Lactate curves of elite athletes show that EPO/ Blood boosting is pointless.

Good science, bad science wrote:

Elite athletes use less glycogen to run or ride a bike a given pace. Less glycogen mean less oxygen. The concept of a higher oxygen uptake or more efficient oxygen uptake as a result of blood boosting is just plain bad science.

Paula Radcliffe's tests by Professor Andy Jones show this; she was super efficient at 2.15 marathon pace, using less glycogen, less oxygen. The result of better training, not blood boosting.

What do you do when a theory disagrees with an empirical fact? Get rid of the theory? Or get rid of the fact?

half logic. Give me an intelligent debate, not a cop out troll accusation.

Why do they dope. Because they have your mindset. You would have done the same in their positon confronted by the type of people who are around them.

See another side if you can? It's a much better place to be.

while I don't agree with everything you are saying, my M.S. in Exercise Physiology 20 years ago (that I don't use) leads me to believe that:1) biomechanical efficiency is extremely important but not the be all end all.2) I think a lot of the potential benefits of doping could be offset by increased blood viscosity3) I don't think EPO helps as much as people think it does because people are not running long distances at the upper end of their V02max bell curve. This should suggest that EPO isn't necessary because people aren't using the amount of oxygen available to them anyway.I don't think EPO is all it is cracked up to be, but that is just my opinion.

Good science, bad science wrote:

Elite athletes use less glycogen to run or ride a bike a given pace. Less glycogen mean less oxygen. The concept of a higher oxygen uptake or more efficient oxygen uptake as a result of blood boosting is just plain bad science.

Paula Radcliffe's tests by Professor Andy Jones show this; she was super efficient at 2.15 marathon pace, using less glycogen, less oxygen. The result of better training, not blood boosting.

Axer of very serious question wrote:

Good science, bad science wrote:

Elite athletes use less glycogen to run or ride a bike a given pace. Less glycogen mean less oxygen. The concept of a higher oxygen uptake or more efficient oxygen uptake as a result of blood boosting is just plain bad science.

Paula Radcliffe's tests by Professor Andy Jones show this; she was super efficient at 2.15 marathon pace, using less glycogen, less oxygen. The result of better training, not blood boosting.

What do you do when a theory disagrees with an empirical fact? Get rid of the theory? Or get rid of the fact?

Do you agree or disagree with Paula's test results?

Thanks for posting. There are a few scientists who are prepared to come out of the woodwork and question the drug obsessive dogma. That's how science should be isn't it? Ingrained ideas must be challenged if they show some false logic.

Good science, bad science wrote:

easy weeks wrote:

PEDs allow for that better training. Recovery is enhanced. They are potentiators; a catalyst, a piece of the training puzzle, and something that - all other things being equal - that will always give the athlete an advantage.

You don't need drugs to train better or recover faster, you need better training. The idea that your body can be improved by doping shows a lack of self worth, self belief and a lack of respect for just how amazing your body is. Plus a large amount of gullibilty.

Yeah, tell that to the guys driving over the border to Mexico.

What's this about lactating athletes?

Good science, bad science wrote:

Axer of very serious question wrote:

What do you do when a theory disagrees with an empirical fact? Get rid of the theory? Or get rid of the fact?

Do you agree or disagree with Paula's test results?

If your theory cannot reconcile her test results with the fact that runners do improve by taking EPO, that is not our problem.

Ramzi went from 3:39 to 3:30 in 11 months on CERA.

All of you are morons.There is no "true" in science.Only theories and observations.

drdd wrote:

Good science, bad science wrote:

Elite athletes use less glycogen to run or ride a bike a given pace. Less glycogen mean less oxygen.

The concept of a higher oxygen uptake or more efficient oxygen uptake as a result of blood boosting is just plain bad science.

Your grasp on logic and science is very loose. The first statement can be true while the benefits of blood doping can also be true.

Good science, bad science wrote:

Gary Oldman wrote:

You said the guy behind was limited by his cardiovascular system.....

He has to force his cardiovascular system to the limits to try and beat you. He fails, you are running sub maximally and he is easy prey.

Why are you running sub maximally?

The concept of winning or losing has little to do with running at your personal maximum effort.

Tergat and Geb were both all out in Sydney.

Good science, bad science wrote:

half logic. Biomechanical efficiency is the issue. Where does that efficiency come from? From stiffer muscles applying the same force with less metabolic workload or a faster pace for the same metabolic workload.

The real performance enhancers are adrenalin/noradrenalin, controlling your efficiency. We are not limited by our oxygen uptake in the way that you think.

Exercise physiologists don't understand training and neither do most runners. They push the cardivascular system too hard to early in the run, not allowing for the neural efficiency to take effect.

You were pimp trolling this stuff a couple of weeks ago and nobody bought it

I'm not able to stay silent when there is a discussion about effects of doping and effects of training.

I'm not completely with Good Science, bad science, because I don't think the main problem is a lack of biomechanical efficiency when we speak about top runners.

In their case, almost everybody of them shows a very nice efficiency, somebody (such as Wilson Kipsang) a little better, but everybody at high level.

For example, now I have the opportunity to follow Kenenisa Bekele. Following him, I can say his main quality is an unbelievable ability to relax completely his body (that means his mind too) also when his effort is maximal. This is the factor allowing him to do the difference, because people cam be surprised to know how little mileage he used, during his best years (about 120-130 km per week when he was the best in 5000 and 10000m).

I think that EPO can help in short distances (1500 and 3000m), because these events don't suffer the increase of blood viscosity, due to the limited duration of the effort. However, athletes such as Asbel Kiprop and Silas Kiplagat are able to run fast completely clean, and I don't know which type of advantage they could have from assumption of EPO.

But, longer the competition becomes, less effects there is with EPO, arriving at the Marathon, when my personal opinion is that EPO is a damage for the performance.

I know this opinion can provoke new discussions, and again I can appear as an idiot or as the most expert doper, able to hide this behavior.

But this is exactly what I think, and I explain why.

EPO can help athletes' engine to increase the Aerobic Power, but at the same time can enhance the consumption of fuel, exactly what happens with a car having a bigger cilindrate, compared with a car with smaller engine.

The car with big engine can run faster, but has a bigger comsumption of fuel.

If the distance is not too long, the fuel in the tank can be enough, because for winning the race the most important factor is the POWER of the engine.

But if the race is long, and the fuel in the tank is not enough (this is the case of every competition longer than 1 hour about, that is a race at the level of the Lactic Threshold), the only solution is to reduce the speed in order to last more. In this case, a big engine can be the problem, not the solution, because at the Marathon speed athletes use a percentage of their Aerobic Power, and more powerful is the engine, less percentage they have to use in order to finish the race with the fuel they have.

Take in your mind that a powerful engine prefers to work with glycogen (the "super" fuel), that we have in our body in limited quantity, and is not able to increase the "Aerobic Lipidic Power" that is the base of the action of top Marathon runners.

There are a lot of reasons because EPO can't help the best Marathon runners, if and when they have a proper training.

Everybody continues to do the examples of Kisorio, and now of Rita.

These are 2 top athletes, clearly taking EPO and running fast. But why nobody wants to do the example of ALL THE OTHER CLEAN ATHLETES, better than them in their distances ?

It's really ridiculous to look at some, who is one of the best in the World, taking EPO, for automatically decide that "EPO produces big advantages" :

nobody can know what they could do without EPO, and it's too commod to think that "EVERYBODY IS ON EPO" also without any proof, because they are better than the athletes taking EPO.

I know FOR SURE than some my athletes bettering the WR (Shaheen in steeple, Mosop for 25 and 30 km, Florence Kiplagat for 20 km and HM) were able to do this completely clean, and sincerely I don't think they could run faster taking EPO : they could run faster, with something better in their training.

You think African are doped because they run so much faster than the other athletes in the World. I, working with the best African, on the contrary think they are FAR from their potential best results, because everybody of them doesn't have the same professionalism and the same opportunities European or American have for supporting their training.

Probably, the eccess of science is not a good solution in middle distances, where the instinct has still the most important role, and the ability to suffer is at the base of every performance.

The final fact is that ALL THE WORLD speaking about the doping of African runners don't understand that, with this vision, they create alibi for themselves, losing motivation and self confidence for being better athletes, sometimes able to fight with African and to defeat them.

My personal idea is that Italy could have today athletes like Panetta '87 or Antibo '90, these athletes could still win some medal in WCh and OG.

Marathon apart, the reality is that were not African runners to improve too ,much, was the rest of the World to worsen their performances.

But, of course, for people not having historical knowledge about athletics, the African domination can be a fruit of doping only (so the doping of African is the reason because European and American run today slower than 30 years ago...).

Renato Canova wrote:

I think that EPO can help in short distances (1500 and 3000m), because these events don't suffer the increase of blood viscosity, due to the limited duration of the effort. However, athletes such as Asbel Kiprop and Silas Kiplagat are able to run fast completely clean, and I don't know which type of advantage they could have from assumption of EPO.

But, longer the competition becomes, less effects there is with EPO, arriving at the Marathon, when my personal opinion is that EPO is a damage for the performance.

If only Lance Armstrong knew this.

Renato Canova wrote:

But, of course, for people not having historical knowledge about athletics, the African domination can be a fruit of doping only (so the doping of African is the reason because European and American run today slower than 30 years ago...).

Renato

Ryan Hall was faster than the Americans running 30 years ago.

And Rupp and Solinsky were faster at 10,000 than the Americans running

30 years ago.

Thanks for posting, Renato, even while knowing that people will take shots at

you.

Renato,

Thanks for sharing your theory. If EPO does not help Marathoning why are there widespread reports of increased power output by the top Tour Cyclists when EPO use became widespread?

I understand that many athletes try techniques to improve performance that are unproven. However, I do not understand why pro athletes would risk getting caught if EPO did not improve their performance.

Can you comment on this?

So EPO should be legal because it doesn't work?

It's always great to hear your perspective, Renato. Thank you for sharing your views.

It seems like you're addressing two different points in your post:

(1) Does EPO improve performance at long distances?

(2) Is the great improvement in East African running due to doping?

To me (and I think many others), those are two difference questions. I don't think the dominance of East African runners has anything to do with doping. As recent evidence shows, some are doping; but so are runners from every other country.

However, I do think that drugs like EPO improve performance. That improvement is likely to be more obvious and more consistent at shorter distances (e.g. 5000m) where performances are more predictable and the intensity is closer to VO2max.

Marathon performances, on the other hand. are often limited by other factors (fueling, muscle damage) than are unaffected by EPO. Is your analogy about engine size/power correct, so that EPO actually hinders performance in the marathon? It's possible, but there's no evidence supporting it.

An alternate perspective is that raising your VO2max (with EPO) effectively raises your lactate threshold, allowing you to run at a faster pace with less accumulation of lactate and lower glycogen usage, which in turn improves marathon performance.

Good science, bad science wrote:

half logic. Give me an intelligent debate, not a cop out troll accusation.

Why do they dope. Because they have your mindset. You would have done the same in their positon confronted by the type of people who are around them.

See another side if you can? It's a much better place to be.

Good Science -- I'm not suggesting that biomechanical/muscle tension and other factors may not impact endurance performance. So some of your theories may one day be proven. Science moves ahead when people have the courage to question the status quo.

However, I am suggesting there are published studies including the one below that show improvement in both maximal and submax exercise performance associated with EPO. It's Interesting that the finding of greater improvement in submax performance than max performance in this study below seem to contradict Renato's theory. If you want to put forward alternative theories that may be in play (muscle tension, whatever) then don't make absolute statements that are not supported by the majority of the scientific (and real world anectdotal) evidence. Before you play the card that this is one cherry picked study, I also realize this is one study and not meant to represent all findings related to EPO. Nonetheless, it is published in a peer reviewed journal.

Abstract

The effects of recombinant human erythropoietin (rHuEpo) treatment on aerobic power (VO2max) are well documented, but little is known about the effects of rHuEpo on submaximal exercise performance. The present study investigated the effect on performance (ergometer cycling, 20–30 min at 80% of maximal attainable workload), and for this purpose eight subjects received either 5,000 IU rHuEpo or placebo every second day for 14 days, and subsequently a single dose of 5,000 IU/placebo weekly/10 weeks. Exercise performance was evaluated before treatment and after 4 and 11 weeks of treatment. With rHuEpo treatment VO2max increased (P < 0.05) by 12.6 and 11.6% in week 4 and 11, respectively, and time-to-exhaustion (80% VO2max) was increased by 54.0 and 54.3% (P < 0.05) after 4 and 11 weeks of treatment, respectively. However, when normalizing the workload to the same relative intensity (only done at time point week 11), TTE was decreased by 26.8% as compared to pre rHuEpo administration. In conclusion, in healthy non-athlete subjects rHuEpo administration prolongs submaximal exercise performance by about 54% independently of the approximately 12% increase in VO2max.