If EPO is safe, why doesn't the human body naturally produce more?

[BrentonOfTheNorth]

Similarly confused about steroids. If doping makes a person stronger, fitter, healthier, able to recover more quickly... why do most humans not produce more testosterone, or tend to have hematocrits in the 50-60% range?

Evolutionarily speaking, it seems odd that a human's hematocrit naturally drops with hard training/racing... one would think that the body would have a reason for not responding by increasing hematocrit.

What am I missing here?

 

[Mambo95]

What am I missing here?

Nature and evolution aren't perfect. They're based more on the best that a haphazard system comes up with rather than some sort of intelligent design.

Why don't humans have eyesight like eagles or a 240 VO2 like huskies?

 

[Hematide]

Nature and evolution aren't perfect. They're based more on the best that a haphazard system comes up with rather than some sort of intelligent design.

Why don't humans have eyesight like eagles or a 240 VO2 like huskies?

If it kills you only after you can create a lot of offspring, the evolutionary disadvtage is not so large

 

[Richeypen]

The body does produce more EPO in hypoxic conditions. Hence why people go altitude training.


As for steroids etc, more muscle is calorie expensive with is obviously a massive negative if their are limited resources. Basically we dont have more because we dont need more.

 

[hfer07]

Similarly confused about steroids. If doping makes a person stronger, fitter, healthier, able to recover more quickly... why do most humans not produce more testosterone, or tend to have hematocrits in the 50-60% range?

Evolutionarily speaking, it seems odd that a human's hematocrit naturally drops with hard training/racing... one would think that the body would have a reason for not responding by increasing hematocrit.

What am I missing here?

 

[BrentonOfTheNorth]

As for steroids etc, more muscle is calorie expensive with is obviously a massive negative if their are limited resources. Basically we dont have more because we dont need more.

That makes sense. I figured as much regarding increasing muscle, but hadn't considered the muscle growth factor as being obvious in improving recovery time.

Why don't humans have eyesight like eagles or a 240 VO2 like huskies?

Can eagles see well at close range?
Dogs are structured so differently from humans... the VO2 difference isn't caused by something simple like differing hormonal levels.

This forum has trolls with over 2700 posts? Weird.

 

[hfer07]

Instead of asking why Humans can't sprint like cheetahs or be as strong as Gorillas- You should ask yourself why are you lacking common sense

 

[on3m@n@rmy]

Similarly confused about steroids. If doping makes a person stronger, fitter, healthier, able to recover more quickly... why do most humans not produce more testosterone, or tend to have hematocrits in the 50-60% range?

Evolutionarily speaking, it seems odd that a human's hematocrit naturally drops with hard training/racing... one would think that the body would have a reason for not responding by increasing hematocrit.

What am I missing here?

ask the heart. It knows.

 

[Red Rick]

It's pretty simple, the blood has to be fluid. It gets thicker as the hematocrit increases, so it's very dangerous to get your hematocrit to high. The chance of dying before being able to reproduce would increase, therefore evolution hasn't created those hematocrit value's.

An example: Some diseases like Huntington's are dominant and incurable, the only reason it exists is that it doesn't kill the patient before it reproduces

 

[WD-40.]

Nature and evolution aren't perfect. They're based more on the best that a haphazard system comes up with rather than some sort of intelligent design.

100% correct.

If it kills you only after you can create a lot of offspring, the evolutionary disadvtage is not so large

Also 100% correct.

It's pretty simple, the blood has to be fluid. It gets thicker as the hematocrit increases, so it's very dangerous to get your hematocrit to high. The chance of dying before being able to reproduce would increase, therefore evolution hasn't created those hematocrit value's.

An example: Some diseases like Huntington's are dominant and incurable, the only reason it exists is that it doesn't kill the patient before it reproduces

100% correct on the bolded point.


Well I was expecting most of the replies to this topic to be of typical 'clinic quality' but it is nice to see that there are some great replies which hit the nail on the head spot on.

Anyone who says that everything that happens in the human body happens for a good reason is incorrect. Due to the nature of evolution humans are not created (by evolution) to deal with what happens after breeding age, evolution has not had the chance to go that far. If it happens to have worked well enough to breed (partly by chance or not) than it gets passed on, even if terrible illnesses and aging set in after breeding age.

Intelligent design would remedy a few idiosyncrasies of the human body quite nicely.

WD

 

[WD-40.]

As for steroids etc, more muscle is calorie expensive with is obviously a massive negative if their are limited resources. Basically we dont have more because we dont need more.

Very important point. It always amuses me that women (and men) very often are quick to criticize men who are skinny by saying things like they are "weak" or fragile or do not eat enough and must suffer from poor health because of not carrying a great deal of muscle mass, when the fact is that much or even most of the time it is an advantage to be skinnier. There is good reason that in some parts of the world people are smaller and in times of food shortages which is REALLY serious the ones who are larger are often the first to perish due to requiring more food to survive.

There are many people walking around today who can only live the life that they are living or even be living at all due to an abundance of food. In a potential scenario of a serious food shortage in the developed western world females may well become sexually disinterested in larger men who can only thrive in conditions where food is aplenty and become attracted to generally smaller men and those who thrive in conditions of food shortages - and who would otherwise and currently appear unattractive as a mate. Females will instinctively not mate with those who they feel are not going to produce ideal offspring, this behavior of selecting a mate will change depending on the environment - both present and projected.

Anyway I am getting onto topics which fascinate me and are moving away from the original question.

WD

 

[Velodude]

Very important point. It always amuses me that women (and men) very often are quick to criticize men who are skinny by saying things like they are "weak" or fragile or do not eat enough and must suffer from poor health because of not carrying a great deal of muscle mass, when the fact is that much or even most of the time it is an advantage to be skinnier. There is good reason that in some parts of the world people are smaller and in times of food shortages which is REALLY serious the ones who are larger are often the first to perish due to requiring more food to survive.

There are many people walking around today who can only live the life that they are living or even be living at all due to an abundance of food. In a potential scenario of a serious food shortage in the developed western world females may well become sexually disinterested in larger men who can only thrive in conditions where food is aplenty and become attracted to generally smaller men and those who thrive in conditions of food shortages - and who would otherwise and currently appear unattractive as a mate. Females will instinctively not mate with those who they feel are not going to produce ideal offspring, this behavior of selecting a mate will change depending on the environment - both present and projected.

Anyway I am getting onto topics which fascinate me and are moving away from the original question.

WD

Just curious, are you skinny?

There is a genetic disease state of polycythemia where there can exist natural abnormally high levels of hct.

http://www.acpmedicine.com/acp/chapters/ch0505.htm

In one large Finnish family with polycythemia, a point mutation in the erythropoietin receptor rendered the erythroid progenitor cells hypersensitive to erythropoietin. Interestingly, one member of this family who had a hematocrit of 60% won three gold medals in cross-country skiing at the 1964 Winter Olympics.

Living at altitude over long periods of time does not necessarily increase hct levels.

A study reported in National Geographic disclosed that an analysis of three racial groups living at very high altitudes for centuries (Andes, Himalayas & Africa) only the Andean group had an increased hct level.

That is probably why studies have also shown that about 40% of test subjects are non responders to altitude training.

 

[WD-40.]

Just curious, are you skinny?

I was meaning but forgot to state in my previous post that I am not particularly skinny these days at least at 5ft 11 and 84Kg, all muscle too.

 

[Caruut]

Similarly confused about steroids. If doping makes a person stronger, fitter, healthier, able to recover more quickly... why do most humans not produce more testosterone, or tend to have hematocrits in the 50-60% range?

Evolutionarily speaking, it seems odd that a human's hematocrit naturally drops with hard training/racing... one would think that the body would have a reason for not responding by increasing hematocrit.

What am I missing here?

Cyclists in the 50-60% range had to sleep with heart monitors so that they didn't die in their sleep due to the heart slowing right down. There's one answer.

Part of what you're missing is the error in your original premise, the bolded part, ("healthier"). Doping is often only good for the health when you are exerting yourself to such a degree that your life and/or long-term health are put under serious threat.

 

[mastersracer]

There are certainly some striking examples of superior athletic physiology among non-humans, particularly sled dogs, who have VO2 values as high as 240 ml/kg/min, are able to utilize fat as a substrate far more efficiently than humans (a 55 pound dog can expend 12,000 calories/day during the race), and who appear not to fatigue during the equivalent of stage races (Iditarod). After 4 days of racing, their biochemical profile appears to return to a rested state - would make for an interesting biopassport program.

You can make lots of arguments for why the selective pressures humans faced didn't result in similar adaptations, but considering the fact that hominids appear to have been calorically challenged most of the time, it's a mystery, particularly since encephalization is so nutritionally taxing.

 

[MarkvW]

EPO messes with your red blood cell / white blood cell balance. You jack up the RBCs at the expense of the WBCs. Disrupt the balance too much, and you disrupt the body's ability to fight infection.

 

[Murray]

It's because natural selection is for improving survival, not winning bike races.

 

[momotaro]

It's because natural selection is for improving survival, not winning bike races.

This is correct.

Nature and evolution aren't perfect. They're based more on the best that a haphazard system comes up with rather than some sort of intelligent design.

Actually I would argue that evolution is the most intelligent design for survival and nearly perfect overtime.

 

[WillemS]

Due to the nature of evolution humans are not created (by evolution) to deal with what happens after breeding age, evolution has not had the chance to go that far. If it happens to have worked well enough to breed (partly by chance or not) than it gets passed on, even if terrible illnesses and aging set in after breeding age.

But this might not be spot on. It might be mostly true, but given the group environment we typically think humans evolved in, some post-breeding changes might actually be advantageous for the group ergo might benefit the the amount of offspring in that genetic pool. Although this effect is quite small compared to the individual process, it might be an explanation for some, probably historically recent, evolutionary effects. (Plus, in most mammals, offspring will only survive if the parent survives past breeding. Especially in humans, but some other species as well, offspring need parents until a fairly old age (i.e. the parent has to live for some time after breeding, thus, Huntington's would have had an evolutionairy disadvantage if it would have a more early onset, even if it would still be after breeding.)

 

[WD-40.]

But this might not be spot on. It might be mostly true, but given the group environment we typically think humans evolved in, some post-breeding changes might actually be advantageous for the group ergo might benefit the the amount of offspring in that genetic pool. Although this effect is quite small compared to the individual process, it might be an explanation for some, probably historically recent, evolutionary effects. (Plus, in most mammals, offspring will only survive if the parent survives past breeding. Especially in humans, but some other species as well, offspring need parents until a fairly old age (i.e. the parent has to live for some time after breeding, thus, Huntington's would have had an evolutionairy disadvantage if it would have a more early onset, even if it would still be after breeding.)

You are quite right and I should have stated "significantly beyond breeding age".

Obviously there is still much more relevant information that was not addressed in my previous post and could not be in a reply of that length. But the over all point is true.

WD

 

[mastersracer]

That's poor evolutionary theorizing - there are many ways in which traits can be selected for past 'breeding age,' many of which are central to human evolution and changes in evolutionary life history across hominid evolution - e.g., Kristen Hawkes work on the 'grandmother hypothesis,' or Caspari and Lee, "Older age becomes common late in human evolution", PNAS.

 

[lean mean &green]

Very important point. It always amuses me that women (and men) very often are quick to criticize men who are skinny by saying things like they are "weak" or fragile or do not eat enough and must suffer from poor health because of not carrying a great deal of muscle mass, when the fact is that much or even most of the time it is an advantage to be skinnier. There is good reason that in some parts of the world people are smaller and in times of food shortages which is REALLY serious the ones who are larger are often the first to perish due to requiring more food to survive.

There are many people walking around today who can only live the life that they are living or even be living at all due to an abundance of food. In a potential scenario of a serious food shortage in the developed western world females may well become sexually disinterested in larger men who can only thrive in conditions where food is aplenty and become attracted to generally smaller men and those who thrive in conditions of food shortages - and who would otherwise and currently appear unattractive as a mate. Females will instinctively not mate with those who they feel are not going to produce ideal offspring, this behavior of selecting a mate will change depending on the environment - both present and projected.

Anyway I am getting onto topics which fascinate me and are moving away from the original question.

WD

um... no.

extra body fat and even additional lean tissue is useful in a shortage. stored up calories are a very good thing during that time. even protein in muscle can be broken down to be used as fuel. it's called "wasting".

i totally agree that evolution IS a series of happy accidents resulting from selective pressure tho.

 

[Maxiton]

You don't hear answers unless you ask questions. I hate it when someone asks an honest question and the answer is, "What a stupid question!"

I actually think it's a reasonable thing to ask, "Why do humans have to dope? Why aren't they endowed by nature with the extraordinary performance capacity some other animals have?" - which I think is a rough approximation of the OP's question.

FWIW, I thought most of the answers were really interesting. I learned something.

 

[WillemS]

That's poor evolutionary theorizing - there are many ways in which traits can be selected for past 'breeding age,' many of which are central to human evolution and changes in evolutionary life history across hominid evolution - e.g., Kristen Hawkes work on the 'grandmother hypothesis,' or Caspari and Lee, "Older age becomes common late in human evolution", PNAS.

That last article states "it is not clear that the increase in adult survivorship reported here necessarily has a genetic basis." and goes on to state that "We believe that this adaptation involves the increased importance of transgenerational relationships that may be critical to the development and survival of social groups with large amounts of complex information to transmit." I don't think this differs much from my statement of "but given the group environment we typically think humans evolved in, some post-breeding changes might actually be advantageous for the group ergo might benefit the the amount of offspring in that genetic pool."

 

[MarkvW]

Similarly confused about steroids. If doping makes a person stronger, fitter, healthier, able to recover more quickly... why do most humans not produce more testosterone, or tend to have hematocrits in the 50-60% range?

Evolutionarily speaking, it seems odd that a human's hematocrit naturally drops with hard training/racing... one would think that the body would have a reason for not responding by increasing hematocrit.

What am I missing here?

Evolution is all about mutation. Our cells mutate a lot and we pass some of those mutations to our offspring. I'm sure that there have been humans over the centuries who have mutations that result in elevated hematocrits and/or testosterone levels, but those mutations died out when they or their descendants died.

When you exert yourself hard, you damage muscle. That muscle needs to heal. Fortunately, the healing process results in a stronger muscle. But healing involves white blood cells. It makes sense to me that the red blood cell population proportion would decrease and the white blood cell population proportion would increase to facilitate that healing.