Yannis Pitsiladis was one of the authors of the study.
Yannis Pitsiladis was one of the authors of the study.
OP says "runners", tweet says "athletes"
And we only know that EPO "works" (possibly confirmation bias) on the athletes in the sample, no reason to generalize to all Kenyan athletes.
Not to mention it was Jordan Santos-Concejero who first name-called Canova.
https://twitter.com/JordanSudafrica/status/1037801344084717569
fact-based mesmerizing wrote:
OP says "runners", tweet says "athletes"
Yep, they are comparing runners to athletes. Just like apples and pears.
Introduction Recombinant human erythropoietin (rHuEpo) administration enhances oxygen carrying capacity and performance at sea level. It remains unknown whether similar effects would be observed in chronic altitude-adapted endurance runners. The aim of this study was to assess the effects of rHuEpo on haematological and performance parameters in chronic altitude-adapted endurance runners as compared to sea level athletes.
Actually, study proved that it DOESN"T work in Kenyan like in other cohort (SCO)!!
Conclusion Four weeks of rHuEpo increased the HGB and HCT of Kenyan endurance runners to a lesser extent than in SCO ...
You guys are the flat earthers of doping.
But Hutchinson doesn't LIVE and WORK with TOP Kenyan elites born in altitude. 2:08 marathoners doesn't make the cut in Iten.
Excluding Asbel Kiprop(3:31/32 doped, 3:26 clean), Kipyegon Bett, Ruth Jebet, Rita Jeptoo (slower after taking EPO), Jemima Sumgong, Mathew Kisorio 2:10 doped) etc. The rest are B-level athletes.
Canova athletes don't take anything. Many of them don't know the word "VITAMIN"
Link to the abstract
There was improvement in both groups...
Conclusion (edited for clarity)
Four weeks of EPO increased the haemoglobin concentration and haematocrit of altitude-adapted Kenyan endurance runners to a lesser extent than a sea-level cohort (~17% vs ~10%, respectively) and these alterations were associated with similar improvements in running performance immediately after the EPO administration (~5%), and 4 weeks after EPO administration (~3%). (italics added).
before I got excited about this result I would want to know what, exactly, is meant by the phrase, "similar improvements in running performance..."
do they mean:
a. the two groups made similar improvements
or
b. the improvements were similar to the changes in haemoglobin concentration and haematocrit.
I would also want to know what the "other cohort" consisted of. were they well-trained endurance athletes; were they Kenyans; were they humans? the paper says nothing about them and I find that quite odd.
cheers.
Luv2Run wrote:
Link to the abstract
https://journals.lww.com/acsm-msse/Abstract/publishahead/Effects_of_EPO_on_Blood_Parameters_and_Running.96809.aspxThere was improvement in both groups...
Introduction from the abstract:
Recombinant human erythropoietin (rHuEpo) administration enhances oxygen carrying capacity and performance at sea level. It remains unknown whether similar effects would be observed in chronic altitude-adapted endurance runners. The aim of this study was to assess the effects of rHuEpo on haematological and performance parameters in chronic altitude-adapted endurance runners as compared to sea level athletes.
So the abstract begins with the EPO doping dogma. Confirmation bias already stated in the introduction.
The dogma is based on the belief that somehow the human body doesn't carry oxygen as well as it can with a ridiculously high hematocrit. This is way beyond bad science. You're effectively saying that the human body is not very good at working out how oxygen delivery is supposed to work.
Aside from the fact that you physiologists think that you can re-write the laws of physics.
I
Cottonshirt wrote:
I would also want to know what the "other cohort" consisted of. were they well-trained endurance athletes; were they Kenyans; were they humans? the paper says nothing about them and I find that quite odd.
cheers.
Also, it doesn't say what "well trained" means. Most times whenever you see a study about "we'' trained runners" it means hobbyjoggers who run 30 miles per week. Canova has repeated said that world-class runners trained at altitude have already maximized the benefits of haemoglobin from natural EPO.
Nothing new here.
Alex Hutcheson is an idiot wrote:
Cottonshirt wrote:
I would also want to know what the "other cohort" consisted of. were they well-trained endurance athletes; were they Kenyans; were they humans? the paper says nothing about them and I find that quite odd.
cheers.
Also, it doesn't say what "well trained" means. Most times whenever you see a study about "we'' trained runners" it means hobbyjoggers who run 30 miles per week. Canova has repeated said that world-class runners trained at altitude have already maximized the benefits of haemoglobin from natural EPO.
Nothing new here.
Hobby joggers have also maximized the benefits of hemoglobin and natural EPO. Every healthy person has. If anyone is trulY anemic they are too ill to run. Normal blood counts are optimal blood counts. Normal oxygen uptake levels are optimal oxygen uptake levels.
Exercise physiologists just don't seem to be able to grasp these points. Almost every exercise physiologist has an inferiority complex about their own physical abilities which they constantly try to project onto everyone else.
Where are the ex phys guys who are even aware of how wonderfully near perfect the body systems are? Why do these people go into a career they don't believe in? It freaks me the fukc out how ignorant they are about the very subject they purport to be experts in.
JonO. wrote:
Hobby joggers have also maximized the benefits of hemoglobin and natural EPO. Every healthy person has. If anyone is trulY anemic they are too ill to run. Normal blood counts are optimal blood counts. Normal oxygen uptake levels are optimal oxygen uptake levels.
Exercise physiologists just don't seem to be able to grasp these points. Almost every exercise physiologist has an inferiority complex about their own physical abilities which they constantly try to project onto everyone else.
Where are the ex phys guys who are even aware of how wonderfully near perfect the body systems are? Why do these people go into a career they don't believe in? It freaks me the fukc out how ignorant they are about the very subject they purport to be experts in.
So, everyone could be potentially a champion?
JonO. wrote:
Where are the ex phys guys who are even aware of how wonderfully near perfect the body systems are?
Ah yes that seems like the "evolution led humans to have near perfect physiology/anatomy/biomechanics etc" fallacy. Or maybe you don't believe in evolution ....
Zede wrote:
So, everyone could be potentially a champion?
You are assuming that oxygen uptake determines our potential. I'm saying something very different, that normal oxygen uptake is essential for basic health and that the best athletes don't have or need superior oxygen delivery, just norml oxygen delivery. They are fast because they are super efficient biomechanically. Running is a skill that takes huge amount of training to develop from a baby to an adult.
It's really not hard to work out, but for some reason a lot of exercise physiologists have an alternative agenda. Drug research excites them. It's not healthy for the sport if they have a confirmation bias. I have already pointed out these concerns to Yiannis Pitsiladis, but this is not really his true fielf of study, he's a geneticist.
JonO. wrote:
Hobby joggers have also maximized the benefits of hemoglobin and natural EPO. Every healthy person has. If anyone is trulY anemic they are too ill to run. Normal blood counts are optimal blood counts. Normal oxygen uptake levels are optimal oxygen uptake levels.
Exercise physiologists just don't seem to be able to grasp these points. Almost every exercise physiologist has an inferiority complex about their own physical abilities which they constantly try to project onto everyone else.
Where are the ex phys guys who are even aware of how wonderfully near perfect the body systems are? Why do these people go into a career they don't believe in? It freaks me the fukc out how ignorant they are about the very subject they purport to be experts in.
It freaks me out how you think you can use abstract reasoning, divorced from the scientific method, to come to firm conclusions about the effects of particular chemicals in the human body. What you're saying is a perfectly reasonable hypothesis, but it isn't backed up by data.
Even aside from experimental data, your hypothesis raises other questions. Is the human body so perfect that no PEDs work? If the answer is no, then which ones work, and which don't? What distinguishes the ones that work from those that don't?
Also, have you considered that the body may have evolved as a compromise that's best able to handle a range of environmental pressures? Is it not possible that the body could run faster with a higher hemocrit, but that from an evolutionary standpoint, there are tradeoffs that on balance make a high hemocrit not worth it? This actually seems very likely when one considers two things. First, the anecdotal but widely accepted mortality risk associated with high hemocrit. Two, the fact that a Himalayan high altitude populations (who have lived at altitude for far longer than any other known ethnic group) have genetically adapted to a low oxygen environment in ways other than simply having a higher hemocrit, whereas populations with more recent history at low altitude simply exhibit the standard higher hemocrit response of most humans when they go to altitude.
I'm tired to explain again (what I already did one hundred times) my position about this research.
1) I NEVER said EPO doesn't work on Kenyan. Kenyan people is like every other people, they don't have a different physiology, so it's clear that, with KENYAN PERSONS, EPO works in the same way than in all other people. So, putting as reason of the research (that is what WADA did) the fact that "CANOVA says EPO doesn't work for Kenyans" is a wrong statement, that I NEVER did.
2) What I said at the time of the research (that is more than 5 years old) is that "EPO DOESN'T WORK FOR TOP ATHLETES BORN, LIVING AND TRAINING IN ALTITUDE, USING PROPER TRAINING".
3) I changed this assertion last year, after coaching the Norwegian athletes SONDRE MOEN to beat the European Record in Marathon (2:05'48"), coming from 2:12 of previous PB, AFTER 270 days of altitude during 2017 (including Kenya in Iten, Italy in Sestriere and Switzerland in St. Moritz). Now, my assertion is that "EPO DOESN'T WORK FOR TOP ATHLETES LIVING AND TRAINING IN ALTITUDE FOR LONG CONTINUOUS PERIODS, IF THEY USE PROPER TRAINING".
4) In my position, the 2 most important factors are ALTITUDE and TRAINING.
5) The research doesn't have, as subjects, any athlete belonging to the category I consider in my statement.
The runners of the research had a test of 3000m before taking EPO. The average for Kenyans was 9'35", for Scottish 11'.
If we look at Kenyans with 9'35" average, THESE ARE NOT ATHLETES, but normal people going to jog maybe 3 times per week.
I explain one anecdote. In 2013, a group of Polish amateurs living for 3 weeks in the High Altitude Training Camp of Lornah Kiplagat, before going back home, organized a competition of 3000m on the track of Kamarin, giving prizes (from their oen pocket) of about 70 USD (the winner), 50 USD (the 2nd) and 30 USD (the 3rd), That competition was open to all boys under 19 years, without coach and management. The participants were 66. The winner (who they introduced to me) ran 8'16", and 4 months later won bronze medal in World Youth Championships with 3'39" in 1500m (Titus Kibyego Kipruto). In the total field, 56 ran under 9', and all under 9'10".
This means that, for finding 20 Kenyans with average 9'35", YOU HAVE TO LOOK FOR BOYS NOT RUNNING, in other words boys WITHOUT any training.
To say that these runners were "WELL TRAINED" is, therefore, a big bullshit, and clearly shows that the authors of the study DIDN'T KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT TRAINING.
6) In the research, is not detailed the training they did during the month of EPO administration, This means that the authors didn't give ANY IMPORTANCE to the training of the runners.
7) After one month of administration, the technical results became better : for the Kenyans became a little bit faster than 9' (around 8'55", if I well remember), and the results of Scottish around 10'30". At the same time, the level of Hgb and Hct of Kenyans raised of about 10%, while the level of Scottish about 17%,
8) Looking at the level of the runners BEFORE starting the administration, the improvement doesn't mean anything. In fact, it's clear that, WITHOUT ANY EPO, but with a well structured training program, boys running 9'35" without training can run, in one month, faster than 8'55", and boys running at sea level around 11' can easily run under 10'30".
This means that what they could demonstrate is that WITH EPO AND LITTLE TRAINING WE CAN REACH THE SAME RESULTS THAT WE CAN ACHIEVE WITH BETTER TRAINING ONLY.
9) The authors don't have any idea about WHAT THE TRAINING OF TOP ATHLETES IS, and consequently don't have any idea about the EFFECTS OF TOP TRAINING ON THE PHYSIOLOGY OF THE ATHLETES.
I give here some example :
1) In top athletes, with PROPER AEROBIC TRAINING (that the scientists absolutely don't know, and NEVER went to study), the total volume of blood can increase of 25% (while in the "official" books of physiology the limit is about 10%). This means more than 1.5 liter of blood, increasing the ability to transport Oxygen WHILE at the same time THE HCT GOES DOWN.
2) Because of the low viscosity, the VELOCITY of BLOOD CIRCULATION is faster. This means that, when we speak about the BLOOD OF THE VEINS, which has the task to remove and transport the products of "waste" the muscle fibers produce in higher quantity, AND THIS IS THE MOST IMPORTANT FACTOR WHEN WE LOOK AT LONG DISTANCES AROUND THE LACTIC THRESHOLD OR UNDER THE LT LIKE THE MARATHON.
3) The heart rate between somebody taking EPO and athletes using clean training is different : in the case of athletes taking EPO is about 10% lower, and the heart has to do higher effort pur pumping the same quantity of blood.
4) Increasing the viscosity with EPO, the athlete is not able to increase his total volume of blood of the same percentage, losing a part of the advantage connected with the natural increase of plasma.
5) The increased percentage of plasma increases the affinity between Hb and Oxygen, so the athlete (who is a "responder")is able to take MORE Oxygen from the atmosphere (and this is probably the most important advantage of the training in altitude).
There is the WRONG idea that every time, increasing the Hct, the athlete can automatically run faster. The level of Hct are EFFECT of training, and not the CAUSE of the result. If we work with training only, we test the athletes 3-4 times per year, and we put in connection their Hct and their Hb with the results, we see that, IMPROVING THE PERFORMANCES, the Hct goes down. So, we can say that there is an OPTIMAL INDIVIDUAL RANGE of Hct and Hb for everybody, and, of course, when an athlete is able to compete at the HIGHER PERSONAL LEVEL he can run better than when his level is lower, BIT IT'S NOT TRUE THAT, IF HE OVERTAKE HIS OPTIMAL LEVEL, HE CAN RUN FASTER.
For example, an athlete can have a level between 41 and 43. When is not in training, maybe can reach 45. With training, his level starts to go down till 41. At this point, increasing the modulation of the intensity in his training, and giving more room to the recovery, his Hct goes up till 43, and this is his value for the top shape.
If we bring him near 50 giving EPO, he can't run faster (when we speak about distances requiring long duration), while it's not clear the effect in short distances (for example, 1500m).
Conclusion : The research doesn't mean anything, and is not able to demonstrate anything about the effect with top runners training in altitude.
People need to understand that top runners have several differences with normal athletes :
1) More natural talent (the question is : which is the difference between somebody who can run fast and the average people ? Which is the "physiological talent" that makes runners so different one from another ?)
2) More volume of training (due to the stronger motivation, because they can reach top results moving to a professional level that can change their life)
3) More intensity in training (see the above reason)
The last two factors produce deep modifications in the individual physiology, while less volume and less intensity produce little modifications, giving room to the effects of EPO for aerobic improvements.
It's like two different car, one is a City car, another is a Formula One. We can have a big room of improvements of the prformances of the City car using some specific manipulation with very expert mechanics, the other has a pool of engineers, specialists of aerodynamic, specialists of the materials, etc... who work all together for having an increment of 2/1000 of second in a loop of 6 km. The first car is very far from the limit, the second is already at its limits. The City car is the amateur of the athlete of medium level, the F. 1 is the top athlete already using full training at the highest level. For him, there is no room of improvement using EPO.
And now I hope that in the future I never have to speak again about what I said, and this stupid research that could only demonstrate what everybody knows : EPO WORKS WITH EVERYBODY IF NOT TRAINED OR LITTLE TRAINED, and these subjects have nothing to do with the top elite runners in the World.
Yes we all have our own genetic traits and we have to work with them. The doping dogma insitst that we are inferior to what we could be or should be. It's a dogma of a collective inferiority complex forced onto us by scientists who have those beliefs. Why support these people financially? How is that good for sport or for research if they already have an unshakable confirmtion bias to their research? We should be looking at genetic traits of personality not physicality, and actually this is the basis of good coaching and has been for decades.
I will keep saying it because it's vital for everyone to get this message; we don't need to improve our oxygen uptake beyond normal bounds and we can't anyway because we are bound by thermoregulation. So normal red blood cell count is both essential for basic health and cell function and this is all anyone needs at any level of the sport.
We are not bound by biomechanical efficiency until a very small number among us reach the heights of elite performance. This is the variable to study in its many facets. Those athletes are subject to their own good days and bad days, and that's why races will always fascinate.
The red blood cell boosting dogma is a red herring. A silly pseudoscientic obsession. I've been hearing it for 48 years. I felt compelled to research it and ask awkward questions that the endless dogma is oblivious to. These physiologists are limited in their undersanding of basic physiology. They don't know this and probably don't really care.
anacondarunner wrote:
https://twitter.com/sweatscience/status/1037814404446711809?s=21Yannis Pitsiladis was one of the authors of the study.
Is a reprint of the same study done back in 2013 that WADA funded and was used to develop new improved testing methods based on gene expression profiles? ?
https://www.wada-ama.org/sites/default/files/resources/files/Application_to_EPO_Detection_Pitsiladis_2013.pdfAlso, RW printed a story on the study's results:
https://www.runnersworld.com/races-places/a20845413/study-kenyans-get-performance-boost-from-epo/hmm. wrote:
You guys are the flat earthers of doping.
+1
Renato Canova wrote:
Which is the "physiological talent" that makes runners so different one from another ?)
Fitness. In ten years time Kenenisa Bekele might be just another Joe Hobbyjogger getting his arse kicked by even older runners.