Hacker News Reader

Comment by outside1234 | Hacker News Reader

Better drugs than they are currently on. Nobody wants to admit it, but that is the real reason for the change in inflection of the line. See cycling.

View on HN

So....

Yes, it seems likely that drugs have been a factor in the increased speed of distance runners. Sadly, the testing procedures for athletics are notably worse that for cycling (especially in the offseason).

However running does have one critical difference compared to cycling that gives a small glimmer of possibility that some runners might be clean and competitive with dirty runner.

In running, "running economy"[1] is a huge factor in performance, and is quite variable and can be improved with training[2]. In cycling there isn't really a similar factor (except for a cyclists weight): the ceiling of non-doped performance over a 40+ minute timeframe seems to top out at around 6.4 Watts/kg, and that can be projected directly onto a given climb to calculate the best possible time. Yes, tactical factors, weather and measurement errors make that seem more precise than it is in practice but the point is that there does seem to be a genuine ceiling on output.

In running that ceiling hasn't been found. Running economy is measured by putting runners in a closed-system and measuring speed vs energy usage. Elite runners generally are more efficient than non-elite, but no one really knows why.

However, it has been proven that running economy can be improved by training with runners who are faster than you[!].

Two points here: some runners might be clean and be beating dirty runners through better economy (which they might have obtained by training next to doped runners), and secondly it might be possible to find methods to improve economy dramatically.

(Road cyclist, sometimes runner, eternal optimist here)

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Running_economy

[2] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15233599

Sorry to burst your bubble, but the reason Kenyans dominate at long distance running is that their national ADA (anti doping agency) doesn't enforce the rules.

It's starting to come apart at the seams though: http://www.macleans.ca/news/world/doping-probe-spurs-kenyas-...

Is it bad form to quote myself? it seems likely that drugs have been a factor in the increased speed of distance runners. Sadly, the testing procedures for athletics are notably worse that for cycling

But there is more to Kenyan domination than just doping. For example, there are plenty of countries with a history of distance running which are known to have weak anti-doping policies, and yet they aren't competitive anymore.

No, the reason they dominate marathon running is because prize money is huge (by their standards of living) and has exploded in the last 30 years. Americans and Europeans have gone BACKWARDS since the 80's, as the sport is longer popular.

Here is an actual informative documentary (unlike your article which reads like it's from TMZ):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mGVSO1sg2Fk

Your article doesn't talk about any top Kenyan runners. The only Kenyans that have been caught doping in recent years (yes they do get tested) are third-tier Kenyans, usually without education, thinking (or being persuaded by doctors) that it will get them to the top level, which it never does.

I don't see any evidence that Kipsang, Kimetto, Mutai, or Makau ever used drugs, or anyone even claiming to be in the know that they used.

What will drugs give them though? As the article says, the perfect runner will be light, short, have long legs, insane VO2 max, good heat dissipation, low oxygen requirements. Apart from blood doping to increase VO2 max, what can one do to improve those other things?

Basically what drugs allow you to do is recover faster and better - which allows you to train far harder than your clean competition and build all of these superhuman stats you enumerated.

A famous cycling reporter took drugs for a month to see just want the effect was and apparently it was like being superman. He would go out and ride 100 miles (something that normally leaves you in couch mode the next day) and be ready to do all again the next day like he hadn't even touched the bike the day before.

http://www.amazon.com/The-Doper-Next-Door-Performance-Enhanc...

HGH and EPO are the drugs we have all heard about but I'm sure there are 8 we haven't heard about yet. Also this book gives you insight into the violence we are seeing outside of the gridlines in the NFL. Apparently all of these drugs running around in you makes you crazy in a lot of cases.

That reporter was an idiot. His entire experiment was qualitative instead of quantitative. How did he know that his performance improved? Because he reported that he felt like he was going faster. Useless.

Are you seriously going to defend the proposition that the placebo effect is that large?

Science requires us to be more careful in our thinking than we are naturally inclined towards. It does not require us to pretend we have a lobotomy, nor does it require that we pretend that we must seriously entertain the hypothesis that large doses of steroids have no effect.

NFL players aren't particularly violent outside of the gridlines:

http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/the-rate-of-domestic-viol...

I have to admit that it is depressing to think that NFL players are really the normal and not the outlier.

...relative to the income level (top 1 percent) and poverty rate (0 percent) of NFL players, the domestic violence arrest rate is downright extraordinary.

You've really misrepresented the article.

I don't think I tried very hard to pin the article down.

I did make the comment from the comparison to the general population though.

edit: I have to say, I'm pretty ticked off you accused me of being dishonest. My one sentence blurb is a reasonable response to the context from the parent comment to mine, where the NFL players are claimed as a group that is more violent than normal. There is certainly room to point out that they have cohorts where they don't compare well, but it is not outrageous to answer an assertion about how they compare to people in general with an analysis of how they compare to people in general.

Hmm, I wonder what the long term effects of these drugs are. Medicinal and therapeutic use may be very promising for average people just trying to stay in shape. If the long term effects aren't too terrible, say like that of coffee, then greater acceptance may be possible.

Also, as toward the 2 hour marathon, drugs that are psychoactive may be of as great a benefit as the physical ones. Not just caffeine and other placebos, but getting into the right 'head space' is just as important to breaking such records. LSD was an integral part of one of baseball's no hitters, a terrific feat of athleticism. Many feats of the mind may be broken in Washington state due to the permissive pot laws.

Here's a short film on Dock Ellis's no hitter: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_vUhSYLRw14

Speaking to your question about "what the long term effects of these drugs are":

My wife put together a together a pretty interesting video about the "faustian bargain" which is IGF-1 (used as a proxy measure for growth hormone)... video is replete with examples of the effects of low IGF-1/GH or high IGF-1/GH both in animal models and humans.

One of the more interesting points in the video is the fact that people with polymorphisms that make their IGF-1 receptor experience some slight loss of function actually live longer (in general).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AjSl4n_KdOY

The video also links to an article which has a bibliography if you're interested.

I viewed the video to a half and found enough difference with what I know that I cannot agree with her conclusions. It is more complicated than performance/longevity. Especially when we going to humans from animals.

For example, reaction speed correlates with longevity: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16079205 Reaction speed needs muscle power and neural signal power, both are supported by IGF-1.

Arm grip in midlife is stronger for centenarians: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21541735

Thus, while entertaining, the video of your wife is too quick to jump to conclusions.

Why I insist that humans are different.

Number of heart beats per life of regular animal is about 1 billion. Humans average 2 billions. We use different longevity modes than rest of animal kingdom, I think.

As I understand it the main problem with the androgen anabolic drugs is aromatization. The chemicals tend to wind up as estrogen. Professionals using the drugs pursue careful protocols to limit aromatization; amateurs not so much hence the shrunken dick and bitch tit rumors about 'roids. Contrary to the popular understanding of estrogen as "the female hormone," estrogen compounds are more usefully thought of as dangerous stress hormones. This is why xenoestrogens from plastics and so forth are so problematic. Estrogen replacement therapy in aging women turned out to be a horrifically bad idea that resulted in high rates of cancer and heart attacks.

HGH is also essentially a stress hormone that for the most part you want to keep as low as possible. It can speed healing and recovery but is tied to cancer and aging in general. Lowering growth hormone in lab animals makes them live longer. I think HGH supplementation is maybe a popular myth that in practice isn't much used. This is what the Balko guy has explained post prison release. He says it's pretty much all about the androgens and HGH isn't very useful.

I don't know anything about EPO dangers. Presumably it leads to thrombosis, strokes, and heart attacks.

Professionals use drugs that attempt to counter aromatization, eg arimidex, in their stacks. There will still be side effects. Serious bodybuilders regularly have their nipple glands removed. Gyno surgery is incredibly common.

Bostin Loyd is actually honest and discusses gear -- see eg [0:2].

[0] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dmPI_kX3oDE

[1] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lF4zL_BdePc

[2] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I2kJ6-mmjik

Anabolic steroids stimulate production of eritrocitos. That's how they help recovery and endurance and also that's why they can lead to trombs.

1 - coffee is not a placebo, caffeine is one of few ergogenic aids that's been often proven to have real benefits via double blind trials.

2 - if you legalize drugs then you require drugs (of anybody who wants to be competitive). Literally all professional cyclists use all the drugs they're allowed, and some they are not. On terms of caffeine this takes the form of a megadose towards the end of a race delivered via a "finishing bottle", which is a melange of caffeine, sugar, and painkillers.

1- Yeah, sorry, crummy writing.

2- Ewwww....

I think one of the main areas of interest would be raising lactate threshold to delay OBLA. That's the main limit/inhibitor for endurance events.

I'd expect the next generation of drugs will focus on things like improving monocarboxylate transporter throughput/efficiency.

Very interesting http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lactate_threshold

Quickly skimming the drug cocktails tour de france competitors take will answer your question.

But, as sibling answers say, decreased training recovery times is incredibly important. Steroids also protect your joints -- they are an anti-inflammatory. Runners' knees, ankles, and spines take a pounding.

Drugs like testosterone allow you to lose fat mass while retaining muscle mass. Drugs like clenbuterol help you shed weight and metabolize fat more quickly.

I don't think it's as bad as Tour de France, but it is likely. Doping and anti-doping is a rat race.

Do you think there is no doping control for elite marathoners (and other runners)?

The tests don't really work. All the athletes are on cycles of daily microdosing protocols that to date are undetectable. It works for EPO as well as androgens.

If you have any question whether an athlete, model, or actor is using drugs it is safe to assume the answer is yes.

Why actors?

Actors routinely sport lean muscle mass that is unrealistic without 'roids.

Presumably millions of people think Christian Bale, Daniel Craig, and Chris Pratt, and many, many others have been natty in recent roles. Laughably false. Look at models and actors from the 50s and 60s and note their ages to have an idea what is realistic.

Oh, thanks, I hadn't thought of those. I was thinking `Why'd Woody Allen take drugs for acting?'

Drugs will allow you, at smaller sizes, to get ripped with very little effort. Drugs will allow you, with extreme effort, to look like the rock. Many actors that get lean for roles could possibly be natty, though I'd say few have the work ethic. Nobody natty is as big as the rock. It's not possible.

Not to mention the idea of actors putting on 10-20 pounds of lean muscle in, say, 3-6 months between movies is laughable (but remotely possible) in their 20s. When you see guys doing it in their 40s you have to be actively lying to yourself to believe that possible.

Oh, and low doses of much of this stuff, under careful supervision of a doctor, makes you healthier. Your skin will be better, you'll look younger, you'll have (slightly) more muscle, etc. Aging clinics are greenwashing drugs: you pay $2k/mo and get scrips making everything nice and legal.

Not really. EPO testing is now possible; it wasn't in the 1990s. That's why we saw dramatic increases in performance on the track in the 1990s.

The real reason is more financial: see the graph of prize money referenced in the article, and also take a look at the current state of track 10,000m racing. More top talent is attracted to the marathon, away from the longer track races, than before.

It's true that record breaking has switch mostly from the track to the Marathon - probably because of financial reasons. But speeds haven't really slowed down (like they have in cycling).

Cycling has a biological passport which (at worst) limits how much a doper can improve their blood chemistry. Athletics doesn't have that, and doing point checks isn't as effective as looking at changes.

I don't deny that doping still goes on, but people are forced to resort to less effective means than they used to. Take the example of Rashid Ramzi--it is likely that he was not the only doper, just a more aggressive one. Why was he caught when others were not?

> speeds haven't really slowed down

This isn't wholly true. Have you seen a 3:26.00 1500m, a 7:20 3000m, or a sub-12:40 5000m lately?

It's also untrue that athletics doesn't have a biological passport system. There are bans being handed out now for passport violations. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natallia_Kareiva

We saw dramatic increases in performances on the track in the 90's because that's when the African training camps were formed. Instead of one Henry Rono suddenly there were 100. Though I wouldn't deny EPO use was rampant, times didn't slow down either once the EPO tests came out, so I think its effect was exaggerated.

Distance running isn't about power like cycling is.

but it is about endurance. see EPO.

Distance Cycling is far more about endurance than a 2+h marathon. EX: Tour de france ~90h over 21 days. http://www.letour.com/le-tour/2014/us/overall-route.html

You're comparing apples to oranges. Riding multi-day bicycle race is completely different from the running a single marathon event. Some people run marathons every day, for a year (http://edition.cnn.com/2011/SPORT/02/05/marathon.record.enge...). It's hard to argue that that would require no less endurance than Tour de France (or Vuelta).

Yes, apples to oranges, but if we use total energy requirement and duration of a competition as indicator, than a typical road cycling race requires much more endurance than a marathon.

This is a classic one-day race, > 5000 kcal, > 6 hours.

http://www.srm.de/news/road-cycling/amstel-gold-race/

Reply on news.ycombinator.com