EPO and the placebo effect

I'm beginning to think these guys are on a payroll

---

Hopsptingeternal wrote:

As for your last point, you assume that no one can beat someone on EPO without being on EPO. Circular reasoning. Plus, Lance smashed loads of cyclist who were on EPO. So maybe if he had been clean he could have beaten them clean, while they were dirty. If you think you cannot beat someone chances you will not.

You assume Froome is not clean. What if he is and is still the best? If the evidence is so clear where is it? No positive tests in a team that sprang from British cycling which totally dominates track cycling and has not failed testers. Lance did not evade he was warned quietly.

---

---

No positive tests in a team that sprang from British cycling which totally dominates track cycling and has not failed testers.

---

:-))))

:-))))


Just a fan. An interested fan. Stopped watching cycling when Indurain lost. Started again when Wiggins finished 4th. Things had changed a lot.

Those two examples are interesting. I read about these ages ago.

Michael Rogers left Sky when several cyclists and back room staff left as a result of staff being re-questioned about their drugs background. Those that came clean about their past were told to leave ( or so was the picture presented). This is where Garmin is better. They take on people who turn their back on doping. Sky try to be whiter than white. Therefore choc lists and others lie to get a job.

As for Jonathan. His blood results pre-date his contract with Sky and maybe explain his better than expected results that got him the Sky contract. But that begs the question again as to the benefit of doping.

Therefore, no one at Sky has any shadow on them while at Sky. Those who come clean are drummed out.

Another thing about Jonothan Tiernan-Locke is after joining Sky his performance dropped and he struggled to produce the form that got him the contract. Was he doping? Not everything is known about people's blood readings that is why Henao was/is having that investigation at altitude. Could all be a ruse, if it is will fail.
Did he stop doping when at Sky and struggle to train as hard as required. Maybe he could do it without the help he had before. Maybe it was all pschological (hipccup). Maybe he peaked and is innocent. Time will tell I guess, like it did for Lance.

:-))))))

Same story as team mate Clentador...oops I mean Contador

:-))

http://bikeraceinfo.com/tdf/tdfstats.html

It's an interesting question. What do we know about the benefits of EPO?

The OP's article asks an interesting question: EPO seems to work, but do we really know why? Does the "popular" mechanism even make any sense? Is it that EPO works as promised in modern mythology, by increasing RBC to support one race? Maybe yes, maybe no. Is it a placebo? Maybe yes, maybe no. Could there be other possibilities (think improved recovery while not racing)? Maybe yes, maybe no.

In any "scientific" study, the decision to take EPO would be the variable, while all other factors were controlled. Has this ever happened? If we take "grand tour" cycling as an example (think "Lance") we have to address why other drugs (steroids, testosterone, HGH, cortisone, corticosteroids, ...) can be completely neglected, discarded, or otherwise considered negligible.

EPO increases red blood cells, which increases oxygen delivery. These factors seem relevent for track events up to 3-5K, or any other event up to about 11 minutes. How is EPO relevant for a 10K? Marathon? Tour de France? These events rarely touch VO2max.

The OP article counter proposes a "placebo" effect, but this is merely one suggestion for an alternative benefit. Another "counter proposal" would discuss the role of "recovery". Forget focusing on increasing oxygen delivery increasing above some super-human maximum for some short 10 minute bout, but rather explain how EPO prevents or delays grand tour cyclists from premature degradation in the third week of a 3-week effort.

---

unbrainwashed wrote:

http://coachsci.sdsu.edu/csa/vol176/rushall.htm

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?

---

---

rekrunner wrote:

It's an interesting question. What do we know about the benefits of EPO?

The OP's article asks an interesting question: EPO seems to work, but do we really know why? Does the "popular" mechanism even make any sense? Is it that EPO works as promised in modern mythology, by increasing RBC to support one race? Maybe yes, maybe no. Is it a placebo? Maybe yes, maybe no. Could there be other possibilities (think improved recovery while not racing)? Maybe yes, maybe no.

In any "scientific" study, the decision to take EPO would be the variable, while all other factors were controlled. Has this ever happened? If we take "grand tour" cycling as an example (think "Lance") we have to address why other drugs (steroids, testosterone, HGH, cortisone, corticosteroids, ...) can be completely neglected, discarded, or otherwise considered negligible.

EPO increases red blood cells, which increases oxygen delivery. These factors seem relevent for track events up to 3-5K, or any other event up to about 11 minutes. How is EPO relevant for a 10K? Marathon? Tour de France? These events rarely touch VO2max.

The OP article counter proposes a "placebo" effect, but this is merely one suggestion for an alternative benefit. Another "counter proposal" would discuss the role of "recovery". Forget focusing on increasing oxygen delivery increasing above some super-human maximum for some short 10 minute bout, but rather explain how EPO prevents or delays grand tour cyclists from premature degradation in the third week of a 3-week effort.

---

unbrainwashed wrote:

http://coachsci.sdsu.edu/csa/vol176/rushall.htm

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?

---

---

Oh yeah, on your recovery theory. The more oxygen your body has, the better it performs at everything. Why do you think unfit people suffer from more illnesses? Oxygen is our lifeblood, it controls everything in our bodies. EPO massively helps with recovery. The more oxygen your body has, the more work it can do.

I think someone is trying to defend their own EPO use pretending or assuming that EPO is not the reason why he/she has improved and is winning racers.

Or how about the reverse effect from guilty feelings? I mean perhaps that explains why some are see a decline. They feel guilty when they get on the juice then lose the heart and drive they once had b

Maybe you misunderstood me -- you are arguing my point. I was trying to argue that there must be more than "EPO only affects VO2max".

The mechanism often claimed is that EPO works by increasing oxygen delivery to the muscles by increasing RBC. My point is that pretending this is some kind of exclusive mechanism is oversimplified and too limiting. There must be other explanations why it helps in races that only require sub-maximal efforts (e.g. 80% of VO2max), because more RBC doesn't make much sense to me.

The paper suggests placebo. I'm suggesting other effects (like quicker recovery), and that any benefit from EPO is a combination of all effects. Placebo doesn't negate increased RBC. Also, when you look at the Tour de France, I'm thinking the benefit of taking EPO isn't bringing the "42" rider up to "48", but rather, when the "42" rider falls to "36" in the third week, bringing him back up to "42".

These are just my ideas though, for discussion.

---

Treads for wrote:
...
Your question on longer than 5k efforts. You are missing the point. EPO increases your aerobic capacity. The longer the distance, the more you rely on your aerobic system. The marathon is a purely aerobic race(i.e your heart and lungs do all of the work). Your marathon pace is your aerobic threshold.

By improving your aerobic threshold with EPO, you also improve you're anaerobic threshold thus making you faster at shorter distances as well as longer distances. You think EPO only affects Vo2 max which is false, it is a primarily aerobic enhancer but the effects push all your thresholds higher. This is why endurance athletes have a base phase, it's to build your aerobic engine. The bigger your aerobic engine is, the faster and farther you can go.
...

---

rekrunner wrote:
The mechanism often claimed is that EPO works by increasing oxygen delivery to the muscles by increasing RBC. My point is that pretending this is some kind of exclusive mechanism is oversimplified and too limiting. There must be other explanations why it helps in races ... [/quote]


http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15327391

I buy that EPO is a placebo ( maybe)

If people can explain why the same teams get caught Astana SaxoBank, but teams that claim they are clean(as in it is part of their set up philosophy) such as Sky and Garmin never get caught, then I'll believe they are clean and EPO is either a placebo or it's effect just gets top sportsmen to the same place faster than drug free top training.

Either Sky, Garmin and Shimano Argos are cleverer than the teams that get caught or they are better at EPO admin

I don't buy the increased recovery idea. Recovery from what exactly? To recover faster all we need is to not over stress our bodies. We get this from better fitness.

The thing that really increases or delays recovery is our adaptability to eccentric muscle contractions. These give us our top performance when we make better use of them, but it takes some getting used to.

For example in running, the downhill effort is much less demanding metabolically, but much more potentially damaging to muslcles. Those two points are obvious, no one would deny them. In cycling the equivalent is very fast pedalling.
Both of these types of effort are necessary for optimal training and performance, and both can do more damage and require more recovery, sometimes a whole week or more from just a few mintues of effort. It follows that adapting to this stress is what is required for advancing fitness, performance and recovery. What does all of this have to do with more red blood cells? Nothing really.

What do you mean when you say: "In any "scientific" study, the decision to take EPO would be the variable"?

Do you mean the psychology of crossing that line? The decision to join the other EPO users and be part of the elite secret club? There is so much psychology involved in that game isn't there?

---

The Donger wrote:

Or how about the reverse effect from guilty feelings? I mean perhaps that explains why some are see a decline. They feel guilty when they get on the juice then lose the heart and drive they once had b

---