New study on EPO research

Richmond Racer

This seems to be putting the cat amongst the pigeons today


http://www.sciencecodex.com/epo_doping_ ... arm-103354

ddraver

Athletes and their medical staff may believe EPO enhances performance, but there is no evidence that anyone performed good experiments to check if EPO would actually improve performance in elite cyclists,"

So no one has done a scientific study to quantify the effect of EPO on performance, not that EPO does nt result in any performance increase!

My Skepticsense is tingling...

Richmond Racer

Agree - much also coming from the likes of the Science of Sport guys understandably

From what little I've read, the beef (sorry, really no Bertie-linked pun intended) in this review is that studies have been performed on normal peeps, not elite cyclists (who no doubt would have been queuing up to participate in such studies :shock: )

Its all been a mahoosive placebo, dont you know

Trev The Rev

Richmond Racer wrote:

This seems to be putting the cat amongst the pigeons today


http://www.sciencecodex.com/epo_doping_ ... arm-103354

I would have thought most users would have power meter data which proves the EPO they took improved their performance.

Richmond Racer

Trev The Rev wrote:

Richmond Racer wrote:

This seems to be putting the cat amongst the pigeons today


http://www.sciencecodex.com/epo_doping_ ... arm-103354

I would have thought most users would have power meter data which proves the EPO they took improved their performance.

Power meter readings arent going to prove link to EPO in any scientific way

ddraver

Oh God! Where did he come from!!!

Richmond Racer

ddraver wrote:

Oh God! Where did he come from!!!

hang on....banned, right?

ddraver

Don't think he was ever banned

I'm just waiting for a glut of posts proving that EPO is useless because Dr Andrew Coggan showed so in an study on the breeding patterns of swallows now...

Trev The Rev

Richmond Racer wrote:

Trev The Rev wrote:

Richmond Racer wrote:

This seems to be putting the cat amongst the pigeons today


http://www.sciencecodex.com/epo_doping_ ... arm-103354

I would have thought most users would have power meter data which proves the EPO they took improved their performance.

Power meter readings arent going to prove link to EPO in any scientific way

I bet there have been scientific studies but they weren't done by people who would publish them.

above_the_cows

Ah yes the old correlation is not causation chestnut that I'm normally at pains to point out when rubbishing other people's work.

This could be a good way of explaining it from a pedagogical perspective,which I have to do often...

"OK students so even though we know that Lance Armstrong (you all know who he is right?) and others went considerably faster up hill after taking lots of EPO (no I cannot explain the biology of it to you, this is a political science methodology class)? Correct? However, we cannot prove he went faster up hill because of the EPO because no tests have ever been carried out on the physical effects of EPO on elite level cyclists with only one testicle, yes I said testicle what of it? So you see we cannot prove a causal link. Capiche?"

chrisaonabike

My Skepticsense is tingling...

Mine too.

Absence of evidence isn't the same as evidence of absence.

Trev The Rev

http://www.jappl.org/content/105/2/581.short

In summary, in healthy humans, rHuEpo increases maximal oxygen consumption due to augmented systemic and muscular peak oxygen delivery.

But the test was not done on elite athletes.

Mad_Malx

As DDR highlights, the main conclusion is that there is no evidence for benefit in elite cyclists.

Quote from the source article (which I can get but think might be restricted for most of you guys?): "A single well controlled trial in athletes under real life circumstances would give a better indication of the real advantages and risk factors of rHuEPO use" - i.e. why not give us some money to do this? Given that it is fairly unlikely to be moved off the banned list and there is evidence for the biological risks, exactly which elite cyclist do they expect to volunteer for this trial?

The article does have some interesting discussion about the potential benefits, and largely dismisses VO2 max as a predictor for performance. Also:
"In the reviewed rHuEPO studies, economy (C), was only measured by one group[105] and did not change
after rHuEPO treatment. This would be expected from the non-haematological, bio-mechanical factors
that determine C as discussed previously. There is, however, some evidence that prolonged exposure to rHuEPO in healthy subjects may induce changes in the human skeletal muscle with an increase in the
relative amount of the slow myosin light chain (MLC) (Type I fibres) and decreased fast MLC (Type II)
fibres, possibly leading to improved C.[134]More evidence is needed to draw conclusions about effects
of rHuEPO on C. Especially when Lance Armstrong, accused of having the biggest doping (e.g. rHuEPO)
network in the history of sports, was reported to have a high muscular efficiency partly contributing to
his world-class performance."

Source: Erythropoietin doping in cycling: Lack of evidence for efficacy and a negative risk–benefit
J A A C Heuberger, J M Cohen Tervaert, F M L Schepers, A D B Vliegenthart, J I Rotmans, J M A Daniels, J Burggraaf and A F Cohen Accepted manuscript online: 6 DEC 2012 01:21AM EST | DOI: 10.1111/bcp.12034

Edit: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1 ... 34/citedby

rick_chasey

Richmond Racer wrote:

From what little I've read, the beef (sorry, really no Bertie-linked pun intended) in this review

Get out.

Trev The Rev

http://www.sportsscientists.com/2007/11 ... e-who.html

Richmond Racer

Rick Chasey wrote:

Richmond Racer wrote:

From what little I've read, the beef (sorry, really no Bertie-linked pun intended) in this review

Get out.

Sorry.

edhornby

"Especially when Lance Armstrong, accused of having the biggest doping (e.g. rHuEPO)
network in the history of sports, was reported to have a high muscular efficiency partly contributing to
his world-class performance"

this last point sounds like a dodgy rehash of the explanation from 'it's not about the bike' where they state that Lance has a high lactic tolerance - if they are quoting from his BS autobiog then the whole study can go in the bin

ddraver

edhornby wrote:

"Especially when Lance Armstrong, accused of having the biggest doping (e.g. rHuEPO)
network in the history of sports, was reported to have a high muscular efficiency partly contributing to
his world-class performance"

this last point sounds like a dodgy rehash of the explanation from 'it's not about the bike' where they state that Lance has a high lactic tolerance - if they are quoting from his BS autobiog then the whole study can go in the bin

Nah, it sounds more like HEY LOOK HOW RELEVANT OUR RESEARCH IS TO TODAY, GIVE US MORE MONEY PLEASE, LOTS AND LOTS MORE MONEY!!!

The equivalent in geology is shoehorning in something about climate change

above_the_cows

ddraver wrote:

The equivalent in geology is shoehorning in something about climate change

In international relations its the War on Terror or the Arab Spring, you double your money for both. Triple it if you can also include the Euro-crisis. Quadruple it with the mention of drones.

Mad_Malx

Trev The Rev wrote:

Linkies

But the difference between your Reverence's links and the article by Heuberger is that the latter, for all its limitations, is a review - i.e. it attempts to put together the evidence by looking at lots of studies, rather than picking one or two small studies, most of which come from the same lab.

The second link doesn't cite its source article (in the European Journal of Applied Physiology), do you have this?

Trev The Rev

Mad_Malx wrote:

Trev The Rev wrote:

Linkies

But the difference between your Reverence's links and the article by Heuberger is that the latter, for all its limitations, is a review - i.e. it attempts to put together the evidence by looking at lots of studies, rather than picking one or two small studies, most of which come from the same lab.

The second link doesn't cite its source article (in the European Journal of Applied Physiology), do you have this?

Sorry, that is the only link I have.

Mad_Malx

^^Spent more time not working - if you care, I think its this:

http://www.springerlink.com/index/A7767VRR736073K3.pdf

Eur J Appl Physiol (2007) 101:481–486
DOI 10.1007/s00421-007-0522-8
123
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Prolonged administration of recombinant human erythropoietin
increases submaximal performance more than maximal aerobic
capacity
J. J. Thomsen · R. L. Rentsch · P. Robach ·
J. A. L. Calbet · R. Boushel · P. Rasmussen ·
C. Juel · C. Lundby

above_the_cows

If people want a PDF and can't access the link Mad_Malx has given - may only be able to access abstract without paying. PM me and I can email you a copy, if indeed that is the one, there are quite a few articles published on EPO in Eur J Appl Physiol in 2007. The benefits of having access to a university's electronic journals.

zammmmo

Richmond Racer wrote:

This seems to be putting the cat amongst the pigeons today


http://www.sciencecodex.com/epo_doping_ ... arm-103354

granted there may not have been many studies but surely there is no doubt as to its effects, admitedly variable? you only have to look at the various metrics suchas VAM, w/kg, peloton average speeds, plus riding styles on climbs, to see a difference.

Nick Fitt

Mad_Malx wrote:

"This would be expected from the non-haematological, bio-mechanical factors
that determine C as discussed previously. There is, however, some evidence that prolonged exposure to rHuEPO in healthy subjects may induce changes in the human skeletal muscle with an increase in the
relative amount of the slow myosin light chain (MLC) (Type I fibres) and decreased fast MLC (Type II)
fibres, possibly leading to improved C.[134]More evidence is needed to draw conclusions about effects
of rHuEPO on C. Especially when Lance Armstrong, accused of having the biggest doping (e.g. rHuEPO)
network in the history of sports, was reported to have a high muscular efficiency partly contributing to
his world-class performance."

So, is it or is it not better than Hi 5?

zammmmo

Trev The Rev wrote:

Richmond Racer wrote:

This seems to be putting the cat amongst the pigeons today


http://www.sciencecodex.com/epo_doping_ ... arm-103354

I would have thought most users would have power meter data which proves the EPO they took improved their performance.

Surely you dont *now* think power meters are of any use? Before you 'left' the timetrialforum you used to rubbish them.

ddraver

Above The Cows wrote:

If people want a PDF and can't access the link Mad_Malx has given - may only be able to access abstract without paying. PM me and I can email you a copy, if indeed that is the one, there are quite a few articles published on EPO in Eur J Appl Physiol in 2007. The benefits of having access to a university's electronic journals.

Kind offer, but I think it's a well enough written abstract to get the gist of it...No offence RR, but it's the sensationalist headline that is causing the problem!

I don't think anyone has to think too hard why there are nt many studies on the effect of EPO on elite cyclists...

Several hundred on tidal sedimentology you could get me though

tremayne

Are we getting hung up on semantics and trying to equate 'there is no research' with 'there is no effect'?

Come on people, we know as a fact, that epo increases the bloods ability to transport oxygen from the lungs to the muscles. We also know that this becomes one of the key limiting factors for endurance athletes.

I've seen mention above about 'power' - which really is missing the point about epo. It's about the ability to sustain that power when other athletes would have lost the ability through oxygen debt.

Case closed.

Unless this thread is a spoof?

ddraver

Did my read the thread didya?

rick_chasey

I'm sure Ferrari has enough data to be of use.