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

about the this much roughly exactly wrote:

All that and it's still a rough estimation.

Let's stop pulling those estimates out please.

Henry Rono probably one of the last clean Kenyans. He ran:

3000 Metres 7:32.1h

5000 Metres 13:06.20

10,000 Metres 27:22.47

3000 Metres Steeplechase 8:05.4h

Just a 2% improvement from blood doping in performance would be:

7:23 3000m

12:50 5000m

26:49 10000m

7:55 3000m steeplechase

about the this much roughly exactly wrote:

All that and it's still a rough estimation.

Let's stop pulling those estimates out please.

It's not an exact science when analyzing calories burned from cycling. Way too variables involved - rough estimates are the best. Btw, who's the one that starting this stupid debate? Lets talk running and doping. And another top Kenyan was busted for doping! Wow! The Kenyan empire is imploding! ?

Sand Dunes wrote:

about the this much roughly exactly wrote:

All that and it's still a rough estimation.

Let's stop pulling those estimates out please.

Henry Rono probably one of the last clean Kenyans. He ran:

3000 Metres 7:32.1h

5000 Metres 13:06.20

10,000 Metres 27:22.47

3000 Metres Steeplechase 8:05.4h

Just a 2% improvement from blood doping in performance would be:

7:23 3000m

12:50 5000m

26:49 10000m

7:55 3000m steeplechase

And those would be some significant improvements at that level! Gary...where are you? Are you paying attention to this?

This Is Getting Ridiculous wrote:

about the this much roughly exactly wrote:

All that and it's still a rough estimation.

Let's stop pulling those estimates out please.

It's not an exact science when analyzing calories burned from cycling. Way too variables involved - rough estimates are the best. Btw, who's the one that starting this stupid debate? Lets talk running and doping. And another top Kenyan was busted for doping! Wow! The Kenyan empire is imploding! ?

I know of a certain person who has been strangely quiet lately, time he joined us to close down these threads.

Actually for purely scientific reasons, we should experiment on ourselves/me using 300ml and a 3k-5k race. My genetics are screwed but I'll soon notice if I'm quicker than a hobby jogger.

Subway Surfers wrote:

This Is Getting Ridiculous wrote:

It's not an exact science when analyzing calories burned from cycling. Way too variables involved - rough estimates are the best. Btw, who's the one that starting this stupid debate? Lets talk running and doping. And another top Kenyan was busted for doping! Wow! The Kenyan empire is imploding! ?

I know of a certain person who has been strangely quiet lately, time he joined us to close down these threads.

Actually for purely scientific reasons, we should experiment on ourselves/me using 300ml and a 3k-5k race. My genetics are screwed but I'll soon notice if I'm quicker than a hobby jogger.

Yes, the Brojos should fund a study using us letsrunners to see how much faster we can run on some Edgar Allan Poe.

Article Please? wrote:

about the this much roughly exactly wrote:

All that and it's still a rough estimation.

Let's stop pulling those estimates out please.

214 watts with a cda of .25, weight of 75kg, rolling resistance of .004 on flat ground and air density of 1.226 nets a speed of 10.61m/s. Increase that to 224 watts and speed goes up to 10.79m/s. So you get about a 1.7% increase in speed off of about 4.7% increase in power.

Try for yourself

https://analyticcycling.com/ForcesSpeed_Page.html

Let's make cycling more like running. When we are talking dope, look for improved results and placings. That's all that really matters.

Article Please? wrote:

It’s true that 1 kcal = 4.184 kJ. However, anyone that could put out 400w for an hour and thus produce 1440kj while only using 344 kcal in that hour would absolutely destroy everyone else in the tour.

Now you are comparing energy produced with energy used. I agree, for that of course you need to know your efficiency.

Earlier though, you only talked about kJ vs. kcal:

Article Please? wrote:

Kcal can not be measured precisely based upon Kjs due to the fact that not everyone’s efficiency is the same.

and

Article Please? wrote:

I question whether it was really 650kcal, as that is much more difficult to measure than 650kj.

If you meant to say:

"I question whether it was really 650kcal used, as that is much more difficult to measure than 650kj produced."

Then there is no argument, other than me wondering why you didn’t say so in the first place, and why you would switch from kcal to kJ. I prefer to use consistent units.

BTT, to answer your questions/assumptions regarding the tests:

Used was "an electronically braked cycle ergometer (Monark, Varberg, Sweden)."

Measured were time, heart rate, power, and "inspired and expired O2 and CO2 fractions measured breath-by-breath (Quark, Cosmed, Rome, Italy)", without the subjects seeing the numbers during the test.

This Is Getting Ridiculous wrote:

And another top Kenyan was busted for doping!

Yes - but testo, not blood doping, and there is an extra thread for that. Reading that now...

Another cyclist here. I can attest this guy sounds like a blowhard that doesn't have many miles logged in the saddle and would bet s/he hasn't used a power meter extensively.

Either way, what the previous cyclist, Article Please, is saying about power and speed tracking with one another looks valid.

Sand Dunes wrote:

dopeology wrote:

What was Federico Bahamontes' power output in 1959? Higher than Lance or lower?

cyclist from that era were on speed, possibly steroids and even blood transfusions. First studies looking at blood transfusions to boost human output goes back to the 1940s.

In 1945, Pace et al published their first paper The Effect of Transfusions of Red Blood Cells on the Hypoxia Tolerance of Normal Men which was followed by another in 1947, The Increase in Hypoxia Tolerance of Normal Men Accompanying the Polycythemia Induced by Transfusion. In both studies Pace and his team were able to demonstrate a significant increase in endurance post-transfusion.

http://www.cyclingnews.com/features/a-history-on-the-use-of-blood-transfusions-in-cycling/

Methamphetamine use was widespread. Bahamontes was flying that year. He absolutely destroyed them in just 12 km. Anquetil lost 3.40 and you can be sure Anquetil was doped on meth for that ride.

But it's naive to think that adrenaline from meth is superior to the natural high and that belief is not widespread now as it was then.

Someone calculated his power output at well over 6 watts per kilo on a bike weighing 10 kilos (more like 11?)

They weren't blood doping in the Tour then. Anyway, why was blood doping so innefective in the 70s and 80s? Why doesn no-one mention this?

Yes of course the energy comes from food. Actually, I showed 11 years ago here on letsrun that the anaerobic contribution to these type of efforts is significantly underestimated. Maybe this sways their calculations?

rekrunner wrote:

I'd agree, I haven't given much thought to where the extra energy comes from.

Where does any energy come from? I guess mostly sugar and fat, ignoring for the moment creatine phosphate, protein, and alcohol.

If these cyclists are sustaining a higher power level, I guess they are just burning a little hotter, because they didn't hit their thermal limit before because something else must have limited their sustained power production.

dopeology wrote:

rekrunner, where is the extra energy coming from? You're not thinking, just repeating idiotic dogma. Do you understand what calories are? A unit of measurement of HEAT PRODUCTION. The PED dogma IMPLIES that heat production and dissipation can be increased beyond natural levels, thus circumventing the laws of physics. But everyone stating the PED dogma is completely oblivious to the basic physiology of thermoregulation.

Please address the issue and stop avoiding it.

Yes from glycogen and glucose in this test. And yes to your second point also. A natural variation in power output that we see from one ride or run to the next. Our relative power is constantly up and down sometimes by significan percentages sometimes fatigue, sometimes the weather conditions, and sometimes different levels of motivation. So how to measure things like VO2 max effectively? Well one way is to observe the variation and not assume that a higher reading means better fitness. It's not realistic to belive that oxygen uptake is trainable in the traditional way, rather to undestand that we can sustain a high level for longer with better fitness, motivation and better conditions.

casual obsever wrote:

Extra energy, no. In each case in this study, everyone burned 650 kcal, i.e. always the same amount of energy.

So extra efficiency. Which is the point I have been making. And where does that effiency come from?

It's not from oxygen carrying capacity is it?

Are you following any of this, or are you still convinced that normal red blood cell counts are inferior in energy production to artificially raised levels?

When you finally get it, you will realise what the right thing to do for the sport is, namely change your political agenda, otherwise you're just promoting drugs and blood manipulation whilst kidding yourself that you hold the moral high ground.

dopeology wrote:

casual obsever wrote:

Extra energy, no. In each case in this study, everyone burned 650 kcal, i.e. always the same amount of energy.

So extra efficiency. Which is the point I have been making. And where does that effiency come from?

It's not from oxygen carrying capacity is it?

Are you following any of this, or are you still convinced that normal red blood cell counts are inferior in energy production to artificially raised levels?

When you finally get it, you will realise what the right thing to do for the sport is, namely change your political agenda, otherwise you're just promoting drugs and blood manipulation whilst kidding yourself that you hold the moral high ground.

What separates sub elites and the super top one-tenth of the top one percent of the elites?

Is it that crazy to believe with how prevalent doping was in cycling for decades prior to the 50s/60s. For some cyclist or team manager or something to hear about those studies from the 40s and just see what difference the blood transfusions had? On the difference between natural high vs a meth high. I've never done meth, but I've never seen a news story of a runner or cyclist on a natural high doing the kind of batshitcrazy that meth heads do while high. If meth doesn't work, why did the Germans and Japanese use it during the second World war? Why did the US Army even use it during some wars? Endurance sports is a large percentage of it is mental and drugs like meth makes the perception of the task at hand easier and makes one much more aggressive.

Sand Dunes wrote:

What separates sub elites and the super top one-tenth of the top one percent of the elites?

Well your point about Mo Farah improving from 2007 onwards alludes to this question.

Back in 2007 the only person who knew he had the mindset to do what he did whas the man himself. I had no doubts that in the right races he would go well under 13 and 27, but those double Olympic Golds? He was no better than the Ethiopians and Kenyans, but he was so focused that he was able to make them crack mentally.

At the top level the pressure to win or lose is ramped up so high that some thrive on the attention and some crack. This is also very true in cycling where there is no real difference in physical ability among the top 5 riders in any race.

The whole PED dogma revolves around the fantastically stupid belief that doping can make you produce more energy (heat production remember) than is natural, ignoring the fact that heat has to be dissipated. You won't find any serious exercise physiologist in the entire world arguing this point, but rather ignoring it when they affirm their doping beliefs. It really does come down to the fact that people don't have enough education in applying Biology, Chemistry and Physics to these issues, rather they apply tunnel vision based on their limited knowledge of how the human body works.

Doping aside, what separates a 13:00 5000m runner and a 15 minute 5000m runner?

Sand Dunes wrote:

Is it that crazy to believe with how prevalent doping was in cycling for decades prior to the 50s/60s. For some cyclist or team manager or something to hear about those studies from the 40s and just see what difference the blood transfusions had? On the difference between natural high vs a meth high. I've never done meth, but I've never seen a news story of a runner or cyclist on a natural high doing the kind of batshitcrazy that meth heads do while high. If meth doesn't work, why did the Germans and Japanese use it during the second World war? Why did the US Army even use it during some wars? Endurance sports is a large percentage of it is mental and drugs like meth makes the perception of the task at hand easier and makes one much more aggressive.

In 1959 it was methamphetamine, morphine, strichnine and alchohol. Steroide came in slightly later. I don't think Bahamontes was much of a doper, he's still going at 90 years old. Anquetil was a heavy doper and died of cancer aged just 53. Anquetil used meth so often that it would have less effect on him than a less regular user.

Bahamontes' power output that day was super duper high the same as the best performances from the EPO era, and this was after a long stage the day before. He was obviously 'in the zone', super confident and super efficient. The efficiency in cycling is know as Souplesse, which means suppleness, when you kick your legs right through the back part of the pedalling circle and apply more of your bodyweight on the downstroke. Eccentric muscle contractions are the root of biomechanical efficiency and this is my point about superior control of muscle stiffness, giving more elastic energy return which is free energy and has no metabolic cost.

Yes metheads do batshitcrazy stuff, but actually drunk people are even crazier aren't they? But that's ok because alchohol isn't a dangerous threat to society is it? Yes I'm being facetious.

What would a small dose of meth do for your performance if you did try it?

20% of the time you would feel an amazing high lasting many hours

20% you would feeel good

20% not much difference

20% feel bad

20% feel terrible

so overall, is the natural high better? Yes, but humans are greedy for whatever mental crutches they think will carry them through the day.

I'd imagine that like any other PED that if you take too much of it, it will be detrimental to performance. But, I could easily believe if a study was done on it, that just a little bit of amphetamines would boost performance. So, I'll ask one more time. What is the difference from a gold medalist 5000m runner and some 15 minute recreational runner? What is the physiological differences? What physiologically happens that prevents one from running faster? Also, just thought of it, but met probably could override the central governor theory which might explain Tom Simpson death, that the meth over rode his brain telling his to slow down.

Sand Dunes wrote:

Doping aside, what separates a 13:00 5000m runner and a 15 minute 5000m runner?

Efficiency. No-one run 15 minutes for 5000 without being in very good fitness, but the fitness of the top guys comes from super efficient motor skills. It doesn't come from a super develped metabolic 'engine' this is the popular myth.

Your 'engine' metabolically speaking is not going to develop, because it's already in place, but your motor skills require years of development. When people talk about increasing mitochondria, they are just talking pretentious nonsense. Optimal mitochondrial density is essential for every cell in the body to work efficiently. It's a bit like expecting a healthy pair of lungs to increase capacity, it doesn't happen. Btw my lung capacity is exactly the same at 56 as it was in my 20s.