# Is doping healthy? (antioxidants, aging)



## 777 (Oct 26, 2012)

I don't care about the legality of the use of EPO and blood transfusions. However, I've assuming the increase in red blood cells increases your health by leaps and bounds. Most notably from an antioxidant capacity, aging, other health indicator... etc.

Have there been any studies on this? Most older cyclists look like they're in their early 20's. However its probably impossible to determine.. as this could be due to the volume of exercise they partake in.


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

Both EPO and transfusions carry a lot of risks. 

Ask Kelme and TVM what happens if you give riders the wrong blood. 

Edit: On a side note, whilest kinda watching a news story about LA, there was a commercial for a testosterone supplement. As a healthcare practitioner, I'm not too keen on advocating steroids for normally healthy adults.


----------



## aclinjury (Sep 12, 2011)

777 said:


> I don't care about the legality of the use of EPO and blood transfusions. However, I've assuming the increase in red blood cells increases your health by leaps and bounds. Most notably from an antioxidant capacity, aging, other health indicator... etc.
> 
> Have there been any studies on this? * Most older cyclists look like they're in their early 20's.* However its probably impossible to determine.. as this could be due to the volume of exercise they partake in.


ugh no.. many ex-pros from yesteryears are now... fatsos!

The long distance runners are the ones who tend to not get fat.

And if you look at aging, it has a lot to do with diet from the moment you're born and throughout your life. Case in point is the Japanese. They live long, and have much less health issues during their living years. A typical Japanese senior requires about 20% of the health infrastructure that would be require by the American counterpart. The last 5 years of an American is mostly spent on drugs and in the hospital (the big Pharmco's make more money from keeping dying seniors alive for the last 5 years more than anything). Take away the all the drugs and what do you think would happen to the US population mortality average? You guessed it.

The key to health and longevity has already been discovered by the East a long time ago, and that is "moderation". Yet somehow a lot of folks in the West missed this. Instead, most people in the West seem to be hell bent focused on fad diet, fad science, fad exercises, and then they'll even go to the extremes of taking fad supplments in order to be "healthy". The answer has already been discovered by the East.


----------



## terzo rene (Mar 23, 2002)

Even in dialysis patients who are severely anemic, and therefore presumably have the most to gain, studies of the benefits of increased oxygenation are mixed at best, and levels beyond normal will almost certainly going to decrease your lifespan. Antioxidant research (Vit E, etc) hasn't panned out either. Every intervention to date comes with a cost.

Intense endurance exercise, like marathons, has been shown to cause significant heart damage for some period after, which isn't exactly the picture of health you are imagining. Unfortunately the best research to date has shown as long as you avoid activities that will actively decrease your lifespan - like smoking - longevity is largely the result of your genetics.


----------



## OldEndicottHiway (Jul 16, 2007)

terzo rene said:


> Even in dialysis patients who are severely anemic, and therefore presumably have the most to gain, studies of the benefits of increased oxygenation are mixed at best, and levels beyond normal will almost certainly going to decrease your lifespan.




Hello.

Spot on.


----------



## mpre53 (Oct 25, 2011)

terzo rene said:


> Intense endurance exercise, like marathons, has been shown to cause significant heart damage for some period after, which isn't exactly the picture of health you are imagining.


Jim Fixx, anyone?

One of the more ironic passages in his book was his claim that anyone who ran and completed a marathon would never have to worry about a heart attack.


----------



## CBus660R (Sep 9, 2011)

spade2you said:


> Edit: On a side note, whilest kinda watching a news story about LA, there was a commercial for a testosterone supplement. As a healthcare practitioner, I'm not too keen on advocating steroids for normally healthy adults.


What's your take on these guys? Cenegenics | There IS such a thing as healthy aging!

I've read a few articles on them when they first hit the mainstream a few years back. Basically, they put you on a low dose of testosterone and HGH. To me, they are using peoples vanity to make $$$ and are not following the Hippocratic oath. I guess the gov't is looking into them, but they back up their work with blood tests to show the patient needs the supplementation. Of course, they work with the patient to develop a diet, exercise, and sleep pattern for the week leading up to the blood test to get an abnormally low testosterone level for the baseline.


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

CBus660R said:


> What's your take on these guys? Cenegenics | There IS such a thing as healthy aging!
> 
> I've read a few articles on them when they first hit the mainstream a few years back. Basically, they put you on a low dose of testosterone and HGH. To me, they are using peoples vanity to make $$$ and are not following the Hippocratic oath. I guess the gov't is looking into them, but they back up their work with blood tests to show the patient needs the supplementation. Of course, they work with the patient to develop a diet, exercise, and sleep pattern for the week leading up to the blood test to get an abnormally low testosterone level for the baseline.


I have serious ethical qualms with that stuff. I consider myself very fortunate to work in a hospital where we're 100% focused on real healthcare. 

I know a masters racer whose doc tried to convince him that he had low testosterone and replacement was indicated After speaking with USAC and checking his testosterone level elsewhere, it was discovered his level was normal. A little shady, eh?

Personally, I think there are more than a few masters racers on it because their doc convinced them it's necessary.


----------



## CBus660R (Sep 9, 2011)

spade2you said:


> I have serious ethical qualms with that stuff. I consider myself very fortunate to work in a hospital where we're 100% focused on real healthcare.
> 
> I know a masters racer whose doc tried to convince him that he had low testosterone and replacement was indicated After speaking with USAC and checking his testosterone level elsewhere, it was discovered his level was normal. A little shady, eh?
> 
> Personally, I think there are more than a few masters racers on it because their doc convinced them it's necessary.


Yeah, it seems to be a trend for doctors to loosen up one who they'll prescribe to. It seems like if you ask, you can get it. At my gym, I'm good friends with one of the trainers. We talk about this a bit. He's against it, but he knows a lot of guys who are getting prescriptions for the Test patch. Apparently, there are 2 doctors who are friends of the LEO and firefighters here in town. It's not just the athlete looking for an edge over the competition that want this.


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

CBus660R said:


> Yeah, it seems to be a trend for doctors to loosen up one who they'll prescribe to. It seems like if you ask, you can get it. At my gym, I'm good friends with one of the trainers. We talk about this a bit. He's against it, but he knows a lot of guys who are getting prescriptions for the Test patch. Apparently, there are 2 doctors who are friends of the LEO and firefighters here in town. It's not just the athlete looking for an edge over the competition that want this.


I might change my stance a bit for LEO and firefighters due to the nature of their job. Friend of mine got the holy hell beat out of him by some dude on PCP waiting for backup.


----------



## CBus660R (Sep 9, 2011)

spade2you said:


> I might change my stance a bit for LEO and firefighters due to the nature of their job. Friend of mine got the holy hell beat out of him by some dude on PCP waiting for backup.


Yeah, I can't argue with that.


----------



## vetboy (Oct 11, 2005)

777 said:


> I don't care about the legality of the use of EPO and blood transfusions. However, I've assuming the increase in red blood cells increases your health by leaps and bounds. Most notably from an antioxidant capacity, aging, other health indicator... etc.
> 
> Have there been any studies on this? Most older cyclists look like they're in their early 20's. However its probably impossible to determine.. as this could be due to the volume of exercise they partake in.


Yea - mother nature doesn't know how to balance the body appropriately - let's let big pharma do it for us.


----------



## OldEndicottHiway (Jul 16, 2007)

mpre53 said:


> Jim Fixx, anyone?
> 
> One of the more ironic passages in his book was his claim that anyone who ran and completed a marathon would never have to worry about a heart attack.



In the dialysis patient population (highly prone to anemia for reasons I won't go into here) it has been well-documented in intense, scientific studies that EPO in high doses especially to those individuals who were hypo-responders...leads to increased death rates from cardiac disease.

The trend now is a decrease in EPO usage and blood transfusions as even at a HgB of 8.0, lifespan nor _quality of life_ is increased by superficially pushing a patient's HgB up by use of EPO.

In fact, there's a strong correlation to the opposite.


----------



## Bluenote (Oct 28, 2012)

I think the bottom line is this stuff hasn't been studied for use in those amounts, for that amount of time - so no one knows if it is safe. Given the ethics, it really can't be studied. The closest we will likely get is to try and draw conclusions from related studies.

Personally, I wouldn't dump stuff into my body, without knowing it is safe. My experience in life is there is no free lunch, everything has a price to pay.


----------



## OldEndicottHiway (Jul 16, 2007)

Bluenote said:


> I think the bottom line is this stuff hasn't been studied for use in those amounts, for that amount of time - so no one knows if it is safe. Given the ethics, it really can't be studied. The closest we will likely get is to try and draw conclusions from related studies.
> 
> Personally, I wouldn't dump stuff into my body, without knowing it is safe. My experience in life is there is no free lunch, everything has a price to pay.




Are you talking about EPO? 

It's been extensively studied.


----------



## Bluenote (Oct 28, 2012)

OldEndicottHiway said:


> Are you talking about EPO?
> 
> It's been extensively studied.


My understanding is that using EPO, in healthy people, to improve performance has not been studied.

But if you know about all these EPO studies, why don't you enlighten us? Are there studies that show it protects heart health? Prevents cancer? Is better at those things than safer / cheaper alternatives like diet, exercise, etc?


----------



## RRRoubaix (Aug 27, 2008)

spade2you said:


> I have serious ethical qualms with that stuff. I consider myself very fortunate to work in a hospital where we're 100% focused on real healthcare.
> 
> I know a masters racer whose doc tried to convince him that he had low testosterone and replacement was indicated After speaking with USAC and checking his testosterone level elsewhere, it was discovered his level was normal. A little shady, eh?
> 
> Personally, I think there are more than a few masters racers on it because their doc convinced them it's necessary.


I'm both borderline anemic and low testosterone. I quizzed my doctor about whether I was a candidate for testosterone or steroids and he said no, since I wasn't *quite* anemic enough. Bugger.
(See- it's not always your peers, Spade! And yes, I'm a Masters racer.  )


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

Bluenote said:


> My understanding is that using EPO, in healthy people, to improve performance has not been studied.
> 
> But if you know about all these EPO studies, why don't you enlighten us? Are there studies that show it protects heart health? Prevents cancer? Is better at those things than safer / cheaper alternatives like diet, exercise, etc?


I don't think there have been specific VO2 tests with healthy athletes. Due to the potential side effects, I question if this sort of study would pass an ethics committee. It would be neat to know and I'd almost consider volunteering. However, due to the risks of throwing a clot...no thanks. I'd probably need to not race for a year or so out of fairness since you could possibly build fitness even in the off season. Again, no thanks. 



RRRoubaix said:


> I'm both borderline anemic and low testosterone. I quizzed my doctor about whether I was a candidate for testosterone or steroids and he said no, since I wasn't *quite* anemic enough. Bugger.
> (See- it's not always your peers, Spade! And yes, I'm a Masters racer.  )


At least your physician is ethical. My friend's physician was trying to prescribe it and the guy didn't even need it.


----------



## Zachariah (Jan 29, 2009)

mpre53 said:


> Jim Fixx, anyone?
> 
> One of the more ironic passages in his book was his claim that anyone who ran and completed a marathon would never have to worry about a heart attack.


Fixx was Myopic and refused to believe he was slowly dying from Atherosclerosis. Then, one sunny day....the Reaper brought down his Scythe.


----------



## Cinelli 82220 (Dec 2, 2010)

OldEndicottHiway said:


> Are you talking about EPO?
> 
> It's been extensively studied.


Clinical trials are one thing. Self administered EPO is another.

Lots of athletes killed themselves BITD by making their blood so thick they had strokes or aneurysms. 

Test patch might be okay with a knowledgable doctor. They make a huge difference.


----------



## rydbyk (Feb 17, 2010)

Cinelli 82220 said:


> Clinical trials are one thing. Self administered EPO is another.
> 
> Lots of athletes killed themselves BITD by making their blood so thick they had strokes or aneurysms.
> 
> Test patch might be okay with a knowledgable doctor. They make a huge difference.


EPO or blood bags?


----------



## OldEndicottHiway (Jul 16, 2007)

Bluenote said:


> *My understanding is that using EPO, in healthy people, to improve performance has not been studied.*
> 
> *But if you know about all these EPO studies, why don't you enlighten us?* Are there studies that show it protects heart health? Prevents cancer? Is better at those things than safer / cheaper alternatives like diet, exercise, etc?



Then you answered my simple question for clarification in what looked like at face value, a statement suggesting it (EPO) had not been studied for risk. 

So, your added "_enlighten us_" comment was not necessary. 

I am not going to go citing every randomized trial and study. Current data is suggestive that high doses of EPO especially in hypo-responders within CA, renal disease, anemia of other causes, and diabetes type ll patient populations, correlate to increased risk of adverse cardiac events (even at a normalized HgB <12.5... which is low-end of "normal") and a two-fold increase in death or non-death from stroke. 

There is still some uncertainty as to whether the results are based on multiple other comorbidity factors that increase death/adverse outcome risk, is exclusively attributed to larger doses of EPO alone, or both.

_Of course_ you can't generalize the data to non-anemic populations not studied, but because of these recent studies, the trend in EPO dosing now is actually accepting a lower target HgB, rather than throwing EPO in huge doses attempting to "normalize" HgB's. A non-symptomatic patient with a HgB of 8.0-9.0 is much less likely to receive not only no blood transfusions, but will probably also not be receiving EPO like candy, as was custom up until a couple years ago. 

And as well, the target range HgB is lower today because of these increased associated risks of cardiovascular events and stroke.

Here's one discussion based on one study, discussing this very topic.


MMS: Error


----------



## joker (Jul 22, 2007)

BBC Eat, Fast and Live Longer - Legendado - YouTube


----------



## phoehn9111 (May 11, 2005)

Does it seem plausible that you could use EPO and artificially elevate your normal
hemocrit levels with no adverse reprecussions down the line? This is akin to the ads
on TV for androgel Testosterone. Good god man, there is no free lunch and you will
end up paying later for enhancement now. You may not like it, but it is what it is.
Same thing for human growth hormone. Look elsewhere, train harder eat right.


----------



## aclinjury (Sep 12, 2011)

I'mma ain't no expert in healthcare, but I have taken courses in physiology and biochemistry in college, and I can say there is no way in hell I will put EPO into my body.

Let's get back to basic science. Our body, like most organism, is a biological system, and like all biologica systems, it has a feedback mechanism. This feedback mechanism isn't some random mechanism; the feedback mechanism itself is a highly tuned system of controls and equilibrium that has taken Nature millions of years to perfect. Basically when we dump synthetic EPO into our body, we are doing something that Nature did not intend us to do, and as such we will end up with strange side effects, some of which many not even show up until years later.

This is just basic science. Man can't hope to cheat on Nature and not pay for it later. The motto "There is no free lunch" is absolutely right.

Simply put, we should not tamper with Nature. The only intervention we should do to our body is when there is something wrong with our body to begin with, something like a defect. Only then should we attempt to "fix it". Otherwise, follow this rule: "if it ain't broke..."


----------



## Local Hero (Jul 8, 2010)

Zachariah said:


> Fixx was Myopic and refused to believe he was slowly dying from Atherosclerosis. Then, one sunny day....the Reaper brought down his Scythe.


How do you want to die? 



phoehn9111 said:


> Does it seem plausible that you could use EPO and artificially elevate your normal
> hemocrit levels with no adverse reprecussions down the line? This is akin to the ads
> on TV for androgel Testosterone. Good god man, there is no free lunch and you will
> end up paying later for enhancement now. You may not like it, but it is what it is.
> Same thing for human growth hormone. Look elsewhere, train harder eat right.


I'm not advocating EPO use. But what if the biological changes are indistinguishable from altitude training?


spade2you said:


> I might change my stance a bit for LEO and firefighters due to the nature of their job. Friend of mine got the holy hell beat out of him by some dude on PCP waiting for backup.


On the other side of that, I've seen some roided up cops use unnecessary force and rage on people. 


aclinjury said:


> I'mma ain't no expert in healthcare, but I have taken courses in physiology and biochemistry in college, and I can say there is no way in hell I will put EPO into my body.
> 
> Let's get back to basic science. Our body, like most organism, is a biological system, and like all biologica systems, it has a feedback mechanism. This feedback mechanism isn't some random mechanism; the feedback mechanism itself is a highly tuned system of controls and equilibrium that has taken Nature millions of years to perfect. Basically when we dump synthetic EPO into our body, we are doing something that Nature did not intend us to do, and as such we will end up with strange side effects, some of which many not even show up until years later.
> 
> ...


This is a difficult argument, as we use antibiotics, visit the dentist, have tonsils and appendixes removed, etc. Orthopedist surgeons often use titanium pins in broken bones, despite there being long-term adverse affects of having hardware in the body. You're making the naturalistic fallacy -- if we make the appeal to what has helped us evolve and pass along our genetics since time immemorial, we'll discuss living a lot shorter lives and being a lot more rapey.


----------



## aclinjury (Sep 12, 2011)

Local Hero said:


> This is a difficult argument, as we use antibiotics, visit the dentist, have tonsils and appendixes removed, etc. Orthopedist surgeons often use titanium pins in broken bones, despite there being long-term adverse affects of having hardware in the body. You're making the naturalistic fallacy -- if we make the appeal to what has helped us evolve and pass along our genetics since time immemorial, we'll discuss living a lot shorter lives and being a lot more rapey.


Let me clarify what I said. If a system is functioning normally, then we should not tamper with it. A normally functioning system is a system in equilibrium. A normal healthy athlete using EPO an attempt to shift the equilibrium of the system.. is not normal.

When you break a bone, this is not normal, and as such, this situation warrant a surgeon.

When you body in infected with a massive dose of foreign organism, this is also not normal, and as such, then the use of antibiotic is ok. In fact, indigenous people have used plants as antibiotic long before modern science came along. 

But in both instances, we seek treatments due to an abnormal situation.

Do you use antibiotic under normal situation? No.
Do you go to the surgeon if you bone is not broken? No.
Then why would you use EPO when your physiological system is functioning properly?

Find me one respectable scientific school of thought or scientific source that says something along the line: 

_"it is a sound practice to introduce a foreign force or catalyst into a normally functioning biological system". _

You will not going to be able to find such source because such line of thinking and reasoning is simply counter-intuitive to scientific. A normally functioning biological system is probably the most efficient system you're going to find. It is simply laughable to think that you could go into a system, introduce a synthetic chemical in an attempt to shift the equilibrium of the system, and expect everything to be a-ok. The endocrine system is a complex system and I think not a lot of people appreciate this complexity. It's a more complicated than "just dump more fuel into the carburetor to make the car go faster."


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

Local Hero said:


> On the other side of that, I've seen some roided up cops use unnecessary force and rage on people.


It happens all the time, right?


----------



## Local Hero (Jul 8, 2010)

spade2you said:


> It happens all the time, right?


Roided up cops responding with unnecessary aggression or using excessive force? It happens, albeit rarely. But it is probably more frequent than a guy on PCP beating up a cop. TRT and steroid use is rampant in many departments and among prison guards. 

Some of my information comes from long-time friends. I know a few former military police officers who are currently working as prison guards. I actually went to high school with one of them. He justifies his juice use because he needs to be strong to muscle around inmates. Another friend is a district attorney who looked the other way when some cops were found with steroids in their lockers (and subsequently resigned) -- he said that losing their jobs was enough punishment, if he were to file charges it would open up pandoras box for past allegations of excessive force and may have overturned some convictions -- and some of the convictions were his own. I said good, maybe those "assault on an officer" and "resisting arrest" convictions should be overturned! 

All said, I agree with your premise. It doesn't bother me as much when "good guys" like firefighters and cops use prescribed medication.


----------



## Local Hero (Jul 8, 2010)

aclinjury said:


> we seek treatments due to an abnormal situation.
> 
> ...
> Find me one respectable scientific school of thought or scientific source that says something along the line:
> ...


What are you talking about? 

Countless people have elective procedures. We inoculate healthy babies and individuals. Wealthy fathers ask doctors to give short sons HGH to make them taller. Women take birth control. Doctors prescribe weight loss pills. Botox. Doctors prescribe sleep medication. Doctors prescribe medicine to improve the lifestyle, appearance, mood, or vanity of individuals. Some doctors make a living with a specialty in anti-aging, fountain of youth type practice. I could go on all day...


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

Local Hero said:


> How do you want to die?
> 
> I'm not advocating EPO use. But what if the biological changes are indistinguishable from altitude training? On the other side of that, I've seen some roided up cops use unnecessary force and rage on people.
> This is a difficult argument, as we use antibiotics, visit the dentist, have tonsils and appendixes removed, etc. Orthopedist surgeons often use titanium pins in broken bones, despite there being long-term adverse affects of having hardware in the body. You're making the naturalistic fallacy -- if we make the appeal to what has helped us evolve and pass along our genetics since time immemorial, we'll discuss living a lot shorter lives and being a lot more rapey.





Local Hero said:


> Roided up cops responding with unnecessary aggression or using excessive force? It happens, albeit rarely. But it is probably more frequent than a guy on PCP beating up a cop. TRT and steroid use is rampant in many departments and among prison guards.
> 
> Some of my information comes from long-time friends. I know a few former military police officers who are currently working as prison guards. I actually went to high school with one of them. He justifies his juice use because he needs to be strong to muscle around inmates. Another friend is a district attorney who looked the other way when some cops were found with steroids in their lockers (and subsequently resigned) -- he said that losing their jobs was enough punishment, if he were to file charges it would open up pandoras box for past allegations of excessive force and may have overturned some convictions -- and some of the convictions were his own. I said good, maybe those "assault on an officer" and "resisting arrest" convictions should be overturned!
> 
> All said, I agree with your premise. It doesn't bother me as much when "good guys" like firefighters and cops use prescribed medication.


Fair enough.


----------



## Cableguy (Jun 6, 2010)

aclinjury said:


> "There is no free lunch" is absolutely right.












Four years ago at a mom and pop deli that I tried for the first time before I could pay for my food the cashier told me I was the 1,000th customer and thusly did not need to pay. Nothing else was said and I casually walked out. Shortly afterwards the building exploded and burned down from a terrorist attack, killing everyone inside. The shop was unique and will never reopen. No strings attached. Free lunch.


----------



## aclinjury (Sep 12, 2011)

Local Hero said:


> What are you talking about?
> 
> Countless people have elective procedures. We inoculate healthy babies and individuals. Wealthy fathers ask doctors to give short sons HGH to make them taller. Women take birth control. Doctors prescribe weight loss pills. Botox. Doctors prescribe sleep medication. Doctors prescribe medicine to improve the lifestyle, appearance, mood, or vanity of individuals. Some doctors make a living with a specialty in anti-aging, fountain of youth type practice. I could go on all day...


ugh... and it's also very debatable whether some of these are
1) even necessary. Really, medications to improve lifestyle??
2) not as effective as one has hoped for
3) even be detrimental in the long run
4) drive up un-necessary healthcare cost down the road when it's revealed it was bad

Your viewpoint is debatable at best. And btw there are plenty of side effects of birth control. There are cases where *preventive* intervention is a sound practice with the understanding that the alternative is to risk contract a potentially leather illness in a child, but understand that not all preventive measures are wholly embraced by all medical communities. 

Using EPO is not a preventive measure to a medical illness in a perfectly healthy athlete, is it now?

You bring up some very invalid examples convey why using EPO is in the same line of reasoning as using a vacine. Furthermore, you also fail to comprehend that EPO is a hormone and as such it will probably have a wide-ranging effect on the body's feedback mechanism because all hormones in the body are closely regulated.

No one in a sound scientific community will agree with your examples and logics. Go ahead, find me a source of school of thought that agrees with you, that agrees wit the notion that it's a sound concept to introduce foreign stuff into a normally functioning system. Go ahead, prove that what was taught to me from the biochemistry, organic chemistry, physiology professors.. were all wrong. Show me what you have read that has allowed you to think in such way.

IMO, what you are writing about is close to malpractice. What sort of scientist in their right mind would argue that EPO is ok to use in the body and cites his reason as - vaccines, dentists, botox, surgeons. 

Really, medications to improve lifestyle?? Such a quack notion of science.
What's next? Should we say EPO has no more effects on our body anymore than Black Magic?? Really, you should stop giving bad quack advice!


----------



## Local Hero (Jul 8, 2010)

aclinjury said:


> Really, you should stop giving bad quack advice!


Again, just what the heck are you talking about? I didn't give any advice. 

You asked for a time when treatment is used on healthy individuals. I provided several. Doctors often provide treatment and medication to improve the lives of healthy individuals. This type of practice is perfectly legal; it is not malpractice. The rest of what you said is pretty ridiculous so I'm going to go ahead and let this conversation end.


----------



## aclinjury (Sep 12, 2011)

Local Hero said:


> Again, just what the heck are you talking about? I didn't give any advice.
> 
> You asked for a time when treatment is used on healthy individuals. I provided several. Doctors often provide treatment and medication to improve the lives of healthy individuals. This type of practice is perfectly legal; it is not malpractice. The rest of what you said is pretty ridiculous so I'm going to go ahead and let this conversation end.


oh don't be facetious. Apply beauty cream or botox isn't anywhere in the same league as applying EPO, a hormone, to a perfectly healthy body.
Your logic is quack because you don't even understand basic physiology. Yes, please end this silly debate of yours before some noob in here actually think what you're saying is sound. Please do end.


----------



## Local Hero (Jul 8, 2010)

If anyone wants to remain ignorant they should avoid google. There are countless concierge practitioners offering erection drugs, VO2 max testing, blood profiles, HGH levels, hormones including testosterone (and EPO?) through thinly-veiled language. For example: 

http://www.vitalitymwi.com/concierge-medicine/

*Comprehensive Functional Assessment Includes:*
Complete Laboratory and Hormone Analysis
Complete Blood Count, Comprehensive Metabolic Panel
VAP Cholesterol Profile (a much more detailed test of cholesterol than is typically performed by your doctor)
Inflammatory Markers
Vitamin D levels
Male and Female Hormonal Levels (including Estrogen, Progesterone and Testosterone)
Iron and Ferritin Levels
Growth Hormone Levels
Cardiac Risk Markers
Thyroid Testing
Stress Hormone Levels
Kidney and Liver Function Tests
Comprehensive Allergy Testing (optional)
Medical Exam by Physician
Detailed review of Family, Social, Medical and Medication History
Extensive Lifestyle Assessment
Comprehensive Nutritional Evaluation, Consultation, Teaching and Planning
Sexual Health Assessment (including prescription medicines if indicated)
Body Composition Analysis by DEXA Scan (performed every 3 months to track patient’s progress)
Bone Density Measurement
VO2 Max Fitness Testing (used to determine aerobic fitness and to personalize exercise recommendations)
Baseline assessment of strength and agility
Functional Movement Screening (to evaluate flexibility and identify risks of injury when exercising)
Personalized Exercise Prescription and Recommendations
Physician supervision of personal training by the Sports Center Staff (personal training is offered by the Sports Center and is not included in our program)
Neurocognitive Function Testing (to assess mental performance – also screens for common cognitive issues such as ADD and Early Cognitive Decline)
Management of Female Bio identical Hormone and Male Testosterone Replacement as indicated
...


----------



## aclinjury (Sep 12, 2011)

yes, and there are plenty of pseudoscience practices lacking critical peer reviews floating around. Some even post even a couple testimonials as substitute for peer reviews too.
Some of them do have a semi-sound scientific basis, but without critical peer reviews... it's "use at your own risk". 

We all know that lead in paint was thought to be ok too until decades later when statistical evidence linked birth defects to the use of lead.

I'd like to believe my years spent college at least allow me to be critical, even if I'm not an expert.


----------



## Cinelli 82220 (Dec 2, 2010)

rydbyk said:


> EPO or blood bags?


I was thinking about several mysterious deaths in the late 80s, not in cycling but in soccer. 
One guy was a top prospect for pro soccer. He died in his sleep for no reason and an autopsy found evidence of a stroke. Others died on the field or in the locker room.


----------



## Local Hero (Jul 8, 2010)

Back to the titanium pin in a broken bone example: The pin is helpful but not without other long-term, adverse risks. This goes for all treatments. Even exercise has long-term health risks. So that cannot be a counter-argument, nor can the possibility of future adverse side-effects which have yet to manifest and currently only exist in our imagination. 

I'm not advocating EPO. But medical treatments and procedures can be prescribed for well being and fitness (or even vanity reasons, such as plastic surgery and botox). EPO has some health benefits for healthy individuals: 

EPO lowers fat in healthy males: 
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22241056

EPO is safe for controlled research:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2188770

Surely there are more. I found those in two minutes. But those citations should end this ridiculous discussion. There are no malpractice concerns for a doctor who wishes to prescribe EPO or testosterone to a healthy male, so long as the doctor can come up with some reasonable justification for the prescription. 

Another treatment is the surgical alteration to the arms of major league pitchers. And a similar surgery performed on the arms of motocross racers. Neither are necessary for these young, healthy men. 

Many doctors make a good living improving the lives of healthy individuals. I've given several examples in this thread. Now I have provided pubmed articles. Will it end the willful ignorance?


----------



## terzo rene (Mar 23, 2002)

I think there is a case to be made for restoring homeostasis, which could in some cases include drugs normally considered doping. However, levels beyond that are completely unsupported, and come with costs. EPO and other growth factors can promote cancer growth for example.

Testosterone and HGH supplementation has been tested extensively. It certainly promotes health and vitality in drug company bottom lines, but in normal human physiology the evidence isn't there. Placebos are generally a better choice.


----------



## aclinjury (Sep 12, 2011)

This what the first study concludes:

*In conclusion, a single injection of rHuEpo acutely increases REE in healthy human subjects. This calorigenic effect is not accompanied by distinct alterations in the pattern of substrate metabolism or insulin sensitivity.*

The study deals with a single injection. Nowhere in the study does it mention any longterm effects of repeated use. A single injection of low dose of cyanide or beta radiation also does not kill you, but would be willing to expose yourself to it over time? The study is valid, but the conclusion you draw from it ranges beyond its scope.

As for the second study. This is what I have to say about it. First of all that research was conducted in 1990, and the information is a little outdated IMO. However, let's assume that the knowledge is still valid, then all this research states is that hrEPO does not invoke the creation of antibodies, and the definition of "safety" in this case is restricted to this scope. The scope of safety based on this well controlled research does not mean EPO has no longterm side effects.

Try reading this article in the New England Journal of Medicine: 
MMS: Error
The research hints that EPO could be linked to heighten stroke. Ironically, the study was partly funded by Amgen, the maker of EPO. (Pretty funny I thought.)

But you see academic research itself is a also a tricky ballgame. Academia research usuaslly involves funds from the both the govt and private pharmco. It's sometimes a conflict of interest (to public safety). The researchers are under tremendous pressure to find something good to say about a drug rather than try to find something bad about it. After all, most pharmcos are in no rush to give money to a researcher to find bad things to say about his drug (or any drug for that matter). So it's always easy to find "positive" things about a drug then it is about the negative things. And so yes, google always going to tell you there are more positive things than negative things based on the number game.

But alas, it's usually the negative things that don't surface until the issue has reached a point where it can't be ignored. It's these negative things that we should pay attention to, and not to the noisy positive background so much. There are plenty of drugs out there that are "well-researched" and "FDA approved", with plenty of positive research to back them up... that I would not want a sick person to take, much less a perfectly healthy person.

I worked for as an assist at UCSD back in the 90s and I can tell you that most of these researches are either background noise or inconsequential, and in some cases purposely misleading, and even unethical. Usually, it's the research that shed negative lights on a drug that is more important than those that shed positive lights. That is the nature of the researching game. Momma didn't send me to the uni to raise a fool, eh.

But here 's my question. Why would anyone risk exposing themselves to a hormone when they are perfectly healthy? We're talking about exposing to a hormone that could potentially stimulate other cell growth aside from blood cells. That's the nature of most most hormones. They for the most part are specific to a cell, but there is also a small probability that they will stimulate cells to grow out of control and wreck havoc. Why would anyone be willing to subject themselves to this? based on skimpy science? is beyond me.


----------

