What percentage gain does blood doping/epo actually give?

[B_Ugli]

This sounds like a stupid question but its not.

I shall explain why.

Quite a few riders who have served bans have made a comeback to the level they were at while doping. For example Vinokourov, Basso, Di Luca.

Assuming that for arguments sake dope gives them a 10% advantage then if they return clean then they should be finishing 10% further back down the field.

Is that too black and white or have I answered my own question and they are actually all still on it.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

This sounds like a stupid question but its not.

I shall explain why.

Quite a few riders who have served bans have made a comeback to the level they were at while doping. For example Vinokourov, Basso, Di Luca.

Assuming that for arguments sake dope gives them a 10% advantage then if they return clean then they should be finishing 10% further back down the field.

Is that too black and white or have I answered my own question and they are actually all still on it.

Simply put, there is no definitive answer.

There was a study done some time ago on EPO and (IIRC) it varied between 4% and 11% (which is a huge variation)- but this study was not done on elite top level athletes.

Add to this that athletes can no longer dope with impunity with products like EPO as they could in the 90's and the gains are smaller.

But to answer your query on returning riders performing to the same level- I would doubt that they have changed their habit.

 

[skippythepinhead]

It's sort of the wrong question. The question isn't whether their performance in a single race or event is affected. A one day classic that favors a particular rider's style and current form may be won regardless of the amount of "artificial sweeteners" in his system. That's why when a thread is started to call a rider a "doper" because he happened to win a race, I laugh. As far as I'm concerned the question of doping's advantage in a particular race cannot be confined to a number.

If it could, then a rider could declare, "I'm using EPO." Time would be docked by the percentage advantage gained.

The gains come in recovery and training, they are cumulative, and they disadvantage riders who either don't dope or don't respond as well to doping.

 

[oldschoolnik]

Skippy, I disagree with the assessment that "A one day classic that favors a particular rider's style and current form may be won regardless of the amount of "artificial sweeteners" in his system." Because, the one thing that is certain about the use of EPO and Blood transfusions are the huge gains at submaximal levels - that is, time at tempo or below threshold pace - these gains are on the order of 35-60% - perfect for the 5-7 hours in the saddle required to win a classic...

As to the OP's question, a Danish study had non-pro level atheletes and it showed % similar to what Dr Mas said - 8-13% which is huge difference at FTP. Even if it's half that for pro's -it;s huge.

 

[Escarabajo]

This sounds like a stupid question but its not.

I shall explain why.

Quite a few riders who have served bans have made a comeback to the level they were at while doping. For example Vinokourov, Basso, Di Luca.

Assuming that for arguments sake dope gives them a 10% advantage then if they return clean then they should be finishing 10% further back down the field.

Is that too black and white or have I answered my own question and they are actually all still on it.

I think you used bad examples:

Vino: I believe he keeps doping so comparison between before and after is a moot point. He is probably winning less because of age more than anything else.

Basso: He is not the same as he used to be. No way.

Di Luca: He just came back. Don't have any results yet. It does not look promising though.

On the advanteges of doping it has been posted many times, but here it is again.

http://www.sportsscientists.com/2007/11/effect-of-epo-on-performance-who.html

There is a Krebs Cycle poster who, I believe, was a part of an EPO trial. You might want to send him a PM and ask him about it.

 

[WD-40.]

Because, the one thing that is certain about the use of EPO and Blood transfusions are the huge gains at submaximal levels - that is, time at tempo or below threshold pace - these gains are on the order of 35-60% - perfect for the 5-7 hours in the saddle required to win a classic...

As to the OP's question, a Danish study had non-pro level atheletes and it showed % similar to what Dr Mas said - 8-13% which is huge difference at FTP. Even if it's half that for pro's -it;s huge.

35-60%! you say. I hope you are referring to % of power increases and not time to exhaustion, 35-60% more wins or other near useless measure.

If you are going by increases in power then I think you are highly highly exaggerating the gains. If you can please provide proof to your claims.

 

[oldschoolnik]

No not % power increases, I am talking about endurance here: I thought I was pretty clear that I was citing increases in "time to exhaustion at a submaximal workloads"

Here'e the reference to the very well known study:
http://www.springerlink.com/content/a7767vrr736073k3/

 

[skippythepinhead]

No not % power increases, I am talking about endurance here: I thought I was pretty clear that I was citing increases in "time to exhaustion at a submaximal workloads"

Here'e the reference to the very well known study:
http://www.springerlink.com/content/a7767vrr736073k3/

That's a 20-30 minute ergometer test with 8 subjects in controlled conditions.

 

[DirtyWorks]

Depends on Measurement

Percent improvement depends entirely on what you are measuring. Several comments are using different metrics. Any bike racer will tell you the winner doesn't have to be the strongest person in a group start event. (Not a time trial)

My metric is average watts or watts/kilo. Why? Because both can be measured reliably over the same geography. For example, the Cipressa in the Milan-San Remo.

The current (2011) estimation is that micro-dosing over a long period of time is the prevalent form of doping. Compare Watts metrics to a physically similar rider having the same uninterrupted block of training that did not dope and the dope-free rider's average watts over the Cipressa will be lower. How much lower? Not much. Less than 5% for sure. It doesn't take much of a difference in Watts to open a meaningful gap.

If the doper adds clenbuterol to their doping regimen, her watts/kilo ratio is better again after a training block. We're still talking about measured gains of less than 5%, but it translates into even bigger gaps on climbs and time trials. Leave the question of the benefits of micro-dosing clen for another thread please.

The other type of doping is the transfusion. I'm fuzzy on how to measure the benefits similarly, so I wont' elaborate.

 

[Mongol_Waaijer]

Di Luca: He just came back. Don't have any results yet. It does not look promising though.

Di Luca was suffering bigtime at the tailend of the peloton with 100km or so to go in L-B-L this weekend. He looked miserable.

Considering a souped up DiLuca would have been a top favourite for this race I see this as an indication he is clean(er)

I think this really casts doubt on those guys who come back at the same level or close to it.

 

[TERMINATOR]

This sounds like a stupid question but its not.

I shall explain why.

Quite a few riders who have served bans have made a comeback to the level they were at while doping. For example Vinokourov, Basso, Di Luca.

Assuming that for arguments sake dope gives them a 10% advantage then if they return clean then they should be finishing 10% further back down the field.

Is that too black and white or have I answered my own question and they are actually all still on it.

Vinokourov is nowhere on GC for a Grand Tour. When he was on the dope, he was a top-3 contender. DiLuca never stopped doping and since his comeback has won nothing. Basso is a non-issue in the Tour de France. The Giro is just a really fast Grand Fondo for pros.

As for fleeting moments of success for Vino in one day races, there is no evidence he has stopped doping. Vino is a guy who never admitted to doping when he was caught and instead contested his case. The fact that he feels very little shame should tell you he is up to his old ways. Same for Basso...whose sister was involved in some doping ring.

http://sports.espn.go.com/oly/cycling/news/story?id=5636622

The idea that Basso's sister was up to her neck in doping, but somehow Basso isn't... doesn't really wash with me.

 

[JV1973]

From a o2 uptake standpoint the percentage gain is about half of the increase in total hemoglobin mass. So, in modern day where the bio-passport would prevent any huge jumps in Hb, say you increased from 14g/dl to 15g/dl (this all assumes that plasma volume is totally stable, which is a very big assumption and almost impossible...but anyway..)..This would bring about a total Hb increase of 6.7%, so the o2 carrying capacity increase and corresponding power increase would be about half of that, so 3.35%. Of course, in 1996, you could go from 14g/dl to 19g/dl quite easily, yielding a power increase of more like 13%! There is some diminishing return after about 16g/dl however because the red cells become so crowded they can no longer deliver oxygen as efficiently, so maybe "only" 10%.

Ok, so there's the clinical math. One thing not taken into consideration into this is that Hb is a protein that would, in theory, serve as a lactate buffer. So, there is also some undetermined anearobic advantage in addition to just the o2 carrying increase. In a race where repeated anearobic efforts are required and recovery from those efforts are required, over and over, there will be some culmulative advantage as well.

Also, an old Finnish study (if you can find it) found that athletes with higher Vo2 maxes benefitted less from EPO use than those who started with lower Vo2 maxes. The more talented athlete were (generally) benefitting less. Another observation of that study was that ectomorphic body types showed less increase than mesomorphic types. So, the variables on the exact advantage are endless and vary person to person (A BIG counterpoint to the argument that just letting everyone dope is fair). I read this study in about 1995 and haven't seen it anywhere since, so i cant find a link, sorry...

in any case, my guess is, in a 40km time trial scenario, I think the current day anti-doping efforts blunt any advantage of blood doping to very minimal and would be easily displaced by better aerodynamics, training, etc... The risk vs reward would no longer make any logical sense in modern day, if the effort was strictly o2 based. However, in a race requiring multiple anearobic efforts, this advantage would, theoretically, increase. How much? I don't know.

JV

 

[Tyler'sTwin]

I read a study in which six ~33 min 10k runners were infused with packed RBC's from 900 ml of blood that was drawn and frozen 8-11 weeks before (two 450ml withdrawals 3 weeks apart). Off the top of my head (I'm sure about the outliers), they improved by 2.1%, 2.9%, 3.0%, 3.4%, 3.5% and 4.0% in speed. Two runs were done after the infusion, one a few days later and one 13 days later. Their times in those runs were roughly the same.

The test were carried out at altitude (both pre and post infusion of course). Hct spiked by 5.5-6 points.

 

[Tyler'sTwin]

This guy was beatable.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eero_Mäntyranta

He is the first Finnish sportsman to have tested positive for doping. At the 1972 national championships, his tests showed use of amphetamine, but the result was hushed up. After the Sapporo Winter Olympics, the fact came to light but was and has been denied by Mäntyranta. Later Mäntyranta has admitted to using hormones, which during his sports career were not yet prohibited. Mäntyranta has primary familial and congenital polycythemia (PFCP) causing increase in red blood cell mass and hemoglobin due to a mutation in the erythropoietin receptor (EPOR) gene, which was identified following a DNA study done on over 200 members of his family, as reported in 1993.[1] This condition results in an increase of up to 50% in the oxygen carrying capacity of the blood, a large advantage when participating in endurance events.

 

[Benotti69]

I think 1 case study for EPO has to be HWCNBN and his results in the TdF before 98 and after. That'll give you an idea of how much it used to assist a rider.

Nowadays i haven't got a clue, but to compare banned riders return to the sport and their ability is difficult to asses. Vino won LBL last year. This year he had a mechanical at a crucial time. In the TdF he rode for Contador.

Are they still doping? Does a bear still go to the toilet in the woods?

 

[Tyler'sTwin]

Ok, so there's the clinical math. One thing not taken into consideration into this is that Hb is a protein that would, in theory, serve as a lactate buffer. So, there is also some undetermined anearobic advantage in addition to just the o2 carrying increase. In a race where repeated anearobic efforts are required and recovery from those efforts are required, over and over, there will be some culmulative advantage as well.

This is why sprinters use EPO in training according to Victor Conte.

 

[Zweistein]

When was the last time anyone saw the winner of a stage completely exhausted after having finished the stage? Take a look at all the recent mountain stage winners. Anyone one of them could ride another 60 km at tempo. The effects on endurance and recovery is extraordinary. The increased power output is icing. A doped cyclist I believe could ride every stage as if it was a one day classic and not be wrecked by exhaustion.

 

[Escarabajo]

...

in any case, my guess is, in a 40km time trial scenario, I think the current day anti-doping efforts blunt any advantage of blood doping to very minimal and would be easily displaced by better aerodynamics, training, etc... The risk vs reward would no longer make any logical sense in modern day, if the effort was strictly o2 based. However, in a race requiring multiple anearobic efforts, this advantage would, theoretically, increase. How much? I don't know.

JV

Grand Tours you mean? like day after day or mountain after mountain?

 

[python]

From a o2 uptake standpoint the percentage gain is about half of the increase in total hemoglobin mass. So, in modern day where the bio-passport would prevent any huge jumps in Hb, say you increased from 14g/dl to 15g/dl (this all assumes that plasma volume is totally stable, which is a very big assumption and almost impossible...but anyway..)..This would bring about a total Hb increase of 6.7%, so the o2 carrying capacity increase and corresponding power increase would be about half of that, so 3.35%. Of course, in 1996, you could go from 14g/dl to 19g/dl quite easily, yielding a power increase of more like 13%! There is some diminishing return after about 16g/dl however because the red cells become so crowded they can no longer deliver oxygen as efficiently, so maybe "only" 10%.

Ok, so there's the clinical math. One thing not taken into consideration into this is that Hb is a protein that would, in theory, serve as a lactate buffer. So, there is also some undetermined anearobic advantage in addition to just the o2 carrying increase. In a race where repeated anearobic efforts are required and recovery from those efforts are required, over and over, there will be some culmulative advantage as well.

Also, an old Finnish study (if you can find it) found that athletes with higher Vo2 maxes benefitted less from EPO use than those who started with lower Vo2 maxes. The more talented athlete were (generally) benefitting less. Another observation of that study was that ectomorphic body types showed less increase than mesomorphic types. So, the variables on the exact advantage are endless and vary person to person (A BIG counterpoint to the argument that just letting everyone dope is fair). I read this study in about 1995 and haven't seen it anywhere since, so i cant find a link, sorry...

in any case, my guess is, in a 40km time trial scenario, I think the current day anti-doping efforts blunt any advantage of blood doping to very minimal and would be easily displaced by better aerodynamics, training, etc... The risk vs reward would no longer make any logical sense in modern day, if the effort was strictly o2 based. However, in a race requiring multiple anearobic efforts, this advantage would, theoretically, increase. How much? I don't know.

JV

i think this is the best contribution to the subject (or the similar) thread(s) there was so far.

everyone should read this post by jonathan vaughters.

to condense what he said:

the actual advantage in terms of watts delivered will be about 1/2 of the total haemoglobin mass (total rbc mass) increase due to blood manipulation.

here's an example jonathan vaughters may have meant but did not provide....

if you transfused IN one half the unit of packed red blood cells (unlike 1-2 units in 1990s-2000s) hoping to dupe the bio-passport's sensitivity) you'd get about 1/2 to 3/4 percent increase in power at the most (not considering anaerobic advantage).

was the small increase (rationally speaking) worth the trouble of getting caught and defamed for life when other LEGAL factors give the advantage at the same level ?

to me it's no brainer.

 

[Benotti69]

i think this is the best contribution to the subject (or the similar) thread(s) there was so far.

everyone should read this post by jonathan vaughters.

to condense what he said:

the actual advantage in terms of watts delivered will be about 1/2 of the total haemoglobin mass (total rbc mass) increase due to blood manipulation.

here's an example jonathan vaughters may have meant but did not provide....

if you transfused IN one half the unit of packed red blood cells (unlike 1-2 units in 1990s-2000s) hoping to dupe the bio-passport's sensitivity) you'd get about 1/2 to 3/4 percent increase in power at the most (not considering anaerobic advantage).

was the small increase (rationally speaking) worth the trouble of getting caught and defamed for life when other LEGAL factors give the advantage at the same level ?

to me it's no brainer.

If micro doping is not worth it why are they doing it. I reckon they are doping and a it more than micro doping and ahead of the anti doping testing as usual.

The cost to athletes is a big chunk of their earnings so again why do they?

Are they conned into by DSs and team Docs making money of their riders backs or is it just indoctrinated and ingrained into the mentality.

 

[Dekker_Tifosi]

Depends..

Back when there was no hematocrite-value test, if we take the wattage levels of Riis/Ullrich in the TDF 96/97, and compare it to now
-> Performance, compared to top contendors now, +13%

Then the hematocrite test and epo-urine test were introduced. If we take wattage-levels from those Tours (Armstrong-era), and compare it to now
-> 2,5%

Isn't so much, but then again, we can't see if the top contedors, f.e Contador/A.Schleck are clean. People say climbs done above 410W are suspicious.

So if we compare the levels than

96/97 - 19% better than best clean rider
Armstrong-era - 7,3% better than best clean rider
Contador/Andy Schleck - 4,8% better than best clean rider

This is ofcourse completely subjective and the results are probably totally bull****. But I don't have any other data to do a proper comparison

 

[Tyler'sTwin]

I would imagine that if rider A's FTP is 5% higher than rider B's FTP, then the difference in power output in the final climb of mountain stage is likely to be greater than 5% because rider A will get there fresher.

 

[Tyler'sTwin]

i think this is the best contribution to the subject (or the similar) thread(s) there was so far.

everyone should read this post by jonathan vaughters.

to condense what he said:

the actual advantage in terms of watts delivered will be about 1/2 of the total haemoglobin mass (total rbc mass) increase due to blood manipulation.

here's an example jonathan vaughters may have meant but did not provide....

if you transfused IN one half the unit of packed red blood cells (unlike 1-2 units in 1990s-2000s) hoping to dupe the bio-passport's sensitivity) you'd get about 1/2 to 3/4 percent increase in power at the most (not considering anaerobic advantage).

was the small increase (rationally speaking) worth the trouble of getting caught and defamed for life when other LEGAL factors give the advantage at the same level ?

to me it's no brainer.

Are they really transfusing such small amounts? Lance had higher values in the 3rd week of the 2009 TdF than he did at the start. Wouldn't that take a pretty substantial amount given that Hb and Hct should have dropped by about 10%(?) by then?

 

[Merckx index]

From a o2 uptake standpoint the percentage gain is about half of the increase in total hemoglobin mass. So, in modern day where the bio-passport would prevent any huge jumps in Hb, say you increased from 14g/dl to 15g/dl (this all assumes that plasma volume is totally stable, which is a very big assumption and almost impossible...but anyway..)..This would bring about a total Hb increase of 6.7% [actually, 7.1%], so the o2 carrying capacity increase and corresponding power increase would be about half of that, so 3.35%.

Do you have a source for this? Why would the oxygen carrying capacity increase by only half as much as the Hb? This doesn’t make sense to me.

I am frankly dubious that such a relationship is known. To determine it, one would have to transfuse volunteers with various amounts of blood, then measure oxygen delivery. I am pretty sure this kind of study has not been done in humans. In humans, most of the data we have come from studies of critically ill patients, where the objective is to determine whether transfusions reduce mortality. These studies do not systematically vary the amount of blood transfused, nor do they generally measure oxygen delivery. They may compare the effects of more than one transfusion of a certain amount of blood over a period of time on indices related to mortality.

More systematic studies have been done in animals, where the data I have seen indicate that oxygen delivery may increase just as much as HT/Hb in many, though not all, tissues. This is unsurprising, since under any given conditions the amount of oxygen bound to hemoglobin is constant; one would expect a 1:1 relationship, not a 1:0.5 relationship. Overall, however, this area of research is quite complex, as different tissues may experience different HT/oxygen relationships, and regulation can also occur through altering blood flow. I doubt that transfusion studies in humans have adequately addressed this question.

Of course, in 1996, you could go from 14g/dl to 19g/dl quite easily, yielding a power increase of more like 13%! There is some diminishing return after about 16g/dl however because the red cells become so crowded they can no longer deliver oxygen as efficiently, so maybe "only" 10%.

I think you mean 15 to 19, which is about a 27% increase, half of which is about 13%. Likewise, in the previous quote, I think you meant an increase from 15 to 16, which is 6.7%.

Ok, so there's the clinical math. One thing not taken into consideration into this is that Hb is a protein that would, in theory, serve as a lactate buffer. So, there is also some undetermined anearobic advantage in addition to just the o2 carrying increase. In a race where repeated anearobic efforts are required and recovery from those efforts are required, over and over, there will be some culmulative advantage as well.

This presumably could be a determined advantage. A Hb concentration of 15 g/dl corresponds to about 2 mM protein, and an increase to 16 g/dl would result in an increase of a little more than 0.1 mM. I don’t know how many accessible groups negative at neutral pH Hb has, but probably at least ten, which would result in about 1 mM of potential buffering capacity. Normal blood lactate levels are about 1 mM, and the threshold is around 4 mM. So probably Hb would have a significant buffering capacity and this could in principle be calculated.

in any case, my guess is, in a 40km time trial scenario, I think the current day anti-doping efforts blunt any advantage of blood doping to very minimal and would be easily displaced by better aerodynamics, training, etc... The risk vs reward would no longer make any logical sense in modern day, if the effort was strictly o2 based. However, in a race requiring multiple anearobic efforts, this advantage would, theoretically, increase. How much? I don't know.

If the maximum power increase a doping rider could get away with is 3%, as you suggest, then the difference in a 40 km flat ITT would not be very great, maybe around 30”. But it would translate to about a minute in a 30 minute climb. And I think it’s very debateable that 3% is the maximum benefit dopers get. As I implied above, I think a 6-7% increase in HT/Hb results in a 6-7% increase in oxygen. And I challenge the notion that larger increases would be detected by the biopassport. You know as well as anyone there are ways to transfuse larger volumes of blood and avoid detection.

 

[Race Radio]

i think this is the best contribution to the subject (or the similar) thread(s) there was so far.

everyone should read this post by jonathan vaughters.

to condense what he said:

the actual advantage in terms of watts delivered will be about 1/2 of the total haemoglobin mass (total rbc mass) increase due to blood manipulation.

here's an example jonathan vaughters may have meant but did not provide....

if you transfused IN one half the unit of packed red blood cells (unlike 1-2 units in 1990s-2000s) hoping to dupe the bio-passport's sensitivity) you'd get about 1/2 to 3/4 percent increase in power at the most (not considering anaerobic advantage).

was the small increase (rationally speaking) worth the trouble of getting caught and defamed for life when other LEGAL factors give the advantage at the same level ?

to me it's no brainer.

but if that level is already artificially elevated?

It all has to do with the improvement from the baseline. If a rider keeps levels consistently high with more frequent transfusions, as is alleged is the practice these days, they still get a large improvement from their natural levels.