----- Original Message -----
From: Conway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> .. I would think that
> two events that might benefit greatly from EPO would be the 400 and 800
> meters .. Why ?? Because of all the races on the track, these are the two
> where running into oxygen debt occurs in the greatest degree .. AT 100 &
200
> one can stave off oxygen debt .. At 1500 and up the athlete is pacing
> his/her self and is able to regulate their oxygen usage .. But at 400 and
> 800 the athlete is trying to run as close to sprinting but maintain as
> possible ..
Have to disagree here. In the sprints the anaerobic energy pathway is more
important than the aerobic one, simply because these events are over before
complete glycolysis can occur. The reason is this: the muscle cells obtain
energy after breaking down glucose into ATP. This occurs in two steps:
anaerobic glycolysis, and aerobic glycolysis. Although aerobic glycolysis,
which requires oxygen, is about 10 times more efficient than anaerobic
glycolysis (which produces lactate as waste product), it occurs at a rate
100 times slower.
The shorter and faster the race, the less time the body's metabolism has to
oxidate glucose in order to match the body's energy consumption rate. In
addition fast twitch muscles are much more poorly oxygenated than slow
twitch (hence the terms "white" versus "red" muscles); increasing the
oxygen-carrying capacity of the blood will not affect them as much as slow
twitch fibers. Events with a significant anaerobic component will not
benefit as much from EPO as events that are almost wholly aerobic.
The math is simple. Suppose EPO boosts aerobic performance by 20% : which
events will profit the most -- events that are 80% anaerobic/20% aerobic
(400m) , 50% anaerobic/50% aerobic (800m), or 5% anaerobic/95% aerobic
(10,000m)?
Or, in other words, there is a reason that 400m athletes are not too
concerned about their VO2 max. No doubt EPO will improve their performances
somewhat, but the real beneficiaries are the long distance runners.
Cheers, Elliott
