Good article on the performance effects of EPO

[Felt_Rider]

Thanks for the interest in my brief feedback and the explanation of your web-site/blog. I wish there were more web-sites like this which brought the science articles in journals/periodicals to non-subscribers. Sounds like its going to be a very interesting site to follow. Hope it goes well. Also, thanks again Bro Deal.

Hijack on.......

Interesting reading material on the blog regarding hydration. Thanks for the link

.............Hijack off

 

[Wayne666]

Hi Crankyfeet, and thanks for your interest in our blog The Science of ...

I'd also like to say thanks. I try to read this type of literature when I come across it and I had missed that article.

I find it interesting that what seems like a large increase in performance was associated with only ~5% increase in hct and mean was still under limit of 50%!

Also a fully prepared cyclist is likely to be able to get a greater hct boost by using means to lower hct for the tests. Not to mention the various hormone preparations for recovery which would become increasingly important in something like a GT.

So while the argument makes sense that an elite, very highly trained cyclist might not have as much "room" for an improvement due to doping with EPO. I think if you're using this data to compare a clean cyclist to a doped cyclists, the real-world doped cyclist would likely be able to get more of boost in hct than in this study and likely be using multiple other substances that while maybe not as effective, probably would confer some sort of performance gain.

 

[Bro Deal]

I find it interesting that what seems like a large increase in performance was associated with only ~5% increase in hct and mean was still under limit of 50%!

Good point. All the research seems to use moderate Hct increases. It makes you wonder what the gains were like when riders were taking their Hct to 60%. Pantani had some measurements of nearly 65%.

The funny thing is that since the 50% rule it appears that the pros' climbing is a little slower. Time trialing is just as fast or faster. Either the gains were not that great, which I think is hard to believe, or the riders switched to something that is nearly as effective but does not trigger the 50% rule.

 

[Gregers]

I don't disagree that there is a good reason to look at that Kenyan ethnic group (and now the north Africans?) but still it's far from clear they have some sort of genetic advantage. The biggest thing about the S. Americans might be they don't have the right body type. When I was down there it seemed most people were short and squat, rather than short and very lightly built like most elite runners.

Dr Bengt Satin of the IOC studied the Kenyans and believed their advantage was derived from having skinny calves. On the other hand, Peter Snell had colossal calves, Toshihiko Seko had massive thighs and Deke Clayton was stocky and heavy. There have been virtual midgets, Harold Norpoth looked like he had just come out of a concentration camp and Martti Vainio was a lanky beanpole. Successes have occurred because of, or in spite of every known body type.

 

[azdroptop]

As far as the study goes I'm interested in how the non-epo group did. Maybe I missed it? I think they probably showed an improvement as well.

 

[snood]

Dr Bengt Satin of the IOC studied the Kenyans and believed their advantage was derived from having skinny calves. On the other hand, Peter Snell had colossal calves, Toshihiko Seko had massive thighs and Deke Clayton was stocky and heavy. There have been virtual midgets, Harold Norpoth looked like he had just come out of a concentration camp and Martti Vainio was a lanky beanpole. Successes have occurred because of, or in spite of every known body type.

Kenyans have economic gait. They also have doctor who worked for cyclists before Kenyans.

 

[Crankyfeet]

Good point. All the research seems to use moderate Hct increases. It makes you wonder what the gains were like when riders were taking their Hct to 60%. Pantani had some measurements of nearly 65%.

The funny thing is that since the 50% rule it appears that the pros' climbing is a little slower. Time trialing is just as fast or faster. Either the gains were not that great, which I think is hard to believe, or the riders switched to something that is nearly as effective but does not trigger the 50% rule.

From what I've picked up, insulin makes a huge difference to the volume transfer of glucogen through the opening in the cell wall. Its like a turbo-charger. But I don't know how long its been around for. And its not being tested for in cycling.

But there are obviously many things being done that only specialist doctors know about. Doctors and athletes might be giggling at our focus on "yesterday's" juice.

 

[Sports Scientis]

Thanks for that link. It's now on my favorites list.

It's a shame they couldn't have done more testing than just "peak power" and "time until exhaustion". And I'm not sure how scientific their science is. But it seems they don't have any particular agenda other than reader interest. Though they may not have to suffer scientific scrutiny like they would if they published their results in a reputable journal.

Hi there

Ross Tucker here, from the Science of Sport blog.

Thanks for the link - it was as a result of the link that I came across this forum. I see that Jonathan, who co-runs the blog with me has already posted, but thought I would add to the discussion.

It's good to read a forum where the users are quite particular and insistent about having evidence. I saw a post from someone asking for it - I think that is commendable.

One thing that we're particularly mindful of (and I think most academics should be, but are not, unfortunately), is excluding people who may not necessarily have access to that evidence. Jonathan and I are fortunate - we're both employed as academic staff members to lecture and research at our respective universities, and so we have access to scientific papers all the time. But 99% of people don't, and nor do they have the desire to plough through the scientific literature.

So when we set the blog up, our primary motivation was reader interest, you're onto us, CrankyFeet! The beauty of the field we're in is that people can all relate and take an interest. If I was a nuclear physicist, it might be difficult to have a dinner party conversation about quarks, muons and the atomic properties of light particles! But for sports and exercise science, we all share experiences and they produce wisdom and so we all 'own' a piece of the pie! Our goal was to make that 'pie' available! It was our intention to try to bring the sciences across in an entertaining, newsworthy way. We rapidly evolved into a news website, so we try to focus our stories on current news, like that case in New York of the death of an elite marathon runner, and so forth.

So while I appreciate that evidence is needed, we don't purport to be the scientific journal that provides it. But what we do try to do is translate the science, and if people are then interested, they can find articles that we mention. We also do publish our own work when we can, that's part of our 9 to 5 jobs with the University, and so there is research that we've cited in the blog that falls directly under our own 'pen or hand'. We couldn't and wouldn't put it out there on the internet until it was published in a journal anyway!

Part of the reason for doing this was that I was particularly frustrated at the relatively poor quality of the information provided through magazines and existing internet sites (at least in my experience)

But anyway, enough of that. To respond to some of the subsequent questions:

So while the argument makes sense that an elite, very highly trained cyclist might not have as much "room" for an improvement due to doping with EPO.

Absolutely, I agree that using an elite cyclist would produce smaller improvements. But considering a 54% improvement, and the fact that even a 5% improvement at the elite level is the difference between riding in yellow and riding in the autobus, I think it's still quite clear that EPO makes an enormous difference. How I wish that someone would do the studies on the elite and publish them! But that doesn't happen, for obvious reasons! Interestingly, few people can even do EPO studies on 'normal' people, because the ethical restrictions on human testing are pretty tight. Whenever we try to plan a research project, it has to go through a University Ethics Committee (which is a good thing, no argument there!), but it makes it nearly impossible to get away with the studies that really would blow the field wide open!

It seems to me that in Denmark, where this study was done, are able to do it - I think they have a good relationship with the ethics committee there, and they've done some absolutely extra-ordinary work in the last few years. Here where I am in Cape Town, we struggle to do that kind of work, it just doesn't get through ethical reviews!

As far as the study goes I'm interested in how the non-epo group did. Maybe I missed it? I think they probably showed an improvement as well.

No, they didn't improve. They produced almost identical performances, so the performance enhancing effect is due to EPO use. There are some issues in this study around 'blinding' the subjects, which I explained in the post (in the original blog article), but they did have a control group, and they definitely didn't improve.

And then finally, as for the Kenyan and Ethiopian dominance, a fascinating question. Can I sit on the fence and suggest "all of the above"? I think it will never be pinned to one factor - yes, genes are probably important, because they explain a lot of the differences between a Kenyan and say, a typical Samoan child (body shape, muscle fibre type, body fat distribution etc.). But then socio-economic factors are just as vital, and the training quality of the East Africans is notoriously high compared to what is being done elsewhere. But then that might only be a function of genetic differences, because no one else can train as hard without breaking down! So you see that it becomes an intricate web of factors, each one affecting the other.

And incredibly understudied. We're actually incredibly excited down in Cape Town, because we have a good relationship with Kenyatta University, and we've sent people over recently to visit the camps with the intent of setting up research collaborations and studies. I am heading over there next year before the Olympic trials for the same reason, and so hopefully we can add to the literature in that regard. But for now, let's just sit on the fence and say all of the above!

Thanks again, great forum, I'll visit again!

Cheers
Ross

 

[Felt_Rider]

Hi there

Ross Tucker here, from the Science of Sport blog.

One thing that we're particularly mindful of (and I think most academics should be, but are not, unfortunately), is excluding people who may not necessarily have access to that evidence. Jonathan and I are fortunate - we're both employed as academic staff members to lecture and research at our respective universities, and so we have access to scientific papers all the time. But 99% of people don't, and nor do they have the desire to plough through the scientific literature.

Cheers
Ross

For that reason I am appreciative of some the information on your blog as to a chronic problem that I have had regarding cramps and you have plenty of information on the subject. I have done plenty of research on public sports science sites, but as you say there is so much to sift through and much that I am not allowed to preview.

 

[phuckOff]

The article sucked!

 

[nns1400]

The article sucked!

Too many big words?

 

[fscyclist]

Hi Crankyfeet, and thanks for your interest in our blog The Science of Sport.

Just to clarify, the study we wrote about in that post was not our research, but instead was original research performed by a Danish group of scientists. We just reported the results on the blog as it is the first placebo controlled trial on EPO and exercise performance. The full reference is here:

J. J. Thomsen · R. L. Rentsch · P. Robach · J. A. L. Calbet · R. Boushel · P. Rasmussen · C. Juel · C. Lundby. "Prolonged administration of recombinant human erythropoietin increases submaximal performance more than maximal aerobic
capacity." Eur J Appl Physiol (2007) 101:481–486.

However, you are correct in your insight about their measurements. We were also puzzled why they chose a "time to exhaustion," as many review papers have shown that this type of test is marred with variability---especially in non-elite athletes. Therefore a time trial of some sort would have been much more meaningful.

We definitely avoid the scientific scrutiny on the blog, but I must admit that often times reader scrutiny is more stringent! It is a challenge to explain the physiological concepts in such a way that a non-expert can understand them, and very often our readers ask exremely challenging questions. However we have no conflicts of interest on the blog, and this permits us to post freely without undue influence from any third party, and we hope that keeps our info truthful and clean.

Anyway we get enough exposure to scientific scrutiny in our day jobs, and it is refreshing to have the opportunity to try to bring the science to the athletes who are out there logging all the miles. It has been great fun so far (we were "born" in late April) and we are really looking forward to the future and growing the blog more and more over time.

Glad to count you as a reader, and we hope to see you in some of the discussions/debates on our posts!

Kind Regards,
Jonathan

Jonathan,

Read through much of your site today and there's some good stuff there. Got a couple of questions.

I don't know the hierarchy of physiology journals. Was the EPO study you cited published in a reputable/top tier journal?

Along those lines, I've always wondered about the study published by Coyle regarding Armstrong and the theory that his improved efficiency is due to a change in muscle composition (a conclusion made without a biopsy). Due to the popular press it received, I read the journal article, but know little about the journal. Is it reputable or a '****' journal that will publish anything? I found the case study to be incredibly speculative and he jumped to an astonishing conclusion when there are many more proabable causes. How was that article received amongst physiologists?


Thanks,
FS

 

[slovakguy]

The article sucked!

brilliant rebuttal. how i long for the days of martin jackson's commentary.