Theoritical EPO question

Re: Theoritical EPO question

Posted by: acslater

OK stay with me on this one.

I am wondering if taking EPO for a season or two would have lasting effects because during that season you were able to ride at a higher intensity than was previously possible.

My reasoning is that everyone has heard of train low live high. Basically you have higher quality more intense workouts at sea level because your muslces have more access to oxygen. So if you were to take EPO for a season the entire time you are on it you are basically working out in a hyperoxic enviornment. Your muscles are getting more O2 and are able to sustain higher intenisty work levels. I would think that after doing this for a season even once you are off EPO you would benefit because you trained at a higher intensity. This compared to someone who wasn't doped.

For example two exact same riders with LT of 350 watts. One takes E for 6 months during the season the other doesn't (control). All season rider 1 is racing with a LT of 400 watts because he is on E and rider 2 still at his 350.

After the season is over rider 1 comes off E. Then both train in the off season. After rider 1's crit comes down to normal levels and the next season starts 6 months later. Wouldn't he have a higher LT than was attainable without E. So the numbers would be something like rider 1 has a LT of 375 after a season on E and rider 2 only has a LT of 360.

Not sure if this makes sense, but from what I know of physiology this should hold true. It seems to me being on E for a few years can change your abilities even when you are off it for a long period.

If this is true, should Basso et al. ever be let back into racing?

Lots of guys have wondered about this...good question.
It's a sure thing with bodybuilders and steroid use.....I can't see why it would not be to some degree for the endurance athlete and epo.
After all, your entitre system would be used to training with higher wattage, your body is adapting to higher absolute stress (even though the relative stress would be the same) and operating at a higher level all round....I can't see all of this benefit just going away IF you keep training.

I think you do keep some of the gains from hard training with a high crit.

RG

I have often thought that this theory was true. In addition to what you've stated, I would guess that HGH, test and EPO will all enhance vascular growth that will better supply blood to those muscles long after you stop taking them. Also, there is the mental aspect of having already seen yourself push a higher wattage, possibly giving you the ability to push yourself near this limit again (that part is in your head of course).

It is known in some instances that Hct level stays higher than previous normal levels after a few cycles;this does not happen to everybody.M/track

Posted by: madtrack

It is known in some instances that Hct level stays higher than previous normal levels after a few cycles;this does not happen to everybody.M/track

Without admitting to anything, I definitely agree

I would think a person would benefit from high altitude training because their body would learn to utilize the less oxygen available, and adapt to working in that type of environment? Isn't that why Lance and others train in the mountains, besides practicing climbing?

Posted by: dcross

I would think a person would benefit from high altitude training because their body would learn to utilize the less oxygen available, and adapt to working in that type of environment? Isn't that why Lance and others train in the mountains, besides practicing climbing?

??????? well do it ,or do more research about Vit E.
NOTE: Ivan Basso is the best tour rider in the world and has been for the last 3 years;he is now banned for 2 years and he never tested pos. for anything;Armstrong only rode the D. Liebre and the TDF every year only --Basso rode many more tours in those same years.Armstrong also never tested pos for anything???? --WHO IS THE BETTER TOUR RIDER?(please dont quote Fuentes ie name of Basso,s dog etc)Basso is a man and will do his time.Who is Armstrong?mountains or no fu---ing mountains.M/track Last edited by madtrack on 06-18-2007 at 09:28 PM

Posted by: dcross

I would think a person would benefit from high altitude training because their body would learn to utilize the less oxygen available, and adapt to working in that type of environment? Isn't that why Lance and others train in the mountains, besides practicing climbing?

Armstrong never trained at altitude much bro.....
training at altitude sucks as you cannot train hard. Some guys will train at 2-3,000 feet or less and then sleep at altitude but even this can such as sleeping at 10,000 plus feet doesn't result in a good sleep and recovery is hampered.
Hypoxic tents result in the same general crappy sleep and sub optimal recovery.

Armstrong blood doped with his own frozen packed red cells...as have others. He also used growth FOR SURE to enhance recovery as it is undetectable. He had cortison ein his blood in 99...remember....but "they" produced a script for a saddle cream with cotizone in it and the lie was bought.

Basso, Ullrich and co. etc etc had their frozen red cells in Fluentes freezer...that's why he got his ban and that's why Ullrich packed it in.

Sure Lance was a very good rider and a great talent but remember he always had the very best team too and they made shit load of time gap in the team TT. He also took NO CHANCES AT ALL. One on one, with an equal team..Basso would have bettered him and so would Ullrich, so would Indurain. Also, so would Hinualt, Fignon, Lemond, and others if they had Armstrongs high crit.
You don;t know how damn sick and tired I am of "Lance" and his BS "I can emphatically say I am not on drugs"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZAGX3Z2wua E" target="_blank" rel="noopener"> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZAGX3Z2wuaE

I agree with Madtrack ..Basso is "the man"...and he will come back strong!

RG Last edited by Realgains on 06-18-2007 at 11:21 PM

??????? well do it ,or do more research about Vit E.

OKAY...

Guys, can we keep the tone of this conversation a little more PG ? You know I have no problem with it, but this thread has been reported because someone felt offended, and we don't want to exclude anyone.

While I'm here, I may as well give my 2 cents. If you look at the current climate in cycling, and the story of Armstrong you can pretty much deduce the facts. Armstrong was no one before he got cancer. He was a hothead, and that was his only claim to fame prior to that period. In his post-cancer period he suddenly sky-rocketed to the top. It was a public secret that Armstrong was allowed to take a whole host of products that other cyclists weren't allowed to take on account of his cancer. Eventhough his cancer was gone, and years had gone by, the premise of "I might go into remission" kept him into a lot of products that wouldn't necessarily enhance performance, but could easily mask or amplify other products.

Now look at the current climate of cycling. The doping fighters are coming down hard all over Europe. Investigations that started as far back as 5 years are culminating in arrests, and apparently such conclusive evidence that a lot of reputable cyclists are admitting abuse to avoid having their name dragged through the mud anymore. And why not. They made all the money, they got the star treatment, and now their careers are drawing to a close they get a little shame and officially lose their titles. But do you think the guys that now get the title will get a ticker-tape parade ? Of course not.

Cycling has always been the greatest pharmaceutical testing ground for performance enhancement, it tests the human limits to increasingly impossible lengths. Since the 60's the whole environment has been corrupted with (I want to say use, but can't) abuse. Everyone actually in the sports business knows this.

What is happening now is just a political farce. Those who know the game, know they all use, and that the results are what they are. Ok, what Armstrong did was cheating a little since he didn't have to worry about really getting caught and all the rest did, but they all used and all had the same sort of access so that in the end it was still talent, gal and team effort that wins races.

So while I'm completely agreeing on the whole doping issue, and hypocrits like Armstrong, Landis and such, but to a degree its the same with Basso, and I don't think you can use this whole thing to push your favourite racer as the best. A race is a race, and if you take out the Armstrong factor, its still a fair sport, as unhealthy as it is.

Point taken Big Cat;why drag their names through the mud any further;it could and does happen to some of us! M/track

Re: Theoritical EPO question

Posted by: acslater

OK stay with me on this one.

I am wondering if taking EPO for a season or two would have lasting effects because during that season you were able to ride at a higher intensity than was previously possible.

My reasoning is that everyone has heard of train low live high. Basically you have higher quality more intense workouts at sea level because your muslces have more access to oxygen. So if you were to take EPO for a season the entire time you are on it you are basically working out in a hyperoxic enviornment. Your muscles are getting more O2 and are able to sustain higher intenisty work levels. I would think that after doing this for a season even once you are off EPO you would benefit because you trained at a higher intensity. This compared to someone who wasn't doped.

For example two exact same riders with LT of 350 watts. One takes E for 6 months during the season the other doesn't (control). All season rider 1 is racing with a LT of 400 watts because he is on E and rider 2 still at his 350.

After the season is over rider 1 comes off E. Then both train in the off season. After rider 1's crit comes down to normal levels and the next season starts 6 months later. Wouldn't he have a higher LT than was attainable without E. So the numbers would be something like rider 1 has a LT of 375 after a season on E and rider 2 only has a LT of 360.

Not sure if this makes sense, but from what I know of physiology this should hold true. It seems to me being on E for a few years can change your abilities even when you are off it for a long period.

---

In short 'No' this is not how it works for endurance athletes.

True, increased training capacity for a season does impact long term fitness. However, in this scenario training capacity would have to be increased for a few seasons.

The question is what are the long term effects of being on EPO for a number of seasons and then ceasing EPO administration? There is a good chance performance may never return to enhanced levels. There are a number fo riders from the late 90s who came out of nowhere and appeared to be huge talents. As EPO tests got better and riders got caught, many iders reduced or ceased prolonged EPO usage. Some of these riders are a shadow of what they were. We know that the body ceases natural EPO production if exogenous EPO is introduced. There appears to be a period of significantly reduced hcrit about 90-130 days after the final epo dose is administered.

Re: Re: Theoritical EPO question

Posted by: fhg43

In short 'No' this is not how it works for endurance athletes.

True, increased training capacity for a season does impact long term fitness. However, in this scenario training capacity would have to be increased for a few seasons.

The question is what are the long term effects of being on EPO for a number of seasons and then ceasing EPO administration? There is a good chance performance may never return to enhanced levels. There are a number fo riders from the late 90s who came out of nowhere and appeared to be huge talents. As EPO tests got better and riders got caught, many iders reduced or ceased prolonged EPO usage. Some of these riders are a shadow of what they were. We know that the body ceases natural EPO production if exogenous EPO is introduced. There appears to be a period of significantly reduced hcrit about 90-130 days after the final epo dose is administered.

I think they were shadows of their former selves because they could no longer be at 58-60% ie :Pantani. Few riders had the guts to jack to this level from 96 onward save for Riis, Pantani and a few others. In fact the Festina doctor refused to have his men above 54%. There is a difference between 50- 54 and 59- 60% re: sustainable power. 59-60% seems to be the peak for sustainable power reasons but it comes with a fairly high risk re: thrombus/clot formation and the health problems from that like DVT's, Renal artery obstruction and acute renal failure and even heart attacks at night as you sleep.

Regarding greatly reduced crit post cycle....
That is because of poor ferritin levels bro...not reduced natural epo levels. Natural epo levels rebound very rapidly post cycle. In fact as you stop the epo your crit declines quite slowly and natural epo levels have plenty of time to recover.
Trouble is guys do not monitor their stored iron(ferritin) and it can be depleted quite a bit as a long cycle comes to an end. A ferritin below 30 is not good and below 20 and you will suffer from anemia as an athlete. EPO can drop you well below 30 if you are not chopping enough iron and support vits like B12 and folic acid.

My .02

Cheers

RG Last edited by Realgains on 07-24-2007 at 08:28 AM

Re: Re: Re: Theoritical EPO question Hi all

2 points i want to comment on.

I ahve jsut finshed 6 month period on e, first three months i maintained 55% +/- 1% ish. second period i was 58-60%.

I noticed big difference at 60% when comparedwith 55%. Of course i was aware of risks and took appropriate measures. But I had no sides and will aim for 60 in the future.

Iron and B12, especially iron, you have to take shed loads, if your on e there is little chance of developing iron tox (unless you are doing IV iron) I was taking 240-300mgs elemental per day. My ferritin never got any higher than 240.

Now am off e i am still watching my Hct and will report to the forum how the figures go over the next 2-3 months.

I have experienced int he past a raised Hct following e, but in thepast the longest i have completed is 4 weeks on

Overall I think iron is key, there is so much crap said about iron, i had weekly serum ferritin checks to be sure about iron intake and know oral intake has to be higher than most think. Alos i found liquid iron much more effective than tablet

GP

Posted by: Realgains

I think they were shadows of their former selves because they could no longer be at 58-60% ie :Pantani. Few riders had the guts to jack to this level from 96 onward save for Riis, Pantani and a few others. In fact the Festina doctor refused to have his men above 54%. There is a difference between 50- 54 and 59- 60% re: sustainable power. 59-60% seems to be the peak for sustainable power reasons but it comes with a fairly high risk re: thrombus/clot formation and the health problems from that like DVT's, Renal artery obstruction and acute renal failure and even heart attacks at night as you sleep.

Regarding greatly reduced crit post cycle....
That is because of poor ferritin levels bro...not reduced natural epo levels. Natural epo levels rebound very rapidly post cycle. In fact as you stop the epo your crit declines quite slowly and natural epo levels have plenty of time to recover.
Trouble is guys do not monitor their stored iron(ferritin) and it can be depleted quite a bit as a long cycle comes to an end. A ferritin below 30 is not good and below 20 and you will suffer from anemia as an athlete. EPO can drop you well below 30 if you are not chopping enough iron and support vits like B12 and folic acid.

My .02

Cheers

RG

Re: Re: Re: Re: Theoritical EPO question

Posted by: ghisallo_paul

Hi all

2 points i want to comment on.

I ahve jsut finshed 6 month period on e, first three months i maintained 55% +/- 1% ish. second period i was 58-60%.

I noticed big difference at 60% when comparedwith 55%. Of course i was aware of risks and took appropriate measures. But I had no sides and will aim for 60 in the future.

Iron and B12, especially iron, you have to take shed loads, if your on e there is little chance of developing iron tox (unless you are doing IV iron) I was taking 240-300mgs elemental per day. My ferritin never got any higher than 240.

Now am off e i am still watching my Hct and will report to the forum how the figures go over the next 2-3 months.

I have experienced int he past a raised Hct following e, but in thepast the longest i have completed is 4 weeks on

Overall I think iron is key, there is so much crap said about iron, i had weekly serum ferritin checks to be sure about iron intake and know oral intake has to be higher than most think. Alos i found liquid iron much more effective than tablet

GP

Good reply bro.

One comment....you are correct about the iron but you don't need to "keep" a ferritin above 100. The reason the literature says to have a ferritin of 100 before starting is because doctors want to see a reserve of stored iron since epo really eats up the iron.

Trying to keep a ferritin of 200 plus is not a good idea because if it is building up like that then it is toxic to some degree.

As long as you ferritin never drops below about 40 you'll be fine. That is cutting it pretty close though and doesn't leave you much reserve so I recommend never going below 60. One 6000iu shot can eat up a lot of iron as the body makes red cells from that stimulation.

Anemia will not occur until you drop below 30 and sometimes below 20. However, red cells production is not best in athletes with a ferritin below 30. This leaves you with no reserve while on epo. If you see a ferritin on 30-40 you better start chopping the iron!

About a 60% crit being really good. I remember when Riis won the tour. He was about 59-60 and everyone else was about 54. He was a good good rider but was never really considered a threat to win the tour. Then at 34 years old he basically destroys everyone in the mountain including elite climbers. The Festina boys and best climbers, Richard Virenque and luc leblanc where all at about 54% because their doctor refused to have them higher. Riis completely toys with them!

Also, Pantani is another one that was unreal at 60%.

This is a clip I think from those days. Watch Riis closely!!!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DwHlCl2s0U M" target="_blank" rel="noopener"> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DwHlCl2s0UM

RG Last edited by Realgains on 07-24-2007 at 07:13 PM