https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/ChemistryJonO. wrote:
Your belief in magic potions giving superhuman strength is superstitious nonsense. It has nothing to do with science.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/ChemistryJonO. wrote:
Your belief in magic potions giving superhuman strength is superstitious nonsense. It has nothing to do with science.
casual obsever wrote:
I understand that drug cheats do not randomly, or mythology-based, pick drugs from the counter to improve, but go by experience (see e.g. the Aden and Rosa groups) and optimize their cocktail mixture, which by default includes varying the dosages, and timing, of the various drugs. These are highly professional groups, since decades!
The fact that EPO remains on the forefront of said drug cocktail strongly implies that it is not just a placebo - and that's putting it mildly. Success speaks for itself.
But wait - didn't even you just admit that EPO helps up to 1% at the top?
Wherever that estimate comes from, we are actually not so far apart there. I've always estimated 2 - 4% for the majority of elite runners, with exceptions on both sides of that range (low and high responders are found with most drugs).
Spot on & very well researched.
I was looking over Malm et al: "Autologous Doping with Cryopreserved Red Blood Cells – Effects on Physical Performance and Detection by Multivariate Statistics," and found this in the introduction:
? "Initially, blood transfusion was used to enhance military aviation pilots’ work capacity to fly at high altitude during WWII, when pressurized cockpits were not used [21]. Later, submaximal [22] and maximal [23] running performance was shown to improve with blood transfusion. The discovery of erythropoietin (EPO) [24] simplified blood doping in sports, supplementing blood donation, storage and re-infusion. Similar performance enhancements of 6–12% could now be achieved by a simple recombinant human (rh) EPO injection [25–27]. In a review on blood doping published in 1989, Jones and Tunstall [28] describe increases in performance and VO2max ranging between 0% and 40%, depending on the subjects included and methods used for both testing and doping. From the summarized literature, it can be estimated that elite athletes may improve performance by up to 3% with blood doping, regardless of method [29–31]. This enhancement is equivalent to, for example, seven minutes faster winning time in the 90 km cross country ski race Vasaloppet, 20–30 seconds faster time in any given 5000 m run at world class level, and four minutes faster finishing time in a marathon race. In cycling, a 3% increase in performance translate to a more than two hour faster winning time in Tour de France 2014."
http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0156157#pone.0156157.ref029Pure pseudoscience. Increasing oxygen uptake increases core temperature. We have a homeostatic limit. You can't go beyond this.
No exercise physiologist will argue this point with me because all I have to do is point out their own ignorance of basic phsysiology, that thermoregularory limits can't be exceeded.
One of the big problems in all of this debate is another myth,; the idea that you can increase oxygen uptake by training, when in fact all you are doing is improving efficiency to allow you to run longer at a given pace. So naturally you will perform better in a VO2 max test. But your peak VO2 is the same.
It has to be measured correctly though. If you are sweating, you are reducing your oxygen uptake as more blood goes to the skin for cooling.
Again this is basic physiology. But does anyone here apart from me actually care?
There are no magic potions that give superhuman strength. But that's what you people believe. Your belief has nothing to do with science and everything to do with superstition.
JonO. wrote:
Lance did whatever Ferrari told him to do.
The problem is in the belief. And the more you people try to act as saviours for the sport, the more you exacerbate the problem by promoting rEPO as a supposed performance enhancer.
Your belief in magic potions giving superhuman strength is superstitious nonsense. It has nothing to do with science.
And Ferrari ran the show when it came down to 02-vector doping. Are you familiar with Ferrari's work with Gewiss–Ballan when he was the team doctor? He was raising Hcts with some of the team members by 30 - 36% over baseline into Polycythemia levels. Some of the members included a Tour & Giro winner:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gewiss%E2%80%93Ballan"Further revelations about systematic doping on the team were published in the Italian newspaper La Repubblica and the French sport's paper L'Equipe in 1999. These were based on published writing from journalist Eugenio Capodacqua from the Italian daily newspaper La Repubblica. Capodacqua published blood values (hematocrit levels) from Gewiss riders and results of an investigation into the team and its doctorMichele Ferrari.[6] On March 12, 1999 L’Equipe published a table of hematocrit levels of Gewiss riders that were taken from December 1994 to May 1995. This was before the UCI limit of a hematocrit level of 50% which came into effect in 1997. Bjarne Riisrode for the team at the time and his levels went from 41.1 to 56.3, Gotti from 40.7 to 57 and Berzin from 41.7 to 53. Ugrumov had the highest level at 60%. Riis immediately denied the validity of the figures.[6] Riis’s hematocrit level of 41.1% in a test conducted on January 14, 1995 was a normal value for an adult male while six months later on July 10, 1995 several days after Riis wore the yellow jersey as leader of the general classification for the first time at the Tour de France, his level was 56.3%."
Didn't Ferrari famously say "Therefore Armstrong would have achieved the same level of performance without resorting to doping, also thanks to his talent which was far superior to the rivals of his era."
RFM wrote:
And Ferrari ran the show when it came down to 02-vector doping. Are you familiar with Ferrari's work ...
I see lots of assertions about the decision process, optimization of mixture, dosages, etc. which look like more speculation, designed to prop up an argument that is already speculation. You say "2-4% for the majority" and "not more than 1%" are not so far apart? OK. I showed you a performance analysis, and how a large majority (all non-Africans) benefited over 28 years -- this does not suggest a 2-4% for the majority.
casual obsever wrote:
rekrunner wrote:
You seem to fundamentally misunderstand how to show cause and effect.
I understand that drug cheats do not randomly, or mythology-based, pick drugs from the counter to improve, but go by experience (see e.g. the Aden and Rosa groups) and optimize their cocktail mixture, which by default includes varying the dosages, and timing, of the various drugs. These are highly professional groups, since decades!
The fact that EPO remains on the forefront of said drug cocktail strongly implies that it is not just a placebo - and that's putting it mildly. Success speaks for itself.
But wait - didn't even you just admit that EPO helps up to 1% at the top?
Wherever that estimate comes from, we are actually not so far apart there. I've always estimated 2 - 4% for the majority of elite runners, with exceptions on both sides of that range (low and high responders are found with most drugs).
rekrunner wrote:
I see lots of assertions about the decision process, optimization of mixture, dosages, etc. which look like more speculation, designed to prop up an argument that is already speculation.
No. It is obvious not just from logic (who would be so stupid to inject random EPO amounts without keeping track of its effects on training paces?), but also from those few reports where people actually admitted to their year-long doping (see e.g., GDR, Johnson, US Postal, Team Telekom, Balco, Fuentes).
rekrunner wrote:You say "2-4% for the majority" and "not more than 1%" are not so far apart? OK.
I showed you a performance analysis, and how a large majority (all non-Africans) benefited over 28 years -- this does not suggest a 2-4% for the majority.
I meant, compared to a clean baseline. You actually showed that for example the male distance runners at the top, averaged over the three distances you picked and the three groups you picked, improved by 1.5% after 1990.
I would focus on the male distance runners, because steroids are more significant for women and the shorter distances.
Again, you have dodged the question about your assumptions numerous times. What do you assume for these performances?
Personally I would argue that doping in the 80s was more common than it is now (cold war doping, not openly condemned by the public as much, no WADA, no NADOs, rudimentary testing if any), and blood transfusions were legal for a long time, but even if you would argue that the doping prevalence did not decrease after more testing, after WADA came etc., it is a 1.5% improvement of in part dirty athletes over other in part dirty athletes.
You've added more words, but it still looks like speculation without any concrete basis. Even compared to a clean baseline, i.e. for highly trained athletes at altitude, I say not more than 1%. It's only 2-4% for athletes who are less than highly trained. Regarding my doping assumptions, I made minimal assumptions about doping prevalence at the top either pre- or post-1990: I assumed if doping was effective at the top, it would be represented in the top times -- the higher the effect, the higher the prevalence. I assumed that pre-1990 times were not influenced by EPO, as the most significant jumps (often attributed to EPO) did not occur until the mid-1990s. I assumed that EPO works for East Africans the same as it works for everyone else. Put more strongly, I rejected that altitude adapted East Africans could be significantly higher performance responders than sea-level athletes. I assumed EPO was globally available, and that more than 0 non-African athletes, over the course of 28 years, with sufficient talent, would try to take EPO to help them close the ever widening performance gap that was being created in the 1990s by East Africans and North Africans. When you come back with improvements like 1.5%, I assumed that EPO is at best only a partial contributing factor, with other factors like talent and training, also playing a significant role.
casual obsever wrote:
rekrunner wrote:
I see lots of assertions about the decision process, optimization of mixture, dosages, etc. which look like more speculation, designed to prop up an argument that is already speculation.
No. It is obvious not just from logic (who would be so stupid to inject random EPO amounts without keeping track of its effects on training paces?), but also from those few reports where people actually admitted to their year-long doping (see e.g., GDR, Johnson, US Postal, Team Telekom, Balco, Fuentes).
rekrunner wrote:You say "2-4% for the majority" and "not more than 1%" are not so far apart? OK.
I showed you a performance analysis, and how a large majority (all non-Africans) benefited over 28 years -- this does not suggest a 2-4% for the majority.
I meant, compared to a clean baseline. You actually showed that for example the male distance runners at the top, averaged over the three distances you picked and the three groups you picked, improved by 1.5% after 1990.
I would focus on the male distance runners, because steroids are more significant for women and the shorter distances.
Again, you have dodged the question about your assumptions numerous times. What do you assume for these performances?
Personally I would argue that doping in the 80s was more common than it is now (cold war doping, not openly condemned by the public as much, no WADA, no NADOs, rudimentary testing if any), and blood transfusions were legal for a long time, but even if you would argue that the doping prevalence did not decrease after more testing, after WADA came etc., it is a 1.5% improvement of in part dirty athletes over other in part dirty athletes.
rekrunner wrote:
You've added more words, but it still looks like speculation without any concrete basis.
Even compared to a clean baseline, i.e. for highly trained athletes at altitude, I say not more than 1%. It's only 2-4% for athletes who are less than highly trained.
Regarding my doping assumptions, I made minimal assumptions about doping prevalence at the top either pre- or post-1990:
I assumed if doping was effective at the top, it would be represented in the top times -- the higher the effect, the higher the prevalence.
I assumed that pre-1990 times were not influenced by EPO, as the most significant jumps (often attributed to EPO) did not occur until the mid-1990s.
I assumed that EPO works for East Africans the same as it works for everyone else.
Put more strongly, I rejected that altitude adapted East Africans could be significantly higher performance responders than sea-level athletes.
I assumed EPO was globally available, and that more than 0 non-African athletes, over the course of 28 years, with sufficient talent, would try to take EPO to help them close the ever widening performance gap that was being created in the 1990s by East Africans and North Africans.
When you come back with improvements like 1.5%, I assumed that EPO is at best only a partial contributing factor, with other factors like talent and training, also playing a significant role.
casual obsever wrote:
No. It is obvious not just from logic (who would be so stupid to inject random EPO amounts without keeping track of its effects on training paces?), but also from those few reports where people actually admitted to their year-long doping (see e.g., GDR, Johnson, US Postal, Team Telekom, Balco, Fuentes).
I meant, compared to a clean baseline. You actually showed that for example the male distance runners at the top, averaged over the three distances you picked and the three groups you picked, improved by 1.5% after 1990.
I would focus on the male distance runners, because steroids are more significant for women and the shorter distances.
Again, you have dodged the question about your assumptions numerous times. What do you assume for these performances?
Personally I would argue that doping in the 80s was more common than it is now (cold war doping, not openly condemned by the public as much, no WADA, no NADOs, rudimentary testing if any), and blood transfusions were legal for a long time, but even if you would argue that the doping prevalence did not decrease after more testing, after WADA came etc., it is a 1.5% improvement of in part dirty athletes over other in part dirty athletes.
In other words, your whole 'analysis' is based upon a clearly ridiculous and value laden set of assumptions.
Still think the best policy with rekrunner is just to ignore him. We know what his agenda is, whether he's being paid for it or not.
JonO. wrote:
Pure pseudoscience. Increasing oxygen uptake increases core temperature. We have a homeostatic limit. You can't go beyond this.
Body temperature can vary.
Blood transfusions improve heat tolerance.
RFM wrote:
I was looking over Malm et al: "Autologous Doping with Cryopreserved Red Blood Cells – Effects on Physical Performance and Detection by Multivariate Statistics," and found this in the introduction:
? "Initially, blood transfusion was used to enhance military aviation pilots’ work capacity to fly at high altitude during WWII, when pressurized cockpits were not used [21]. Later, submaximal [22] and maximal [23] running performance was shown to improve with blood transfusion. The discovery of erythropoietin (EPO) [24] simplified blood doping in sports, supplementing blood donation, storage and re-infusion. Similar performance enhancements of 6–12% could now be achieved by a simple recombinant human (rh) EPO injection [25–27]. In a review on blood doping published in 1989, Jones and Tunstall [28] describe increases in performance and VO2max ranging between 0% and 40%, depending on the subjects included and methods used for both testing and doping. From the summarized literature, it can be estimated that elite athletes may improve performance by up to 3% with blood doping, regardless of method [29–31]. This enhancement is equivalent to, for example, seven minutes faster winning time in the 90 km cross country ski race Vasaloppet, 20–30 seconds faster time in any given 5000 m run at world class level, and four minutes faster finishing time in a marathon race. In cycling, a 3% increase in performance translate to a more than two hour faster winning time in Tour de France 2014."
http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0156157#pone.0156157.ref029
Police arrest that man ⬆right now, he is guilty of murdering every point Jonny Orange and Rekrunner have ever argued on Let'sRun. From now on you'll be known as 'Rick The Ripper,' despised in Flagstaff and Whitechapel alike.
That's a pretty solid contribution.
Coevett wrote:
In other words, your whole 'analysis' is based upon a clearly ridiculous and value laden set of assumptions.
Still think the best policy with rekrunner is just to ignore him. We know what his agenda is, whether he's being paid for it or not.
One of my points is that EPO mythology requires speculation. Quoting peer reviewed scientists who say "elite athletes may improve performance" and then give some "for examples", without actually making controlled measures of elite athlete performance, or referencing someone who has, only reinforces that point.
Subway Surfers wrote:
Police arrest that man ⬆right now, he is guilty of murdering every point Jonny Orange and Rekrunner have ever argued on Let'sRun. From now on you'll be known as 'Rick The Ripper,' despised in Flagstaff and Whitechapel alike.
rekrunner wrote:
One of my points is that EPO mythology requires speculation. Quoting peer reviewed scientists who say "elite athletes may improve performance" and then give some "for examples", without actually making controlled measures of elite athlete performance, or referencing someone who has, only reinforces that point.
There are studies with non-elites runners showing an improvement in TTs, including the one study you're familiar with that shows Kenyans living & training at altitude experience improvement from EPO. What you haven't been able to do is give any scientific reasons why we can't expect some of the performance benefits extented to elites.
It's funny that there isn't one study with female athletes & androgens, but yet you accept the fact that androgens have significant implications in improved performance with female elite distance runners. That sound likes the steroid "mythology" also requires speculation? ?
RFM wrote:
rekrunner wrote:
One of my points is that EPO mythology requires speculation. Quoting peer reviewed scientists who say "elite athletes may improve performance" and then give some "for examples", without actually making controlled measures of elite athlete performance, or referencing someone who has, only reinforces that point.
There are studies with non-elites runners showing an improvement in TTs, including the one study you're familiar with that shows Kenyans living & training at altitude experience improvement from EPO. What you haven't been able to do is give any scientific reasons why we can't expect some of the performance benefits extented to elites.
It's funny that there isn't one study with female athletes & androgens, but yet you accept the fact that androgens have significant implications in improved performance with female elite distance runners. That sound likes the steroid "mythology" also requires speculation? ?
basically you need to stick to rule number 1...yes i break it sometimes too
Rule #1) do not reply or engage in arguments with rekrunner
now it would be nice if someone could weed out all his pointless rants and self promotional bragathons about how he thinks he is so smart and get back to the meat and "potatoes" lolz
well if i was to bett, there are still two names to be dropped...or is betting hard already one of them?
I would be happy to not have to respond to nonsense.
m!ndweak wrote:
basically you need to stick to rule number 1...yes i break it sometimes too
Rule #1) do not reply or engage in arguments with rekrunner
now it would be nice if someone could weed out all his pointless rants and self promotional bragathons about how he thinks he is so smart and get back to the meat and "potatoes" lolz
well if i was to bett, there are still two names to be dropped...or is betting hard already one of them?
rekrunner wrote:
I would be happy to not have to respond to nonsense.
m!ndweak wrote:
basically you need to stick to rule number 1...yes i break it sometimes too
Rule #1) do not reply or engage in arguments with rekrunner
now it would be nice if someone could weed out all his pointless rants and self promotional bragathons about how he thinks he is so smart and get back to the meat and "potatoes" lolz
well if i was to bett, there are still two names to be dropped...or is betting hard already one of them?
then dont....please just leave this thread alone. that would be awesome
thank you, posters of LR
Didn't they recently release GDR files documenting the effects of steroids for women? Didn't I respond to this already? Just like you, I "expect *some*(emphasis added) of the performance benefits extented(sic) to elites". This is probably the main reason I haven't given any scientific reasons for something I never claimed. I guess we might disagree on how much is "some". I claim numbers like 4% over-estimate the effect. Before you say I gave no reasons for this, here are some. Pay close attention, because it is lengthy which seems to turn some people off -- but keep in mind you specifically faulted me for giving no reasons: One attribute that elite athletes have is that they have undergone extensive training to become elite -- elite subjects are already close to their ideal physiologically limited potential. We cannot say the same thing for the subjects in a study where training was not controlled. A (controlled) study on non-elite subjects where training is emphasized, and clean performance is maximized, before the intervention would be better. The Kenyan study you mentioned lacked controls. This is no small criticism. There is no attempt to isolate training effects (e.g. from two TTs that are part of the study, in addition to regular training) from the EPO effects. (This reminds me of Heisenberg -- the study itself can affect the observed result.) We know from another, better designed study (1997 altitude study with controls, and a 4 week pre-conditioning training phase), that training alone, just over 4 weeks, produced a 2.3% improvement, BEFORE the altitude intervention under study. The control subjects improved by 2.3%. This means that figures like 4.5% (for Kenyan athletes as fast as the best 1970's high school girls) and 5.7% (for Scots 2 minutes slower than the Kenyans) from uncontrolled studies, are surely significant over-estimates, even for these non-elite subjects. Let's say that 2.3% is a good estimate for the improvement that would have occurred without EPO -- then these figures become closer to 2.2% and 3.4%, respectively. Once we obtain accurate results for non-elite subjects (something uncontrolled studies do not give us), it is important to build an accurate model to project these results onto elites. For example, should it follow a linear model, i.e. should we apply the same magnitude of percentages we found to elites? To my knowledge, no one has attempted to build such a model. I suspect (assumption on my part) a "diminishing return" model is probably more accurate than a "linear model", as there is likely less room for improvement for those who have already obtained a high level of performance, when compared to some ideal physiological limit. Yet we can already see with the Scots and Kenyan studies, a significant reduction in improvement for the faster Kenyans, supporting a diminishing return model, and counter-indicating a linear model. If we say (one more speculative assumption on my part) that the reduction in improvement is linear, then projecting 3.4% and 2.2% to 7:30 runners predicts about 1%, or 4-5 seconds, of effect.
RFM wrote:
rekrunner wrote:
One of my points is that EPO mythology requires speculation. Quoting peer reviewed scientists who say "elite athletes may improve performance" and then give some "for examples", without actually making controlled measures of elite athlete performance, or referencing someone who has, only reinforces that point.
There are studies with non-elites runners showing an improvement in TTs, including the one study you're familiar with that shows Kenyans living & training at altitude experience improvement from EPO. What you haven't been able to do is give any scientific reasons why we can't expect some of the performance benefits extented to elites.
It's funny that there isn't one study with female athletes & androgens, but yet you accept the fact that androgens have significant implications in improved performance with female elite distance runners. That sound likes the steroid "mythology" also requires speculation? ?
The feeling is mutual. I gave you an offer, and you rejected it. I reserve the right to defend myself.
m!ndweak wrote:
rekrunner wrote:
I would be happy to not have to respond to nonsense.
then dont....please just leave this thread alone. that would be awesome
thank you, posters of LR
you can leave now that would be awesome, maybe start another thread
"EPO doesnt work" trust me i wont post on there, and you can argue with anyone on there and link your self proclaimed magna opus left and right, but this thread? and other threads talking about kenyans doping, and doping with EPO....it would just be better if you left them alone.
but whatever do what you want guru of all things
What is the threshold that separates a "hobbyjogger" from a "sub-elite" runner?
Caitlin Clark thinks she can beat Eagles draft pick Cooper Dejean in 1 on 1
Cade Flatt with yet another DNF, this time in the SEC Championships
NCAA D1 Conference Outdoor Championships Live Results and Discussion Thread
Do "running influencers" harm the competitive nature of the sport?