One flaw with Armstronglivs vouching for the study is that there have been no "others reviewing the study", quite to the contrary. The only comments by the scientific community except its authors have been a few 100 character tweets (+ links to the paper) by Alex Hutchinson, Ross Tucker and one or two others less known exercise physiologists. There is no detailed analysis nor anything indicating that they read in detail anything else than the abstract.
It is an interesting experiment and the ~6% increase in Vo2Max indicates some performance boost regardless of absence of a control group and other strange anomalies in the data. IIRC, the 6 % boost was still very inconsistent with the data here-and-there and statistically not significant. There was flood that destroyed part of the laboratory or something like that, and they didn't have all the data at their disposal. Still, it is a well-powered paper, and the sample size of twenty-ish is very large for a blood doping / EPO study.
Is this result enough to predict that elite athletes can run 105% after 4-weeks of EPO, or even 101%? Furthermore, from this, can we determine who is clean, from a result that is 103% better than non-Africans achieved in the 1980s?
Although both you and I mentioned it above, it's worth repeating the experts' answer in their own words:
"caution is required when extrapolating findings from subelite to truly elite athletes".
One flaw with Armstronglivs vouching for the study is that there have been no "others reviewing the study", quite to the contrary. The only comments by the scientific community except its authors have been a few 100 character tweets (+ links to the paper) by Alex Hutchinson, Ross Tucker and one or two others less known exercise physiologists. There is no detailed analysis nor anything indicating that they read in detail anything else than the abstract.
It is an interesting experiment and the ~6% increase in Vo2Max indicates some performance boost regardless of absence of a control group and other strange anomalies in the data. IIRC, the 6 % boost was still very inconsistent with the data here-and-there and statistically not significant. There was flood that destroyed part of the laboratory or something like that, and they didn't have all the data at their disposal. Still, it is a well-powered paper, and the sample size of twenty-ish is very large for a blood doping / EPO study.
Didn't we see in a 1997 altitude study, that similar increases in VO2max between hi-hi and hi-lo groups did not result in similar performance boosts?
Is this result enough to predict that elite athletes can run 105% after 4-weeks of EPO, or even 101%? Furthermore, from this, can we determine who is clean, from a result that is 103% better than non-Africans achieved in the 1980s?
Although both you and I mentioned it above, it's worth repeating the experts' answer in their own words:
"caution is required when extrapolating findings from subelite to truly elite athletes".
The use of "caution" is not rejecting findings from sub-elites as applied to elites but suggesting the findings are not necessarily the last word, subject to further data that might be obtained.
One flaw with Armstronglivs vouching for the study is that there have been no "others reviewing the study", quite to the contrary. The only comments by the scientific community except its authors have been a few 100 character tweets (+ links to the paper) by Alex Hutchinson, Ross Tucker and one or two others less known exercise physiologists. There is no detailed analysis nor anything indicating that they read in detail anything else than the abstract.
It is an interesting experiment and the ~6% increase in Vo2Max indicates some performance boost regardless of absence of a control group and other strange anomalies in the data. IIRC, the 6 % boost was still very inconsistent with the data here-and-there and statistically not significant. There was flood that destroyed part of the laboratory or something like that, and they didn't have all the data at their disposal. Still, it is a well-powered paper, and the sample size of twenty-ish is very large for a blood doping / EPO study.
Didn't we see in a 1997 altitude study, that similar increases in VO2max between hi-hi and hi-lo groups did not result in similar performance boosts?
Then we should take your advice and exercise "caution" into reading too much into those findings - especially when we have a more recent study that has produced the opposite result.
One flaw with Armstronglivs vouching for the study is that there have been no "others reviewing the study", quite to the contrary. The only comments by the scientific community except its authors have been a few 100 character tweets (+ links to the paper) by Alex Hutchinson, Ross Tucker and one or two others less known exercise physiologists. There is no detailed analysis nor anything indicating that they read in detail anything else than the abstract.
It is an interesting experiment and the ~6% increase in Vo2Max indicates some performance boost regardless of absence of a control group and other strange anomalies in the data. IIRC, the 6 % boost was still very inconsistent with the data here-and-there and statistically not significant. There was flood that destroyed part of the laboratory or something like that, and they didn't have all the data at their disposal. Still, it is a well-powered paper, and the sample size of twenty-ish is very large for a blood doping / EPO study.
I am not suggesting that the study must be accepted without demur to the last detail. All such studies, which seek to draw inferential conclusions about larger groups than those used, can only be indicative.
However, given the significance of what it shows, that altitude-trained athletes will experience improvements from doping, we might have expected some wider interest and review of the paper. That this appears not to have occurred is likely because the study is seen as basically sound. The experts haven't apparently seen the need to dispute it.
I don't disagree with the reservations you have indicated about aspects of the study - you would know more about the methodology than I do. But I agree that the interesting aspect of the study is that from a large group on which it is based there is a consistent finding of a significant general boost in performance. This is contrary to the views of those who hold that altitude-trained athletes gain no benefit from this kind of doping. It thus goes some way to explaining why such athletes will dope, and not just those who live and train at sea-level.
So the kernel of your objection to the study is that the athletes weren't really trying. If that were so, you don't think those involved in the study would have seen that? Or that others reviewing the study would have picked up such a basic and obvious flaw? But none have - bar you. Curious. Yet you haven't published anything that supports your claims, that itself can be reviewed.
"Not trying" is a "kernel", but not the only kernel.
These are not solely my criticisms, but the study itself said it had no control group, was not blinded, Kenyan exertion was low, compared to the Scots, and that the design should be improved.
Let's apply your new standard, and see just what "experts" tell us in peer reviewed published articles. Sorry for the length, but the experts actually told us quite a bit (one wrote a 224-page thesis), and once again, I am mostly just a messenger of what has already been published.
The study itself was primarily a "gene transcript" study, and the Scottish and Kenyan performance time trials were included (for which purpose?), and published in various forms no less than four times, in 2013, in a 224-page 2014 PhD thesis, in 2018, and again in 2019.
We know from the study in the authors own words that "The present study was designed primarily to identify differentially expressed gene transcripts", and "... nor was the study blinded or include a control group." They concluded that an "improved experimental design (e.g., randomized, placebo-controlled crossover study design) is required."
Regarding time trial "exertion", I don't need to think, but we already know that those involved in the study actually did know and did see how hard the Kenyans exerted themselves, because the experts conducting the study measured the rate of perceived exertion (RPE), and published it for us in the various studies. It requires little more expertise to interpret RPE than it does to interpret times recorded from a stopwatch. RPE is the athlete's response to: "On a scale of 6 to 20, how hard did you try?"
One of your "non-expert" allies seemed to agree when he wrote: "And yes, the lack of a control group and the differing RPEs from 15 to 16 are disappointing".
We also know from the study experts that the baseline time trial average was 9:23, and the EPO time trial average was 8:57, because they recorded it in tables and graphs.
We also know from the study that these Kenyans were "63' half marathoners and 2:12 marathoners".
From other published "experts" in performance equivalencies, we know that 63' and 2:12 are equivalent to ~7:50 for 3000m, e.g. from VDOT, Purdy, and IAAF Scoring tables.
Putting these two experts' work together, everyone can see these Kenyan performance study experts took 7:50 equivalent Kenyans and got them to run 9:23 clean and 8:57 on EPO.
The previous equivalence experts' tables tell us that for 7:50 runners, 9:23 is ~marathon pace, and 8:57 is about ~ half-marathon pace. The fastest Kenyan in the study ran about 8:30, or ~10K pace.
Historical "experts" tell us that the best USA high school girls in the 1970s were running 9:00 for 3000m, but never 63 minutes for the half and not 2:12 for the full marathon. Mary Cain also ran 8:58 for the 3000m.
Have any elite Kenyan performance experts commented on the study results? Fortunately for us, we have had a long time contributing expert here at letsrun -- who has repeatedly said the study on Kenyan juniors is not realistic and is pure nonsense. Unfortunately for us, he has long been criticized here at letsrun, by anonymous "non-experts", none of whom have "published anything that supports (their) claims, that itself can be reviewed".
In this study, the best and only one you can find, everyone can see these researchers were able to take these Kenyan juniors, and realize an improvement of 5%, from about 85% to 90% of the Kenyan's predicted equivalent potential.
Is this result enough to predict that elite athletes can run 105% after 4-weeks of EPO, or even 101%? Furthermore, from this, can we determine who is clean, from a result that is 103% better than non-Africans achieved in the 1980s?
My conclusion again, comes from the Feb. 2019 study itself:
"... further research with larger sample size, complete data set, ... and improved experimental design (e.g., randomized, placebo-controlled crossover study design) is required to confirm these findings."
Your points don't invalidate the findings of the study, they simply suggest "caution" - your favorite word here - in claiming the findings are definitive.
You use hypothetical standards for the athletes involved to suggest times they ought to be capable of, but the unarguable point of fact is that they ran significantly faster over the test distances after several weeks of EPO. There isn't anything in the study or in any commentary about it says this was simply because of increased effort in the later time trials. Thus, in absolute terms, they improved after 4 weeks of doping.
Even if Kurt Gödel, Andrew Wiles and Terrence Tao combined would try to convince you that you completely failed with your logic, you would call all of them stupid and that simple logic is clearly beyond them.
Precondition (A): doping hasn't made Kenyans successful
Conclusion (B): doping does not enhance performance
If A is true, then B also must be true - that's what you are saying!
We don't know for certain if A in fact is true (for me it's completely obvious that it is true (for sure it's not proofable) - Kenya just a few years after competing internationally became the no. 1 distance running nation on earth in the mid 1960s. And I think even you don't doubt that their almost immediate success was not the result of doping).
But that's irrelevant. The point is IF A is true, B is then a consequence? For sure not. How can someone even come up with such a obviously nonsensical claim? Because today we know for certain that many Kenyans dope? And they are still the no.1 nation on earth? Doping is widely used in any successful nation and Kenya definitely still would be successful without a single Kenyan doper - very likely with not as many top runners). Your thinking is completely nonsense. Many Kenyans dope and I have little doubt that this helps them to improve (maybe not all of them, it might depend on their own fitness level, but overall I think it's for certain it helps them).
Over 650+ down votes in another thread. One single thread!
Just go away.
Waffle. And rubbish. They weren't the number one running nation in the '60's and '70's. We also know Kenyans dope. They are a proven international basket case. The only way you can argue that doping hasn't helped them is to maintain that drugs don't improve performance. Since you argue the former the latter must follow. Conversely, if drugs enhance performance they will have contributed to Kenyan success, because they have doped in significant numbers. It's a simple argument but apparently beyond you.
Do you even read the posts you are responding to?
We were talking about distance running and I said while including the Marathon (which practically was not contested by Kenya back then) it could be Great Britain or also USA.
From 1964 up to 1976 (Kenya boykotted the 76 games) on the track, Kenya has won by far the most medals at the Olympics, at all five events (only other nation to medal at all five as the USA with far fewer medals). Kenya by far was the most successful nation at the Commonwealth Games.
Kenyans have set 10 world records (standard events incl. Mile and 3000) (USA 3 and Great Britain 5). They have set 49 African records. In all of these events a Kenyan at least became the 2nd fastest in history.
So, which country do you think was the no. 1 distance running nation from 64 - 79?
For you they were "just another country...". They weren't.
This was your statement: "So if it isn't doping that has made Kenyans successful then doping does not enhance performance"
Kenya became the most successful distance running nation (on the men's side) just a few years after they started to compete. Kenya today has hundreds of top distance runners, including some of the best in the world. We know that many Kenyans dope. Where did you get the conclusion doping didn't work? Without some (working) doping Kenya would not be "just another country". As is clearly to see from the facts which I presented you.
Although both you and I mentioned it above, it's worth repeating the experts' answer in their own words:
"caution is required when extrapolating findings from subelite to truly elite athletes".
The use of "caution" is not rejecting findings from sub-elites as applied to elites but suggesting the findings are not necessarily the last word, subject to further data that might be obtained.
According to the "experts" the next step is to confirm the findings with a better study:
"... further research with larger sample size, complete data set, ... and improved experimental design (e.g., randomized, placebo-controlled crossover study design) is required to confirm these findings."
Didn't we see in a 1997 altitude study, that similar increases in VO2max between hi-hi and hi-lo groups did not result in similar performance boosts?
Then we should take your advice and exercise "caution" into reading too much into those findings - especially when we have a more recent study that has produced the opposite result.
Indeed, we should be somewhat cautious about interpreting VO2max, in light of the contradictions.
I was right about the data:
The hi-lo group VO2max increased from 63.8 to 66.3 (or +2.5, or 3.9%), while the performance improved by 14 seconds after 4 weeks.
The hi-hi group VO2max increased from 64.8 to 67.0 (or +2.2, or 3.4%), while the performance actually slowed down by 4 seconds after 4 weeks.
The men-only performance figures are more striking, with hi-lo improving by 24 seconds, and the hi-hi group slowing down by 3 seconds.
Your points don't invalidate the findings of the study, they simply suggest "caution" - your favorite word here - in claiming the findings are definitive.
You use hypothetical standards for the athletes involved to suggest times they ought to be capable of, but the unarguable point of fact is that they ran significantly faster over the test distances after several weeks of EPO. There isn't anything in the study or in any commentary about it says this was simply because of increased effort in the later time trials. Thus, in absolute terms, they improved after 4 weeks of doping.
You say "my points" as if they weren't all the points I listed weren't from experts who have published their views for peer review. This includes predicting what their 3000m times ought to be, from other best performances.
Indeed there was an improvement, after 4 weeks of EPO. But it doesn't matter what you, a non-expert non-published outsider who doesn't "have the expertise to critique its methodology", say it means. What do the experts say?
Experts say without including a control group in the experiment, they cannot be sure that the cause of the improvement was due to EPO, or due to some other uncontrolled factor.
Experts say without double-blinding, they cannot be sure that the cause was not due to scientifically proven placebo effect.
Perhaps this is why the study experts say the study design needs to be improved in order for the findings to be confirmed: "... further research with larger sample size, complete data set, ... and improved experimental design (e.g., randomized, placebo-controlled crossover study design) is required to confirm these findings".
Waffle. And rubbish. They weren't the number one running nation in the '60's and '70's. We also know Kenyans dope. They are a proven international basket case. The only way you can argue that doping hasn't helped them is to maintain that drugs don't improve performance. Since you argue the former the latter must follow. Conversely, if drugs enhance performance they will have contributed to Kenyan success, because they have doped in significant numbers. It's a simple argument but apparently beyond you.
Here is a chart with the Eldoret - group versus the only two transfusion studies in which both running speed and Vo2Max were measured. Because of various factors (lactate threshold doesn't increase in tandem with Vo2Max after blood doping etc), each 1 % increase in running speed required 6 % increase in Vo2Max in these earlier studies.
But the boost in speed is almost exactly the same as Vo2Max in the Eldoret- paper (5 % vs 6 %). It could be that EPO increases somehow the ability of body to make use of the bigger oxygen engine, but when the Swedes tested both EPO and transfusions in their paper in 1991, Vo2Max, Hct, hemoglobin level and performance elevated similarly regardless of whether the surplus of oxygen carriers was caused by transfusion or by EPO.
The six-to-one ratio is only an empirical observation from the available data, perhaps totally accurate in most environments, perhaps not. It is difficult not to come to the conclusion that a bulk of the 5 % boost in running speed is placebo and not EPO, a conclusion that is 100 % consistent with the elevated RPE and with the two earlier blood doping studies.
Your evidence sucks…you are an actual doping apologist so provide Ncbi Nlm references and then we’ll debate (just so you know beforehand I am an actual scientist (far better at analyzing data and defining controls than you could ever be) and you will probably be humbled (I say probably because it sucks that I have to waste my time on people like you - those without intuitive intelligence - maybe you can support your views with scientific peer-reviewed references). I guess when your intelligence is TOO low you fail to comprehend simple scientific concepts (which is why your scientific intuition sucks) - oh and should you respond that you are just dealing with the evidence available (maybe you should purchase a subscription to some online journals focusing on muscle physiology) know that I am a Ph.D. with a concentration in muscle physiology (among many other fields like mass spec which do a reasonably good job of detailing atypical performance enhancing drug use. I have lurked for quite some time - you brought the thunder, now address it.
Your evidence sucks…you are an actual doping apologist so provide Ncbi Nlm references and then we’ll debate (just so you know beforehand I am an actual scientist (far better at analyzing data and defining controls than you could ever be) and you will probably be humbled (I say probably because it sucks that I have to waste my time on people like you - those without intuitive intelligence - maybe you can support your views with scientific peer-reviewed references). I guess when your intelligence is TOO low you fail to comprehend simple scientific concepts (which is why your scientific intuition sucks) - oh and should you respond that you are just dealing with the evidence available (maybe you should purchase a subscription to some online journals focusing on muscle physiology) know that I am a Ph.D. with a concentration in muscle physiology (among many other fields like mass spec which do a reasonably good job of detailing atypical performance enhancing drug use. I have lurked for quite some time - you brought the thunder, now address it.
You opened six brackets and closed just four, Coevett.
Your evidence sucks…you are an actual doping apologist so provide Ncbi Nlm references and then we’ll debate (just so you know beforehand I am an actual scientist (far better at analyzing data and defining controls than you could ever be) and you will probably be humbled (I say probably because it sucks that I have to waste my time on people like you - those without intuitive intelligence - maybe you can support your views with scientific peer-reviewed references). I guess when your intelligence is TOO low you fail to comprehend simple scientific concepts (which is why your scientific intuition sucks) - oh and should you respond that you are just dealing with the evidence available (maybe you should purchase a subscription to some online journals focusing on muscle physiology) know that I am a Ph.D. with a concentration in muscle physiology (among many other fields like mass spec which do a reasonably good job of detailing atypical performance enhancing drug use. I have lurked for quite some time - you brought the thunder, now address it.
What am I supposed to address? This is not my evidence, but I'll take your word that the evidence does suck.
If you have to open by saying "honest injun" you are a real PhD scientist, and you are the "thunder", that doesn't sound very convincing, nor what a real PhD talks like. But if you are, thank the gods, we are saved.
What do you think of conducting EPO time trials without a control group, without blinding, without controlling the state of training before the intervention, with the volunteers running 3000m tempos far below their predicted capability, rather than an all out effort, with the volunteers confirming this by reporting RPEs of around 15-16, compared to the Scottish RPEs of around 18?
As far as research experiments go, how do you rate the quality of these Scottish and Kenyan time trials, particularly the experimental design? Is it typical, above average, or below? Do you see any shortcomings in the design? What do they mean at the end when suggesting an improved experimental design, and why would that even be necessary?
How would you say the experimental design compares to 1997 "hi-lo" study by Stray-Gundersen, which included a sea-level control group, included a 2 week introductory phase that they argued was important, and then a 4-week sea-level training control phase, before the intervention started?
So you concentrated on muscle physiology. Have you worked with athletes producing elite/sub-elite/national/collegiate performances? Have you produced significant results, both with and without EPO for comparison?
What references do you want? Here are the two "ncbi nlm" references you can start with:
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 imm...
The principal objective of this study was to test the hypothesis that acclimatization to moderate altitude (2,500 m) plus training at low altitude (1,250 m), "living high-training low," improves sea-level performance in well-...
Waffle. And rubbish. They weren't the number one running nation in the '60's and '70's. We also know Kenyans dope. They are a proven international basket case. The only way you can argue that doping hasn't helped them is to maintain that drugs don't improve performance. Since you argue the former the latter must follow. Conversely, if drugs enhance performance they will have contributed to Kenyan success, because they have doped in significant numbers. It's a simple argument but apparently beyond you.
Do you even read the posts you are responding to?
We were talking about distance running and I said while including the Marathon (which practically was not contested by Kenya back then) it could be Great Britain or also USA.
From 1964 up to 1976 (Kenya boykotted the 76 games) on the track, Kenya has won by far the most medals at the Olympics, at all five events (only other nation to medal at all five as the USA with far fewer medals). Kenya by far was the most successful nation at the Commonwealth Games.
Kenyans have set 10 world records (standard events incl. Mile and 3000) (USA 3 and Great Britain 5). They have set 49 African records. In all of these events a Kenyan at least became the 2nd fastest in history.
So, which country do you think was the no. 1 distance running nation from 64 - 79?
For you they were "just another country...". They weren't.
This was your statement: "So if it isn't doping that has made Kenyans successful then doping does not enhance performance"
Kenya became the most successful distance running nation (on the men's side) just a few years after they started to compete. Kenya today has hundreds of top distance runners, including some of the best in the world. We know that many Kenyans dope. Where did you get the conclusion doping didn't work? Without some (working) doping Kenya would not be "just another country". As is clearly to see from the facts which I presented you.
The observation that "doping doesn't work" follows from your claim that Kenyan success has not been built upon doping, when we know it is one of the worst offenders. So why have they doped in such numbers if it did nothing for them?
Your points don't invalidate the findings of the study, they simply suggest "caution" - your favorite word here - in claiming the findings are definitive.
You use hypothetical standards for the athletes involved to suggest times they ought to be capable of, but the unarguable point of fact is that they ran significantly faster over the test distances after several weeks of EPO. There isn't anything in the study or in any commentary about it says this was simply because of increased effort in the later time trials. Thus, in absolute terms, they improved after 4 weeks of doping.
You say "my points" as if they weren't all the points I listed weren't from experts who have published their views for peer review. This includes predicting what their 3000m times ought to be, from other best performances.
Indeed there was an improvement, after 4 weeks of EPO. But it doesn't matter what you, a non-expert non-published outsider who doesn't "have the expertise to critique its methodology", say it means. What do the experts say?
Experts say without including a control group in the experiment, they cannot be sure that the cause of the improvement was due to EPO, or due to some other uncontrolled factor.
Experts say without double-blinding, they cannot be sure that the cause was not due to scientifically proven placebo effect.
Perhaps this is why the study experts say the study design needs to be improved in order for the findings to be confirmed: "... further research with larger sample size, complete data set, ... and improved experimental design (e.g., randomized, placebo-controlled crossover study design) is required to confirm these findings".
But none of these points are "mine" per se.
So where did your "experts" specifically reject the findings of the study as unsound or invalid?
We were talking about distance running and I said while including the Marathon (which practically was not contested by Kenya back then) it could be Great Britain or also USA.
From 1964 up to 1976 (Kenya boykotted the 76 games) on the track, Kenya has won by far the most medals at the Olympics, at all five events (only other nation to medal at all five as the USA with far fewer medals). Kenya by far was the most successful nation at the Commonwealth Games.
Kenyans have set 10 world records (standard events incl. Mile and 3000) (USA 3 and Great Britain 5). They have set 49 African records. In all of these events a Kenyan at least became the 2nd fastest in history.
So, which country do you think was the no. 1 distance running nation from 64 - 79?
For you they were "just another country...". They weren't.
This was your statement: "So if it isn't doping that has made Kenyans successful then doping does not enhance performance"
Kenya became the most successful distance running nation (on the men's side) just a few years after they started to compete. Kenya today has hundreds of top distance runners, including some of the best in the world. We know that many Kenyans dope. Where did you get the conclusion doping didn't work? Without some (working) doping Kenya would not be "just another country". As is clearly to see from the facts which I presented you.
The observation that "doping doesn't work" follows from your claim that Kenyan success has not been built upon doping, when we know it is one of the worst offenders. So why have they doped in such numbers if it did nothing for them?
No, this is not a valid conclusion.
You wrongly said Kenya before 1980 was "just another (distance running) country". I clearly showed you that your statement was nonsense.
At the top, Kenya already few years after they started to compete internationally clearly was the no. 1 (male) distance running nation. In depth, UK and USA probably were still ahead. Kenyans also didn't run the Marathon in these days.
Was this enormous early success the result of doping? That means, Kenyans doped whereas all the other nations didn't, or didn't do with such successful methods. If you think yes, explain which sort of doping they used which the rest didn't know.
I have never said doping doesn't help or doesn't help Kenyans. I assume it does - maybe not all and we are very uncertain to which amount. But rekrunner is much better informed here.
If today not a single Kenyan would dope anymore (and the rest of the world still would be unchanged), Kenya still would be a major running force, that's clearly to see from the statistics of the last seven decades.
Your conclusion is complete nonsense, as I have explained to you now several times.
