"Modern training and nutrition".

Robney · Sep 24, 2019

dealt_with said: ↑

There’s no such thing as a ‘PED’. That name is made up by the media and the layperson. There’s a list of banned substances, it would be inaccurate and baseless to have a list with ‘performance enhancing drugs’. There isn’t evidence for that, and it’s always going to be in the context of the sport.
Click to expand...

There certainly is, that's why it's so widely used.

Study; The effect of EPO on performance said:

Evidence for the effect of drugs on performance
In previous posts, we’ve looked at the data from the East German doping “machine” published by Franke & Berendonk in 1997 in Clinical Chemistry, looked at the effect of a steroid programme on performance. That paper showed a great example of how a ‘mediocre’ shot-put athlete became a world record holder, driven on by a 17% improvement in ONE season. But, that was steroids, not the most widely used drugs in cycling, though they are certainly used, if the tests and testimonies are believed. There are benefits to using steroids, for sure, in that they will assist in recovery. There is ample evidence of how testosterone levels fall progressively during a period of hard training or racing and so the correct use of steroids will improve recovery and thus performance in the longer races. But we’re more interested in EPO. There is plenty of evidence that shows indirect benefits, including Marco Pantani’s remarkble hematocrit graph, which correlated precisely with his performance over the course of three seasons. But it’s direct evidence we’re after, and that’s where we turn to a study published in August this year.

EPO improves performance by 54% in a laboratory trial
This great study, published in the European Journal of Applied Physiology earlier this year, evaluated the effects of EPO use on performance during cycling. We’ll try to break the study down as simply and clearly as possible:

Who was tested?
They had 16 reasonably fit cyclists take part in the study. The pre-testing VO2max tests showed an average VO2 of about 3.90L/min and a Peak Power Output of 325 W. By no means world-class cyclists, but fit athletes. This does have some implications for the application of the data, which we’ll get to later.

How were they tested?
The testing involved an 13-week period, where the 16 athletes were split into two groups. The control group received placebo injection, whereas the 8 cyclists in the EPO group received a dosage of EPO on a schedule worked out over the 13-week period. One potential problem with the study was that the EPO group could not be blinded that they were receiving EPO, for ethical reasons. What this means is that everyone receiving EPO KNEW that they were, and there’s good reason to believe that simply knowing you’re receiving a drug improves performance as well! The control subjects were blinded, so they did not know whether they were on EPO or not, which does partly offset this problem.

Measures of performance?
All the athletes were tested BEFORE and AFTER the injections doing two performance-trials:

Peak Power Output testing – here, the subjects start off riding at a low power output and the workload increases every 90seconds until exhaustion. Basically, the cyclist has to go harder and harder until they cannot push anymore! The test is used to measure VO2max and also a Peak Power Output

This was followed by a Trial to Exhaustion at 80% of the previously determined Peak Power Output. In this trial, the cyclist rides at ONE power output – 80% of their maximum, and they ride until exhaustion. This test is used as a measure of endurance performance. This trial was done after 4 weeks and again after 11 weeks of the trial.

The results: A 54% improvement in performance
We don’t wish to go into all the blood analysis and DEXA work done – they measured all kinds of things, but this is a post about performance. And the main finding was that EPO use improved time to exhaustion by an enormous 54% within 4 weeks! Peak Power Output improved by 13% in the first four weeks of the trial.
Click to expand...

DonnyMo · Sep 24, 2019

Brixton Bomber said: ↑

Clueless.

If Boxers were better then (which they wasn't), then that's down to SKILL.

I'd pick Usyk, Loma, Canelo and Wilder over anyone from that time period.
Click to expand...

Loma over Armstrong?
Canelo over Marcel or Zale?
we could go on and on....just go back to bed.

Tramell · Sep 24, 2019

Brixton Bomber said: ↑

I stopped reading here. Know why? Evander enlisted the help of a BODYBUILDING CHAMPION to go up to HW. And he was never some type of "1 and gone" at CW.

Reminder the board, how did Evander fare at HW again?

Another clueless individual.
Click to expand...

I could care less what U read or don't read.
Ask the board one question and think U will get one answer...Oh, he did better at CW than HW. He had no 1 punch KO power in either division. Thanks though for validating that after he took on or enlist, it still didn't make a difference other than appearance.

Log in or Sign up

"Modern training and nutrition".

Robney ᴻᴼ ᴸᴼᴻᴳᴲᴿ ᴲ۷ᴵᴸ Full Member

DonnyMo Boxing Addict Full Member

Tramell Hypocrites Love to Pray & Be Seen. Mathew 6:5 Full Member

Log in or Sign up

Forums

"Modern training and nutrition".

Robney ᴻᴼ ᴸᴼᴻᴳᴲᴿ ᴲ۷ᴵᴸ Full Member

DonnyMo Boxing Addict Full Member

Tramell Hypocrites Love to Pray & Be Seen. Mathew 6:5 Full Member