EPO and the placebo effect

Purple Maize wrote:

Repeating your opinion ad nauseum does not count as making an argument.

Do you even understand what I am saying? I doubt it.

My basic point is that using more oxgyen requires a greater workload, using up more glycogen.

Real performance enhancement comes from better fuel economy. In running that means producing more power and endurance for the same effort.

So far, not one poster who has argued with me has grasped that basic point of exercise physiology.

Aquafina wrote:

unbrainwashed wrote:

common, you are just repeating the dogma. EPO works as a placebo, it's all in the athletes head.

As Henry Ford said: Whether you think you can, or you think you can't--you're right.”

You should give your info to Armstrong. That would be a great defense.

"Yes I took EPO, but look it's really makes NO DIFFERENCE it's just a placebo! I could just have been shooting up sugar water and had the same effect."

Is the Lance witch hunt going to help educate people? clean up the sport? Stop the leach team doctors? Why aren't they being pursued with as much vigour?

yyy wrote:

placebo is not a real effect. it is a scam of the pharmaceutical industry to make money by selling more sugar coated pills.

the placebo effect has been proven in clinical trials many many times. an interesting side note to this is that the placebo effect is more prominent when test subject are given an isotonic injection than just sugar pills. 2 sugar pills a day are also more effective than 1 sugar pill a day.

flamming gummy wrote:

yyy wrote:

placebo is not a real effect. it is a scam of the pharmaceutical industry to make money by selling more sugar coated pills.

the placebo effect has been proven in clinical trials many many times. an interesting side note to this is that the placebo effect is more prominent when test subject are given an isotonic injection than just sugar pills. 2 sugar pills a day are also more effective than 1 sugar pill a day.

Thanks for chiming in 8 months after the last post...

Thoughts on this paper please? In addition, it is interesting users of EPO had top performances when not taking EPO when the test came along. I am interested in peoples opinions who understand the stats used in this paper. Sorry it is not about runners but cyclists in the three hardest tours.

http://www.academia.edu/1129538/Some_empirical_notes_on_the_epo_epidemic_in_professional_cycling

The implication is stark! Doctors would love to use the placebo effect intentionally. Cheats become cheaters of only themselves. Although those who did EPO often did HGH too. Thoughts?

I had forgotten about this thread. Here's a question which will no doubt pi$$ the scienticians off big time like luv2run.

Will cyclists get faster without synthetic EPO?

I'm pretty certain the answer is yes, and that even they will have to admit grudginly, maybe in 20 years time, that EPO was just a fad.

I would say many of the pellet on in pro cycling are free of EPO. Sky, Garmin and others are different to certain teams of the past and now.

They train better use better equipment and get the same results. Pedal efficiency is much better than in previous days ( pre 1980's ) and tactics are more team oriented. Drafting is better understood. Average times for the Tours has been climbing for many years prior to EPO.

The paper I posted makes the claim that their is no evidence for EPO helping top athletes BEYOND what the placebo effect would cover.

Any proof out there? The paper makes another point, the limit to improvement is actually willingness to suffer. Chris Froome and Richie Porte broke Armstrong's record on some mountain in training this year. I do not believe they dope. Brad Wiggins is not a doper yet his winning time was fast. Not a shred of evidence for these guys, but Lance was dogged by good evidence that was sweep under the carpet.

I would say many of the pellet on in pro cycling are free of EPO. Sky, Garmin and others are different to certain teams of the past and now.

They train better use better equipment and get the same results. Pedal efficiency is much better than in previous days ( pre 1980's ) and tactics are more team oriented. Drafting is better understood. Average times for the Tours has been climbing for many years prior to EPO.

The paper I posted makes the claim that their is no evidence for EPO helping top athletes BEYOND what the placebo effect would cover.

Any proof out there? The paper makes another point, the limit to improvement is actually willingness to suffer. Chris Froome and Richie Porte broke Armstrong's record on some mountain in training this year. I do not believe they dope. Brad Wiggins is not a doper yet his winning time was fast. Not a shred of evidence for these guys, but Lance was dogged by good evidence that was sweep under the carpet.

Sky were (according to Lens Voigt) were 10% better because they were better by 1% in ten areas. Now all the other teams have copied and at the same level.

This thread is damn near misanthropic its goons' belief that in the high stakes, $$$ filled world of cycling, teams and riders for decades have had zero ability to experiment and find what's effective.

"Willingness to suffer" Get the F outta here with this Romantic crap. Why not just lead with "they're on their bikes busting their asses, 8 hours a day"? you seem to be a Lance supporter, after all.

Makes me think of the early '90s when records were slashed, Geb, El G, Komen were doing their things--boy, what an amazing development in placebo technology!

High level athletes are pushing against limited returns and approaching asymptotes of human performance--there's no room for huge chunks of time because of "belief." If clean and unplacebo'd, do you think Rupp runs 12:35 the next race if you tell him there's special air in the crynosauna? If dirty/placebo'd, do you think he runs 14:00 the next race if Salazar tells him, sorry, it's been a sugar pill this whole time?

Absolute idiots, and I sense you have an ax to grind.

EPO can't be considered a placebo. but the psychological effect of such a profound intervention as injecting an illegal drug three times a week for six weeks must be considered. If you have the intelligence to do that amount of thinking?

Cycling and running are hugely reliant on motor skills, for which the 'human limit' is nowhere near "approaching asymptotes of human performance" as you suggest.

Hi. No ax. No grind. Just want to hear a convincing view, or even better someone who understands stats and exercise to agree with or rebuke the link I provided. Speeds in cycling have increased. However two developments have been a big part. Technology and training have developed hugely. The paper I posted claimed to assess if the average speeds in the winner of the three grand tours showed unnatural improvements throughout their history. They concluded EPO was no better than placebo's known effect. You raise a good point in that placebo in medicine may not be (you said it in a kinda stronger way) applicable to pro cycling or runners. The person who started this thread said something about EPO not being enough. Maybe HGH steroids and EPO together can do miracles but he (I think) questioned EPO alone. The paper I posted took these things into account.

My question is is their any scientific evidence that EPO helps top athletes?

Do those who take these things not need to to get top results.

Lance lied cheated bullied and was not a nice guy, yet at his best I do not believe he would not have smashed Froome.

I heard recently about a guy in London who, 200 years before Roger Bannister ran a mile in four minutes along the streets of London. His time is ignored because they did not used Omega, yet these guys were measuring nuts and had quality time pieces.

What are our limits and how much does the mind hold it back?

I saw the docu on Lance that was done for his comeback but turned out to cover his exposure. Interesting that on one tour no EPO was used and they blood doped after Hautacam when they race was sewn up. Also his doctor stated that cyclists can go much faster potentially. Also david Miller won doping and not doping. He commented that he started when he was very flat emotionally and physically, yet immediately after taking EPO felt super strong.

Thoughts that have been bouncing around my head.

If you actually believe Froome and Wiggins are clean I fear your critical thinking skills are so bad there's no point even talking about this study.

Is there scientific evidence that EPO helps top athletes? Oh dear.

Dr. Ferrari was asked if he thought Lance was approaching the limits of human ability. His response was "laughs, we are not even close to that level".

As for SKY not doping. Come on people, we hear the same reasons for epic performances for the last 20+ years. Cyclists doped 100 years ago, they doped 50 years ago, they doped 10 years ago and they dope now. Froome barely gets out of the saddle when attacking. The days of EPO may be gone but just look at all the genetic anaemia and cancer treatments under medical testing.

GW1516, Aicar and the next big thing FD-4592(ASP1517) which is undetectable and will remain that way for a long time.

Why not? Wiggins came through uk cycling. The cleanest program ever.

This guy would win Olympic gold. Then go an a booze festival for half the year. Then get back to training and still be the man come the next Olympics. In his own words he has only commited to training fully for two years prior to his Tour victory. He won that by out motoring everyone of his back wheel. Afterwards, true to his type, he looses his focus (cycling wise) and is not the same commited rider.

If the accepted mindset is you cannot win without doping (as it was in the peleton) then it would take huge self belief to csncel that.

Your implication is any winner in top sport is doping!

Contador caught -let's call him Clentador. Lance caught but excused! Let's call him Lance cheatstrong. Wiggins never caught. Let's call him Wiggo.

Froome never caught, let's call him Froomey. Nibali never caught, but cycles for Astana.

You must be of the opinion that the blood passport does not work well enough - your scientific reason for that opinion?

Yes cyclists have always found stuff to help them cycle faster. Pre EPO they were mostly to deal with the pain. Less pain go faster. Be who suffers most wins most.

I believe Sky and Garmin and Argos Shimano. I do not believe Astana Movistar and Contadors present team. History of caught dopers v no one caught. If I am right doping is worthless as the same results can be got

Maybe with a longer timespan.

Roger Bannister went down in history as the first man to break 4 min mile. Yet someone did 200years before on the streets of London. No spikes, no track no modern training. If dr Ferrari is correct and Lance won his last Tour smoking a cigar, surely he could of won the Tour by 8 secs by the sweat of his brow!!

Hopesptingseternal wrote:

Yes cyclists have always found stuff to help them cycle faster. Pre EPO they were mostly to deal with the pain. Less pain go faster. Be who suffers most wins most.

I believe Sky and Garmin and Argos Shimano. I do not believe Astana Movistar and Contadors present team. History of caught dopers v no one caught. If I am right doping is worthless as the same results can be got

Maybe with a longer timespan.

Roger Bannister went down in history as the first man to break 4 min mile. Yet someone did 200years before on the streets of London. No spikes, no track no modern training. If dr Ferrari is correct and Lance won his last Tour smoking a cigar, surely he could of won the Tour by 8 secs by the sweat of his brow!!

SKY are very suspicious to me and not just because of performances. When SKY started in 2010, promises were made. They said they would not hire any doctor from outside the UK and any doctor with a history of doping but yet, they hired Belgian Geert Leinders who is under investigation for doping related charges.

They made a promise that none of their riders would ride under a TUE exemption but yet, Chris Froome has rode twice while using a TUE exemption. Sergio Henao showed discrepancies in his biological passport and had to be removed from competition to take part in a high altitude test which was sanctioned by anti-doping agencies.

And then there is Chris Froomes RBC killing parasites which means he had a naturally low haemocrite which would leave alot of room for improvement with EPO and also covers up major changes in his Biological passport.

He is also incapable of answering a doping related question. He gets all uncomfortable when a doping question is presented to him. Dave Brailsford grabs the mic off him and goes off on a LA style rant. That last paragraph is speculation but it sets my BS detector off the clock.

Garmin are somewhat believable but there's David Millar. What is a convicted doper doing on THE supposed anti-doping team of cycling?

No amount of training or special training as SKY call it can make a rider faster than a doped rider. For it to be true that Froome is clean would mean he is at least 10% better in natural ability to every other rider in the World who is doped.

WOW!! A very good and clear explanation of why someone thinks Sky are doping. This must be a first on LR.

treads for wrote:

No amount of training or special training as SKY call it can make a rider faster than a doped rider. For it to be true that Froome is clean would mean he is at least 10% better in natural ability to every other rider in the World who is doped.

Just make up some stuff, why not?

Cyclists take dope for psychological reasons that you don't seem to understand. Psychology is huge in any sport and the harder the event, the greater the difference between self belief and self doubt.

Ok. Firstly. Garmin have a policy that the sport was almost totally infectedby EPO etc so Sky's approach to this subject - any one with history cannot work for us - is unrealistic. Garmin only require honesty on past actions. So when history comes out in their cyclists that cyclists says yes I did dope then. But not now. Contador could not cycle for them because he does not admit. Sky got rid of Michael Rogers and others who turned out to have doped. The doctor they employed was because the best doctors for cyclists are tainted. Their experience is valuable. They compromised ghere until the press jumped on them. That's why Garmin have it right. As for david Millar. He is totally open about what he did and is now vocal about it! Most cyclists prefer to be quite

As for Chris Froome. His bilharzia held back his potential (plus was not very nice). How can you hold it against him????? If it was not for that disease he would have come through earlier.