epo/tents/radcliffe, why no press?

I read several articles about that and I was so stunned.Stunned by that the decent people who have much knowledge accutually had such nonsense theories.There were hardly decent theories against altitude tent.

Some talked as if artificial ways to enhance performance (drugs or machine or etc) were all wrong.Excuse me?artificially made Creatine ,artificially made vitamine,artificially made protein,artificially made shoes,artificially made treadmill ,artificially made aerobike etc etc.... are all leagal and not against sport etics at all.

Some mistook as if altitude tent is itself grey from the beginning.no.altitude tent is nothing like half of the people who saw the tent questioned their cleanness.It's something most people don't care if not pointed out,or don't care at all even if pointed out.I cannot agree with the idea that whether altitude tent itself is against sports or medical etics is questioned( not I don't think that is against sports or medical ethics.).

Another mind boggling theory is that cost matters.cost? matters whether they are cheating or not?I completely disagree with this idea of course,but even if so,high altitude traing cost more and no one questioned high cost training machine(such as high tech treadmill ,aerobike,muscle training machine).

And some people questioned scientific advance or say scientific approach to athletic is wrong,I don't even know what they are thinking anymore...Those people should go back to long ago and learn how to run carrying their wives on shoulders from Zatopek.

Some questioned about that athletes who can train at high altitude tent use that tent....So they questioned athletes who can train outsitde use treadmill?or athletes who can do push ups use another machine?Don't be kidding.

And of course as far as we know now and scientist studied ,it's no more harmful to the body than the altitude training is (even safer ).

All their theory is like above.I'm just sad about Clean athletes are questioned by a few people because of such nonsens theories .

And about post above,altitude tents creat circumstance which is not made by nature...so what?I use protein as training,which include amino acid and this is different from protein by nature,or vitamine or whatever,so what?you say I am on dope?

I use muscle training machine,this cannot happen in nature,we have to use artificial machine made by artificial machine.so what?

All you want to say is all circumstances which doesn't exist if human being doesn't exist, to enhance performance are all immoral?

And you use strange logic...

how about this

Even more worrying than the incidence of synthetic muscle enhance substances are the very latest drugs which can be used to enhance power performance by stimulating the body themselves to produce more muschle. This is the body?s natural response to the drug and this is a very similar scenario to the body responing to muscle training with protein artificially made.

Even more worrying than the incidence of synthetic EPO are the very latest drugs which can be used to enhance endurance performance by stimulating the kidneys themselves to produce more erythropoietin. This is the body?s natural response to the drug and this is a very similar scenario to the body responing to breathing at high altitude.

I remember that Naoko Takahashi and her mentor paid 30,000,000 dollars or 100,000,000 dollars to buy an ideal house to live and train at high altitude Boulder?so now she is proven to be cheating.yeah,poor one can't buy such things and cunning of Takahashi.

I have the science to back up my argument, Hypoxic tents are totally different in their affects on the blood to using altitude naturally, intermitenmt hypoxia is more effective than living at altitude, this is simulating the kidneys to produce epo artificially. You argue that it is no different to building muscle but thats rubbish, to build muscle ytou have to train, to increase EPO you jsut sit ina tent, it is an artificial enviroment, breathing in na artificially manipulated man made gas which stimulates the kidneys, how artificial do you want it to be? This is a grey area as much as you disagree and it could well be banned within a couple of years, if the IAAF wants it to of course, they drag their feet so much over drug issues it will probably be swept under the carpet. A research group in Oxford have scientific results to prove the effects of tents are different to the effects of altitude, its artificial, like it or not.

waz wrote:

I have the science to back up my argument ...to increase EPO you jsut sit ina tent,

Do the tents increase EPO or do they increase red blood cell count? I thought EPO was a hormone you took to do the same thing that the tents do.

You read my post..,?I'm not good at writing English.Maybe my post was not good,if so,sorry.But if not, I'm not fond of repeating same things,so...

By the way,have you ever been to high altitude?for normal human beings,it's nothing like you express .

And do you really think it will be banned? I bet it won't be banned upcoming 50 years,lol.

Tents are just a way to live high, train low for those who can't or won't move to a suitable location. A lot of elite runners live in high altitude areas and train low... the tent just enables those who live at sea-level to get the same benefits of those in Colorado, New Mexico, etc... There is nothing unethical about it, imho.

DougC

I don't think its relevant if I have been to altitude or not, I am basing my argument on the facts.

In response,

The kidneys produce EPO, the EPO allows for greater red blood cell production, (around 20% using a tent regularly).

In response to Doug C, you haven't read the first post in enough detail, I'm saying that it has been proven to have a different effect on the body to training at altitude, it is more easily manipulated, it is a controlled enviroment, unlike the natural enviroment. Its artificial, you are not even breathing air in the tent, you are breathing a manipulated gas where the oxygen content is reduced by adding other gasses, unlike at altitude with the oxygen content is reduced because of the partial pressure. Radcliffe has a home in the alps, why does she choose to also use a tent, because it has greater benefits, it can be more easily controlled, she can continue to train without any of the negative consequences of going to and coming back from altitude. You only need to go to a hypoxic tent manufacturers web site to read the claims backed up with science of just what these tents do and how they affect performance.

but,to tell the truth ,I can't understand why Rogge or IOC are so worried about that.I can't understand their theory as I said.and most normal people think so ,too.

We knew altitude training was good,so we made altitude tent,like we made artificial protein instead of meet,we made aerobike instead of bicycle,treadmill instead of running out.natural thinking.Because they are more useful.And Some are not so good as real ones,but others are better than real ones.Do you know ?artificially made protein is different much from the real ones.much more effective for same '10g'.

breathing in tent is more effective and useful and cheaper and etcetc...than going and breathing at high altitude(or say breathing 'gas' of high altitude).Why do some IOC guy or others worried such things?What I want to know is that.I'm waiting for some rational answer(or opinion) for long time.But seems there's none at all.

Again that is not an argument, manmade EPO is probably more efficient than naturally occuring EPO, it doesn't mean we should use it.

No no .whether based on facts or not ,in absolute sense,it became our feelings problem,as I said there are no rational reasons against tent.so what's the problem?It's our feeling!

And it is much different to think just sit and wait and gain stamina from to think and express to feel uncomfortable and struggle to adjust such environments.

And once again I say,artificial ways to enhance performance are not bad things at all,countless aretificial ways we are normally using .

And it is NOT because such EPO are MANMADE(in some sense maybe).But the main reason is ,such things are very very dangerous,so it is banned.and that's why manmade creatine ,protein vitamin,or other countless substances are not banned.you yourself prove that.

I hate drug use with every fiber of my being. I believe that it is a major factor in the demise of the popularity that track and field once enjoyed. I am old enough to remember when the world's fastest human was that - and not the world's fastest enhanced human. I am old enough to remember when the greatest distance runners were automatically regarded as being the toughest, most strong willed people on the planet. Now, one is left to wonder whose winning margin is owed to the powerful benefits of performance enhancing drugs.

That said, I have to say that I do support maintaining the legality of the hypoxic tent, unless it is proven to be detrimental to health. The reason that I support it is that there are significant benefits to living at altitude and many people do not have access to altitude. The tent offers a way to offset that advantage.

I can see how such an unnatural and artificial instrumental leads us into a "gray area." It is a tough call - but it seems to me that it is one way a distance runner may still be able to compete at the very top without having to use EPO, steroids, blood boosting, etc..

waz, you keep defending your position that tents are wrong because they are "artificial". But that is molfin's point - yes, they are artificial, and SO WHAT? My shoes are artificial, and Nike has put a lot more research money into them than any company has put into altitude tents. Does that make my shoes "cheating"?

I'm not totally convinced tents are okay, but you can not use the "artificial" argument. There are natural drugs out there that enhance performance like artificial drugs. Does that mean it is okay to take the natural drugs? Caffeine is natural, but still banned above certain levels.

Artificial is not my argument, my argument is that its hypocritical to ban one synthetic process and allow another to go unpunished, because thats what it is, its not natural therfore its wrong.

maybe you are finding yourself saying something strange.I know what you want to say.But I have to say,not natural things are not wrong.

After training some athletes take blood and analyse blood and decide next training.strange ,not natural ,but not wrong.

Some athletes run on the treadmill with strange mask on their mouth,much more strange than tent ,not natural at all,but not wrong.

But I can't stop people from feeling something.more than 90 % (my feeling,not accurate and not knowing this subject at all,first glance)say it's not strange or it's not doping ,just science or whatever.But still,some people expecially IOC guys or IAAF guys worried that,I don't know why.But still they do.not bad for health at all,no rational reasons,of course not against medical ethics,useful costless,effective.But still they do.I can't stop them from feeling something.

Its not the process and how artificial it is which worries me, its teh artificial effects on the body and how this influences performace

this time amount?I'm tired .

Do I have to cite another examples(what you mean by that post (hypocritial or whatever)is so)?in more sophiscated events more things are artificial ,

by the way you said 1500m time improved 3 seconds,you are not arguing that El G can improve 3 seconds by that stuff ,are you?how much do you think he can improve by that?

Are you sure that ONE HOUR at a time is sufficient to stimulate an increase in Epo? I've always advised runners who were already at high altitude (circa 7,000 ft.) to spend two FULL nights sleeping at 9,000+ ft. and to come down for the following days (one of those days usually involves a SEA LEVEL workout), thereby getting the intermittant hypoxia needed for an Epo boost. But I've always heard that it took SEVERAL hours of hypoxia to trigger the increased hormone production. That it can occur more dramatically as a result of several one hour stints is news.

One thing is certain, though - red cell production continues to increase in a time-dependent fashion over the course of several weeks at h-a, so a FEW days or nights at h-a is not enough to get the best results.

I'm not sure the altitude chambers confer AS much of an advantage as being at a real h-a site unless there's a tent big enough to put a treadmill in. Doing easy running at a high setting and doing threshold training at a moderate setting WOULD simulate the advantages afforded at living in an actual hi-lo situation. There appear to be some changes in lactate buffering ability which come about by light to medium speed running at high or moderate altitudes. And unless the tent also provides a HYPOBARIC environment, the runner still wouldn't be able to fully mimic training at a h-a site (there's a greater stimulus for improvement of pulmonary efficiency at lower air pressure).

Anyway, I don't have as much of a problem with the hypoxic chambers as some people do, because I don't think they're as good as actually living and doing easy running high and doing faster training at moderate and low elevations. But ... I've heard Dr. Rosa says that use of hypoxic tents IS cheating. If somebody has designed a chamber that provides an IMPROVEMENT on nature, we have a real ethical debate, especially if misuse or long term use of it is potentially DANGEROUS.