Testosterone Used During Race Wouldn't Have Helped, Experts Say

a écrit dans le message de news:
...

gds wrote:
Linda Lou wrote:

Again, I'm no expert but it seems that the body is producing the
testosterone because at a biological level it "thinks" it's going to
help. The documentation of this response to stress is pretty strong
and
clear.

Perhaps in a stress situation, the body produces just enough
testosterone to get through the stress situation. Any more testosterone
than what the body produces is of little or no benefit. Perhaps. I'm no
expert either.

Linda

Forget the amounts. The reaction is fairly immediate. I'm addressing
the argument that there is NO short term benefit from increased
testosterone. I have no idea of what doses are optimmum or even
effective, but clearly the body's response would appear to indicate
that "it" expected a short term benefit.

Just because the body increases testosterone levels quickly in response
to stress does not mean that the benefit is immediate. It could be that
it responds quickly to help the body build strength and endurance if
the stress is longterm enough so the T levels stay elevated.

I'm not making this as an argument that there is no quick benefit, only
that the body's production of it in response to stress is not proof of
an immediate benefit.


The new argument seems to be dehydration...

http://www.forbes.com/business/servi...ap2925763.html

Montesquiou wrote in message
...

a écrit dans le message de news:
...

gds wrote:
Linda Lou wrote:

Again, I'm no expert but it seems that the body is producing the
testosterone because at a biological level it "thinks" it's going to
help. The documentation of this response to stress is pretty strong
and
clear.

Perhaps in a stress situation, the body produces just enough
testosterone to get through the stress situation. Any more
testosterone
than what the body produces is of little or no benefit. Perhaps. I'm
no
expert either.

Linda

Forget the amounts. The reaction is fairly immediate. I'm addressing
the argument that there is NO short term benefit from increased
testosterone. I have no idea of what doses are optimmum or even
effective, but clearly the body's response would appear to indicate
that "it" expected a short term benefit.

Just because the body increases testosterone levels quickly in response
to stress does not mean that the benefit is immediate. It could be that
it responds quickly to help the body build strength and endurance if
the stress is longterm enough so the T levels stay elevated.

I'm not making this as an argument that there is no quick benefit, only
that the body's production of it in response to stress is not proof of
an immediate benefit.


The new argument seems to be dehydration...

http://www.forbes.com/business/servi...ap2925763.html

It's grasping at straws time.

from what I've read the picture is not that simple at all

stress is more correlated with increases in cortisol. testosterone has
been show to increase _post_ competition after victories (post more so
than pre-)

however- hormonal responses differ greatly in men vs women, for example,
and based on your psychological make-up

for example- high-power (those with a desire to dominate opponents)
victorious males and _defeated_ women increase testosterone after a
meaningful competition, but high-power victorious females do not

cortisol levels increase pre-competition differently in experienced
competitors versus novices.

it really doesn't make much sense to make blanket statements about
hormone responses to stress and competition

but aside from that- it's a big leap to say that if a small
pre-competiton boast of T is helpful, then a large dose must necessarily
be even better. maybe, maybe not- I'm sure we can all think of cases
where too much of a good thing is detrimental.

marc



OK, I'm not an endocrinologist nor expert in this any way but I do have
a question.

If there is no short term benefit from elevated (more) testosterone,
then why is it that the body almost immediately produces elevated
amounts as a response to stress? And if the stress is removed then the
body quicky reverts back to its baseline level of testosterone
production.


Again, I'm no expert but it seems that the body is producing the
testosterone because at a biological level it "thinks" it's going to
help. The documentation of this response to stress is pretty strong and
clear.

B. Lafferty wrote:

snip

It's grasping at straws time.


http://tinyurl.com/gg8t8

--
Bill Asher

wrote:

I'm not making this as an argument that there is no quick benefit, only
that the body's production of it in response to stress is not proof of
an immediate benefit.

Of course it isn't proof. But it certainly raises the question of why
some folks seem to feel there is NO short term benefit.

The number of high level athletes using such things is pretty big. And
that is only counting the ones that finally 'fess up.My guess is there
is a lot of unpublished data on on how this stuff helps. Unpublished
because it describes an outlawed practice. But it must exist or else
all of these $million athletes and their trainers wouldn't keep using
it.

Drug companies are not going to do/publish research on this use as it
isn't part of the therapeutic benefit they will publicly market.

Montesquiou wrote:


The new argument seems to be dehydration...

http://www.forbes.com/business/servi...ap2925763.html

This is most interesting, since it would appear that Floyd was perhaps
the most well-hydrated bike racer on earth that day.

"Prayer: The last refuge of a scoundrel"
- Lisa Simpson

Ningi wrote:
Yes, basically. Very few drugs are developed with the intention of
performance enhancement in athletes, and as a result, most studies of
drugs are for medical therapeutic benefit and performance enhancing
aspects often aren't well understood.

But of course WADA has done extensive testing on all of this.

Or have they?

Start with the idea that it is easy to go undetected. So it has to be a
mistake or sabotage.

Klay Anderson wrote:
http://tinyurl.com/s2p5h

--
Regards,

Klay Anderson
http://www.klay.com
+801-942-8346

"Ningi" wrote in message
k...
Klay Anderson wrote:
http://tinyurl.com/s2p5h


The people who have actually used disagree.

http://www.velonews.com/race/int/articles/10613.0.html

If there's one person we can go to reliably for the effects of drugs it's an
uneducated Spanish rider caught doping.

"Scott" wrote in message
oups.com...

Ningi wrote:
Klay Anderson wrote:
http://tinyurl.com/s2p5h


The people who have actually used disagree.

http://www.velonews.com/race/int/articles/10613.0.html

Pete

Right.... so you've got people involved in the study of the drug and
it's effects, as well as experts within the anti-drug testing
organization saying it wouldn't do any good, but you'll take the word
of a few people who've used it and say it would?

Some have alleged that it would be worth taking if only for the placebo
affect. Perhaps those touting it's benefits were suffering from
placebo affect when they determined that it worked for them.

After LeMond's Tour win in '89 everybody and his brother was taking iron
shots and everyone was bragging about how you got an almost immediate boost.
In FACT many riders decreased their performance because they were on the
edge of iron poisoning.

Anyone else remember "Mellow Yellow"? Supposedly if you smoked the dried
lining of the banana peel you'd get high. Literally MILLIONS of kids
instantly tried it and testified that it was a GREAT HIGH!

In the 1920's riders believed that smoking tobacco would "open the lungs"
and hence before the climbs you'd see riders passing around a cigarette.

What someone CLAIMS to be effective and what tests demonstrate as effective
are commonly two completely different things. There are NO tests showing
testosterone as being effective for "recovery".