New Research Indicates EPO Gives No Performance Advantage

[KneesUp]

An interesting article in the Torygraph this morning:

"In the first study of its kind, scientists challenged a group of 48 cyclists to tackle a series of challenges, including the infamous Mont Ventoux ascent, which often forms part of the Tour.

Half had been given eight weekly injections of EPO, a drug that promotes red blood cell production with the aim of increasing delivery of oxygen to the muscles, while the other half took a dummy.

But after the gruelling 21.5km climb - which was preceded by a 110km cycle for good measure - the average results of the two groups showed no difference whatsoever.

The scientists behind the trial, which is published in the Lancet, say athletes are “naive” about the benefits of illicit substances such as EPO, but that myths about their effectiveness go unchallenged in the murky world of doping.

“It’s just tragic to lose your career for something that doesn’t work, to lose seven yellow jerseys for a drug that has no effect,” said Jules Heuberger, who led the research at the Centre for Human Drug Research in The Netherlands."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/...drug-choice-epo-doesnt-work-scientists-claim/

 

[Yellow Saddle]

Like you say, it is interesting. If the research was done properly and if it proves what it claims to prove, then it opens a can of worms. However, the iffy reporting on the study doesn't really give us insight into the study itself.

At best, we can just marvel and the powerful placebo effect and pose the hypothetical question of whether a placebo could be considered an illegal drug in competition.

 

[mjr]

Not enough info in the article to say, but I wouldn't be surprised if merely taking the stuff wasn't sufficient to get a boast.

 

[Fab Foodie]

Yebbut, it is in the Lance t.....

 

[Crackle]

It's interesting but then it's set against a lot of other studies which do infer an advantage. Plus as it says right at the end, individual response and elite athlete response might be quite different. I think there's no doubt about the placebo effect though.

 

[KneesUp]

It's interesting but then it's set against a lot of other studies which do infer an advantage. Plus as it says right at the end, individual response and elite athlete response might be quite different. I think there's no doubt about the placebo effect though.

That's a statement from someone who doesn't seem to have done any experiments to check it, which makes it rather less compelling than the conclusions based on data.

 

[Crackle]

That's a statement from someone who doesn't seem to have done any experiments to check it, which makes it rather less compelling than the conclusions based on data.

So you've not read any other studies, just that one. And why would I do any studies, perhaps you could reference yours first, if not we're at the same point of reading studies we've found reported.

Edit: ignore this, post completely misunderstood

 

[winjim]

Like you say, it is interesting. If the research was done properly and if it proves what it claims to prove, then it opens a can of worms. However, the iffy reporting on the study doesn't really give us insight into the study itself.

At best, we can just marvel and the powerful placebo effect and pose the hypothetical question of whether a placebo could be considered an illegal drug in competition.

http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanhae/article/PIIS2352-3026(17)30105-9/abstract

It's a sort of model study to test the viability of doing this sort of study.

 

[KneesUp]

So you've not read any other studies, just that one. And why would I do any studies, perhaps you could reference yours first, if not we're at the same point of reading studies we've found reported.

Back off tiger. I was referring to the quote from Prof. John Brewer - the one you referenced, which appears at the end of the article.
Prof Brewer doesn't seem to have researched the effect of EPO, and appears unaware of other research into it - for example http://pubs.sciepub.com/ajssm/1/2/2/

 

[Crackle]

Back off tiger. I was referring to the quote from Prof. John Brewer - the one you referenced, which appears at the end of the article.
Prof Brewer doesn't seem to have researched the effect of EPO, and appears unaware of other research into it - for example http://pubs.sciepub.com/ajssm/1/2/2/

Sorry, I completely misunderstood your post.

 

[mjr]

http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanhae/article/PIIS2352-3026(17)30105-9/abstract

It's a sort of model study to test the viability of doing this sort of study.

"Although rHuEPO treatment improved a laboratory test of maximal exercise, the more clinically relevant submaximal exercise test performance and road race performance were not affected."

I wonder what the basis is for calling the submaximal exercise test and 1h40 road race "more clinically relevant"? Improving the maximal would seem to imply that it may have some benefit for races where people take it to the limit again and again, which for professional riders would probably be the grand tours.

 

[Pro Tour Punditry]

Sorry, I completely misunderstood...

I just take that as read...

 

[HF2300]

... if merely taking the stuff wasn't sufficient to get a boast.

A damning indictment of professional cyclists' arrogance

 

[winjim]

"Although rHuEPO treatment improved a laboratory test of maximal exercise, the more clinically relevant submaximal exercise test performance and road race performance were not affected."

I wonder what the basis is for calling the submaximal exercise test and 1h40 road race "more clinically relevant"? Improving the maximal would seem to imply that it may have some benefit for races where people take it to the limit again and again, which for professional riders would probably be the grand tours.

I would have thought that the maximal would be something like the last 100 yards of a sprint finish with the rest of a GT stage being a submaximal endurance race. But I'm not really familiar with training jargon.

 

[Adam4868]

I'd guess if you were a amateur rider maybe it won't make a difference.But if you were at the top of your game "every little helps" ?
If it was as the article says does that mean Lance can keep his jerseys....nah.