new study shows micro-doping can boost performance nearly 5% and impossible to detect

Sorry, make that three now: page 12.

casual obsever wrote:

Sorry, make that three now: page 12.

I see you quoted it, but find it strange there is no mention of this in the abstract. When was that third 650kcal TT performed?

The exact choice of benchmark is not important. It could be by "1990 top-5 average" (13:02), or simply inclusion on "alltime-athletics" lists (13:30), and my discussion, conclusion, and suggestion of small effect remains unchanged. I can extend my suggestion of small effect to medium and bottom distance runners too. The potential benefit depends on the difference between your current shape, and your personal best shape. If you are an 18:00 runner in 21:00 shape, you can expect big benefits. If you are an 18:00 runner already in 18:05 shape, there is very little room left for improvement.

What time is it? wrote:

rekrunner wrote:

Time. What if?

And what exactly are your time benchmarks for your definition of "at the top?" (If you don't want go through the whole spectrum give an example of the 15, 5 and perhaps the marathon).

Article Please? wrote:

When was that third 650kcal TT performed?

"Twenty-four hours after the combined high-volume transfusion, time trial performance

and VO2peak were determined, separated by 2 h of recovery."

Come on guys, those weren't proper time trials. 223 watts is equivalent to 8 minute mile pace running.

To be making a fuss about these numbers is fake news.

rekrunner wrote:

The potential benefit depends on the difference between your current shape, and your personal best shape.

If you are an 18:00 runner in 21:00 shape, you can expect big benefits.

If you are an 18:00 runner already in 18:05 shape, there is very little room left for improvement.

It doesn't work like this.

rekrunner wrote:

The exact choice of benchmark is not important.

It could be by "1990 top-5 average" (13:02), or simply inclusion on "alltime-athletics" lists (13:30), and my discussion, conclusion, and suggestion of small effect remains unchanged.

I can extend my suggestion of small effect to medium and bottom distance runners too.

The potential benefit depends on the difference between your current shape, and your personal best shape.

Really rekrunner? I'll differ with you on that - take a look at this from athletes banned/busted for doping:

Holds off a charging Kiprop and makes the rest of a world-class field look like sub-elites.

And this:

Smokes Iguider, who's no slouch, and annihilates a world-class field like they're a bunch of sub-elites.

Or this:

WTF...she's created a gap of 25m with 300 to go! ? Still one of the fastest 15s ever.

And this:

FFS, a course record and 5th fastest time ever. Looked effortlessly. ?

Really. And you will differ with me on that.

Lets Tell It Like It Is wrote:

rekrunner wrote:

The exact choice of benchmark is not important.

It could be by "1990 top-5 average" (13:02), or simply inclusion on "alltime-athletics" lists (13:30), and my discussion, conclusion, and suggestion of small effect remains unchanged.

I can extend my suggestion of small effect to medium and bottom distance runners too.

The potential benefit depends on the difference between your current shape, and your personal best shape.

Really rekrunner? I'll differ with you on that - take a look at this from athletes banned/busted for doping:

look at the numbers wrote:

...To be making a fuss about these numbers is fake news.

I fully agree, but the real "fuss" has been generated by anti-doping activists, media outlets and otherwise quite reliable academic research review sites such as Suppversity ("5% Faster W/ 135ml of Red Blood Cells - Transfusion Works Within 2h!") and Ergo-log ("Who still believes that blood doping is not effective?") quoting the 5 % figure with no interest in the details of the study, so all the fuss here about the study is actually anti-fuss to put the study into real context.

The study itself is an interesting inquiry into an underresearched area and it has its limitations of which the authors are aware of.

rekrunner wrote:

Really. And you will differ with me on that.

Lets Tell It Like It Is wrote:

Really rekrunner? I'll differ with you on that - take a look at this from athletes banned/busted for doping:

mumble mumble mumble

Aragon wrote:

look at the numbers wrote:

...To be making a fuss about these numbers is fake news.

I fully agree, but the real "fuss" has been generated by anti-doping activists, media outlets and otherwise quite reliable academic research review sites such as Suppversity ("5% Faster W/ 135ml of Red Blood Cells - Transfusion Works Within 2h!") and Ergo-log ("Who still believes that blood doping is not effective?") quoting the 5 % figure with no interest in the details of the study, so all the fuss here about the study is actually anti-fuss to put the study into real context.

The study itself is an interesting inquiry into an underresearched area and it has its limitations of which the authors are aware of.

Man....Aragon, you're really bent out of shape on this one! I hope you haven't lost any sleep over this (I haven't seen you this pissed since a few months ago when I quoted & referenced from the Malm et al paper). Life's too short to have anxiety and stress over blood doping studies.

If your definition of "pissed" means having curiosity to take a look into the most original material instead of putting blinders on and quoting some random figures from here-and-there when it suits your narrative, I guess you are right about me. And all kudos to you for being the paragon of stoicism by that same definition.

What's The Deal? wrote:

Man....Aragon, you're really bent out of shape on this one!

Disagreed. I actually appreciate his constructive and factual contributions in this thread.

Plus, his honesty as being against "anti-doping activists" is refreshing.

casual obsever wrote:

Article Please? wrote:

When was that third 650kcal TT performed?

"Twenty-four hours after the combined high-volume transfusion, time trial performance

and VO2peak were determined, separated by 2 h of recovery."

So here is what appears to have happened. Feel free to correct my timeline if you know or think it's incorrect.

Day 00 - 900ml of blood removed

Day 26 - 4 x 30 second all-out sprints with 4 minutes of recovery between each sprint

Day 28 - 650kcal time trial performed, which is about 50 minutes for the 6 subject putting out around 200 watts and about 37 minutes for the one subject who did about 300 watts.

Day 31 - 135ml of blood reinfused, followed by the second 650kcal TT 2 hours later

Day 32 - 235ml of additional blood reinfused

Day 33 - Third 650kcal TT performed then a 2 hour break followed by a VO2peak test

Day 35 - 4 x 30 second all-out sprints with 4 minutes of recovery between each sprint

Think about that. 3 time trials lasting about 40-50 minutes in a 5 day window, plus that VO2 peak test 2 hours after the last 650kcal TT. Of course they didn't do significantly better on the 3rd TT, they didn't have proper time to recover mentally for sure and probably not physically either. Even if they were physically recovered I would never expect riders at this level to be able to mentally handle a 3rd all-out TT of that length.

Imagine doing three 12-15K races in 5 days. The first one you could go all-out. The second one you may still be able to go all-out since it's for a study and there could be extra motivation, but by that third race on the 5th day you're going to be pretty fried, right?

I'm assuming the VO2peak test was 2 hours after the 650kcal TT on Day 33, not vice-versa. They may have done VO2peak tests on Days 28 and 31 as well, but I'm not certain. Whatever the case, this is a lot of all-out efforts for cyclists that clearly are not nearly as well-trained as the authors suggest.

The problem is that there was the control group that went through the same tests. This group wasn't fried enough to be statistically slower at the last tests on average, so it is unlikely that it alone explains the surprising underperforming of the guys getting the additional 235 mls.

And their relative Vo2max was on average 60 ml/kg/min (absolute c:a 4.4 l/min), well-trained guys like these have been used regularly in blood doping research.

Aragon wrote:

The problem is that there was the control group that went through the same tests. This group wasn't fried enough to be statistically slower at the last tests on average, so it is unlikely that it alone explains the surprising underperforming of the guys getting the additional 235 mls.

And their relative Vo2max was on average 60 ml/kg/min (absolute c:a 4.4 l/min), well-trained guys like these have been used regularly in blood doping research.

Without seeing all the data it’s tough for me to know these details but it seems that with each detail I get this study looks worse and worse. A VO2max of 60 with a threshold power of 200 watts shows a serious lack of training.

You make a good point if the control group in fact put out the same power in the 2nd and 3rd TTs. Something seems amiss though.

casual obsever wrote:

What's The Deal? wrote:

Man....Aragon, you're really bent out of shape on this one!

Disagreed. I actually appreciate his constructive and factual contributions in this thread.

Plus, his honesty as being against "anti-doping activists" is refreshing.

For example:

Lord Weldo is fascinating.

Aragon, outside of the US virtually all the developed countries in the world have socialist health systems. So any athletes doing transfusions are really part of a state sanctioned doping regime. The case of Stephanie Graf is a good example, they just looked through patient archives and found her name + blood transfusion and bang.

casual obsever wrote:

What's The Deal? wrote:

Man....Aragon, you're really bent out of shape on this one!

Disagreed. I actually appreciate his constructive and factual contributions in this thread.

Plus, his honesty as being against "anti-doping activists" is refreshing.

Wouldn't you rather have more "anti-doping activists" than doping activists and apologists?( which they're are plenty of those on this forum). Afterall, haven't you said the passport thresholds are far too generous and microdosing can produce significant gains?