You are the very type of "scientist" that cigarette companies used for decades to refute arguments that cigarettes were both addictive and carcinogenic. Your intransigence regarding the efficacy of PEDs, and in particular EPO, in the face of extensive observational evidence is simultaneously amusing and sad. The weaknesses in the Lancet study to which you pay homage are addressed in the following opinion piece.

https://www.velonews.com/...serious-flaws_442870

This article literally says:

"no effect on endurance performance was observed"

This guy is obviously a troll, don't bother feeding him.

A few things: I have no dog in the fight and do not take it personal or get defensive if you have valid points to counter mine. So save the ad hominem as it reveals flawed logic. Instead address the merit of the argument.

I am not sure what qualifies as homage but I merely posted a link to respond to the assertion that there was no published research that declared that EPO was not effective. More to the point of the Lancet study, you must have missed it, but I posted a link to the response and am familiar with both arguments.

You pose an interesting argument. I do not think though that one point was taken into account. All these compounds were synthesized for something other than athletic performance enhancement; and they DO work for those (I would provide supporting evidence, but I don't have time right now to dig that stuff up).
One other point is that in order to conduct a study that is properly controlled would be unethical...it would be using substances on healthy individuals to study an effect that it is not made for. It would never be supported. I would therefore point to this as a stand out reason for the lack of studies which provide real documentation on the effects of any 'PED' effect.

Stephen J

---

I believe my local reality has been violated.
____________________________________________
Happiness = Results / (Expectations)^2

I appreciate your response. I will push back on your point of PEDs being studied for uses in which they were not intended, since this happens all the time. Drugs are frequently prescribed off indication. In fact a majority of pediatric drugs are prescribed off indication. It does raise the interesting question since PEDs are not schedule 1 and are fair game to research, I wonder why there is not more data? (Cynically maybe it is because no one cares since there is no money in it....)

That said, I agree entirely with your point on lack of evidence. Nonetheless, suggesting that we do not have a lot of evidence on PEDs seems to twist up a lot of panties. Placebo effect is absolutely a component. Self efficacy is absolutely a component. Genetic and ability interaction is absolutely a component. There are plenty of other things that are absolutely a component. Discussing this is not the same as stating that (1) no PEDs are performance enhancing (although there is evidence that many are not); (2) stating that I support (or do not) use of PEDs. Call me old fashioned, but I like evidence and associated outcome =/= evidence.

I would add that if comprehensive studies could be produced that prove the inefficacy of PEDS, the overall benefits would far outweigh any risks, since athletes would not be likely to experiment with those substances.

I appreciate what you are presenting to this discussion. Interesting stuff...

The point was that HGH increases muscle mass but there is not any evidence that it enhances performance. The data was deemed statistically significant and met the bar of Harvard Press but maybe they are misguided. I am totally open to whatever evidence that you have to the contrary.

More broadly, it seems that this is decision rule on this topic:

If "A" then "1" is acceptable but if "B" then "2" not acceptable.

Assuming
"A" = confirms bias
"B" = does not confirm bias

and

"1" = no data
"2" = some data

Do you think that I am on to something?

I should not feed the troll but statistically significant does not mean the study was well designed. Is 20 days anywhere near enough time to realize any kind of performance gain from hgh alone? Were the drugs paired with any kind of training? Did they make any attempt to determine how much of the weight gain was water? Is strength even the right thing to measure?

---

-------------
Ed O'Malley
www.VeloVetta.com
Founder of VeloVetta Cycling Shoes
Instagram • Facebook

How am I a troll? I am being totally civil and merely asking questions. I am providing support for all my assertions and am open to any and all counterpoints. My assumption is that the strong opinions on this subject are grounded in convincing arguments. Am I wrong to assume this?

Maybe you did not read the Harvard article? It is not a study but a summation of 44 other studies. To your point of muscle mass, you will see in the article that it states the the average 4.6 lb gain as “lean body mass (which reflects muscle mass but can also include fluid mass).” Here is a link to the actual study referenced by Harvard: https://www.ctsi.ucla.edu/...ocs/CarmichaelJC.pdf

I will save the big reveal on the conclusion of performance enhancement of HGH for you to find on your own. Ctrl+F “Effects of Growth Hormone on Strength Outcomes” and “Effect of Growth Hormone on Exercise Capacity” and first and second paragraph of “Discussion."

Maybe all of these 44 studies (and the Mitchell Report) are totally misguided. Let me ask again: Can you share the evidence that you have seen that HGH is performance enhancing? I am genuinely interested. Thanks.

You have this backwards. 1Poseur doesn't really answer questions, he/she just asks them. No one will EVER be able to prove to him that EPO enhances performance in endurance athletes. Anyone who tries will be met with a seemingly endless list of follow up questions about the study cited or the evidence they presented. The only things he'll be able to agree on is that no PERFECT study has been done, and what a perfect study to test the effectiveness of EPO would look like.

If you are asking me then I will tell you: there is some evidence that EPO enhances athletic performance and there is some evidence that it does not. Specifically, the data appears to support evidence that it enhances performance of inexperienced athletes but may not enhance the performance of experienced athletes. I am open to any evidence on the subject so feel free to drop it on me. We differ in that I do not consider associated outcome or received wisdom to be evidence. Good enough for you?

To point above, perpetuating mythical properties to PEDs that may not exist actually encourages their use.

Hilarious. They didn't even score very well in the race. LOL.