Foxyrider:

Oh god I said I wasn’t going to get sucked in again

Sorry, I am avoiding the colostrum debate as much as possible.

Just answeing some questions on EPO / blood donation etc as someone appears interested in our work – this is rare in Science!

Scaredypants:

I am quite enjoying this debate, thanks for the questions!

Aye, that’s my point really – people asking for scientifically rigorous testing of a “new” fad product is ludicrous

People need to understand the EPO was not developed for sport, it was developed to treat a disease – therefore the evidence does not exist.

Milkmans marketing of his colostrum product suggests that it will be of use in sport and they appear to be selling it on that premise – therefore he needs to get research to directly support such claims.

Out of interest, in your 2nd study, were you blinded as to whether blood was actually taken from you (ie control grp cannulated but minimal blood removal)?

Nope, we all went down to the NHS blood donation service and did our bit for society… we knew that blood was being withdrawn, you could see it if you looked around a bit on the bed.

It would have been nice to have a control group that did not have blood withdrawn, but whether there was a (negative) placebo effect was not the focus of this work.

We have to trust our participants to go ‘as hard as possible, for as long as possible’ – we verbally encourage (shout at) then to give a maximal effort!

I’d guess (from the almost nothing I know) that VO2peak might be more dependent on psychology than VO2max is and I might not try as hard if I’d had blood removed.

VO2max and VO2peak are essentially the same thing, its the highest amount of oxygen consumed by the muscle in one minute. Differing methods of determination of this measure has given rise to the two names. I won’t go into the detail here unless really prompted – or put Day et al 2003 into pubmed.com and you might find it yourselves.

Psychology is a factor in performance, there is no denying that, and as a physiologist, it pains me to accept that. Someone could intentially ‘fake’ exhaustion early and we would then get a lower VO2peak, yeah sure, we have to trust them not to do that. But, no will in the world can make you get a higher VO2max either, your body can only use so much oxygen – end of story.

Jon

Scaredypants:

As acknowledged on p1 of this lot, case for epo is probably clear and has a convincing rationale – though not proven imo, at least on this thread

Taking a step back from Sport and Performance for a second;

EPO was developed as a drug to combat severe clinical anemia (and other red blood cell related ‘issues/diseases’ etc). The vast majority of the research into this drug was undertaken to determine whether it would increase red blood cell mass, haemoglobin concentration, haematocrit etc -this research is a resounding YES and so the drug is widely used within the medical world to treat such conditions.

‘Cheats’ in sport got hold of this evidence and decided to take it to enhance performance, as the evidence for its effecton the blood would suggest a likely ergogenic effect. The number of ‘very good’ (and maybe artificially enhanced) athletes (mainly cyclists) that have been caught for using EPO and its derivatives (NESP and CERA) suggest that it may well work pretty well.

As exercise physiologists, we are not too concerned as to whether EPO actually enhances performance per se (I am not aware of a single paper that has tested that hypothesis) but we are interested into the mechanisms that determine exercise tolerance (in health and also in disease).

The research group that I work within (including the authors of these two papers) strongly believe that the interaction between the VO2 kinetics, VO2max and the ‘anaerobic capacity’ play a central role in determining exercise tolerance/performance.

The purpose of these two papers was to investigate the effects of altering haemoglobin of these measures, rather than performance itself.

Jon

Furthermore, it is unlikley that any real ‘athletes’ would agree to take EPO as part of a study, as a positive test would result in a two year ban.

Colostrum ‘may’ enhance recovery and immune function… which in turn might allow an athlete to train harder/longer/more often without illness… thereby by proxy may also lead to enhanced performance (although data to support these suggestions is limited at best).

Scardypants:

Also sorry, I forget to answer your first question

Not athletes? Were they even used to regular exercise, I wonder

I personally know a good number of the authors on these papers and I was a participant in paper 2 – all of the people used in these studies were used to regular exercise, a good proportion would be described as athletes, and some were ‘well trained’. At the time, my first year as an undergraduate, I held a BCF elite XC racing licence.

I am an exercise physiologist, I am not endorsing any product and my PhD involves these VO2 kinetics, VO2max/peak/ and exercise tolerance. I have no external agenda, and I believe that EPO does work as it appears to enhance haemoglobin concentration, and VO2peak, by ~7% in almost everybody tested.

Jon

p.s. I hope I make a better argument than our Milkman, these questions are good as will be asked similar questions in my PhD viva examination in a few months.

Scardypants:

Paper 1:

Four weeks of RhEPO treatment resulted in a 7% increase both in [Hb] (from 15.8 +/- 1.0 to 16.9 +/- 0.7 g dl(-1); P < 0.01) and (from 47.5 +/- 4.2 to 50.8 +/- 10.7 ml kg(-1).min(-1); P < 0.05), with no significant change in CON

Paper 2:

The blood withdrawal resulted in a significant reduction in haemoglobin concentration (pre: 15.4 +/- 0.9 versus post: 14.7 +/- 1.3 g dl(-1); 95% confidence limits (CL): -0.04, -1.38) and haematocrit (pre: 44 +/- 2 versus post: 41 +/- 3%; 95% CL: -1.3, -5.1). Compared to the control condition

Are we agreed that these two interventions have opposite effects here?

Paper 1:

RhEPO treatment enhanced the peak but did not influence kinetics

(The ‘peak’ refers to VO2peak and simply, the kinetics are how quick you get to VO2peak)

Paper 2:

blood withdrawal resulted in significant reductions in VO2peak

Again, are we agreed with opposing effects here?

Paper 2:

and time to exhaustion (pre: 375 +/- 129 versus post: 321 +/- 99 s; 95% CL: -24, -85)

We conclude that a reduction in blood O2-carrying capacity, achieved through the withdrawal of approximately 450 ml blood, results in a significant reduction in VO2peak and exercise tolerance

Paper 1:

So, as EPO has the opposing effect on the physiology, it is ‘likely’ that exercise tolerance would be enhanced, no?

Jon

Scaredypants:

Influence of recombinant human erythropoietin treatment on pulmonary O2 uptake kinetics during exercise in humans.

Wilkerson DP, Rittweger J, Berger NJ, Naish PF, Jones AM.

J Physiol. 2005 Oct 15;568(Pt 2):639-52. Epub 2005 Aug 4.

Abstract

We hypothesized that 4 weeks of recombinant human erythropoietin (RhEPO) treatment would result in a significant increase in haemoglobin concentration ([Hb]) and arterial blood O(2)-carrying capacity and that this would (1) increase peak pulmonary oxygen uptake during ramp incremental exercise, and (2) speed kinetics during ‘severe’-, but not ‘moderate’- or ‘heavy’-intensity, step exercise. Fifteen subjects (mean +/- s.d. age 25 +/- 4 years) were randomly assigned to either an experimental group which received a weekly subcutaneous injection of RhEPO (150 IU kg(-1); n = 8), or a control group (CON) which received a weekly subcutaneous injection of sterile saline (10 ml; n = 7) as a placebo, for four weeks. The subjects and the principal researchers were both blind with respect to the group assignment. Before and after the intervention period, all subjects completed a ramp test for determination of the gas exchange threshold (GET) and , and a number of identical ‘step’ transitions from ‘unloaded’ cycling to work rates requiring 80% GET (moderate), 70% of the difference between the GET and (heavy), and 105% (severe) as determined from the initial ramp test. Pulmonary gas exchange was measured breath-by-breath. There were no significant differences between the RhEPO and CON groups for any of the measurements of interest ([Hb], kinetics) before the intervention. Four weeks of RhEPO treatment resulted in a 7% increase both in [Hb] (from 15.8 +/- 1.0 to 16.9 +/- 0.7 g dl(-1); P < 0.01) and (from 47.5 +/- 4.2 to 50.8 +/- 10.7 ml kg(-1).min(-1); P < 0.05), with no significant change in CON. RhEPO had no significant effect on kinetics for moderate (Phase II time constant, from 28 +/- 8 to 28 +/- 7 s), heavy (from 37 +/- 12 to 35 +/- 11 s), or severe (from 33 +/- 15 to 35 +/- 15 s) step exercise. Our results indicate that enhancing blood O(2)-carrying capacity and thus the potential for muscle O(2) delivery with RhEPO treatment enhanced the peak but did not influence kinetics, suggesting that the latter is principally regulated by intracellular (metabolic) factors, even during exercise where the requirement is greater than the , at least in young subjects performing upright cycle exercise.

Also:

Influence of blood donation on O2 uptake on-kinetics, peak O2 uptake and time to exhaustion during severe-intensity cycle exercise in humans.

Burnley M, Roberts CL, Thatcher R, Doust JH, Jones AM.

Exp Physiol. 2006 May;91(3):499-509. Epub 2006 Jan 23.

Abstract

We hypothesized that the reduction of O2-carrying capacity caused by the withdrawal of approximately 450 ml blood would result in slower phase II O2 uptake (VO2) kinetics, a lower VO2peak and a reduced time to exhaustion during severe-intensity cycle exercise. Eleven healthy subjects (mean +/- S.D. age 23 +/- 6 years, body mass 77.2 +/- 11.0 kg) completed ‘step’ exercise tests from unloaded cycling to a severe-intensity work rate (80% of the difference between the predetermined gas exchange threshold and the VO2peak) on two occasions before, and 24 h following, the voluntary donation of approximately 450 ml blood. Oxygen uptake was measured breath-by-breath, and VO2 kinetics estimated using non-linear regression techniques. The blood withdrawal resulted in a significant reduction in haemoglobin concentration (pre: 15.4 +/- 0.9 versus post: 14.7 +/- 1.3 g dl(-1); 95% confidence limits (CL): -0.04, -1.38) and haematocrit (pre: 44 +/- 2 versus post: 41 +/- 3%; 95% CL: -1.3, -5.1). Compared to the control condition, blood withdrawal resulted in significant reductions in VO2peak (pre: 3.79 +/- 0.64 versus post: 3.64 +/- 0.61 l min(-1); 95% CL: -0.04, – 0.27) and time to exhaustion (pre: 375 +/- 129 versus post: 321 +/- 99 s; 95% CL: -24, -85). However, the kinetic parameters of the fundamental VO2 response, including the phase II time constant (pre: 29 +/- 8 versus post: 30 +/- 6 s; 95% CL: 5, -3), were not altered by blood withdrawal. The magnitude of the VO2 slow component was significantly reduced following blood donation owing to the lower VO2peak attained. We conclude that a reduction in blood O2-carrying capacity, achieved through the withdrawal of approximately 450 ml blood, results in a significant reduction in VO2peak and exercise tolerance but has no effect on the fundamental phase of the VO2 on-kinetics during severe-intensity exercise.

Jon

p.s. I am not selling rhEPO or blood donations!

Basically lung capacity decreases with age and peaks at 18-21yrs.

No it doesn’t, the strength of your respiratory mucles declines with age, not theoverall capacity of your lungs.

So lung capacity is dependant on how much excercise you did whilst going through your growth spurt?

Lung capacity is dependent upon your stature, you can not make your lungs bigger than the size of your rib cage.

You can however increase the diffusion of oxygen from the lung and into the blood with training.

Have a look at this site:

http://www.joaoisme.com/

“Tales of a fat man who decides that being a pro again was a good idea”

p.s. Click to the 2006 tab on the right to see the starting point, then it took three years to get to the Pro Tour with the Cervelo Test Team.

milkman – don’t confuse a lack of response with any sort of agreement/placation.

Also, adding more and more youtube clips and athlete recommendations does not constitute peer reviewed scientific evidence.

Nothing new is coming to the table and so everyone is BORED of this thread and you have done little to convince people of the benifits of colostrum, but also more importantly, of YOUR brand!

I all honesty, I was on your side Milkman, now I am less sure.

(p.s. This is my personal opinion only)

Most research papers are concluded with the words:

“more research in required”

I think with bovibe colostrum, this is also the case!

I wasn’t taking about you LM Can I ask who funded the research?

For that particular study I believe that Neovite provided the Colostrum and the study itself was funded by the University – But I may be wrong as I was not part of that research group.

But then, who funds the project SHOULD NOT matter – if it doesn’t work then it doesn’t work – end of story!

I do agree that claims should not be made on products without scientific evidence to back up such claims.

Not a problem if its pure research but if there is money involved i.e. funding of the research to find the best way of selling that product then unless its honest and double blind and of a significant size to be statistically significant then I am always sceptical !!!

Careful here – At Aberystwyth University we are all about the science!

Do you have training in the medical field?

I am not an expert in this field, I have read a few papers and spoken to some more informed collegues about this subject.

My area of research involves human bioenergetics and exercise tolerance – but don’t get me started on that or we will be here all day!

Wow – this argument hasn’t broken out into swearing and slagging people off personally yet?

I am a polite chap, so i won’t be drwan into such behaviour!

As Milkman is has returned I will let him fight his own corner as he is moreinformed on this subject!

I could suggest buying a special blend of oils from me that may help prevent premature hair loss. I have made it up from supermarket oils to my secret recipe

Hmmmm…

its called an unsubstanitated claim

Yes, but I ‘understand’ how growth factors etc work, and I ‘believe’ that colostrum cotains such growth factors… and therefore the ‘unsubstanitated’ evidence is strong enough in MY OPINION to take the chance!

Is it not similar to say a tyre manufacturer suggesting that a certain tyre works better then another (of their own brand) in certain conditions… then people go out and buy said ‘better’ tyre on the back of their advertising?

It’s a lot like those people that say they had an accident when wearing a helmet and the helmet saved their lives… Unless you have one without, how do you prove that?

Very true!

But as a research scientist, albeit in a slightly different field (cardio-respiratory physilogy, or oxygen uptake kinetics to be more precise) I woud be convinced enough by the theoretical background to take a chance on Colostrum… ‘maybe’ the evidence is not strong enough to date to say fo sure whether it works…

But I would take the chance on it, rather than not, if I have another severe accident. I would not however buy it long term as the cost is too high as a preventative suppliment.

My two cents, and look, I am avoiding my work again!

Cheers, Jon

Cheers Foxyrider!

Anyway, I have a PhD to write… so I will let you all argue about Colostrum some more.

But to conclude, I like it!

Yep, I can’t say that colostrum had any effect, but I was amazed by the combination of it and good rehab, so much so, I would buy it again if I ever managed to do something so silly in the future!

Yep, I can’t say colostrum helped, but if I did something silly again in the future… I would be buying some more colostrum!

Oh bugger, went to add to my post and managed to delete the bloody thing!

Abode

Caution: Smug bugger reply…

Education has done me well, First class degree, (almost) a PhD and I am about to enter my dream job… In a country where the sun is out for 300 days a year!

Finbar – I have big hopes for Thomas Lövkvist as he rode a blinder in the shadow of Wiggins during the Tour. I do however have some reservations about the three young British guys riding there first grand tour (Peter Kennaugh, Ian Stannard, Ben Swift). But this view is only formed as there are relatively untested on the big stage and I want 'safe bets' in my team.

Bump

(I need help with my Fantasy Vuelta selections).

mmb – YGM

(I am leaving the office now so I will respond in the morning)

Thanks everyone for their input.

You could take a risk, it may be ok for you. But if your going to run an xc rim to save weight it seems a bit pointless fitting a huge relatively heavy tyre to it.

At the moment I am running 823 rims (at 657g each), changing to 819's (at 450g each) saves ~200g from each wheel.

I already run Tubeless Rubber Queens (at ~850g each) and I am happy with the size of them, they suit mid Wales riding nicely. But if I can get the non UST ones to work well (at ~650g each) I save another 200g of each wheel. Plus I get the reported benefit of the black chilli compond.

These changes save ~800g from the wheelset or about 2 lbs!

Seems like a pretty nice option, IF they stay inflated, and if they don't squirm about too much.

Sailor74 and cynic-al.

Interesting debate there. I can how running the thinner sidewall of a NON UST tyre would provide less support than a specific tubeless tyre.

I am downgrading my 823 rims to 819's as I don't appear to need the strength of the bigger rim. Mavic 819's have been strong enough on my other bikes. I speced the 823's on my 'biggest' bike (an Intense Tracer) but with hindsight I think I overbuilt the wheelset somewhat.

Cynic-al, are you Diesels Tubeless specific tyres, and at what kind of pressures?

We recently undertook a study investigating the effects of blood donation (~450 ml) on subsequent exercise tolerance and the parameters of endurance performance.

We did not specifically look at how long it takes the body to recover from this blood loss, as we undertook all experimental testing within four days of donation. However, from our venous blood measurements, the haem based constituents of the blood (i.e. Haemoglobin and the derived parameter haematocrit) do not recover, indeed they get proportionally worse (due to plasma volume shifts) within this four day period.

Physiologically, the reduction in haemoglobin reduces the oxygen carrying capacity of the blood. This effect serves to reduce VO2max (by ~10%) this in turn limits the VO2 kinetics (this stuff is a bit science heavy so I won't go into details here). The combination of these factors are bad news for exercise tolerance, which was reduced by ~22% during this study.

There is not a lot you can do to increase recovery, drinking water will help to replace your blood volume, but will dilute the red cell concentration (as Tinners mentions) and we showed experimentally. During previous EPO studies, the ingestion of ferritin (as iron tablets) has been suggested to help the body increase haemoglobin production. Although, erythropoesis (natural EPO production) appears to only really begin ~5-7 days post donation. With this in mind, there is not mcuh you can really do, just sit tight, your performance will return as your body naturally recovers.

Jon

I would love one please:

jonathan.robert.baker@gmail.com

SUCCESS!!!!!!!!

Shizzletrack… well done, you won the race!

TN – thanks for all your help, there is a huge stupid grin on my face right now!

I am using internet explorer… I take it that this is bad? Since you all mention mozilla and safari?

shizzletrack… i am foxed, completely… just ghot more coffee… maybe that will help!

TN – I keep editing the first attempt, just to save me from fillig up this thread with failed attempts… but I now have the 'x' box… progress maybe? From using the advice you posted starting 'just testing' then a white lapierre…

TN – no idea?! I will have a look now… This has always foxed me, and I have never asked for fear of looking dumb… it seems that this latter statement may be correct! haha

Is that the 2010 special 'secret garage' edition?

Dimmadam – that Merida is great value for money, but I should have specified at the onset, I am really lookign for a short (max 4") travel FS frame.

Dougal – thanks for that, that would explain why there are Anthem advanced around with interesting discounts at the moment!

That MSC loks nice, and always appears on similar threads, its light for sure at ~3.5lbs, but has anybody ridden one? Whats the handling like etc?