infusion) was shown, in a double-blinded, placebo-controlled study, to have significant performance enhancing properties. Blood packing and EPO are two paths to the same destination. They absolutely increase performance at every level for every human being.
There is a veritable sh1tload of information out there to dispute the book report posted by the OP.
Blood packing substantially improves 10km times in trained runners:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3573270?dopt=Abstract
Blood doping for old people rehabbing from hip replacement:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16965573
An excellent summary of blood packing, including a useful bibliography:
http://bjsm.bmj.com/content/38/1/99.full
A good search term:
You keep on pushing this garbage link as if it means something. As others have pointed out it is an opinion piece with no relevant cited peer-reviewed papers. It is not published in a reputable journal and has all of the weight of a posting on LetsRun.com. The author may be a former professor in exercise science but his field of research had zero relevance to the use of EPO. He is clearly not an expert on these topics. Look at his publications and you will see they are all related to the psychological aspects of performance. Furthermore, he is a Pys. D., which is kind of bogus.http://coachsci.sdsu.edu/rushall/referee.htm
unbrainwashed wrote:
http://coachsci.sdsu.edu/csa/vol176/rushall.htmAlthough not in the strictest sense a placebo, because it is a real drug, the placebo effect is still an appropriate name for what is being discussed above.
Your thoughts, rants, abuse etc?
common wrote:
This is ridiculous. First of all, the bibliography is filled with editorials, not studies. This article is just one guy's opinion on whether EPO *should not* work. There is *zero* data to back up his assertion.
Ultimately, this is the problem with understanding human performance, and performance enhancement. Instead of doing actual science, and going out and doing double-blind, placebo-controlled studies, guys like this are sitting around in a coffee shop, reading a few papers, and publishing their sh1tty opinions in sh1tty journals. This isn't science, it's a third grader's book report.
But are you going to address this issue:
The authors are basically saying that the idea that EPO increases oxygen uptake is a basic misunderstaning of how we use oxygen. For an increase in oxygen uptake we have to use more mitochondria, where oxygen is processed and for this to happen we have to use more muscle fibers. In effect, this would mean that to run faster, we have to work harder.
As Jack Daniels phD has shown, we must rely on better use of oxygen to gain long term improvements, i.e. better oxygen economy. Through this improvement in economy, we can maintain a given pace for longer.
You can't deny these two points?
blaznbison24 wrote:
$10 says the OP is J.R.
No, I'm not J.R. But J.R. does make a good point about the idea of needing drugs to reach one's potential is ridiculous brainwashing that one can easily get sucked into, regardless of whether or not we pursue that so called PED route.
noce wrote:
I won't take that bet.
IMO the best testimonial on the effectiveness of EPO is still the Outside magazine article.
http://www.outsideonline.com/fitness/Drug-Test.html?page=allEPO has a mechanism of action that is entirely consistent with the effects that users report. Placebos can have very interesting and real effects as well, but I've never heard of someone experiencing instant recovery from a hard workout just because he/she believed it was possible.
That's a silly article. How can you say that is the best testimonial?
blaznbison24 wrote:
$10 says the OP is J.R.
J.R. is a lot more cynical in the role of drugs in treating illnesses, as well as improvement in sport. This guy is a bit more rational in that sense, although he's equally pompous and defiant in the face of all common sense.
unbrainwashed wrote:
You can't deny these two points?
Sure I can.
I deny those two points.
See. Easy.
You're a troll and you're wasting my time. Actually, I'm wasting my time responding to you. Your argument shows a basic misunderstanding of simple physiology. EPO doesn't improve cellular economy. It increases the number of red blood cells. The red blood cells carry oxygen to cells. This excess of oxygen allows all cells, even the inefficient, undertrained cells, to function at a high level, ultimately increasing performance.
Why should anyone address an issue that comes down to opinion. Where are the peer-reviewed studies? This opinion is worth no more then any other random troll.
unbrainwashed wrote:
But are you going to address this issue:
The authors are basically saying that the idea that EPO increases oxygen uptake is a basic misunderstaning of how we use oxygen. For an increase in oxygen uptake we have to use more mitochondria, where oxygen is processed and for this to happen we have to use more muscle fibers. In effect, this would mean that to run faster, we have to work harder.
As Jack Daniels phD has shown, we must rely on better use of oxygen to gain long term improvements, i.e. better oxygen economy. Through this improvement in economy, we can maintain a given pace for longer.
You can't deny these two points?
Furthermore, the studies that this "exercise scientist" chose were cherry picked. And the studies he cites were all done at moderate altitude.
For instance, he could have used this short review article if he was arguing the counterpoint:
http://jap.physiology.org/content/99/5/2053.short
In the original publication of the “live high-train low” model, we demonstrated clearly that exposure for >20 h/day to 2,500 m altitude for 4 wk led to an increase in erythrocyte volume, an increase in V̇o2 max, and improved performance in an event (5,000 m time trial) that is dependent on high rates of oxygen transport (18). In contrast, a control group exposed to identical training, but living at sea level, improved neither erythrocyte volume, V̇o2 max, nor performance.
To further define the mechanisms underlying the improvement in performance with altitude training, all the altitude-living athletes from our previous studies (18, 28) were divided into two groups based on only one criterion: those who improved their race time by more than the group mean (“responders”) and those that got worse (“nonresponders”; Ref. 4). There were no differences between these groups with respect to numerous physiological variables that might influence acclimatization to altitude (4).
Rather, the key distinguishing feature was that the responders had a greater increase in erythropoietin concentration with acute altitude exposure, which remained elevated for a more prolonged period of time. Indeed, the erythropoietin increase in the responders after 2 wk at altitude was equivalent to the peak response in the nonresponders, in whom erythropoietin had returned to baseline. This difference in erythropoietin response patterns was clearly physiologically significant and not a chance occurrence; the responders had an increase in erythrocyte volume and increased V̇o2 max, whereas the nonresponders did not. Furthermore, the increase in V̇o2 max was exactly what would be predicted from change in blood volume and hemoglobin concentration (31): predicted increase 248 ml/min − actual increase 245 ml/min(4). This derivation model was confirmed prospectively in another population (4, 26).
common wrote:
unbrainwashed wrote:You can't deny these two points?
Sure I can.
I deny those two points.
See. Easy.
You're a troll and you're wasting my time. Actually, I'm wasting my time responding to you. Your argument shows a basic misunderstanding of simple physiology. EPO doesn't improve cellular economy. It increases the number of red blood cells. The red blood cells carry oxygen to cells. This excess of oxygen allows all cells, even the inefficient, undertrained cells, to function at a high level, ultimately increasing performance.
But you haven't addressed the issue of HOW the extra red blood cells could be used, which would require more mitochondria and thus more muscle fiber recruitment, thus a higher workload, i.e. more effort required to go faster as per normal.
Calling me a troll is just ducking the issue.
So.... wrote:
Furthermore, the studies that this "exercise scientist" chose were cherry picked. And the studies he cites were all done at moderate altitude.
For instance, he could have used this short review article if he was arguing the counterpoint:
http://jap.physiology.org/content/99/5/2053.shortIn the original publication of the “live high-train low” model, we demonstrated clearly that exposure for >20 h/day to 2,500 m altitude for 4 wk led to an increase in erythrocyte volume, an increase in V̇o2 max, and improved performance in an event (5,000 m time trial) that is dependent on high rates of oxygen transport (18). In contrast, a control group exposed to identical training, but living at sea level, improved neither erythrocyte volume, V̇o2 max, nor performance.
To further define the mechanisms underlying the improvement in performance with altitude training, all the altitude-living athletes from our previous studies (18, 28) were divided into two groups based on only one criterion: those who improved their race time by more than the group mean (“responders”) and those that got worse (“nonresponders”; Ref. 4). There were no differences between these groups with respect to numerous physiological variables that might influence acclimatization to altitude (4).
Rather, the key distinguishing feature was that the responders had a greater increase in erythropoietin concentration with acute altitude exposure, which remained elevated for a more prolonged period of time. Indeed, the erythropoietin increase in the responders after 2 wk at altitude was equivalent to the peak response in the nonresponders, in whom erythropoietin had returned to baseline. This difference in erythropoietin response patterns was clearly physiologically significant and not a chance occurrence; the responders had an increase in erythrocyte volume and increased V̇o2 max, whereas the nonresponders did not. Furthermore, the increase in V̇o2 max was exactly what would be predicted from change in blood volume and hemoglobin concentration (31): predicted increase 248 ml/min − actual increase 245 ml/min(4). This derivation model was confirmed prospectively in another population (4, 26).
What has altitude training got to do with synthetic EPO administration?
trollism wrote:
blaznbison24 wrote:$10 says the OP is J.R.
J.R. is a lot more cynical in the role of drugs in treating illnesses, as well as improvement in sport. This guy is a bit more rational in that sense, although he's equally pompous and defiant in the face of all common sense.
Agreed.