Bump
Bump
J.R. wrote:
Brain in ice water wrote:Only to you.
Indeed, there are many more sane people besides me.
Yes, you are not one of them.
Brain in ice water wrote:
Yes, you are not one of them.
Yes, you are not one of them.
I meant to say I think Webb and the Halls's were completely clean, but I'm not 100% sure.
Magness is an idiot.
Estoy de acuerdo wrote:
Brain in ice water wrote:Yes, you are not one of them.
Yes, you are not one of them.
We think alike.
Renato: You are the best.
Thank you for sharing your ideas. I'm not elite and I've never worked with a super elite athlete but they ARE different than everyone else. They have something special and you are one of the few people in the world who has access and understanding of what SPECIAL is.
You reinforce my belief that the training and racing of elites is just a world apart from our 15-18 min/5k crowd.
Your insights are invaluable. Please continue posting.
PS. Your ideas are so abstract that I sometimes have no idea if they might be applicable to my own coaching and training. I feel like reading you is like bringing a gun to a knife fight:)
xcskier66 wrote:
Renato: You are the best.
Thank you for sharing your ideas. I'm not elite and I've never worked with a super elite athlete but they ARE different than everyone else. They have something special and you are one of the few people in the world who has access and understanding of what SPECIAL is.
You reinforce my belief that the training and racing of elites is just a world apart from our 15-18 min/5k crowd.
Your insights are invaluable. Please continue posting.
PS. Your ideas are so abstract that I sometimes have no idea if they might be applicable to my own coaching and training. I feel like reading you is like bringing a gun to a knife fight:)
Again, thank you Renato. I have nothing to add to conversations like this, but it is very enjoyable and interesting to read. Please keep posting!
Hi Renato,
A couple questions/thoughts on your posts so far...
First, you have repeatedly argued that taking EPO to increase the ability to transport oxygen is not important because transportation of oxygen is not so important without the ability to extract oxygen from the air. There are clearly many variables that affect someone's running performance. Let's say someone has a very strong ability to extract oxygen from the air... a world-class ability to do so even... but their ability to transport it is lower so they can not take advantage of this ability to extract so much oxygen. Do you not think that taking EPO would help such an individual, or do you think the ability to extract oxygen is always the limiting factor such that someone will always be able to transport more oxygen than they can extract?
Second, you have argued against the benefits of recovering faster so that you can train harder, explaining that you do not think it is clear that training hard 3 times per week is necessarily better than training hard 2 times per week, but your support for this seems to stem only from your idea that too much density kills the bodies ability to produce high quality. I think what a lot of other posters are trying to express is the idea that they think doping can allow your body to recover from hard sessions faster so that you can fit in more hard sessions without decreasing the quality. Over the course of a season or career, being able to pack in more intense training, while still allowing the same amount of recovery (only shortened through artificial means), would seem to allow someone who is doping to progress faster/more than someone who is not. Have you seen evidence that any kinds of doping can shorten the time required for recovery? Do you not think it would matter anyways?
I have a question wrote:
Once again, I am an idiot about this biology stuff. I have a serious question though.
But I have heard that Viagra supposedly helps people perform better at altitude.
If this is true, would a runner who obtains more "lorries" by using EPO also benefit from taking something like Viagra?
Outlier. . . wrote:
Based on his up and down career, I think Webb was always clean.
Based on his up an down career I am convinced Webb was doping. The halmark of a cheater is spectacular performances when on and horrible performances when off.
When Webb was competing at the USATF Nationals and when he would come into the room with other 1500 runners, the room would go silent. The knew him better than anyone.
"A major mechanism Optimizing O2 transport by hemoglobin is the change in Hb-O2 affinity. Changes are very fast and actually occur while red blood cells pass through blood capillaries. Effects of altered Hb-O2 affinity on O2 transport ARE INDEPENDENT of Hb concentration and Hb MASS IN CIRCULATION, and this add to the adjustement by changes in erythropoiesis".
"The physiological significance of an increasing Hb-O2 affinity is an improved O2 binding by Hb when the PO2 is low. It is therefore of significance for people exposed to hypoxic enviroments, where it prevens exaggerated arterial desaturation. Instead, a decrease in Hb-O2 affinity improves O2 delivery to cells with a high O2 demand, such as in exercising muscle.".
"The elevated 2,3-DPG in trained individuals might be a consequence of the stimulated erythropoiesis, which decreases red blood cell age (Mairbaurl, 1983). Young red blood cells have an increased metabolic activity (Seamen, 1980), higher 2,3-DPG, and a lower Hb-O2 affinity than senescent RBC (Haidas, 1971 ; Mairbaurl, 1990)".
"Exercising muscle cells release H+, CO2 and lactate into blood capillaries, and there is also a higher temperature in working muscles than in inactive tissues. Blood entering capillaries of exercising muscles is acutely exposed to those changes, which causes a rapid decrease in Hb-O2 affinity".
Translation : training can produce changes in the affinity Hb-O2.
Training in hypoxia increases the ability of Hb to bind O2, that means to improve the ability to bind Oxygen from the air.
When we go at sea level, teher is a decrease of Hb-O2 affinity, and this fact improves the delivery of Oxygen to the muscle fibers demanding.
Training goes to stimulate the erythropoiesis, which decreases RBC age, and Young RBC have lower Hb-O2 affinity than old RBC, so there is better delivery of Oxygen to the muscle fibers.
Training (exercising muscle) maked cells able to release Hydrogen-ioni, CO2 and lactate into blood capillaries, and to enhance the temperature in working muscles. This fact causes a decrease in Hb-O2 affinity, which means a better ability to deliver Oxygen".
Mr. Canova, your methods seem to be very technical and science based, and they have worked incredibly well for you (obviously), so I have a question that sort of branches off into two parts.
Do you think that running actual track workouts (and even daily runs) by feel, with no watch or time given to the athlete (except for rest) is beneficial? What I'm trying to ask is if you believe there are benefits to doing things as felt and disregarding heart rate or pace, or oxygen consumption.
And do you use these methods yourself, and how?
Thank you!
Renato, I should preface this by saying that, much as I am skeptical about some of the things you write, it's fantastic that you come here, of all places, and talk about drugs, of all things.
I have two questions, however: you repeatedly talk about altitude training, indeed, it seems that this is an important component of your training, whether with runners born at altitude, or European / Chinese runners whom you coach. What, in your view, is the specific benefit of hypoxia if not to increase red blood cell counts?
Secondly, you make an analogy between red blood cells and "lorries", and say that simply increasing RBC might increase the number of lorries, i.e. oxygen carrying capacity, but not the amount of oxygen actually being transported, and hence not affect aerobic performance.
This appears to directly contradict studies which show that increasing RBC (whether through EPO or directly through autologous blood transfusions) directly results in an increase in VO2Max.
For example (a study using blood transfusions):
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8351450
There are many others. Are these all wrong, and if so, why?
Nobody claims that VO2Max is the sole determinant for athletic performance. But all the studies I have seen suggest that an increase in RBC results in an increase in maximal oxygen uptake.
Regarding the possibility of athletes breaking WRs clean
El Gs Mile WR was achieved with splits of
55.6 55.6 440 yds
56.0 1:51.6 880 yds
56.3 2:47.9 1320 yds
55.2. 3:43.1 Mile
http://www.runnersworld.com/newswire/how-to-set-a-world-record-in-the-mile
To break that mark by any margin you need someone who can run 55.5 quarters (not 400 M) back to back to back to back for a 3:42 flat. More realistically, you need someone who can negative split a 55 57 56 54. I just don't feel like that athlete is out there. It's too damn fast. I don't care how efficient you are, a 1:52 first 880 is going to drain the oxygen right of you and force you to go significantly anaerobic.
What sort of genes/ training would allow someone to then come back faster over the last half at 1:50? It's one thing to split 1:50 over the last half after striding out a 1:58 plus, but Souleiman, one of the ten fastest 1500/ mile guys ever (I think), barely broke 2 over the last half of the Dream Mile after going out in 1:53.x. and ended up at 3:53.x.
As for a significant positive split attempt, say 1:48/ 1:54, the first 800 is again just too fast to allow for the necessary second half split. If Rudisha was healthy and trained up for the mile, could he go 54-54-57 for 1320. Probably. But that is about it. He is not going to make it around a forth time in 56.x.
The WR for the mile is going to stay where it is for a long, long time.
Querfeldein wrote:
Nobody claims that VO2Max is the sole determinant for athletic performance. But all the studies I have seen suggest that an increase in RBC results in an increase in maximal oxygen uptake.
VO2 max is a measure of work output, i.e. waste, and is not a good predictor of performance. Also your information has to do with the rbcs in the blood, but nothing to do with O2 exchange at the cellular level. It's a bunch of scientific mumbo jumbo that doesn't apply to athletics, but as usual works to sell drugs.
He's answered this before, I wish I had the link for you. The gist is that no, training by feel will not get you to the top level because you're training within yourself and are less likely to overcome previous performances.
Renato, thank you so much for posting, it is very interesting to read your thoughts and the replies of some on the site who do have knowledge of exercise physiology.
You are asking for specific information on the mechanisms in performance, and I'm sorry I do not have that expertise to offer (it does seem pretty clear from what I have read that efficiency should be part of the equation; and that discussing the vO2 max of runners without also addressing measurements of their efficiency leaves something out of the equation).
But I was thinking about the following: I would love to believe that top performances are by clean athletes who have maximized their physical capacities and mental toughness through their training and do not need (and would not benefit from the use of) PEDs. I know that Waldemar Cierpinski was revealed, through release of East German records, to have been a drug cheat; was it revealed what drugs he used?
The reason I'm asking is that Renato says that there is no doubt that PEDs benefit even the top athletes in power-based shorter events (e.g. Ben Johnson and many other cheater male sprinters, also female sprint times up to 400 and 800 that have proven untouchable for more than a quarter century). Ma's army suggests that, for *women*, PEDs are beneficial even for longer distance events. So, the one and only group left under discussion are men running long distance races. I'm, curious if it's known what drugs Cierpinski took; if it is known, I'm curious, Renato, whether you think these drugs did not really help Cierpinski? (I realize I am taking an example from a lot of years ago - but my understanding was that this was a case where detailed drug records were uncovered - about which, however, I've never gotten to read)...
What increased my personal doubts that, in many cases, EPO can work, are several situations I could appreciate among athletes :
1) We have two athletes, born and living in altitude, able to do the same workouts, and to compete at the same level when in altitude (we can have many examples of Kenyans having the same level during Kenyan competitions). However, when they go to compete at sea level, their performances become very different, in the order of 15.0 in 5000m, 30.0-40.0 in 10000m, 3.0-4.0 in 1500m. Which is the mechanism that produces those differences ?
2) I had, among athletes normally training at sea level (Chinese), the possibility to test their blood values on weekly basis, when they were in altitude for about two months (Duoba, 2300m) before Asian Games, last year.
The best "responders" to altitude, not looking at their blood values, but at their athletic results, were athletes who had NO INCREASE IN THEIR NUMBER OF RBC, THEIR HEMOGLOBIN AND THEIR HEMATOCRIT. On the contrary, when they went to compete (after 3 weeks at sea level again) their blood values were LOWER than before going to altitude. In spite of this, they had big improvement in their performances : 10000m from 32'47" to 31'53" (with 16'20" + 15'33"), 5000m from 15'55" to 15'12", 3000m steeple from 9'53" to 9'35", 800m from 2'08" (3 months before) to 1'59"48 (but this athlete already had 2'01"47 two years before).
Several other athletes, instead, had a good increase in their Hb and Hct. These athletes seemed to follow the "average trend" physiologists describe after training in altitude. But NOBODY OF THEM WAS ABLE TO IMPROVE THEIR PERFORMANCE.
I want to remember that our goal is not to increase the blood values, but the final performances.
From this fact, another question : if the level of Hb and Hct are not DIRECTLY connected with performances in middle and long distances at high level, which is the mechanism involved in the improvement ?
3) Scientists found an increase in the total volume of blood in the body, staying in high altitude, of about 3% in inactive people, and about 7% in "well trained athletes". where probably "well trained" means they have some better training than inactive people.
But a research of Bengt Saltin and Nicolas Terrados found an increase of 18% in rowlers training in altitude for about two months, and of 25% in some athletes of top level, born and living in altitude, comparing the data "out of training" and, after one year, "in full training" (Peter Koech, WR holder of 3000m steeple before Moses Kiptanui).
This fact opens another problem : is the circulatory system of EVERYBODY able to host 1 and half liter of blood more than the normal volume ?
Which is the intervention of the "elasticicity and deformability" of the tissues of veins and arterias ?
Can this genetic attitude be considered one of the key making a top runner different from any other "good", but not exceptional runner ?
I don't have all the answers, and it seems also the official science doesn't have the answers, also because they NEVER had interest to ask this problem.
So, all these data must create several doubts about the effects of blood doping, that can be very different in different subjects, and I think totally nonexistent for top runners, not all, but these living and training in particular conditions.
markeroon wrote:
He's answered this before, I wish I had the link for you. The gist is that no, training by feel will not get you to the top level because you're training within yourself and are less likely to overcome previous performances.
Very good point. Your mind and body is capable of going past extremes that you didn't know you were capable of. Your mind might tell you you're tired and ran enough, but there's another level to get past.
50 State Challenge:
http://dannyharitan.wordpress.com/hi Renato,
Very interesting! Your post makes me wonder about 2 things (apologies I have only questions, no answers!):
1) Did the Chinese athletes you trained at altitude who were best "responders" have the most increase in blood volume (plasma volume)? The increase in volume could explain why their rbc, hemoglobin and hematocrit reading did not rise, right?
2) The downside of training at altitude seems to be one's inability to spend as much training time at the faster paces one can run when one goes to sea level to compete; i.e. there are neuromuscular adaptations to the fast running that best occur with training time spent running quickly. I wonder if, between your Kenyan runners who were equally matched at altitude, the limiting factors for the ones who did less well in sea level races were not cardiovascular so much as they were neuromuscular, efficiency, etc... at the faster sea level paces; and, for whatever reason, the ones who did better were less limited by these? It would be interesting to measure efficiency at different paces in the 2 groups, both at sea level and altitude...