EPO Helps Mid D More than Long Distance?

Renato Canova wrote:

The reality is that THERE ARE NOT RESEARCHES SPECIFICALLY CARRIED OUT with elite athletes.

There are too many assertions in the study of the Swedish scientists that are not correct, if referred to elite runners. For example, "the results show a close relationship between VO2 max and Hb" that really doesn't exist, since we have athletes with very high VO2 max but low Hb, and athletes with high Hb and low VO2 max. Not only, but VO2 max, in spite of the fact that physiologists continue to consider it an important parameter, has very little influence on the performance of endurance, of course inside a range very wide, but including high values. For example, the first athletes able running a Marathon under 2:10, the Aussie Derek Clayton, had a VO2 max of 69, very far from athletes who never were able to run so fast..

The quotation is somewhat murky, when I have taken it out of the study, I admit. (I don't have that particular study at hand, but I quoted it from my unfinished manuscript on the history of blood doping)

That quotation referred to intra-individual response to the manipulation of Hb level. It showed only that if the natural hemoglobin level of a subject is 170 and dropped to 140 (with blood remowal) and increased to 200 (with reinfusion), the corresponding change in Vo2MAX is almost linear. The same phenomenom occurs even when natural Hb level is 120 or 150. This is in direct contradiction, because based on some earlier data it could be even assumed that Vo2MAX increases when high hemoglobin concentration is lowered to "normal" level from 170.

The Swedish study does not claim that the Hb concentration as such is a good predictor of performance. If anything, the Hb concentration of non-anemic well-exercised population tends to be somewhat lower than the corresponding value of the ”normal” population.

On whether there has been blood doping studies on athletic population, it is definitely true that most of the pre-1980 studies have been performed on students or recreational runners, so they are interesting but of somewhat questionable value.

But this improved somewhat from 1980s onwards.

The 1980 Buick study is particularly noteworthy as it is considered as a major breakthrough as there were significant increases in endurance time (relatively short duration) and Vo2Max of the subjects. It was also a study with sophisticated blood storage method (freezing) and a double blind protocol and used subjects that ”were highly trained male track athletes of national or international caliber” with Vo2MAX values in the range of 67.9-87.9 ml/kg/min.

There is also a Swedish double blind study using competitive cross-country skiers who participated in a series of actual 15 km cross-country skiing events with the reinfusion of 1350ml of blood. The ”blood doped” group improved their time by 5.3 percent in real life situation when compared to the control group (there are actually one or two things that are questionable in this study in my opinion).

In Norway there was also a blood doping study where one of the participants was the world champion orienteer Egil Johansen (he was roughly 2:15-2:20 marathoner also, I think).

I think that the issue of Vo2Max and performance is another example of the difference between inter- and intraindividual comparisons. If a subject increases his Vo2Max, I think he would improve his performance (other things being even roughly egual), but trying to simply predict end time of 10k or marathon of different people from this value is too simplistic, as there are other things involved such as lactate threshold, running economy, muscle type differences, glycogen depletion, pain/heat tolerance, motivation etc...

To be honest, the debate is indeed somewhat open on the real place of Vo2Max value in the exercise physiology and there have been some theories that claim that is relatively meaningless as an independent value.

If there never was a study on the actual efficacy of blood doping on race time, there is an interesting study published in 2003 on the hematological irregularities of cross country skiers (reticulocytes, Hb etc.) where the team tried to find out how prevalent blood doping was.

A team of doping researchers analyzed the blood samples of the participants of the FIS Nordic World Ski Championships 2001. The report is published here:

http://www.svt.se/ug/ug-referens/article1863738.svt/binary/blood%20doping%20Lahti%202001.pdf

Particularly noteworthy is the chart published on page 135 (PDF page 4) of the report which has all the top 50 finishers for every individual event: the are different colours for normal, abnormal and highly abnormal hematological results (there is no data about which event is which in order to protect the identities of the skiers).

It is obvious that independent of what event one looks (sprint or 50 km), a huge number of the participants finishing at the top 10 have suspicious hematological values whereas only a handful of the participants finishing at the bottom 40 have something suspicious in their blood data.

It is also noteworthy that Italian skier Silvio Fauner won 50km gold at XC in Thunder Bay (1995) most likely doped as he was at the EPO-list of Francesco Conconi. Swedish doping researcher Bengt Saltin also claimed later that every medalist had a very high hemoglobin level at that championship.

Let's ask the 1992 (EPO ding ding) Barcelona (pro-doping climate ding ding) Olympic Champ.

Pre-47% rule. Pre EPO test.

Use as much as you like. No-one will be the wiser.

Act surprised when you cross the finish line.

When has any woman run faster since? Very, very few. Women have gotten lazy and untalented. 2014's best time is over 2 seconds slower. We've forgotten how to train, what to eat. Tragic.

What if doping existed in 1992, how much quicker could they have gone? Too bad only cyclists wereon EPO, since 1987. No way a modest runner would get in on this.

Aragon, thanks for your explanation. However, I don't need to be convinced that EPO works : I know very well the advantages (normalli overestimated) EPO can give to normal athletes, and strong athletes living and training at sea level.

But again you speak about different animals, and different events.

I never said EPO dosen't work. What I said is that EPO doesn't work for top athletes born, living and training in altitude.

So, every type of research can be ok, but of course ski runners of Norway of sure are not born in altitude, don't live in altitude and don't train in altitude. And also ski cross is not exactly like running long distances, specifically Marathon.

I confirm there are NO SPECIFIC RESEARCHES involving top athletes with these 3 characteristics : born, living and training in altitude, and there are not specific researches involving athletes in top 100 in the World, so it's not correct to speak about "elite".

Any physiological research about middle and long distances doesn't have any scientific value, but only emotional value.

For being scientific, we need to know EXACTLY the type of training the athletes carried out, the times they did in training, and their best performances. NEVER you can read similar data, only something generic such as "elite athletes" or "well trained athletes", that can mean many things but, in the athletic field, means athletes very far from the real "elite", and from the real "proper training" of the top Champions.

Ther reality is that physiologists, including "expert" of antidoping, don't know anything about the situation of the best african runners : don't know their normal blood values, don't know their training, don't know why are so strong and don't know the real effects of living and training in altitude, for athletes born in this situation.

I know where it's possible to arrive without doping : to better WR and to win Olympics and World Championships. I don't know where it's possible to arrive WITH doping, but frankly doubt taking EPO can help these WR holders to run still faster, and the message is : don't limit your goals with the idea that, without doping, it's not possible to reach the top, because who has the right talent, is serious in training without fearing fatigue and pain, has continuity and uses right methodology, can arrive to be the number one completely clean, like ALL the record holders, Kenyan and Ethiopian, already did.

Observator, I confirm there are NOT researches with REAL elite athletes, and all we suppose to know about EPO is a projection of what we find with average persons on a different "animal".

If you add an octane booster to an average athlete, the performance gets better, such as if you add this to a normal car.

The fact is that it's not possible to add another octane to the Formula One, because it has already reached its limit, and the same happens for the top athletes. You can reach your limit not only with blood doping, but also with training, and I strongly doubt that, using blood doping, you can not overtake, but reach, the same level you can achieve with proper training.

Of course, we need to know what proper training is, and this is the main problem, because 99% of people speaking about doping don't know what proper training is, its volume and its intensity, and for this reason don't know the variations it can produce in the physiology of top Champions.

In your mind, it seems that doping is a priority compared with training, and that training depends on doping.

I think, instead, that the effect of doping depends on training : little training, great effect of doping, medium training, medium effect, proper hard training, minimal or no effect at all, because you provoke the same modification using training OR using doping (not using training AND using doping).

Okay, Renato, but do you think exogenous testosterone would not help Bekele in the 5000m or Shaheen in the 3000mSC? Or that it would help Rudisha in the 800m? Or Johnson or Bolt in the 200m? Because we know testosterone is the reason for difference in performance between males and females, and top athletes have a natural level of testosterone far above the norm (especially females).

I already answered to this question in another thread.

Yes, testosterone and GH can work on top Kenyan and Ethiopian runner too, for what I can suppose. This situation doesn't have anything to do with the fact to be born, to live and to train in altitude.

However, I want to point the fact that the discussion is about EPO, and in this case my opinion is very clear : with this kind of athletes, this type of illegal support doen't produce any advantage.

Renato, thanks for your informative posts. Always a fascinating read.

Could I ask you to clear one thing up that others on here have accused you of saying!

In the article you wrote on Conconi and the Italian middle and long distance team, did you or did you not state anywhere that Seb Coe had dealings with Conjoin? Which is what some on here are saying you did.

Thanks.

victor conte i believe said if he was to choose one PED for his sprinters it would be EPO. which does not even remotely answer your question.

EPO cyclists claim that it was no problem riding well after a very hard 100 miler. which is a fuzzy kind of answer.

why not email victor conte and ask him? how about a tour de france cyclist?

why not get some expert input?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/olympics/athletics/7403158.stm

the north africa iberian peninsula protocols would not be too dis-similar

THG is a previously undetectable designer steroid nicknamed "the clear." It was primarily used in the off season and was taken two days per week, typically on Mondays and Wednesdays. Generally, these were the two most intense weight-training days of the week. The purpose was to accelerate healing and tissue repair. Thirty units (IU) of the liquid was place under the tongue during the morning time-frame. THG was used in cycles of "three weeks on and one week off."

Testosterone/epitestosterone cream was also primarily used during the off season. It was rubbed into the skin on the front of the forearm two days per week, typically Tuesdays and Thursdays. The dosage was ½ gram which contained 50mg of testosterone and 2.5mg of epitestosterone (20 to 1 ratio). The purpose was to offset the suppression of endogenous testosterone caused by the use of the THG and to accelerate recovery. The testosterone/epitestosterone cream was also used in cycles of three weeks on and one week off.

EPO was used three days per week during the "corrective phase", which is the first two weeks of a cycle. Typically, it was on Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays. It was only used once per week during the "maintenance phase" thereafter, typically this was every Wednesday. The dosage was 4,000 IU per injection. The purpose was to increase the red blood cell count and enhance oxygen uptake and utilization. This substance provides a big advantage to sprinters because it enables them to do more track repetitions and obtain a much deeper training load during the off season. EPO becomes undetectable about 72 hours after subcutaneous injection (stomach) and only 24 hours after intravenous injection.

HGH was used three nights per week, typically on Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays. Each injection would contain 4.5 units of growth hormone. Once again, this substance was used primarily during the off season to help with recovery from very strenuous weight training sessions.

Insulin was used after strenuous weight training sessions during the off season. Three units of Humalog (fast-acting insulin) were injected immediately after the workout sessions together with a powdered drink that contained 30 grams of dextrose, 30 grams of whey protein isolates and 3 grams of creatine. The purpose was to quickly replenish glycogen, resynthesize ATP and promote protein synthesis and muscle growth. Insulin acts as a "shuttle system" in the transport of glucose and branch chain amino acids. There is no test available for insulin at this time.

Modafinil was used as a "wakefulness promoting" agent before competitions. The purpose was to decrease fatigue and enhance mental alertness and reaction time. A 200mg tablet was consumed one hour before competition.

Liothryonine was used help accelerate the basic metabolic rate before competitions. The purpose was to reduce sluggishness and increase quickness. Two 25mg tablets were taken one hour before competition. There is no test available for liothryonine at this time.

In general terms, explosive strength athletes, such as sprinters, use anabolic steroids, growth hormone, insulin and EPO during the off season. They use these drugs in conjunction with an intense weight training program, which helps to develop a strength base that will serve them throughout the competitive season. Speed work is done just prior to the start of the competitive season.

It is important to understand it is not really necessary for athletes to have access to designer anabolic steroids such as THG. They can simply use fast-acting testosterone (oral as well as creams and gels) and still easily avoid the testers. For example, oral testosterone will clear the system in less than a week and testosterone creams and gels will clear even faster.

Many drug-tested athletes use what I call the "duck and dodge" technique. Several journalists in the UK have recently referred to it as the "duck and dive" technique. This is basically how it works.

Absolutely I never said Sebastian had dealings with Conconi. I think Seb never met Conconi in his life.

Maybe this wrong info comes from the fact I wrote that once Seb, in training in Tirrenia during winter, asked me to follow him by car for a long run of 30 kms, the day before an Amazing session in the gym.

For what I know, this was the only period Seb trained in Italy. This happened in 1988, before OG of Seoul, I think in February.

At that time, also the best Italian runners didn't have anymore any relation with Conconi : many of them (Gelindo Bordin, Francesco Panetta, Stefano Mei, Alessandro Lambruschini among the most important) never had any relation with Conconi. Panetta only went to Conconi during the last year of his career, because had a period with bood in the urine, and had controls by several doctors in order to solve the problem.

Now that the statistics from IAAF have leaked, I think we can put this argument to rest. Or can someone here explain how 1/3 of medalists (and 77 Kenyan samples) have hematocrit levels four standard deviations above the mean and well beyond what altitude training can produce? (Keep in mind RC's view that people with naturally high hematocrit don't have an advantage.)

Does winning cause hematocrit to rise?

Did anyone read reports of >50/47% Hct scores? Or were there just really many 49.x%?

Thanks for clearing that up Renato.

Apparently the discussion about the literature is now at a dead end about how to apply the data on people not at the podium to ”real” top world athletes/skiers. Naturally, if one narrows the definition of ”valid” study too much, then no study will never be good enough.

The positive effect of EPO could exist even when the subjects are mountain residents with naturally high erythropoiesis. I am sure, that most people have heard of this somewhat interesting study that caused quite a stirr two years ago. Too bad, that as far as I know hasn't been published in detail.

http://coachsci.sdsu.edu/csa/vol203/wondimu.htm

From Mr. Canova's (very valid) point of view, the participants are not elite runners. In addition, the study is not double nor single-blinded and it is apparent that researchers expected performance boost, so the placebo effects should be taken into account.

Just to clarify the sking issue: The comparison between skiing and running is somewhat valid as 50km skiing lasts also up to 2½ hours and particularly the skate skiing technique ("tecnica libera") puts a lot of stress on legs. It would be an interesting subject to research on how EPO affected sporspeople of low and high altitudes of Italy and whether there was any difference (most of the best skiers have been residents of South Tyrol and other northern regions).

On the actual effect of EPO, it is very likely that the positive effect of the substance on performance has been overstated. Particularly in the cycling world there is now and then mentioned the figure of ten percent increase in actual speed, which is almost laughable in the light of the even most optimistic literature.

To tell the truth, the real effect is even somewhat difficult to evaluate as there has been strikingly few double blind studies on the subject at all and studies with well-trained subjects are even more rare. There are a few studies on the literature that are somewhat skeptical on the cost-benefit ratio of EPO or its effect. One meta-analysis states clearly that their ”findings indicate that [EPO's] strength is overestimated” which ”entails that the relationship between epo doping and cyclists’ performances at real contests is overrated too”.

http://pubs.sciepub.com/ajssm/1/2/2/

There are several reasons for this overstating: Media gives repeatedly the impression that it is/was impossible to even participate in a competition without blood doping. In several week events such as TDF, this could even have some validity, as blood doping fights the natural drop of hemoglobin concentration that occurs due to constant physical stress, exhaustion and declining level of androgens in body during the Tour.

On the Italian blood doping program of Ferrara laboratory, the program did not end after the practice was banned both by sports governing bodies (1985) and by the Italian parliament (1984). Within the cross-country sking community, the blood transfusion program went on at least until 1988, if not later. As runners were apparently under the sharp eye of anti-doper Sandro Donati, it is always possible that they were reluctant to participate.

There could've been other reasons than rules to be reluctant to blood dope. The Finn who coached the Italian cross-country sking team from 1981 until 1984 (in quite close collaboration with Conconi) told ten years after his contract had ended what he had heard about why one of the best runner's ended his career: ”Apparently Alberto Cova made his best results with the blood doping system, but in the end the method wasn't suitable for him. The career of the top runner ended due to malfunctions of his system”.

I should point out that while disagreeing with Mr. Canova on certain issues I've never implied in any way that his protegés have doped. Whatever the truth may be on that issue (I've no clue), the availability of know-how on any substances aiding the training athletes should be widely known within the athletic community.

At the end of the day, it is still the synergy of experience, talent and hard work that produces the best results.

Renato, there are other problems with physiologists. They don't seem to understand that the human body naturally produces all the 'performance enhancers' an athlete would ever need. They have the same stupid drug obsession that the idiots on this website have.

Physiologists have very low self esteem about their own physical ability and they try to project this onto everyone else.

What we should really be discussing in all of these threads is the real performance enhancing potential of adrenaline and noradrenaline and its effects on all of the energy systems of the body including the brain.

How many posters on this website understand that the brain uses glycogen and lactate and has mitochondria? In 13 years of visiting this website I have never seen any poster make any reference to these facts.

Physiologists have tunnel vison. They know almost nothing about other fields of physiology outside of their own research. So where are the physiolgists who really know a lot about physiolgy?

They don't exist.

Aragon, I thank you because you are able to explain your doubts in proper and polite way, without insulting ore showing to be one hundred percent sure of assertions that are mainly wrong, and Always questionable.

I'm not a scientist, but I have more data on top athletes, regarding the connection between training and blood value, than the two scientists of antidoping supporting the scoop of Seppelt.

For that reason, I am strongly doubtful about the "real" specific knowledge of the two scientists, because there are too many things not considered in their "suspicious analysis". This fact brings me to think that they are not really "researchers", maybe with the possibility to discover something new, but "bureaucratic officials" deciding to interpretate every data in function of a final result they already have in their mind.

For that reason, I don't have any confidence in their conclusions, like in the conclusions of the most part of "scientists" working in the field of doping.

I well know doping is rampant and widespread in the world of sport : this in any sport, and, something really bad, at any level, including the level of amateurs and Young schoolboys and schoolgirls.

And, also, I well know that we need to do a strong action for trying to limit this trend (I don't think possible to cancel completely this behavior, looking at the pharmacological society where we live).

But I can't justify actions not correct for demonstrating there is doping where it's not true.

How I can't agree that policemen (maybe racists) kill directly some Young black, instead simply arresting him, also if I know these black Young men MAYBE did something wrong, at the same way I can't agree the antidoping doctors decide everybody is doped and guilty, without any real proof, and the most part of times being wrong.

Go to read the last statement of IAAF. This is not written by Renato Canova, but the "official doubts" are the same.

stochastic_track wrote:

Renato, thank you for your interesting explanation. There is no doubt that studies on 2:40 athletes must be evaluated very critically when trying to extrapolate to 2:03/2:04 runners.

How do you suggest for physiologists to develop more accurate models?

Would you welcome a team of world-class researchers to join you and your athletes for an extended period of time to analyze lifestyle and training in Kenya? Would this give them more insight, as opposed to their current "static pictures"?

Thank you

What would such research achieve. Renato is right when he says that physiologists are trying to prove their assertions about so called 'performance enhancers' Even Ross Tucker who knows better than most that you can't prove a hypothesis, only test it, is making that same mistake in his own writing.

Because of course, Ross Tucker implicitly belives in the concept of 'perforamace ehancing drugs'. He can't see the wood for the trees. Does he not understand that running and cycling are neuromotor skills as much as they are cardiovascular performances?

Webby, the statistics say that 77 Kenyan samples have hematocrit levels four standard deviations above the mean and well Beyond what altitude training can produce, but we don't know who are the owner of these 77 samples.

I already explained that the only way for understanding if an athlete is doped or not, using the BP, is to have clear "longitudinal" informations about his behaviour for a period of 2-3 years, with not less than 8-10 blood tests.

And also I explained that blood values are individual, and to try to relate the blood values of one athlete with a statistic mean is a big methodological and scientific mistake.

I wrote the values of Gelindo Bordin before winning Olympic Marathon in Seoul (12.8 Hb and under 40 Hct), and of Genny Di Napoli (normally 18.5 and 52) who, when had 17.5 Hb, had the same effects of anemia. This clearly shows that the values are individual, and the only COMMON DENOMINATOR is that, in EVERY CASE, starting from the basic individual values, with proper training and increasing shape (the athlete is able running faster), his personal values become lower.

So, the fact of 77 samples out of the mean doesn't means anything, if we don't know the following facts :

1- How many athletes are the "owners" of these samples. If, for example, there are 39 athletes, and everybody had two tests only, we can't know the basic values of the athletes, and to arrive at any conclusion.

2- How many samples are from the same athlete. If we have 7-9 samples for the same athlete, it's possible to build the BP.

3- In this case, if there are clear fluctuations among the tested data in different period, the athlete can be banned using the BP, but if there are not fluctuations, also if the data are very high, the athlete is probably clean, because these are for him basic data.

So, is exactly the opposite of what you say : after the statistics of IAAF, and after the last statement of IAAF against the two Australian scientists supporting Seppler, we MUST NOT put the argument to rest, but finally we have to put the argument to be explained to all people using not their knowledge, but their belly, for deciding that everybody is doped.

Then why did cyclist take EPO their even is more akin to the marathon than the middle distances. EPO is about improving oxygen uptake and to say this is not relevant in an aerobic event is nonsense. It could be argued that oxygen uptake is more vital in the middle distances but this would apply to 800m more than 1500m is correct.

You may be a great coach but your pseudo science is just that than and does not male any sense even in layman's terms.

Does anyone have the actual scientific evidence for the EPO not working on certain athletes or distances or at a least haematology doctor who can comment