JR is on suicide watch.
Case Study: Bernard Lagat
Sadly, since it seems that the study was designed for trialing drug testing techniques, it had no controls. I tend to believe the EPO can have a pretty significant effect, but I also think there could be a significant placebo effect, too. This study doesn't allow the differentiation between the two.
dingle wrote:
Sadly, since it seems that the study was designed for trialing drug testing techniques, it had no controls. I tend to believe the EPO can have a pretty significant effect, but I also think there could be a significant placebo effect, too. This study doesn't allow the differentiation between the two.
True, but 6% is a huge difference. As the author states,
"It was however reassuring that the typical error of measurement for the two time trials conducted on each phase was low and that the amplitude of the improvement observed was well above the confidence interval."
Lets say the performance improvement was only 4% (and placebo effect 2%)-- 4% turns a 2:20 marathon guy into a 2:14:30 marathoner, or 2:10 into
Weird, rest of message cut off. 4% improvement turns 2:20 into 2:14:30, or 2:10 into
EPO cheats out wrote:
Weird, rest of message cut off. 4% improvement turns 2:20 into 2:14:30, or 2:10 into
The opposite of the ">" sign cuts posts off on here because the forum is shit.
Agree, and while 6% is large, what is the standard error around that number, is the '2 Sigma' range 5 to 7% or 1% to 11%. Is the effect linear? I suspect that even for pretty good rec runners (e.g., 2:30-2:45 marathon, 9:00-9:30 3000) the effect is smaller because the system has captured some of these benefits through training. and some of them that you cannot reap twice, even if they come from different sources (training, change in blood composition through exogenous hormones; remember that your own production will get curtailed some).
It is also not clear how much this is 'performance only' effect and how much is 'training effect' [wherein being able to train at a higher level improves the body]. My guess is the training effect comes in to play here but might be even larger in a longer-term experiment.
EPO works - it wouldn't be given to cancer patients if it didn't work!
CluffyUno wrote:
The opposite of the ">" sign cuts posts off on here because the forum is shit.
Ugh, thanks for pointing it out. 2:20 turns into 2:14:30 and 2:10 into sub 2:05. 3% turns 2:20 into 2:15:40 and 2:10 into 2:06.
Remember: this was a medical study. That means the dosages used and the hematocrit elevation were FAR below what athletes actually use and achieve.
Except it was designed to determine if they could detect EPO better in cheaters so maybe they were mimicking the protocol that cheaters use.
lol lol lol lol wrote:
Remember: this was a medical study. That means the dosages used and the hematocrit elevation were FAR below what athletes actually use and achieve.
Not so fast there wrote:
Except it was designed to determine if they could detect EPO better in cheaters so maybe they were mimicking the protocol that cheaters use.
Nope. They couldn't do that because of safety issues.
http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0056151"[hemoglobin] was significantly increased at the end of administration compared to baseline (15.2±1.5 g•kg−1 vs. 12.7±1.2 g•kg−1, p
Sorry, posted too early. Anyway, hemoglobin = 1/3 of hematocrit. 15.2 hemoglobin = roughly 46 hematocrit. A Bekele or Komen or Geb or El G would shoot for at least 55. Athletes have competed at well over 60.
EPO cheats out wrote:
CluffyUno wrote:The opposite of the ">" sign cuts posts off on here because the forum is shit.
Ugh, thanks for pointing it out. 2:20 turns into 2:14:30 and 2:10 into sub 2:05. 3% turns 2:20 into 2:15:40 and 2:10 into 2:06.
No, this is an incorrect conclusion. The VO2 transport is not the only factor, you also have the necessary energetics in the marathon. EPO might get you almost nothing if you do not get the fuel to the muscles, and that is a different set of systems. Better, yes; the % here, unlikely. Go see Noakes.
The measured Hemoglobin is grams per kilogram body weight.
That's not the normal blood test hemoglobin.
15.2g/kg is high but not crazy high.
15ish is what you'd expect for normal, clean, world class endurance athletes.
If they used EPO, they'd get up to 17,18,19, which is really freaking high.
drugie wrote:
The measured Hemoglobin is grams per kilogram body weight.
That's not the normal blood test hemoglobin.
15.2g/kg is high but not crazy high.
15ish is what you'd expect for normal, clean, world class endurance athletes.
If they used EPO, they'd get up to 17,18,19, which is really freaking high.
True--my bad, no difference in end result.
26mi235 wrote:
No, this is an incorrect conclusion. The VO2 transport is not the only factor, you also have the necessary energetics in the marathon.
True about the energetics, but EPO turns the 2:07-10 guys from the 1970s/80s into 2:03-05 guys (possibly taking EPO) of today.
O2 transport is still THE determining factor for fast times in the marathon, as it allows relaxed pace and conservation of fuel throughout. AEROBIC means "with oxygen", and the marathon is almost entirely aerobic. If one runner runs it 1% anaerobically and the other has to run 2% anaerobically at the same pace, the former will win.
EPO cheats out wrote:
26mi235 wrote:No, this is an incorrect conclusion. The VO2 transport is not the only factor, you also have the necessary energetics in the marathon.
True about the energetics, but EPO turns the 2:07-10 guys from the 1970s/80s into 2:03-05 guys (possibly taking EPO) of today.
((((True about the energetics, but EPO turns the 2:07-10 guys from the 1970s/80s into 2:03-05 guys (possibly taking EPO) of today.[/quote)))))
Good post, can you imagine Frank Shorter on epo? 2:04 but I don't think he would have cheated.