gh wrote:Put more bluntly, since that seems to be the only language Mats understands: Pego is an MD. He's playing "amateur" nothing.
I am sorry GH. MDs don't do research. I do. They use the facts that we give them. Anyhow, I will stop the cock-measuring contest right now. His response was naive indeed. He ought to know better than comparing ephedrine to caffeine. They are two different animals in the hands of an uneducated athlete.
Fine, what type of research do you do to make you qualified as an expert on stimulants? Mind you, I don't want an argument, but you called me an amateur, you said I don't know what I am talking about, so show us where your expertise comes from.
This kinda stuff is Pego's field of work. He doesn't need to cut and paste his info. I, and pretty much everyone else on here, would trust what he says far more than someone who has to paste their info from a random medical site.
Let's see if my credentials are sufficient for Mats.
MD from Komensky University, Bratislava - 1962 Neurology residency - University of Arizona - 1970-73 Past president Wisconsin Neurological Society
Now Mats' arguments about ephedrine. As is obvious from the above dates, I spent some time in medicine when caffeine and ephedrine were pretty much the only available stimulants available.
1. Comparison with amphetamines is quite inappropriate. While they are both stimulants, ephedrine always belonged in the class of "central stimulants with caffeine and strychnine as I said earlier. 2. Certainly you can overdose on ephedrine just as you can overdose on any and every chemical substance. You could cause death by drinking too much of water and yet, nobody would consider banning water, would they? 3. A psychosis from a chronic use of ephedrine is a possibility and may have occurred. I have never personally seen it in 45 years in this racket. I have seen many cases of caffeine addiction, though. Of this class, the most dangerous is, of course, strychnine. Even that is (or used to be) quite popular among the mounteneers of Switzerland for its stimulant efficacy. 4. Nobody ever showed either caffeine or ephedrine to produce a PED effect. Obviously, if you are sleepy for whatever reason at the time of your competition, it will wake you up.
Where is your publication list? Nowhere to be found? Thought so. Show me your 100 pubs in peer-reviewed journals and then I will rest my case [I admit that I am not well published but I don't flash my credentials either. You just did]. For now there is clear-cut evidence (in addition to anecdotal evidence=right up an MDs ally right?) in the pub along with reference list that I gave in my original post. Stop spreading your disinformation. Unfortunately people like GH and Pego will always be impressed MD credentials. Those of us actively in the research field are not.
You know as well as me that you guys are generally not doing any research whatsoever and you are using the knowledge that have been passed on from us researchers. So stop flashing your credentials please. They mean nothing in the research field unless you have the pubs to go with it. Sorry.
Last edited by Mats Nilsson on Fri Jul 20, 2007 11:44 am, edited 1 time in total.
gh wrote:Put more bluntly, since that seems to be the only language Mats understands: Pego is an MD. He's playing "amateur" nothing.
I am sorry GH. MDs don't do research. I do. They use the facts that we give them. Anyhow, I will stop the cock-measuring contest right now. His response was naive indeed. He ought to know better than comparing ephedrine to caffeine. They are two different animals in the hands of an uneducated athlete.
Fine, what type of research do you do to make you qualified as an expert on stimulants? Mind you, I don't want an argument, but you called me an amateur, you said I don't know what I am talking about, so show us where your expertise comes from.
At the moment I am working in a lab focusing on the effects of microgravity of skeleton. Most of our research is sponosered by NASA or DOD. One of our projects dealt with the effects of dobutamine (B1 adrenergic agonist) adminstration on skeletal blood flow and overall effects on the human physique. Anyhow.......this squabble has nothing to do with our credentials.........just read the freaking reference and the references that this person gives in her/his paper and you will have a fair view of what I am talking about. It takes no expertise to understand this. Ephedrine is performance enhancing especially when taken with caffeine and Beckford is/was a darn cheater. He may be great person other than that, but that is not the point of these threads.
The only thing I'll agree with in your post is that the MD by your name does not make you an expert in all things biological. I never claimed that distinction. I do, however, have a solid background in the function of the human nervous system.
Show me any credible evidence where ephedrine improved performance (not anecdotal, but solidly documented) and I'll shut up. There is plenty of evidence for steroids, for HGH and for hematocrit enhancers. I am not familiar with any for the stimulants.
Pego wrote:The only thing I'll agree with in your post is that the MD by your name does not make you an expert in all things biological. I never claimed that distinction. I do, however, have a solid background in the function of the human nervous system. Show me any credible evidence where ephedrine improved performance (not anecdotal, but solidly documented) and I'll shut up. There is plenty of evidence for steroids, for HGH and for hematocrit enhancers. I am not familiar with any for the stimulants.
Ok, I will state it again: Look up the reference that I gave in the original post [it is underlined]. Go to pubmed and do a litsearch (authors name + ephedrine) and you will find this pub. Once you have this pub then you use the reference list in the paper as a guide. Anyhow, if the abstracts exist on pubmed (which they do in this case) then they are credible sources and published in peer-reviewed journals. I am not going to do this leg-work for you Pego. Sorry for being rude and defensive. There was no need for that.
Pego wrote:The only thing I'll agree with in your post is that the MD by your name does not make you an expert in all things biological. I never claimed that distinction. I do, however, have a solid background in the function of the human nervous system. Show me any credible evidence where ephedrine improved performance (not anecdotal, but solidly documented) and I'll shut up. There is plenty of evidence for steroids, for HGH and for hematocrit enhancers. I am not familiar with any for the stimulants.
Ok, I will state it again: Look up the reference that I gave in the original post [it is underlined]. Go to pubmed and do a litsearch (authors name + ephedrine) and you will find this pub. Once you have this pub then you use the reference list in the paper as a guide. Anyhow, if the abstracts exist on pubmed (which they do in this case) then they are credible sources and published in peer-reviewed journals. I am not going to do this leg-work for you Pego. Sorry for being rude and defensive. There was no need for that.
Agreed. Let's start from the beginning in a civilized fashion. For now, we'll just use the abstract of the referenced article that you pasted. I am putting key words in bold fonts.
<With their stimulant properties and sympathomimetic actions, ephedra alkaloids have been perceived as products that can potentially be used to enhance athletic performance and lending unfair advantages to athletes, even if used in supplement forms.>
Does "perceived" and "potentially" sound as solidly documented? To me it sounds as unsupported suppositions.
<Many athletes use food supplements containing ephedra alkaloids because of perceived benefits of increased energy, decreased time to exhaustion and potential thermogenic properties with increased metabolism, increased fat loss, and improved muscle strength.>
Again "perceived". Could it be what is called a "placebo effect"?
<In particular, a series of studies evaluated the effects of ephedrine in combination with caffeine showing an increased time to exhaustion and decreased rating of perceived exhaustion on cycle ergometry compared with either drug alone or placebo.>
As a researcher, you know how difficult it is to document effects of more than one drug administered together. There are simply too many variables. Once again, the word "perceived" is used.
Overall, this abstract offers little hope that the body of the article is worth chasing.
Pego wrote:The only thing I'll agree with in your post is that the MD by your name does not make you an expert in all things biological. I never claimed that distinction. I do, however, have a solid background in the function of the human nervous system. Show me any credible evidence where ephedrine improved performance (not anecdotal, but solidly documented) and I'll shut up. There is plenty of evidence for steroids, for HGH and for hematocrit enhancers. I am not familiar with any for the stimulants.
Ok, I will state it again: Look up the reference that I gave in the original post [it is underlined]. Go to pubmed and do a litsearch (authors name + ephedrine) and you will find this pub. Once you have this pub then you use the reference list in the paper as a guide. Anyhow, if the abstracts exist on pubmed (which they do in this case) then they are credible sources and published in peer-reviewed journals. I am not going to do this leg-work for you Pego. Sorry for being rude and defensive. There was no need for that.
Agreed. Let's start from the beginning in a civilized fashion. For now, we'll just use the abstract of the referenced article that you pasted. I am putting key words in bold fonts.
<With their stimulant properties and sympathomimetic actions, ephedra alkaloids have been perceived as products that can potentially be used to enhance athletic performance and lending unfair advantages to athletes, even if used in supplement forms.>
Does "perceived" and "potentially" sound as solidly documented? To me it sounds as unsupported suppositions.
<Many athletes use food supplements containing ephedra alkaloids because of perceived benefits of increased energy, decreased time to exhaustion and potential thermogenic properties with increased metabolism, increased fat loss, and improved muscle strength.>
Again "perceived". Could it be what is called a "placebo effect"?
<In particular, a series of studies evaluated the effects of ephedrine in combination with caffeine showing an increased time to exhaustion and decreased rating of perceived exhaustion on cycle ergometry compared with either drug alone or placebo.>
As a researcher, you know how difficult it is to document effects of more than one drug administered together. There are simply too many variables. Once again, the word "perceived" is used.
Overall, this abstract offers little hope that the body of the article is worth chasing.
Did you look up the references Pego? Nope I assume you did not. The paper that I referenced originally may not have been the best one for supporting my statements, but it does indeed point to a few studies that clearly show that ephedrine is performance enhancing.If these studies are published in peer-reviewed journals they are well-controlled studies. Subjects are blinded to their treatments and randomized into various groups etc. Now, read the whole summary article first. Secondly, look up their references pertaining to ephedrine/caffeine and then come back and shoot down my arguments.
BTW, do you know what ratings of perceived exertion is? As an MD I bet you don't (they are generally not interested in exercise). Anyhow, the Borg's scale is subjective and everyone int he field knows this. I am sure they had more compelling evidence although the Borg scale is a good indicator of blood lactate concentrations, VO2 etc. Particularly when you are dealing with compliant research subjects.
Mats Nilsson wrote: BTW, do you know what ratings of perceived exertion is? As an MD I bet you don't (they are generally not interested in exercise). Anyhow, the Borg's scale is subjective and everyone int he field knows this. I am sure they had more compelling evidence although the Borg scale is a good indicator of blood lactate concentrations, VO2 etc. Particularly when you are dealing with compliant research subjects.
This is very elementary stuff, Mats, so I think you underestimate Pego, but more to the point, the perceived level of exertion is often influenced by stimulants but this in itself is not tantamount to the assertion of an ergogenic effect(physical).
Mats Nilsson wrote:Did you look up the references Pego? Nope I assume you did not.
No, I did not and I told you in my post before this one why not. If the abstract uses terms such as "perceived" and "potentially", I cannot imagine how the sources could be any more persuasive.
Mats Nilsson wrote:BTW, do you know what ratings of perceived exertion is? As an MD I bet you don't (they are generally not interested in exercise).
I told you where my expertise is and it is not in exercise physiology. Your constant attacks on physicians in general are, however, getting tired. Sport medicine physicians, respiratory specialists, even some orthopedists and physiatrists are very interested in exercise.
This is my last post in this exchange regardless of what you might add. So far your argument has been just ad hominem attacks on myself and my guild.
Mats Nilsson wrote:Did you look up the references Pego? Nope I assume you did not.
No, I did not and I told you in my post before this one why not. If the abstract uses terms such as "perceived" and "potentially", I cannot imagine how the sources could be any more persuasive.
Mats Nilsson wrote:BTW, do you know what ratings of perceived exertion is? As an MD I bet you don't (they are generally not interested in exercise).
I told you where my expertise is and it is not in exercise physiology. Your constant attacks on physicians in general are, however, getting tired. Sport medicine physicians, respiratory specialists, even some orthopedists and physiatrists are very interested in exercise.
This is my last post in this exchange regardless of what you might add. So far your argument has been just ad hominem attacks on myself and my guild.
Well, there you go. You are not willing to do the leg work to prove me wrong. Read these articles at your leisure and then return for another bout. They are there for anyone that is willing to learn the facts about ephedrine+ caffeine and performance.
Anyhow, I am dissapointed in your profession because I have dealt with MD egos for years [first as an athlete and now later as a researcher]. Yet the same, I once toyed with the thought of becoming one myself. In my experience you are very ill-informed about the general state of the "exercise physiology knowledge" in doctors of medicine. Perhaps you have surrounded yourself with health-freaks all your life so that would explain your bias? The only country in the world which routinely/officially prescribes exercise to their patients as a precautionary measure is Sweden. You literally get a prescription for exercise and not drugs for a whole host of disease states. Canada may be coming along as well, but the US is way behind. After the fact rehab is another question.
I am getting off track once again...
Last edited by Mats Nilsson on Fri Jul 20, 2007 5:08 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Pego wrote:. So far your argument has been just ad hominem attacks on myself and my guild.
And on James Beckford, who doesn't deserve it either.
Justin
Well Justin...if you are not willing to face the facts then there is nothing I can do for you my friend. The original source is there for you and your "pro-drug friends" to read. Once you have read it you should turn to their reference list like I stated an X amount of times previously. It is really up to you to prove me wrong not the other way around. The drug is on the list for God's sake and Beckford has been deemed as a cheater previously otherwise he woul;d never have been banned.
Last edited by Mats Nilsson on Fri Jul 20, 2007 3:06 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Mats Nilsson wrote: BTW, do you know what ratings of perceived exertion is? As an MD I bet you don't (they are generally not interested in exercise). Anyhow, the Borg's scale is subjective and everyone int he field knows this. I am sure they had more compelling evidence although the Borg scale is a good indicator of blood lactate concentrations, VO2 etc. Particularly when you are dealing with compliant research subjects.
This is very elementary stuff, Mats, so I think you underestimate Pego, but more to the point, the perceived level of exertion is often influenced by stimulants but this in itself is not tantamount to the assertion of an ergogenic effect(physical).
I agee, yet the same we are talking about centimeters, and hundreds of a second sometimes. These marginal differences are statistically significant (caffeine/ephedrine studies) and can make a difference on the podium. Sure, it is elementary.
Mats Nilsson wrote:Well Justin...if you are not willing to face the facts then there is nothing I can do for you my friend. The original source is there for you and your "pro-drug friends" to read.
The facts are clear. He tested positive for a banned stimulant and was punished according to the rules...dq from the meet and a warning. Had he tested positive again in his subsequent career for anything at all he would have got a second strike ban. But he didn't, despite the long career which started this thread.
If you apply this sort of 'one sin, forever damned' approach to your whole life, you must be very lonely.
Mats Nilsson wrote:Well Justin...if you are not willing to face the facts then there is nothing I can do for you my friend. The original source is there for you and your "pro-drug friends" to read.
The facts are clear. He tested positive for a banned stimulant and was punished according to the rules...dq from the meet and a warning. Had he tested positive again in his subsequent career for anything at all he would have got a second strike ban. But he didn't, despite the long career which started this thread.
If you apply this sort of 'one sin, forever damned' approach to your whole life, you must be very lonely.
Justin
Justin, you do have point here and you are correct to a certain degree about me.
he stuffs himself full of drugs 1 hour before to lose weight
how much weight does he need to lose to jump 8.60 ?
Well, me dear MD. I am not a doctor of medicine so my opinion does not count in here according to GH and others. I would guess that if he took a big shit before jumping in Osaka then perhaps it would make a 2 cm difference (assuming it was solid that is).
Anyhow, ephedrine is not only used for losing weight and it does not make sense taking it a couple of hours (I am guessing he popped it 1 hour before the meet) before a competition for that purpose [that is why I ridiculed the person who stated this]. Thus, he took it to get jacked up and get a competitive advantage [this competitive edge has been proven in several studies in addition to beneficial physiological effects]. You want more useless speculations boss-man or can we let my "anti MD" thread to rest in peace?
Mats Nilsson wrote:I would guess that if he took a big shit before jumping in Osaka then perhaps it would make a 2 cm difference (assuming it was solid that is).
Everyone can tell from the piss poor handwriting....
unfortunately for "us"
shipman killed the job
i maybe most "liked" guy around here ( or maybe not ), but job is dead
i only locum, but pride insists patients only get the best you can offer - i'd give you top-notch, but now i have to have yearly appraisals post-shipman:
i have been professionally neutered from usual speech of:
you're a fat slob & if you don't lose 20 pounds thru proper exercise/dieting in 3 months, you'll need lifetime aspirin/lipitor/coversyl/cozaar... & if you can afford it, you shoud be onplavix, which possibly/probably prevents you dying from a heart attack/stroke before 65y
), but job is dead