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

I think we are in agreement here too.

casual obsever wrote:

Showing that EPO is not much better than blood transfusions.

I pretty much already said it was "old news". You are actually copying me, while suggesting I don't yet know the very thing I said. I said pretty much exactly that in my first post, referencing the CIRC report. This study is in line with what cyclists already felt since the introduction of the ABP, and shouldn't come as much of a surprise to anyone. One interesting question though, is why the google translated link indicates both 4.7%, and also 1 minute over a 40 minute time trial -- or 2.5%. This 2.5% estimate would probably be a surprise to the elite cyclists who estimate 3-5%. Something that boosts my confidence is when you argue against some strawman that I don't actually believe or didn't say.

Hmm. wrote:

This is old news for everyone but rek-Gary. Just another study saying what is already common knowledge.

Lol -- despite both of us trying hard to ignore each other, if anything his posts have the opposite effect -- compelling me to supplement his posts with forgotten or downplayed facts, such as these almost elite Kenyans running well within themselves, at the level of high school girls.

You might ask "casual obsever" -- he's the one with easy access to studies. I have absolutely no interest in a cycling study that finds similar gains to altitude studies. I am curious why you think 5% power "would net a 3% increase in running speeds" -- for which events? -- and only about 2% for cycling.

Inquiring minds want to know wrote:

Article Please? wrote:

I have not seen the actual study posted here. When clicking on the link it seemed to indicate power was improved by about 5%, which would net about a 3% increase in running speeds and about 2% increase in speed on the bike over flat ground.

Does anyone have the link to the original study? Rekrunner? (you're usually on top of these studies?). This study is being discussed over at "Cyclingnews' The Clinic," but no one has posted any links to study there either:

Sorry that question is directed at "Article Please?"

rekrunner wrote:

I am curious why you think 5% power "would net a 3% increase in running speeds" -- for which events? -- and only about 2% for cycling.

The study is under doi

10.1249/MSS.0000000000001837

... but I didn't have the time to read it, yet.

The problem with the first link in this thread isn't just google translate, but that google translated a journalist's summary, which is quite often faulty.

You guys must realise that the PED concept is based on the false belief in a nutshell that drugs give you more energy. However you word it, that's what you believe. Even though this is an impossibility, you still believe it. But you never rationalize it that way.

dopeology wrote:

You guys must realise that the PED concept is based on the false belief in a nutshell that drugs give you more energy.

The PED concept is not based on belief, but on science and on experimental data, such as in this study, which used a "randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled crossover design".

But keep making fun of Gary and Jon.

It's based on pseudoscience. Drugs can't give you more energy, but that is the PED belief.

Where do you think this supposed extra energy is coming from? Does it just appear by magic.

So the 4.7% is mean power output in a 650kcal cycling time trial. An even higher dose shows similar mean power output in 30s all-out cycling (smaller increase of 0.78%).

Abstract

PURPOSE:

This study tested the hypothesis that autologous blood transfusion (ABT) of ~50% of the red blood cells (RBCs) from a standard 450 ml phlebotomy would increase mean power in a cycling time trial. Additionally, the study investigated whether further ABT of RBCs obtained from another 450 ml phlebotomy would increase repeated cycling sprint ability.

METHODS:

In a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled crossover design (3-month wash-out), nine highly trained male subjects donated two 450 ml blood bags each (BT-trial) or were sham phlebotomized (PLA-trial). Four weeks later, a 650 kcal time trial (n=7) was performed three days before and 2 h after receiving either ~50% (135 ml) of the RBCs or a sham transfusion. On the following day, transfusion of RBCs (235 ml) from the second donation or sham transfusion was completed. A 4×30 s all-out cycling sprint interspersed by 4 min of recovery was performed six days before and three days after the second ABT (n=9).

RESULTS:

The mean power was increased in time trials from before to after transfusion (P

2nd try

Abstract

PURPOSE:

This study tested the hypothesis that autologous blood transfusion (ABT) of ~50% of the red blood cells (RBCs) from a standard 450 ml phlebotomy would increase mean power in a cycling time trial. Additionally, the study investigated whether further ABT of RBCs obtained from another 450 ml phlebotomy would increase repeated cycling sprint ability.

METHODS:

In a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled crossover design (3-month wash-out), nine highly trained male subjects donated two 450 ml blood bags each (BT-trial) or were sham phlebotomized (PLA-trial). Four weeks later, a 650 kcal time trial (n=7) was performed three days before and 2 h after receiving either ~50% (135 ml) of the RBCs or a sham transfusion. On the following day, transfusion of RBCs (235 ml) from the second donation or sham transfusion was completed. A 4×30 s all-out cycling sprint interspersed by 4 min of recovery was performed six days before and three days after the second ABT (n=9).

RESULTS:

The mean power was increased in time trials from before to after transfusion (P lt 0.05) in BT (213±35 vs. 223±38 W; mean±SD) but not in PLA (223±42 vs. 224±46 W). In contrast, the mean power output across the four 30 s sprint bouts remained similar in BT (639±35 vs. 644±26 W) and PLA (638±43 vs. 639±25 W).

CONCLUSION:

ABT of only ~135 ml of RBCs is sufficient to increase mean power in a 650 kcal cycling time trial by ~5% in highly trained men. In contrast, a combined high-volume transfusion of ~135 and ~235 ml of RBCs does not alter 4×30 s all-out cycling performance interspersed with 4 min of recovery.

So where is this 4.7% extra energy, which is (if you believe the conclusion) coming from?

Is it more calories metabolized (which is the PED belief) or just a normal variable in efficiency, which is observable every time I ride my bike or run?

Bear in mind that a calorie is a unit of heat production.

Hey Look,

It's Rekrunner's alter ego Jon O. chiming in. All that's missing are Ghost and renato joining the party.

Just use the magic words Jon--"homeostasis" "thermoregulation" "springy ankles"

dopeology wrote:

It's based on pseudoscience. Drugs can't give you more energy, but that is the PED belief.

Where do you think this supposed extra energy is coming from? Does it just appear by magic.

lolz is this you jonnyO? and got to love rek mocking me and trying his hardest to play damage control...dude rek, i said it was GARY who called me out, GARY who doesnt believe EPO and PEDs work....are you now sticking up for him like you do for paula? lolz lolz lolz

im curious how much the brojos pay rek to troll, i mean if its decent i might have to consider trying it and quite my soul sucking job and just troll hard all day

m!indweak, address the issue here. The PED concept is based on the belief that drugs give you more energy. Where do you propose this extra energy is coming from. Bear in mind that a calorie is a unit of heat production.

You see, the exercise physiologist who propose this scenario haven't addressed this issue. Why should they, when there is so much money to be made peddling the PED concept?

So all of this supposed morality about drug cheats is all based on a fantasy of magically appearing energy. Is it supplied by Santa Claus or the Tooth Fairy?

Just trying to point out that the whole concept is ridiculous pseudoscience so far beyone the realms of rationality, to the point where almost everyone believes in magic, where the laws of physics don't apply.

And if you don't believe in this fantasy, you are a figure of ridicule. Something not right there.

m!ndweak wrote:

lolz is this you jonnyO? and got to love rek mocking me and trying his hardest to play damage control...dude rek, i said it was GARY who called me out, GARY who doesnt believe EPO and PEDs work....are you now sticking up for him like you do for paula? lolz lolz lolz

The idiots here keep calling rekrunner Gary Lough, who is Paula Radcliffe's husband. It's supposed to be an in joke.

Take a look at this Jon: Not a PED per se, but a performancing enhancing method:

Sorry for my misunderstanding -- you were responding to someone who was talking about me. Nevertheless, I did not "stick up" for anyone named GARY -- my fun facts were me speaking for myself on my behalf: - *I* don't have a problem with 4% ... - *I* never asked you ... Again, apologies if my response was as disconnected to your post, as your response was disconnected to "argument clinic"'s post, leaving you equally confused. My fun facts remain true, regardless of your stated issues with GARY.

m!ndweak wrote:

... and got to love rek mocking me and trying his hardest to play damage control...dude rek, i said it was GARY who called me out, GARY who doesnt believe EPO and PEDs work....are you now sticking up for him ...