Renato Canova wrote:
I don't agree with the conclusions of Sgro'. If it's true that runners can run at the same speed with a lower HR, when they take EPO, it's also true that their MAX HR is reduced, because the increase of the periferal resistance due to the increase of viscosity.
This mean that the PERCENTAGE of HR used in sub-maximal speed, compared with the max HR the athlete can reach, is practically the same, and this doesn't have any advantage to the performance.
What happens in training, for example, for the same athlete at sea level or in altitude, is that at sea level can have a HR, when in total rest (for example, immediately waking in the morning), about 5% - 10% lower than in high altitude (for example, HR of 40 at sea level, and of 44 in altitude). But, at the same time, can have a MAX HR higher of about 5%-10% at sea level, compared with altitude(for example, HR of 200 at sea level, and of 185 in altitude).
This means that the RANGE of working of the heart can be reduced : if at sea level the heart can work 5 times the basic HR (40 vs 200), in altitude can work only more 4.2 times (44 vs 185).
This when we speak about athletes normally training at sea level, and only some times going altitude.
Instead, what we can see with athletes living and training ALWAYS in altitude (something the Maroccans never did), is that they are able to reduce the gap between sea level and altitude, sometimes maintaining the same parameters.
So, a top Kenyan athlete who can have at sea level the same values of the above example (HR of 40 and 200), while in full training in altitude can lose only a very small part of his range, for example moving to 42 and 195.
The practic training control, for example using repetitions of 300m climbing at max personal speed (a good way for knowing the level of strength endurance in a maximal lactic situation), can show that at the end of the training, if the hill is at sea level or in high altitude, the max HR can be similar (about 200, in the case of an athlete like the above example).
The situation, in case of blood manipulation (with homologus transfusion or with the assumption of EPO), is similar what happens in altitude with athletes normally training at sea level, with more ability to transport Oxygen at the range in the middle (so, in case of submaximal effort), but LESS ability to transport Oxygen when at maximal effort.
The increase of transport of Oxygen for CLEAN athletes in altitude is due to the big increase of the total volume of blood, well over what physiologists explain in their resesraches (they speak about 5-10% like maximal increase, but really the best athletes, at the top of their shape, can increase the total volume till 25%), not increasing the periferal resistance because the most part of the increased volume is PLASMA, so the blood can maintain the same low level of viscosity, not reducing the velocity of circulation.
With EPO, or with homologus transfusion, is not possible to increase the total volume of blood at the same level. And this is clearly due to the fact that this increase, with clean athletes, happens in a long period (of about 3-4 months with aerobic training of high intensity and extension) in natural way, with graduality and without changing blood parameters suddenly.
This is, instead, what can happens taking EPO, or with a transfusion : the change happens in short time, and the enhancement of volume can't be of the same quantity.
Not only, but in the case of big increase of the total volume, the Hct of the athletes becomes LOWER, also if their ability to transport Oxygen becomes bigger. Instead, in the case of EPO or transfusion, the increase of ability in the transportation is connected with the enhancement of Hct.
Two situations not comparable, and in some case athletes WITHOUT EPO or transfusion can have ADVANTAGE compared with athletes using blood doping.