biker jk wrote: Alex Simmons/RST wrote: MichaelB wrote:Froome team straw clutching ?
- well, isn't the best form of defence to attack ? Wonder who paid for the study or 'assisted' the findings ? Apparently (can't be bothered reading it all) it's the same author who thinks that EPO (yeah, more complicated than that I know, but still....) isn't a performance enhancer.
The EPO study you refer to never made any such claim.
The media, who routinely misrepresent or misunderstand science studies, made the stupid misinformed statement that is now most unfairly attributed to the scientists in a specialist drug research facility who performed some reasonably sound research.
I really suggest reading the actual study before repeating such mistaken claims. And if after reading it's not clear what can and should not be inferred from it, ask people with expertise in the subject matter.
Ross Tucker said the research suggested no EPO benefit and also said the research was widely criticized. Perhaps you should let Ross know he's misrepresenting the research.
But what was actually criticised? I don't read much of what Tucker writes, I find it all a bit click bait-ey. I've no idea what he's said and hence have no comment as to how he may have represented it. I'd rather read the actual science, it's more interesting.
Often people complain that research doesn't answer the question they
want answered, but that's often quite unfair. You should judge research based on the question(s) it does sets out to investigate.
The study had two objectives. One was to see what differences there were between two evenly matched groups of trained but not elite cyclists
, one receiving quite modest rhEPO dosages and one placebo.
The other more important objective was to test/establish an ethical research protocol for doing such research in the future since, and here's why that's important; there is very little actual decent research into answering the question about the ergogenic impact of exogenous EPO
. The scientific evidence is actually pretty skinny.
This does not mean scientists say there is no impact, but rather solid evidence about actual controlled usage to establish a dose-response relationship is very limited such that if it were administered to patients in the manner it is to cyclists it would be considered clinical malpractice.
As for the study in question, there were metabolic differences, e.g. the EPO group had higher haemoglobin levels, higher maximal aerobic power and higher VO2max compared with the placebo group, but the submaximal results were no different to a statistically significant level. I don't think that is overly surprising given the protocol used.
They did not report pre and post intervention results, which means it doesn't tell us the full story that we'd like to read
. But then it never really set out to.
Its purpose was to check whether conducting such research using their dosage protocol was safe and ethical, and since they demonstrated it was then further research on performance impacts was open for others to undertake in the knowledge that the basic protocol was shown to be safe.
There is a little bit of science into impact of EPO on cycling performance, e.g.:http://europepmc.org/abstract/med/10912888https://link.springer.com/article/10.10 ... 007-0522-8
Note that these findings are not actually inconsistent with the study being criticised. Hct, MAP and VO2max increases in EPO groups are reported fairly consistently. But it took much higher and lengthier dosages than in the criticised study for submaximal performance improvement to be shown. That said, even then time to exhaustion when normalised to same submaximal proportion of VO2max actually declined in the EPO group. It was TTE performance at same absolute power that improved.