rekrunner wrote:
The thing is, I'm not criticizing the study, but I'm criticizing you and others, for trying to use these studies to draw conclusions that the studies cannot show, and even the authors did not draw, explaining fundamentally why such conclusions are risky.
If you want a study to show that EPO causes 5% improvement in elite athletes already highly trained at altitude, this is not up to me to organize.
For all this talk about trying to catch Renato in a "trained in methodology" versus "methodology in training" word trap, you have to wonder about their training in methodology for conducting an EPO study that did not contain a control group, did not control training, and was not double-blinded.
"Draw conclusions that the study does not show?" Well then...lets take a closer look at the conclusion:
https://journals.lww.com/acsm-msse/Abstract/publishahead/Effects_of_EPO_on_Blood_Parameters_and_Running.96809.aspx"Conclusion: Four weeks of rHuEpo increased the HGB and HCT of Kenyan endurance runners to a lesser extent than in SCO (~17% vs ~10%, respectively) and these alterations were associated with similar improvements in running performance immediately after the rHuEpo administration (~5%) and 4 weeks after rHuEpo (~3%)."
It sounds like to me that a one month rHuEPO dosing schedule increased the Hct of Kenyan endurance runners (non-elite) but to lesser extent of the Scots (non-elite/ sea level) which was associated with similar improvements in performance in running immediately after the EPO administration.
I know this study gets you nervous because it involves Kenyan runners at altitude - and all you do is trash talk it at every opportunity you get. This thread will probably die down in a short time and the next time someone references & quotes from the study you'll be first to come out of your Ivory Tower and trash talk it. ?