Heras and Faith in the testers

[Tom Kunich]

We're discussing a reading that comes from an automated instrument.
There are conditions which cause the instrument to read up to 6% (in
some cases more) different from the reading. In other words someone
with 50% could read 44% or 56%. Usually the operator is aware of this
sort of thing and can tell the differences between medical conditions
that cause this and mechanical conditions of the tests.

 

[Tom Kunich]

We're discussing a reading that comes from an automated instrument.
There are conditions which cause the instrument to read up to 6% (in
some cases more) different from the reading. In other words someone
with 50% could read 44% or 56%. Usually the operator is aware of this
sort of thing and can tell the differences between medical conditions
that cause this and mechanical conditions of the tests.

 

[Carl Sundquist]

"Tom Kunich" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> We're discussing a reading that comes from an automated instrument.
> There are conditions which cause the instrument to read up to 6% (in
> some cases more) different from the reading. In other words someone
> with 50% could read 44% or 56%. Usually the operator is aware of this
> sort of thing and can tell the differences between medical conditions
> that cause this and mechanical conditions of the tests.
>

"I know it when I see it?"

 

[Carl Sundquist]

"Tom Kunich" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Kyle Legate wrote:
>>
>> Which means that your anecdote about your hematocrit is meaningless. If
>> you trained >5 hours a day your hematocrit would not be 49.
>
> On exactly what grounds do you make claims like that?

Do you think your blood volume would be the same as it is now if you trained
to the degree of a pro roadie?

>
> There are MANY professional bicycle racers who have medical releases to
> ride with up to 54%.
>
> I suggest that you ought to remain silent on things you apparently
> don't understand.
>

 

[gds]

Kyle Legate wrote:
> gds wrote:
>> >
> >
> > Just FYI. My hct is ~ 49 and has tested at that level each year for
> > years. And I am not a elite athlete. I am 60 yo and now purely a
> > recreational rider.
> >
>
> Which means that your anecdote about your hematocrit is meaningless. If
> you trained >5 hours a day your hematocrit would not be 49.

Uhh! But I said wasn't an elite athlete just a rcreational athlete.
That's because I have no talent. But being semi retired I have lots of
time and am pretty fit and often ride or hike for 5+ hours.

 

[Kyle Legate]

> "Tom Kunich" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
>>I suggest that you ought to remain silent on things you apparently
>>don't understand.
>>
I guess that puts an end to your posting career.

 

[Tom Kunich]

"Do you think your blood volume would be the same as it is now if you
trained to the degree of a pro roadie?"

Yes, given enough time to equilibrate.

Unless you're suggesting that those present riders who bear
certificates from the UCI to permit their hematocrit to be as high as
54% would "naturally" have much higher levels.

 

[Tom Kunich]

"Carl Sundquist" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:gdIjf.11136$QW2.5927@dukeread08...
>
> "Tom Kunich" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> We're discussing a reading that comes from an automated instrument.
>> There are conditions which cause the instrument to read up to 6% (in
>> some cases more) different from the reading. In other words someone
>> with 50% could read 44% or 56%. Usually the operator is aware of this
>> sort of thing and can tell the differences between medical conditions
>> that cause this and mechanical conditions of the tests.
>>
>
> "I know it when I see it?"

Yes but no. You KNOW when you centrifuge the sample about what sort of
reading you're going to get. If the reading from the automatic reader is
somehow significantly different you do further tests to see why that would
be. For instance, one type of blood disease causes the erythrocytes to clump
together which would give a high reading on the automatic reader. Just
looking at it under a microscope would show you the cause of the unexpected
reading.

 

[Tom Kunich]

<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> Tom Kunich wrote:
>
>> 1) "The now former TIAA-CREF team physician Prentice Steffen has
>> retracted the comments he made recently in L'Equipe concerning Lance
>> Armstrong and other athletes, and doping."
>
> not exactly. he never retracted his claim that hamilton asked him for
> doping products (a comment he made years ago). he only retracted the
> comment he made this year which was along the lines "not only bad guys
> like armstrong dope, but even nice guys like hamilton do too".

I'd be willing to bet that there are a million things that he never
retracted.

 

[Carl Sundquist]

"Tom Kunich" <[email protected]> wrote in message

>>> We're discussing a reading that comes from an automated instrument.
>>> There are conditions which cause the instrument to read up to 6% (in
>>> some cases more) different from the reading. In other words someone
>>> with 50% could read 44% or 56%. Usually the operator is aware of this
>>> sort of thing and can tell the differences between medical conditions
>>> that cause this and mechanical conditions of the tests.
>>>
>>
>> "I know it when I see it?"
>
> Yes but no. You KNOW when you centrifuge the sample about what sort of
> reading you're going to get. If the reading from the automatic reader is
> somehow significantly different you do further tests to see why that would
> be. For instance, one type of blood disease causes the erythrocytes to
> clump together which would give a high reading on the automatic reader.
> Just looking at it under a microscope would show you the cause of the
> unexpected reading.
>

So in other words, you can get a precise measurement by secondary means if
the crit reads over 50%?

 

[Tom Kunich]

"Carl Sundquist" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:w39kf.11466$QW2.8159@dukeread08...
>
> "Tom Kunich" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
>>>> We're discussing a reading that comes from an automated instrument.
>>>> There are conditions which cause the instrument to read up to 6% (in
>>>> some cases more) different from the reading. In other words someone
>>>> with 50% could read 44% or 56%. Usually the operator is aware of this
>>>> sort of thing and can tell the differences between medical conditions
>>>> that cause this and mechanical conditions of the tests.
>>>>
>>>
>>> "I know it when I see it?"
>>
>> Yes but no. You KNOW when you centrifuge the sample about what sort of
>> reading you're going to get. If the reading from the automatic reader is
>> somehow significantly different you do further tests to see why that
>> would be. For instance, one type of blood disease causes the erythrocytes
>> to clump together which would give a high reading on the automatic
>> reader. Just looking at it under a microscope would show you the cause of
>> the unexpected reading.
>>
>
> So in other words, you can get a precise measurement by secondary means if
> the crit reads over 50%?

I don't understand what you're getting at. The "Gold Standard" in hematocrit
is supposed to be centrifuge. There are problems with that because you have
to put in several "adjustments" that have to do with cells not being able to
knock together close enough to exclude all serum.

But it takes a lot of time and requires a lot of blood. So the machine which
reads by counting the cells in a certain volume optically is used for most
tests. This too has possible problems. There is a third method which had
been used for awhile but I don't know if it is now - that's where the lab
technician squints through a microscope and counts the blood cells in a
certain size field. But the problems in all cases can be countered by the
skill of the operator of the equipment.

So no matter what the test it requires a skilled operator and even then it's
possible to get a bad reading in ALL THREE tests, though it would be
peculiar to get them on the same blood sample.

 

[Donald Munro]

Robert Chung wrote:
>> 1154 days until the next inaugural.

[email protected] wrote:
> Please don't mention the oft-postponed Hamilton case
> and the nominal date of the next inaugural in the same
> post. That gives me migraines.

http://home.earthlink.net/~pegasosppc/bahcount.html

 

[Mad Dog]

[email protected] says...

>Please don't mention the oft-postponed Hamilton case
>and the nominal date of the next inaugural in the same
>post. That gives me migraines.

the oft-postponed Hamilton case
and the nominal date of the next inaugural in the same
post.

the oft-postponed Hamilton case
and the nominal date of the next inaugural in the same
post.

the oft-postponed Hamilton case
and the nominal date of the next inaugural in the same
post.

the oft-postponed Hamilton case
and the nominal date of the next inaugural in the same
post.

the oft-postponed Hamilton case
and the nominal date of the next inaugural in the same
post.

the oft-postponed Hamilton case
and the nominal date of the next inaugural in the same
post.

the oft-postponed Hamilton case
and the nominal date of the next inaugural in the same
post.

the oft-postponed Hamilton case
and the nominal date of the next inaugural in the same
post.

the oft-postponed Hamilton case
and the nominal date of the next inaugural in the same
post.

the oft-postponed Hamilton case
and the nominal date of the next inaugural in the same
post.

the oft-postponed Hamilton case
and the nominal date of the next inaugural in the same
post.

the oft-postponed Hamilton case
and the nominal date of the next inaugural in the same
post.