New study by Pitsiladis et al: EPO does work on Kenyans living at altitude!

This study passes an ethical review?!

Most people would consider 2000m to be training at altitude, or at least would consider it marginal. Would be a more insteresting study if they did it at 3000 meters.

---

Drainthefecesswamp wrote:

This study passes an ethical review?!

---

Wasn't this study originally done by Durussel et al and published in another paper and now it's being published in Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise?

---

MrGambinus wrote:

About a 30 second improvement in a 3000m time trial after 4 weeks of EPO does not seem bad! Although a time of 8:57 is still not considered elite, you have to take into account that you cant do this study with world class athletes because it involves the injection of a banned substance!

Abstract
INTRODUCTION:
Recombinant human erythropoietin (rHuEpo) administration enhances oxygen carrying capacity and performance at sea level. It remains unknown whether similar effects would be observed in chronic altitude-adapted endurance runners. The aim of this study was to assess the effects of rHuEpo on hematological and performance parameters in chronic altitude-adapted endurance runners as compared to sea level athletes.

METHODS:
Twenty well-trained Kenyan endurance runners (KEN) living and training at approximately 2150 m received rHuEpo injections of 50 IU·kg body mass every 2 d for 4 wk and responses compared with another cohort (SCO) that underwent an identical protocol at sea level. Blood samples were obtained at baseline, during rHuEpo administration and 4 wk after the final injection. A maximal oxygen uptake (V˙O2max) test and 3000-m time trial was performed before, immediately after and 4 wk after the final rHuEpo injection.

RESULTS:
Hematocrit (HCT) and hemoglobin concentration (HGB) were higher in KEN compared to SCO before rHuEpo but similar at the end of administration. Before rHuEpo administration, KEN had higher V˙O2max and faster time trial performance compared to SCO. After rHuEpo administration, there was a similar increase in V˙O2max and time trial performance in both cohorts; most effects of rHuEpo were maintained 4 wk after the final rHuEpo injection in both cohorts.

CONCLUSIONS:
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 wk after rHuEpo (~3%).

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30188362?fbclid=IwAR0QJ37D1hN3F9mz-i-WmB0X1AktzxRn-dIVRszjn6P-8ijpQiT74zrGP6A

---

---

YMMV wrote:

---

MrGambinus wrote:

About a 30 second improvement in a 3000m time trial after 4 weeks of EPO does not seem bad! Although a time of 8:57 is still not considered elite, you have to take into account that you cant do this study with world class athletes because it involves the injection of a banned substance!

Abstract
INTRODUCTION:
Recombinant human erythropoietin (rHuEpo) administration enhances oxygen carrying capacity and performance at sea level. It remains unknown whether similar effects would be observed in chronic altitude-adapted endurance runners. The aim of this study was to assess the effects of rHuEpo on hematological and performance parameters in chronic altitude-adapted endurance runners as compared to sea level athletes.

METHODS:
Twenty well-trained Kenyan endurance runners (KEN) living and training at approximately 2150 m received rHuEpo injections of 50 IU·kg body mass every 2 d for 4 wk and responses compared with another cohort (SCO) that underwent an identical protocol at sea level. Blood samples were obtained at baseline, during rHuEpo administration and 4 wk after the final injection. A maximal oxygen uptake (V˙O2max) test and 3000-m time trial was performed before, immediately after and 4 wk after the final rHuEpo injection.

RESULTS:
Hematocrit (HCT) and hemoglobin concentration (HGB) were higher in KEN compared to SCO before rHuEpo but similar at the end of administration. Before rHuEpo administration, KEN had higher V˙O2max and faster time trial performance compared to SCO. After rHuEpo administration, there was a similar increase in V˙O2max and time trial performance in both cohorts; most effects of rHuEpo were maintained 4 wk after the final rHuEpo injection in both cohorts.

CONCLUSIONS:
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 wk after rHuEpo (~3%).

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30188362?fbclid=IwAR0QJ37D1hN3F9mz-i-WmB0X1AktzxRn-dIVRszjn6P-8ijpQiT74zrGP6A

---

2150m is 7000', somewhat lower than Iten.

Where did you get the 8:57 data point? Any access to the data on the time trials?

5% improvement afterwards and 3% four weeks later, so in between is....4% Throw on a pair of VF's and you are talking real money!

---

---

Doped to the Max wrote:

Wasn't this study originally done by Durussel et al and published in another paper and now it's being published in Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise?

---

---

MrGambinus wrote:

---

Doped to the Max wrote:

Wasn't this study originally done by Durussel et al and published in another paper and now it's being published in Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise?

---

Could be true! I just received the link to it and did not check for any previous publications. So this has to be the study where Canovas response was '9minute 3000m is not fast for a Kenyan, so this is irrelevant for elite athletes because these Kenyans are not training'.

My reply to this argument would be: Despite the performance differences in KEN vs. SCO runners (8:57 vs. 10:21 after 4 wk EPO) the relative performance benefit of EPO is interestingly the same.
Plus: the study clearly states that it used well-trained subjects.

---

This new study seems to come around every couple years, with all the same posters coming to say the same thing. In the last discussion, the new thing that came out was that the RPE of the Kenyans was pretty low -- that means the Kenyans weren't taking the time trials seriously.

This study is null and void. World class statistician Rekrunner has already conclusively proved that EPO does not work by his detailed analysis of Spanish and Moraccan elite runners in the 1990s who did not run significantly faster prior to the EPO era (statistically fullproofed by Rekrunner). World class coach Canova has also proved that EPO does not work in elite Kenyans by testing their blood and demonstrating that when hematocrit goes down, performance goes up so EPO cannot work as it actually causes the blood vessels to jam up with red blood cells thereby slowing oygen delivery to the muscles.

Studies such as this one are not necessary as they do not prove anything.

---

null and void wrote:

This study is null and void. World class statistician Rekrunner has already conclusively proved that EPO does not work by his detailed analysis of Spanish and Moraccan elite runners in the 1990s who did not run significantly faster prior to the EPO era (statistically fullproofed by Rekrunner). World class coach Canova has also proved that EPO does not work in elite Kenyans by testing their blood and demonstrating that when hematocrit goes down, performance goes up so EPO cannot work as it actually causes the blood vessels to jam up with red blood cells thereby slowing oygen delivery to the muscles.

Studies such as this one are not necessary as they do not prove anything.

---

Canova has prove no Kenyan has taken aspirin even!

Every few months the same study is proposed as "New Study".
This is an old study, that can't demonstrate anything, if referred to the best athletes in the world.

1) The subjects were well far from being "elite"

2) The subjects didn't try to run at their max possibility, nor in the test before EPO administration, nor after the administration

3) "Well trained" doesn't mean anything, comparing their training with the training of the top Kenyan athletes. No one of the authors has some knowledge about the real training.

4) Nobody denied that, with "average people", and also "average athletes", EPO can produce improvement. The real goal is to see if EPO can improve the performances of top athletes, already with proper training in altitude (that is the reason of their performances, of course together with the personal talent).

So, at the end of the study we had the confirmation that EPO can help everybody (included Kenyan and Ethiopian SLOW athletes), who trains at volume and intensity FAR from what they need for the maximal evolution of their performance.

I repeat again : if ALL THE ATHLETE subjects of the study, during the same period of one month, instead taking EPO in the described way, had a methodological increase in their training, the improvement of their performances was BY FAR better than what they achieved taking EPO.

Can EPO increase the performances of the best athletes, when already they are in the maximal training ?

There is no research about this question. We know there are athletes of top level that took EPO (Rita Jeptoo, Jemima Sumgong, Mathew Kisorio, Wilson Erupe, maybe Asbel Kiprop also if his case is very strange), but we don't know when they started to dope, and the idea they started from the beginning of their career is pure speculation, without any basic proof. My opinion (I was the coach of Rita till 2007 and I well know the incredible level of training she was able to do already that period, when was of sure completely clean) is that they started to dope not for running faster, but for having a "shortcut" in order to recover in short time the level of Aerobic Power, lost for deifferent reasons (in the case of Rita, 3 months without training after a car accident).

Two of these athletes came back after their period of ban, were controlled with continuity (so we have to suppose they were clean in their career after the ban), and improved their PB, compared with the period of supposed doping :

Wilson Erupe ran (before the ban) in 2:05:37 in 2012, and after the ban in 2:05:13 in 2016, in the same marathon

Mathew Kisorio ran (before the ban) in 2:10:58 in 2011, and after the ban had his best marathons : 2:06:33 in 2015, 2:07:32 in 2017, 2:06:36 and 2:04:53 in 2018, with a big improvement.

Looking at these two cases, it seems difficult to suppose that EPO can give real advantages, especially in the long distances.

I repeat again : I'm for banning, for long time, all the athletes taking EPO (and generally doped), but this has nothing to do with the REAL improvement in their performances.

They MUST be banned, because their will is to cheat and to take advantage compared with clean competitors, and we have to put at the top of our goals the ethic values, that are at the base of a social education. But, also, they MUST be banned because are IDIOTS risking their career for NOT HAVING ANY ADVANTAGE, and we have to clean athletics from all the idiots who look for cheating and think to have big illegal helps taking doping.

The most part of the doped athletes have the brain of a hen : if you see at the ridiculous attempts to justify the EPO found in her urine, made by Jemima Sumgong, you understand that the level of education is very low, and again who want to be too smart at the end acts like an idiot.

In all this, could really be interesting a research ON THE EFFECTS OF TRAINING (the real training, not the generic training of "well trained athletes", which is absolutely ridiculous as volume and intensity).

All the physiologists who speak about the effects of blood manipulation in long distance runners don't have any clue about the REAL training of the top athletes, and at the end, in my opinion, with their "estimes" of the advantages, become the best testimonial for doping.

The fact is that in all the activity where the muscle strength is the main quality, from 1988 there was not improvement, so it's clear that the fight against steroids had a good percentage of success.

Instead, in all the activity of endurance, we continue to see improvement in both men and women, in spite of Biological Passport , better systems of analysis, and the increased number of tests.

Possible that the 99% of African runners are so smart to bypass all the tests, if really doped ?

In top 100 sprinters all time, 42 were sanctioned for doping (some of them for 3 months only, in any case indicators of a mentality looking at every kind of support for improving their performances).

In top 100 marathon runners all time, only Goumri (n. 67 in the world with 2:05:30) was banned, for the Biological Passport, and in the top 100 half-marathon runners (inside 59'35") only Mathew Kisorio was banned.

These are facts, the other are SPECULATIONS and SUPPOSITIONS. And we have to look at facts, not at what we suppose could happen, without any evidence.

---

Renato Canova wrote:

Every few months the same study is proposed as "New Study".
This is an old study, that can't demonstrate anything, if referred to the best athletes in the world.

1) The subjects were well far from being "elite"

2) The subjects didn't try to run at their max possibility, nor in the test before EPO administration, nor after the administration

3) "Well trained" doesn't mean anything, comparing their training with the training of the top Kenyan athletes. No one of the authors has some knowledge about the real training.

4) Nobody denied that, with "average people", and also "average athletes", EPO can produce improvement. The real goal is to see if EPO can improve the performances of top athletes, already with proper training in altitude (that is the reason of their performances, of course together with the personal talent).

So, at the end of the study we had the confirmation that EPO can help everybody (included Kenyan and Ethiopian SLOW athletes), who trains at volume and intensity FAR from what they need for the maximal evolution of their performance.

I repeat again : if ALL THE ATHLETE subjects of the study, during the same period of one month, instead taking EPO in the described way, had a methodological increase in their training, the improvement of their performances was BY FAR better than what they achieved taking EPO.

Can EPO increase the performances of the best athletes, when already they are in the maximal training ?

There is no research about this question. We know there are athletes of top level that took EPO (Rita Jeptoo, Jemima Sumgong, Mathew Kisorio, Wilson Erupe, maybe Asbel Kiprop also if his case is very strange), but we don't know when they started to dope, and the idea they started from the beginning of their career is pure speculation, without any basic proof. My opinion (I was the coach of Rita till 2007 and I well know the incredible level of training she was able to do already that period, when was of sure completely clean) is that they started to dope not for running faster, but for having a "shortcut" in order to recover in short time the level of Aerobic Power, lost for deifferent reasons (in the case of Rita, 3 months without training after a car accident).

Two of these athletes came back after their period of ban, were controlled with continuity (so we have to suppose they were clean in their career after the ban), and improved their PB, compared with the period of supposed doping :

Wilson Erupe ran (before the ban) in 2:05:37 in 2012, and after the ban in 2:05:13 in 2016, in the same marathon

Mathew Kisorio ran (before the ban) in 2:10:58 in 2011, and after the ban had his best marathons : 2:06:33 in 2015, 2:07:32 in 2017, 2:06:36 and 2:04:53 in 2018, with a big improvement.

Looking at these two cases, it seems difficult to suppose that EPO can give real advantages, especially in the long distances.

I repeat again : I'm for banning, for long time, all the athletes taking EPO (and generally doped), but this has nothing to do with the REAL improvement in their performances.

They MUST be banned, because their will is to cheat and to take advantage compared with clean competitors, and we have to put at the top of our goals the ethic values, that are at the base of a social education. But, also, they MUST be banned because are IDIOTS risking their career for NOT HAVING ANY ADVANTAGE, and we have to clean athletics from all the idiots who look for cheating and think to have big illegal helps taking doping.

The most part of the doped athletes have the brain of a hen : if you see at the ridiculous attempts to justify the EPO found in her urine, made by Jemima Sumgong, you understand that the level of education is very low, and again who want to be too smart at the end acts like an idiot.

In all this, could really be interesting a research ON THE EFFECTS OF TRAINING (the real training, not the generic training of "well trained athletes", which is absolutely ridiculous as volume and intensity).

All the physiologists who speak about the effects of blood manipulation in long distance runners don't have any clue about the REAL training of the top athletes, and at the end, in my opinion, with their "estimes" of the advantages, become the best testimonial for doping.

The fact is that in all the activity where the muscle strength is the main quality, from 1988 there was not improvement, so it's clear that the fight against steroids had a good percentage of success.

Instead, in all the activity of endurance, we continue to see improvement in both men and women, in spite of Biological Passport , better systems of analysis, and the increased number of tests.

Possible that the 99% of African runners are so smart to bypass all the tests, if really doped ?

In top 100 sprinters all time, 42 were sanctioned for doping (some of them for 3 months only, in any case indicators of a mentality looking at every kind of support for improving their performances).

In top 100 marathon runners all time, only Goumri (n. 67 in the world with 2:05:30) was banned, for the Biological Passport, and in the top 100 half-marathon runners (inside 59'35") only Mathew Kisorio was banned.

These are facts, the other are SPECULATIONS and SUPPOSITIONS. And we have to look at facts, not at what we suppose could happen, without any evidence.

---

Kiprop and most top Kenyans and Ethiopians since 1987 have already shown that EPO works on Kenyans (and other E. Africans) living at altitude.

Of course EPO works on anyone. The response levels will vary when it comes to competition, but for someone to imply it doesn't work on E. Africans is the height of dishonesty. And that's Canova to a tee.

---

Renato Canova wrote:

Every few months the same study is proposed as "New Study".
This is an old study, that can't demonstrate anything, if referred to the best athletes in the world.

1) The subjects were well far from being "elite"

2) The subjects didn't try to run at their max possibility, nor in the test before EPO administration, nor after the administration

3) "Well trained" doesn't mean anything, comparing their training with the training of the top Kenyan athletes. No one of the authors has some knowledge about the real training.

4) Nobody denied that, with "average people", and also "average athletes", EPO can produce improvement. The real goal is to see if EPO can improve the performances of top athletes, already with proper training in altitude (that is the reason of their performances, of course together with the personal talent).

So, at the end of the study we had the confirmation that EPO can help everybody (included Kenyan and Ethiopian SLOW athletes), who trains at volume and intensity FAR from what they need for the maximal evolution of their performance.

I repeat again : if ALL THE ATHLETE subjects of the study, during the same period of one month, instead taking EPO in the described way, had a methodological increase in their training, the improvement of their performances was BY FAR better than what they achieved taking EPO.

Can EPO increase the performances of the best athletes, when already they are in the maximal training ?

There is no research about this question. We know there are athletes of top level that took EPO (Rita Jeptoo, Jemima Sumgong, Mathew Kisorio, Wilson Erupe, maybe Asbel Kiprop also if his case is very strange), but we don't know when they started to dope, and the idea they started from the beginning of their career is pure speculation, without any basic proof. My opinion (I was the coach of Rita till 2007 and I well know the incredible level of training she was able to do already that period, when was of sure completely clean) is that they started to dope not for running faster, but for having a "shortcut" in order to recover in short time the level of Aerobic Power, lost for deifferent reasons (in the case of Rita, 3 months without training after a car accident).

Two of these athletes came back after their period of ban, were controlled with continuity (so we have to suppose they were clean in their career after the ban), and improved their PB, compared with the period of supposed doping :

Wilson Erupe ran (before the ban) in 2:05:37 in 2012, and after the ban in 2:05:13 in 2016, in the same marathon

Mathew Kisorio ran (before the ban) in 2:10:58 in 2011, and after the ban had his best marathons : 2:06:33 in 2015, 2:07:32 in 2017, 2:06:36 and 2:04:53 in 2018, with a big improvement.

Looking at these two cases, it seems difficult to suppose that EPO can give real advantages, especially in the long distances.

---

Yes thats what I think too. Of course Renato Canova said nothing but the truth when he speaks about training.
But compared times of athletes before and after the ban dont prove nothing at all. We know many cases of people that
have been caught several times for doping. There were some in cycling that returned after a ban and their performance were slower by a great factor with value of HTC in the third week of a Giro d' Italia of about 36% . Considering that the same guy just 2 years before had HTC of 49%(with epo) and was competing for the final victory. But without doping he made a great
stage win but no way was competitive for the pink jersey. The most important case in cycling was the one of Ivan Basso
after compete with Lance Armstrong in the tour de france, in 2006 he won Giro d' Italia with an amazing condition, he just was flying. Then after the Operation Puerto although he never been tested positive, he made confession of some doping
like autoemotrasfusione , blood autotrasfusion. Anyway he was banned for two years. He came back in2009 and in 2010
won again Giro d' Italia. He was not superhuman (performance wise) like before the ban but he made a great win
with a great climbing of Monte Zoncolan one of the hardest climbing in the world. Now these are facts. Was he totally clean
after the ban? I dont know.
The most important thing is that been tested negative doesnt mean anything at all.
They use to take Epo in the two months before a great event (like two injection a week) and after a week(or even less) from the last injections is not possible to find it again with test. But the effects of Epo you will have for several weeks.
Then microdose and other stuff help to hide everything from test.

Not quite, it's the same paper, which we discussed last September as
Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise, Publish Ahead of Print
doi: 10.1249/MSS.0000000000001777
Accepted for Publication: 30 July 2018

Now it got page numbers etc., and appeared in the February 2019 issue:
Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2019 Feb;51(2):299-307
doi: 10.1249/MSS.0000000000001777

Link to the old letsrun discussion:
http://www.letsrun.com/forum/flat_read.php?thread=8998921

---

Renato Canova wrote:

Every few months the same study is proposed as "New Study".
This is an old study, that can't demonstrate anything, if referred to the best athletes in the world.

1) The subjects were well far from being "elite"

2) The subjects didn't try to run at their max possibility, nor in the test before EPO administration, nor after the administration

3) "Well trained" doesn't mean anything, comparing their training with the training of the top Kenyan athletes. No one of the authors has some knowledge about the real training.

4) Nobody denied that, with "average people", and also "average athletes", EPO can produce improvement. The real goal is to see if EPO can improve the performances of top athletes, already with proper training in altitude (that is the reason of their performances, of course together with the personal talent).

So, at the end of the study we had the confirmation that EPO can help everybody (included Kenyan and Ethiopian SLOW athletes), who trains at volume and intensity FAR from what they need for the maximal evolution of their performance.

I repeat again : if ALL THE ATHLETE subjects of the study, during the same period of one month, instead taking EPO in the described way, had a methodological increase in their training, the improvement of their performances was BY FAR better than what they achieved taking EPO.

Can EPO increase the performances of the best athletes, when already they are in the maximal training ?

There is no research about this question. We know there are athletes of top level that took EPO (Rita Jeptoo, Jemima Sumgong, Mathew Kisorio, Wilson Erupe, maybe Asbel Kiprop also if his case is very strange), but we don't know when they started to dope, and the idea they started from the beginning of their career is pure speculation, without any basic proof. My opinion (I was the coach of Rita till 2007 and I well know the incredible level of training she was able to do already that period, when was of sure completely clean) is that they started to dope not for running faster, but for having a "shortcut" in order to recover in short time the level of Aerobic Power, lost for deifferent reasons (in the case of Rita, 3 months without training after a car accident).

Two of these athletes came back after their period of ban, were controlled with continuity (so we have to suppose they were clean in their career after the ban), and improved their PB, compared with the period of supposed doping :

Wilson Erupe ran (before the ban) in 2:05:37 in 2012, and after the ban in 2:05:13 in 2016, in the same marathon

Mathew Kisorio ran (before the ban) in 2:10:58 in 2011, and after the ban had his best marathons : 2:06:33 in 2015, 2:07:32 in 2017, 2:06:36 and 2:04:53 in 2018, with a big improvement.

Looking at these two cases, it seems difficult to suppose that EPO can give real advantages, especially in the long distances.

I repeat again : I'm for banning, for long time, all the athletes taking EPO (and generally doped), but this has nothing to do with the REAL improvement in their performances.

They MUST be banned, because their will is to cheat and to take advantage compared with clean competitors, and we have to put at the top of our goals the ethic values, that are at the base of a social education. But, also, they MUST be banned because are IDIOTS risking their career for NOT HAVING ANY ADVANTAGE, and we have to clean athletics from all the idiots who look for cheating and think to have big illegal helps taking doping.

The most part of the doped athletes have the brain of a hen : if you see at the ridiculous attempts to justify the EPO found in her urine, made by Jemima Sumgong, you understand that the level of education is very low, and again who want to be too smart at the end acts like an idiot.

In all this, could really be interesting a research ON THE EFFECTS OF TRAINING (the real training, not the generic training of "well trained athletes", which is absolutely ridiculous as volume and intensity).

All the physiologists who speak about the effects of blood manipulation in long distance runners don't have any clue about the REAL training of the top athletes, and at the end, in my opinion, with their "estimes" of the advantages, become the best testimonial for doping.

The fact is that in all the activity where the muscle strength is the main quality, from 1988 there was not improvement, so it's clear that the fight against steroids had a good percentage of success.

Instead, in all the activity of endurance, we continue to see improvement in both men and women, in spite of Biological Passport , better systems of analysis, and the increased number of tests.

Possible that the 99% of African runners are so smart to bypass all the tests, if really doped ?

In top 100 sprinters all time, 42 were sanctioned for doping (some of them for 3 months only, in any case indicators of a mentality looking at every kind of support for improving their performances).

In top 100 marathon runners all time, only Goumri (n. 67 in the world with 2:05:30) was banned, for the Biological Passport, and in the top 100 half-marathon runners (inside 59'35") only Mathew Kisorio was banned.

These are facts, the other are SPECULATIONS and SUPPOSITIONS. And we have to look at facts, not at what we suppose could happen, without any evidence.

---

I think canova guy is right .. EPO cannot work on elite because they already take EPO lol . It has to be this way