Food for thought
On the current web page www.cyclingnews.com there is a letter from a Larry Nelson,
who says he's a molecular biologist. I quote in part. "......also interesting is the idea that in endurance athletes that doping can actually improve performance. First there is no
scientific basis to say if that is true or not,......".
I'm not even going to attempt to take on that one. That is the FIRST time I have heard that
sort of idea or statement put forth. True? False? What do you think?
Dennis Noward
who says he's a molecular biologist. I quote in part. "......also interesting is the idea that in endurance athletes that doping can actually improve performance. First there is no
scientific basis to say if that is true or not,......".
I'm not even going to attempt to take on that one. That is the FIRST time I have heard that
sort of idea or statement put forth. True? False? What do you think?
Dennis Noward
0
Comments
-
I'd love to comment, but I don't know Larry from, er, Larry. So I can't.Le Blaireau (1)0
-
DaveyL wrote:I'd love to comment, but I don't know Larry from, er, Larry. So I can't.
OK, I'll bite. Not Larry but the statement. I sure I deserved that anyway.
I must admit that the idea that drugs don't work has never crossed my mind. Of course they work. Everybody says so. Even me. Hmmmmmmmm...... Could it be? Is it possible?
I await further something or other.
Dennis Noward0 -
Ah what the heck. Dennis, I've just looked at the guy's letter.
"I am a molecular biologist and as such if I conduct an experiment and expect to see a result then my research is biased."
He's not a very good scientist. We usually start with a theory, draw a hypothesis from that, and test it by experiment, then interpret the results. Call me a bluff old traditionalist but that's the way it's worked for a while and it seems to do OK. However, testing out a hypothesis is actually the same as expecting to see a result. You might say "If my theory is correct, then I expect *this* to happen". It may or may not, but you are going in to the experiment with an expectation. Well, maybe Larry just isn't expressing himself very well - an ironic turn of phrase for a molecular biologist...
Maybe he's the Larry Nelson who won a couple of golf majors in the 80s.Le Blaireau (1)0 -
Of course doping works. To say there is no scientific basis that it does not is absolutely incorrect. There have even been studies done.
http://www.rockymountainsports.com/nutr ... o-ask.html
Written by Dr James "Mac" Larsen. He also gave an interview on Competitor Radio. Back in the 80s or 90s he took part in a test. He did a 3 mile run in 16:30, then got a few units of his own blood, which he'd donated a few weeks perviously. The next week he ran 16:00 flat. Quite an improvement on an all-out performance, and this was only with a small amount of re-injected blood.Le Blaireau (1)0 -
DaveyL wrote:Of course doping works. To say there is no scientific basis that it does not is absolutely incorrect. There have even been studies done.
http://www.rockymountainsports.com/nutr ... o-ask.html
Written by Dr James "Mac" Larsen. He also gave an interview on Competitor Radio. Back in the 80s or 90s he took part in a test. He did a 3 mile run in 16:30, then got a few units of his own blood, which he'd donated a few weeks perviously. The next week he ran 16:00 flat. Quite an improvement on an all-out performance, and this was only with a small amount of re-injected blood.
I guess I could play devils advocate and ask if a 3 mile run qualifies as an endurance event and whether 30 seconds is the difference between a good day and a bad day.
I've always thought(or known) that drugs helped in sports but for someone to say
that there is no PROOF of them working for ENDURANCE athletes was, to say the least
a somewhat stunning statement. Then again what is proof? I admit to being sort of blindsided by that statement. Never thought I'd hear a claim like that. I guess that if the cardinal rule in cycling(knee over the pedal spindle) can be challenged then so can the
"drugs work" theory. Sounds crazy but......
Dennis Noward0 -
That was only one example, which I gave offhand, Dennis. There are many others. The mechanisms by which the body's endurance performance increases are known. The way epo and blood doping influences these mechanisms is known.
This guy can say whatever he likes, it doesn't mean it's the truth. Actually, a scientist, or at least a good one, usually produces evidence to support his claims. Mr Nelson has claimed there is no scientific basis that doping helps endurance athlete's performance. This is incorrect. So what does that leave him with?
Dennis, perhaps *you* would like to define what you would be prepared to accept as proof? Then we can go do the experiment.Le Blaireau (1)0 -
dennisn wrote:
I guess I could play devils advocate and ask if a 3 mile run qualifies as an endurance event and whether 30 seconds is the difference between a good day and a bad day.
Dennis Noward
A flat-out effort over 3 miles could, I'm sure, qualify as an endurance event. Maybe one of the coaches from over in Training will pop over and confirm this. Or maybe they have better things to do with their time.
These guys were serious runners. They knew their PBs to the second, what they could and couldn't manage, and, if you've ever done much running, you'll know that - when you're already that good to run 3 miles in 16:30 - a 30 second improvement is HUGE.Le Blaireau (1)0 -
I'm sure that there is a strong scientific basis for saying that (some) drugs improve performance. However there may not be any rigorous scientific studies to demonstrate that they work - and all we have are anecdotal studies.
The example above is based on a sample of one and therefore statistically not very reliable.0 -
DaveyL wrote:
A flat-out effort over 3 miles could, I'm sure, qualify as an endurance event. Maybe one of the coaches from over in Training will pop over and confirm this. Or maybe they have better things to do with their time.
These guys were serious runners. They knew their PBs to the second, what they could and couldn't manage, and, if you've ever done much running, you'll know that - when you're already that good to run 3 miles in 16:30 - a 30 second improvement is HUGE.
You're right about the 30 seconds being big. I didn't do the math. In my very pathetic and very short lived career as a runner I couldn't have run 3 miles in 16 minutes even if I had a rocket up my *ss. Short legs you know. When I think endurance, things like the Ironman,
TDF, 8 hours in the saddle, and the like come to mind. I found it interesting in that it really
challenges the conventional wisdom that we basically have grown up with "of course
drugs help endurance athletes". I've heard it for years but never gave a thought to the idea that it might not be true. Sounds far fetched to me. And yes, what kind of "proof"
would be actual "proof" of if it does or doesn't? Does sort of remind me of the knee over the pedal spindle or the tubular vs clincher or Campy vs Shimano. Sort of.
Dennis Noward0 -
I don't know. You could ask Richard Ashcroft though.Expertly coached by http://www.vitessecyclecoaching.co.uk/
http://vineristi.wordpress.com - the blog for Viner owners and lovers!0 -
I think it is a good point Dennis. It's always struck me that the world of cycling dodgy doctors must be full of quackery, so I wouldn't be surprised if alot of drugs dont do much to enhance performance. Dwain Chambers didnt improve much during his spell on drugs.
It makes sense to me that EPO / blood boosting would make a difference wherever aerobic capacity is a limiting factor. A 3 mile run is about 97% aerobic so it would definitely count there.
The favourites in the Tour tend to get a fairly sheltered ride to the mountains, and probably quite frequently dont make any serious (for them) effort all day until they hit the last mountain, where it is probably close to threshold power most of the way up. Plus the stages in the Tour are relatively short - normally about 4 hours.
So aerobic capacity probably is a limiting factor for a Grand Tour rider, whose race is probably won by a series of efforts, either time trials or mountain climbs, more or less at anaerobic threshold (or whatever term you prefer).
But how big a factor is aerobic capacity at the end of, say, Paris-Roubaix? Are those guys actually riding very close to their thresholds after 6 or 7 hours? I doubt it.
The various blood manipulation scandals havent tended to catch many classics riders. David Walsh said recently that the Tour stages should not be shortened as it gives more advantage to the blood manipulators.
Another issue is the one Chris Hoy mentions which is the advantage of sleeping easy in your bed all year if you're clean, which must help performance. Although given the laughable testing, maybe your sleep isnt too much disturbed.
Sorry that is a very long post.0 -
steve2021 wrote:I think it is a good point Dennis. It's always struck me that the world of cycling dodgy doctors must be full of quackery, so I wouldn't be surprised if alot of drugs dont do much to enhance performance. Dwain Chambers didnt improve much during his spell on drugs.
It makes sense to me that EPO / blood boosting would make a difference wherever aerobic capacity is a limiting factor. A 3 mile run is about 97% aerobic so it would definitely count there.
The favourites in the Tour tend to get a fairly sheltered ride to the mountains, and probably quite frequently dont make any serious (for them) effort all day until they hit the last mountain, where it is probably close to threshold power most of the way up. Plus the stages in the Tour are relatively short - normally about 4 hours.
So aerobic capacity probably is a limiting factor for a Grand Tour rider, whose race is probably won by a series of efforts, either time trials or mountain climbs, more or less at anaerobic threshold (or whatever term you prefer).
But how big a factor is aerobic capacity at the end of, say, Paris-Roubaix? Are those guys actually riding very close to their thresholds after 6 or 7 hours? I doubt it.
The various blood manipulation scandals havent tended to catch many classics riders. David Walsh said recently that the Tour stages should not be shortened as it gives more advantage to the blood manipulators.
Another issue is the one Chris Hoy mentions which is the advantage of sleeping easy in your bed all year if you're clean, which must help performance. Although given the laughable testing, maybe your sleep isnt too much disturbed.
Sorry that is a very long post.
You make a good point in that people will sometimes try anything to get "better", whether
it's curing their cancer or becoming a better athlete. And there does seem to be plenty of
shady doctors around to take your money for things that don't work. Here in the states
a company sells a "supplement" called EP-NO. Not a clue what's in it, but it has been around for a few years now so someones buying into it. Great marketing name(I
guess).
Dennis Noward0 -
blackhands wrote:I'm sure that there is a strong scientific basis for saying that (some) drugs improve performance. However there may not be any rigorous scientific studies to demonstrate that they work - and all we have are anecdotal studies.
The example above is based on a sample of one and therefore statistically not very reliable.
The example above quoted *one* runner out of a study that looked at many. A statistically significant number of them showed a marked improvement.
What do you mean, there "may" not be any rigorous scientific studies? Either there are or there aren't. One can go to the literature and look. Have you?Le Blaireau (1)0 -
A literature review of all research relating to potentially performance enhancing drugs seems a tall order?0
-
dennisn wrote:
You're right about the 30 seconds being big. I didn't do the math. In my very pathetic and very short lived career as a runner I couldn't have run 3 miles in 16 minutes even if I had a rocket up my *ss. Short legs you know. When I think endurance, things like the Ironman,
TDF, 8 hours in the saddle, and the like come to mind. I found it interesting in that it really
challenges the conventional wisdom that we basically have grown up with "of course
drugs help endurance athletes". I've heard it for years but never gave a thought to the idea that it might not be true. Sounds far fetched to me. And yes, what kind of "proof"
would be actual "proof" of if it does or doesn't? Does sort of remind me of the knee over the pedal spindle or the tubular vs clincher or Campy vs Shimano. Sort of.
Dennis Noward
It has nothing to do with opinion-based debates like the ones you mention. It is to do with fact and truth - either it is scientifically proven that certain PEDs improve endurance athlete performance, or it isn't.
But since you were so impressed, here's another one. Smoking doesn't cause cancer. There you go, I've just challenged conventional wisdom. Ain't a clever, radical visionary?Le Blaireau (1)0 -
Does it matter if the drugs are effective or not.
The rules say, thou shalt not use testosterone / epo / whatever. What matters is people aren't playing by the rules.
BTW - I think you'll find there is plenty of evidence that blood doping works wonders.Fckin' Quintana … that creep can roll, man.0 -
steve2021 wrote:A literature review of all research relating to potentially performance enhancing drugs seems a tall order?
You're right, it is. So sod that, let's just make up our own minds based on, oh, no evidence whatsoever. Better?
(Oh, so there *is* literature out there after all? Well, that's Mr Nelson's point taken care of then... Again.)Le Blaireau (1)0 -
Here we go.
Ekblom B, Berglund B. Effect of erythropoietin administration on maximal aerobic power. Scand J Med Sci Sports 1991;1:88–93.
Joyner MJ. News brief: altitude training, erythropoietin, and blood doping. Exerc Sport Sci Rev 2002;3:97–8
Berglund B, Hemmingsson P, Birgegard G. Detection of autologous blood transfusions in cross-country skiers. Int J Sports Med 1987;8:66–70.
Sawka MN, Joyner MJ, Miles DS, et al. American College of Sports Medicine position stand: the use of blood doping as an ergogenic aid. Med Sci Sports Exerc 1996;28:i–viii. (ergogenic means "performance enhancing")
Ekblom B, Goldberg AN, Gullbring B. Response to exercise after blood loss and reinfusion. J Appl Physiol 1972;33:175–80
Kanstrup I, Ekblom B. Blood volume and hemoglobin concentration as determinants of maximal aerobic power. Med Sci Sports Exerc 1984;16:256–62
Let me know if you want more (though it hardly needs to be a review of *all* research, does it?) - I can keep 'em coming all night. I can also send you the full articles if you really want.Le Blaireau (1)0 -
"By the early 1990s it was clear that EPO was the "drug of choice" for athletes illegally seeking to increase their endurance performance."
From http://bjsm.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/37/3/190
"VO2MAX, blood doping, and erythropoietin", M.J. Joyner, Br J Sports Med 2003;37:190-191.
"By the 1930s it was clear that champion endurance athletes had remarkably high maximal O2 uptake (VO2MAX). In the 1950s, 1960s, and 1970s, classic studies were performed on the physiological determinants of VO2MAX and on its key role in endurance performance."
And those references are:
# Ekblom B, Hermansen L. Cardiac output in athletes. J Appl Physiol 1968;25:619–25.
# Costill DL, Thomason H, Roberts E. Fractional utilization of the aerobic capacity during distance running. Med Sci Sports 1973;5:248–52.
# Farrell PA, Wilmore JH, Coyle EE, et al. Plasma lactate accumulation and distance running performance. Med Sci Sports 1979;11:338–44.Le Blaireau (1)0 -
OK
Does it matter? Well yeah - I think cheating has ruined pro cycling. If EPO makes much less difference to the outcome of Paris Roubaix than it does to the Tour, then I'll watch Paris Roubaix.
On the research, that all looks interesting, but none of the titles indicate that they deal with the effect of blood manipulation on performance at the end of very long events like an Ironman, or maybe a long classic.
Of the 9 references:
Two are to do with maximum aerobic power - how relevant is that after 7 hours racing?
Two are to do with distance running - there arent many distance races longer than a marathon - 2 hours - so probably not that relevant.
One is about detection.
Do the others deal with the effects of blood manipulation in very long events?
My original post wasnt based 'on no evidence whatsoever', it was based on my own experience or racing, which suggests to me that my aerobic capacity is not a limiting factor in long events. It was also based on the lower detection of blood manipulation amongst one day riders compared to stage racers.
[/quote]0 -
DaveyL wrote:
It has nothing to do with opinion-based deabtes like the ones you mention. It is to do with fact and truth - either it is scientifically proven that certain PEDs improve endurance athlete performance, or it isn't.
But since you were so impressed, here's another one. Smoking doesn't cause cancer. There you go, I've just challenged conventional wisdom. Ain't a clever, radical visionary?
"Impressed"? No. My first thought was "what a load of crap". Just like your smoking claim.
By the way the cigarette companies want you for a spokesman. As I recall some of them have actually said just that, and claim to have proof. And didn't I once see a poster of
some riders sharing a smoke. Strange what people will believe in sometimes and then years later it's found to be false, or true for that matter. I'm sure that somewhere out there
are bunches of studies showing that various drugs, do in fact, make you able to spin those pedals longer, harder, faster. I remember reading, some years ago, about a marathon runner who felt that taking Prozac had really helped him get over some severe burnout and he was a better runner because of it. Lots of "stuff" out there to take.
In a way I feel for the racers because it seems to be getting to the point that they can't take very much of anything for much of anything without risking a positive. When I'm sick or hurt I like my medication.
Dennis Noward0 -
steve2021 wrote:OK
Does it matter? Well yeah - I think cheating has ruined pro cycling. If EPO makes much less difference to the outcome of Paris Roubaix than it does to the Tour, then I'll watch Paris Roubaix.
On the research, that all looks interesting, but none of the titles indicate that they deal with the effect of blood manipulation on performance at the end of very long events like an Ironman, or maybe a long classic.
Of the 9 references:
Two are to do with maximum aerobic power - how relevant is that after 7 hours racing?
Two are to do with distance running - there arent many distance races longer than a marathon - 2 hours - so probably not that relevant.
One is about detection.
Do the others deal with the effects of blood manipulation in very long events?
My original post wasnt based 'on no evidence whatsoever', it was based on my own experience or racing, which suggests to me that my aerobic capacity is not a limiting factor in long events. It was also based on the lower detection of blood manipulation amongst one day riders compared to stage racers.
I think most exercise physiologists nowadays would tell you that your maximal sustainable power is the no. 1 indicator of performance in endurance sports (check out the training forum). Make of that what you will.Le Blaireau (1)0 -
Well 'endurance' is a pretty vague term. Are pursuiters endurance athletes? The GB squad call them so. Would a RAAM contestant call a 4 min race 'endurance'? Probably not.
Take Bruce Fordyce - a great ultradistance runner - set many records in ultramarathon races. He was fast over shorter distances, eg 5 miles, which are wholly aerobic, but not that fast.
Was it his aerobic abilities that made him good at running fast (but well below threshold) for 4 hours? Or something else? And if it was something else, would EPO have helped him?
I dont know the answers to these questions, but I suspect there isnt any research on it either.0 -
Whatever the aerobic ceiling is for a particular event, oxygen-vector drugs and/or blood doping will raise that ceiling. The reasons why some athletes are more suited to long aerobic events versus shorter aerobic events are more subtle, but I suspect that is irrelevant to the debate about PEDs improving endurance sport performance - because the ceiling is raised, "across the board". People in a whole range of "endurance" events, from speedsters like Marion Jones all the way up to 3-week grant tour riders, have taken blood boosting drugs, and it's because of the physiological effect they have (makes them go faster, train harder/longer) and how that is transferred to performance.
I am not an expert in this field, but I am happy for one to come along and correct me if I'm wrong.Le Blaireau (1)0 -
Couple of comments:
1. Any cycling event lasting longer than ~ one minute or so will be dominantly determined by one's aerobic capabilities. e.g. the primary (but not the only) physiological determinant of performance in the individual pursuit (an event lasting only 3-5 minutes depending on your category) is one's aerobic abilities (Maximal Aerobic Power and power at Lactate Threshold).
Hence if someone was using a running event taking 15+ minutes as an example of determining changes in aerobic endurance performance, that would most definitely be suitable test. That does not mean I am suggesting the particular test referenced was conducted appropriately but a 15+ min maximal effort is certainly an appropriate choice.
Of course the best predictor of performance is performance itself, so if you really want to know the impact for instance on a 25-mile TT, then test it on a 25-mile TT.
2. There are many ergogenic aids that have been shown to be effective at improving endurance cycling performance.
There are many others where the evidence is equivocal, and others again where there has been no substantial evidence to back up claims. I would put a lot of those "cleverly named" supplements available on the market in this latter category (e.g. ones that claim to give you a secret oxygen boost for instance).
As a pretty good guide, if you can't find the published, peer reviewed evidence of the efficacy of a given supplement, I would be skeptical about its claims.
3. Some ergogenic aids are WADA legal, some are not. Some are just illegal/illicit. Others we consume as a normal part of our daily lives. Hard to perform well if you don't eat good foods for instance and especially carbs.
4. Just because something is on the WADA list doesn't make it an effective ergogenic aid. it may be there for other reasons (e.g. it could be dangerous).0
