A very simple question

The thing is that no one has so far brought in evidence that training at high altitude would provide

better development compared to lowland training if the runner is born and raised mostly in the highlands. The Kenyans and the Ethiopians have lived all their lives at high altitude. There are examples of scientific studies that shows no differences when it comes to comparisons of running development concerning lowlands/hghlands

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S144024409880011X

And this:

https://www.runnerstribe.com/features/interview-with-dick-telford-one-of-australias-greatest-ever-running-coaches/?fbclid=IwAR3GHxvuNkBir__1pFJQ-4aPuDNx09ZZ6GLAx8Vol4-VMWOcnWInZp5dBNo

Sorry, a little typing error. The sentence 'The thing is that no one has so far brought in evidence that training at high altitude would provide better development compared to lowland training if the runner is born and raised mostly in the highlands' should be 'if the runner is born and raised mostly in the lowlands.'

Armstronglivs wrote:

The relevant experience is not Renato's experience as a coach but the experience of top athletes who have doped. Plenty have. Unless they are clueless about what they are doing - and we have no reason to think that - we can safely conclude they derived benefit from doing so. The only question is the degree of benefit.

Oh, no -- there are still many more questions than that.

If the athletes' experiences are so relevant, then shouldn't we hear about the experiences (both positive and negative) directly from the athletes, before making any conclusions, and not second hand interpretations from "Tin Foil" and "Armstronglivs".

You say "plenty have", but that only leads me to ask "have plenty?"

This is because the testimony and interpretations and conclusions of "Armstronglivs", speaking on behalf of "many", is not relevant.

Even then, there are several reasons to think that athletes are clueless about domains they don't fully understand.

Even then, we can only safely conclude what athletes believed to be cause and effect.

To draw more robust conclusions with less uncertainty, we need to use a stronger standards than examples, inferences, projection and extrapolation.

Dr EPO wrote:

The thing is that no one has so far brought in evidence that training at high altitude would provide

better development compared to lowland training if the runner is born and raised mostly in the highlands. The Kenyans and the Ethiopians have lived all their lives at high altitude. There are examples of scientific studies that shows no differences when it comes to comparisons of running development concerning lowlands/hghlands

While I'm not generally moved by studies that look at haemoglobin or VO2max, rather than directly measuring performance (time over distance), you bring up some great points.

We cannot use the experience of sea-level athletes and project them onto high altitude athletes. There are enough differences in theory that we should attempt to replicate the results with the right subjects, and compare them against a control group.

I'm inclined to agree that sea-level athletes should gain more than athletes that have spent their whole life at high altitude, descended from many generations of high altitude inhabitants.

I liked Dick Telford's interview, but 1600m for 3 weeks seems too low and too short for what Renato is discussing. Recall Renato shared the experience of Sondre Moen (sea-level athlete) after training and living 8-9 months at high altitude, who went on to run sub-2:06 marathon, extending his thinking about EPO in addition to high altitude training to include sea-level natives.

The interview provides another great point about the need for a control group: when both the "altitude group" and the "sea-level control group" improved by 7%, this limits the conclusions you can draw.

extend the philosophy wrote:

Renato, your extension philosophy is the correct one. when we improve our performance we are using less ATP, not more. Tinman understands this. So should you.

Just correct you. When we improve our performance we don't use less ATP, and of course not more as you say. The difference is mainly supported by an increased ability to , with the help of lactate , recreate fuel for the energy process.

Lol, I just sat here waiting for you or Renato to refer to Sondre Moen's development to back up your theories.What you don't know , but what Renato knows but chooses to talk quitely about ,

is that Moen has been in Kenya more than twenty times in different lengths of time on high altitude training before Renato took over to train him. How come that a great talented runner as Moen couldn't run faster than 2:13 at the marathon when he trained as much mileage as when Renato coached him? It's mainly a question of speed and that Moen increased the speed at his easy runs in training.

Sondre was in Kenya a lot of times, but the length of his stays never was longer than 4 weeks.

Short periods in altitude don't change too much the situation of athletes, under the point of view of increased affinity between Hb and Oxygen, that is the main point for responders (not the increase in the level of Hb and Hct, and not the increase of the number of Red Cells, that we can see in 80% of athletes training in altitude, for short periods too, but are effective for short time only).

Remember that short periods provoke a REACTION, while long periods produce ADAPTATION, and the two situations are totally different. We can say that Sondre started to train in altitude only from the beginning of 2017, spending in altitude more than 3/4 of his seasons. Before he had some short period in altitude (like the most part of European), not long enough for creating new adaptations.

And it's true the difference in training was to raise the speed of every session, but this was possible not only because thye system was different, but also because the altitude gave him more Aerobic Power raising the level of the LT.

I leave you in believing this as you write here Renato.We each have our different views on Sondre's transformation. Have a nice day!

extend the philosophy wrote:

hispy wrote:

Renato,

If you have not tested various drugs and their effects on runners, there is absolutely no way you can say that drugs either do not work, or how much they work.

Secondly, if drugs don’t work, why have a banned substance list at all?

Drug testing was introduced in 1965 to protect cyclists from the massive doses of Methamphetamine they were taking. Some wise men knew that it wasn’t enhancing their performance because they understood basic physiology. However the vast majority of people have no clue whatsoever that aerobic capacity is limited physiologically. These posters here epitomise this ignorance.

So if performance-enhancing drugs don’t actually enhance performance, while dole out bans? Why not give out health citations if the primary goal is to protect health outcomes.

Secondly, 1965 is laughable. The first doping case in an Olympic event was in 1904. What were you saying about ignorance?

The only thing a runner has to ADAPT to is increased pace. This comes with gradually increasing speed when the runner is ready for a higher level.This ADAPTATION can take place in the lowlands or highlands , no matter what.

You are apparently unfamiliar with the stream of doping busts that have come out of Kenya in the recent years, combined with official estimates that put actual doping greatly in excess of confirmed violations.

Conversely, the experience of sea-level athletes does not prove that there will be no gain for altitude-trained athletes.

Dr EPO wrote:

Lol, I just sat here waiting for you or Renato to refer to Sondre Moen's development to back up your theories.What you don't know , but what Renato knows but chooses to talk quitely about ,

is that Moen has been in Kenya more than twenty times in different lengths of time on high altitude training before Renato took over to train him. How come that a great talented runner as Moen couldn't run faster than 2:13 at the marathon when he trained as much mileage as when Renato coached him? It's mainly a question of speed and that Moen increased the speed at his easy runs in training.

Lol? This is not the first time I mentioned Moen (see back on page 9), and these are not *my* theories.

I guess the answer to "how come" is a combination of several factors, including not running a marathon until 2015, being self-coached in 2016, and not training with a high volume of intense aerobic sessions for long enough at high altitude, until he joined Renato on 2017, where he dropped to 2:10:07 in April and then 2:05:48 in December.

Armstronglivs wrote:

You are apparently unfamiliar with the stream of doping busts that have come out of Kenya in the recent years, combined with official estimates that put actual doping greatly in excess of confirmed violations.

I'm familiar -- it's just not relevant to determining effect.

Armstronglivs wrote:

Conversely, the experience of sea-level athletes does not prove that there will be no gain for altitude-trained athletes.

Once again, we were all in agreement that there was no proof either way.

If we need to lower our standards to allow inference, and projection, and extrapolation, and argue with double negatives, these are weak arguments.

rekrunner wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

You are apparently unfamiliar with the stream of doping busts that have come out of Kenya in the recent years, combined with official estimates that put actual doping greatly in excess of confirmed violations.

I'm familiar -- it's just not relevant to determining effect.

And who was it who said he based his analysis on "real-world" conditions? Actual doping practices aren't sufficiently "real-world" for you? I guess you prefer your case studies in a laboratory rather than the Kenyan highlands. But not much racing going on there.

hispy wrote:

So if performance-enhancing drugs don't actually enhance performance, while dole out bans? Why not give out health citations if the primary goal is to protect health outcomes.

I think rekrunner should answer that, especially with EPO.

His thesis is that EPO is ineffective with elite runners. According to rekrunner, the huge number of EPO positive tests & ABP hematological cases over the decades, suggesting a high prevalence of use, doesn't indicate any performance enhancement but more of a "belief" that it works, a placebo effect so to speak, and so forth.

I completely disagree with this (I believe it's performance enhancing based on individual response, dosage, synergistic effects with other PEDs, etc.). But let's say he's right for argument sake and everyone else is wrong (anti-doping experts, excercise physiologists, coaches, athletes, etc), then why ban EPO?

EPO could be made legal and a hematocrit/hemoglobin safety level could be established. FIS Cross-country skiing goes with 17.0 (51 Hct) for men & 16.0 (48 Hct) for women for the upper safe levels. The old UCI cycling rule back in the 90's was a flat 50% Hct across the board. If the upper levels are breached the rider sits for 2 weeks is not allowed to compete until hematocrit returns to a safe level.

Imagine all the money saved testing for rHuEPO. Imagine all the money saved for the ABP-hematological anomalies cases. Runners could do whatever they want with EPO so long as they don't go over the upper safety levels. Afterall, rekrunner says EPO is ineffective with elites, so there wouldn't be any "unfair" advantage given to a runner. Just stay under the safe level and it will all be rainbows & marshmallows. Lol.

You misunderstood my " lol " . I haven't exactly claimed that these are your theories , but theories that you obviously agree with. It was just funny, I think, that I was just waiting for Moen's development to be drawn into the debate so that I from my point of view could illuminate the same.Just a funny coincidence.

Doped to the Max wrote:

hispy wrote:

So if performance-enhancing drugs don't actually enhance performance, while dole out bans? Why not give out health citations if the primary goal is to protect health outcomes.

I think rekrunner should answer that, especially with EPO.

His thesis is that EPO is ineffective with elite runners.

My thesis is not limited to elite runners, but is a function of the athlete's training relative to his potential ability.

I've answered this hundreds of times. It doesn't seem like a very smart question.

First, "performance-enhancing drugs" is the wrong term to use. Caffeine is a performance enhancing drug, and we do not dole out bans for caffeine.

We have seen a suggestion that EPO can shorten the time to get to 90% level of fitness, and that it can be beneficial in other events like race-walking and cycling.

EPO would still be considered as giving an unfair advantage, even if it cannot bring the distance runner to more than 100% of what he can achieve through clean altitude training, if it artificially shortens the time to training.

WADA bans substances for a "potential to enhance", not settling the question, and not accepting the burden of proving it.

Recall some non-performance enhancing substances are banned if it meets two other criteria: harmful to the athlete, and against the spirit of the sport -- enhancing performance is not a necessary requirement, nor is health a sole requirement.