It seems like at some point you should feel some shame for these serial demonstrations of lack of knowledge and alzheimer like reading comprehension. It this thread alone, I have referred you to Daniels, Stray-Gunderson, Schumacher and Malm, all showing modest performance gains from increases in VO2max, whether from altitude or from blood doping. "Up to 1 minute" comes from Schumacher providing an expert statement summarizing blood doping research, and "up to 3%" comes from Malm giving a sweeping summary of the "literature". I generally don't comment on cycling, but I have also referred you to a recent meta-study (based on 17 studies dating back to 1991), which statistically interprets the reported relationship of EPO with aerobic power, also concluding that resulting performance effect and potential impact in real world settings, like team competitions in a grand tour, has been overstated. This study confirmed statistically, the conclusions of another study, based on physiological arguments, that scientific evidence of large effects was lacking. You have referred me to one line in a blog posting from a company trying to sell heartbeat watches. I hate repeating myself, but the strength and substance of all of these sources depends on the basis behind such statements. In order to come up with his tables of VO2 and performance, Daniels measured both VO2 and running performance of hundreds (if not more) of athletes. This seems like a pretty solid basis that has survived 4 decades since Daniels and Gilbert wrote "Oxygen Power" which gives us the formula for Daniels "Running Formula". In order to come up with VO2max estimates, "firstbeat" measures heartrate and heartrate variability. We don't know the basis of "work with recreational runners", nor what was measured, and how these measurements were controlled. I graciously tried to let you off the hook, by not asking further references. If there is something you would like me to consider, you need to provide it before you can say I rejected it.
Armstronglivs wrote:
Correction: there is only one choice of research that you are aware of. You have also rejected out of hand a reference to research that says otherwise to what you wish to believe.