EPO doesn't work better than placebo

where is the proof?

Clearly, EPO work only on elite athlete training altitude. Also must supplement with ugali.

I've been saying the same thing for years, because this makes perfect sense.

This result would be surprising to me, but not inconceivable.

I'm a bit suspicious when researchers release their results to the press before even submitting a conference talk. They say they haven't even finished analyzing the data.

The key result is that the riders on EPO weren't faster than those on the placebo, but we don't know whether the two groups were truly matched in the first place. This would still be interesting as it would suggest that EPO isn't strong enough to overcome natural variation in skills.

Regardless, you need to wait for the study to be actually be published to know what to think about it.

Do you have access to the whole article beyond the summary?

How long and what dose (iU/kg) were they on?

Did the placebo group get stuck with needles too?

What were the basic CBC values for each group?

Did they change in either group and how much?

Had the riders ridden the course before? Cycling speed, even on steep climbs, is greatly affected by pacing and external factors, such as wind. Play with bikecalculator.com to see how much a solid wind can make even on a steep hill (7%).

Had any of the cyclists taken EPO or other drugs (e.g., anabolics, which are erythropiotic as well and are simply better drugs for cyclists than epo alone, if legality is not an issue) previously? Were the athletes tested, since the odds are probably there that at least one of 48 was taking something, but wouldnt necessarily tell the researchers. The odds are even more there if you consider the type of trained amateur who jumps on the opportunity to take EPO!

As both the article and the my comment state, the authors have not published this study. They claim to even still be analyzing the data. Going to the media first with a study like this seems awfully suspicious.

dingle wrote:

This result would be surprising to me, but not inconceivable.

I'm a bit suspicious when researchers release their results to the press before even submitting a conference talk. They say they haven't even finished analyzing the data.

The key result is that the riders on EPO weren't faster than those on the placebo, but we don't know whether the two groups were truly matched in the first place. This would still be interesting as it would suggest that EPO isn't strong enough to overcome natural variation in skills.

Regardless, you need to wait for the study to be actually be published to know what to think about it.

Exactly. The only important measure is the improvement in the epo group. Or not.

“This is the first time such detailed research has been done because it is expensive. “We are a foundation and we have financed it ourselves simply because we want to know. It has cost us about €500,000,” says Cohen.”

http://www.cyclingweekly.co.uk/fitness/does-epo-actually-boost-cycling-performance-260630

“Cohen’s group is now analyzing mountains of data on EPO. Among other things, they plan to look at its effects on blood clotting and muscle recovery. They will also send 300 urine samples from both groups to a WADA-accredited doping lab in Belgium to put EPO testing itself to the test. It’s still possible that the EPO group performed better in the lab rides but, for some reason, failed to prevail on the mountain, Heuberger says. But he would not be surprised to find no difference at all.”

http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2016/07/popular-doping-drug-may-not-actually-help-cyclists

This is an interesting experiment.

I am 100% certain that the athletes that were given EPO significantly improved their performance in the endurance tests in the lab.

There is a reason why Lance Armstrong took testosterone, EPO and other drugs.

You need powerful legs to climb mountains.

The researchers have just wasted €500,000.

It would be interesting to know who sponsored the research.

Was the research conducted in Leiden, Netherlands?

Worked for me. Thanks, Rosa.

EPO doesn't work??? just go ask all the chemo patients who had their lives saved by properly using EPO... So it would work with a healthy athlete...

That's completely illogical. If you have a normal number of red blood cells, that is the amount you need to perform at your best.

If more was better, then why doesn't the body produce more?

Because the body has to maintain homeostasis. And one of the mechanisms of this is thermoregulation. If you use more oxygen, you produce more heat. You will also run out of glycogen sooner.

The common misconception is that elite athletes use more energy to race faster, when the reality is the exact opposite. This should be obvious to any exercise physiologist who knows their stuff. Unfortunately, such people seem to be extremely hard to find.

Why people are prepared to believe in drug aided performance rather than nature is one of those bizarre things in life. People have strange ideas which they desperately cling to. Belief in so called 'Performance Enhancing Drugs' is a kind of religion. It doesn't matter how illogical the belief, it is just accepted as fact unquestioningly.

If you actually look at the power output numbers and the oxygen uptake numbers, you should see how you have been indoctrinated with this pseudoscience. You should, but only if you are sane, rational and logical.

EPO results in more red blood cells able to transport more gas.

That matters in mid-D where the high pH gradient between blood and muscle speeds gas exchange between them, allowing more O2 consumption and greater need for acid clearance.

At longer distances or efforts, the benefit is much less because you don't exceed your blood's ability to deliver oxygen, and at less than "threshold" effort, you don't stress its ability to clear acids either. There is no reason to expect any benefit for a marathoner. Nor for a cyclist in an hour-long slog up a mountain - unless there are downhill sections dividing the periods of effort into 10 or 20 minute chunks, where you can make a max-vo2 type effort and then recover.

I don't know Mt Ventoux but I bet it's a long slog without many breaks.

Thanks, Jon. Nobody has ever heard this before.

Most banned PED drugs have never been scientificly shown to enhance performance.

Jon Orange, you clearly have a strong viewpoint (not exactly founded in science, but a viewpoint none the less) or an agenda to push. Many readers might find what you write less credible, because so much of your writing is centered around shaky premises which you state to be patently true and form the foundation of your argument.

A "normal" number of RBC (whatever that is!) is the amount you need to preform at your best? If perform is not in running, cycling, or any other sport, that statement is almost true. A "normal" count is not even a guarantee that your body can go through daily functions optimally. We could did deeper and also consider you are discussing RBC when other metrics, such as hemoglobin mass, are far more valuable. There are millions of people in the world who maintain RBC above 6.5-7.0 (i.e. well over "normal") but have hemoglobin counts under 12 (clinically anemic, if male) for their life and are not iron deficient, etc. Is this the homeostasis about which you write? Naturally produced EPO does not magically appear in response to hypoxia, low o2 saturation, low hgb mass, etc. You would not have to attend med school to understand that.

Like others who (rolling eyes) try to claim that EPO could not possibly improve performance, another false premise you offer is that EPO's benefits are explicitly from oxygen transport.

Again, sticking with basic level science and without going too deep, hemoglobin transports gasses both ways--oxygen and co2, for which there are benefits to both. The claim that elite athletes use less energy (you equate to oxygen) to go faster than non elites is not what is in question. The issue about is one individual athlete who now CAN transport more gas (the expel side when considering threshold efforts should not be discounted) but also be more efficient with the oxygen consumed (read on).

Those of you who try to deny that EPO enhances performance by claiming it is all about oxygen usage (do dopers seem to breathe more often than others, since their lung volumes are the same?) ignore that there are other performance enhancing benefits to using the drug, which can last for years. Just like weightlifters just wanting to put on some muscle often find their hct gets out of control from anabolic steroid use (a useful side effect!), EPO does not interact in the body in a simplistic, boost RBC (sic) only manner. EPO has a known role in angiogenesis and vasculogenesis, the performance impact of which should be obvious and would remain for long after blood counts return to baseline levels. EPO is known to also sometimes alter the type of hemoglobin proteins produced in a patient, particularly when relating to increased fetal hemoglobin production in adults which can remain skewed from baseline levels for long periods of time. Hemoglobin F, by the way, binds gasses more effectively than HBA, HBA2, so if you accept there is any benefit to improved gas transport capacity, someone with the same RBC, HCT, and HGB numbers after EPO and with elevated F would likely have better performance than before.

Obviously there are many cyclists and athletes who have used EPO and not admitted it and for some of these individuals it might not have brought about any improvement BUT all the people who have either admitted to using EPO or been "outed" as a user have stated that it did lead to significant improvements in performance. Not enough to turn a scrubber into a medalist but sufficient to make the risk of detection and the consequences worthwhile.

If the effect of EPO was "all in the mind" would agents/managers/coaches have their athletes use it when risk of detection, no matter if it is still small, is greater these days?