This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Last night I caught the Panorama piece on cheating the biological passport, used by the world anti-doping agency to detect competitive athletes who use performance enhancing drugs, and the scandal around the Nike Oregon project coach Alberto Salazar.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b05zhqvk
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-32983932
I was idly wondering this morning what, if any, problem exists with chemically enhanced performances in the climbing world.
I could imagine it is an issue for things such as organised bouldering competitions, which by their nature have awards and prizes to be won by the best climber. Someone using performance enhancing drugs in this setting would surely have an unfair advantage over fellow competitors and could reasonably be said to be cheating.
However in the trad climbing world would somebody putting up a series of new hard E10s provoke controversy if it was later revealed that they doped as part of their training leading up to doing the first ascents? Would this be regarded as out and out cheating or would it simply be seen as a less ethically pure ascent than someone who on-sights the route "clean"? Is doping really a problem if, like with other less pure ascents, you are happy with how you have completed the climb?
Is doping really that much of an advantage for trad anyway or does the "head" element reduce the effectiveness of just being fitter and stronger. I don't think that the athletic ability and strong psychology can be completely disentangled as one will support the other. Being fit and strong will give an individual more confidence and a psychological boost stemming from their ability.
How much drugs testing is actually conducted in the climbing world? Presumably there is some element of competition for sponsorship between high level climbers and these sponsors would not want the tarnish of a doping athlete?
Post edited at 12:52
In reply to maxticate:
Like any other aspect of a first ascent, the key is honesty. Personally, I don't think I have problem if someone want to use performance-enhancing drugs as long as it's not in a competition (and even then, only because it's explicitly against the rules).
It would broaden the choice of potential sponsors, anyway.
> However in the trad climbing world would somebody putting up a series of new hard E10s provoke controversy if it was later revealed that they doped as part of their training leading up to doing the first ascents?
Like any other aspect of a first ascent, the key is honesty. Personally, I don't think I have problem if someone want to use performance-enhancing drugs as long as it's not in a competition (and even then, only because it's explicitly against the rules).
It would broaden the choice of potential sponsors, anyway.
In reply to Dave Garnett:
I agree.
I would expect that there would be more recreational / non performance enhancing positive results if you were to test top climbers. I think we need to have doping testers stationed on all Himalayan peaks to ensure no altitude drugs are used.
> Like any other aspect of a first ascent, the key is honesty. Personally, I don't think I have problem if someone want to use performance-enhancing drugs as long as it's not in a competition (and even then, only because it's explicitly against the rules).
> It would broaden the choice of potential sponsors, anyway.
I agree.
I would expect that there would be more recreational / non performance enhancing positive results if you were to test top climbers. I think we need to have doping testers stationed on all Himalayan peaks to ensure no altitude drugs are used.
2
In reply to maxticate:
As I understand it the most effective drugs are quite expensive so that might limit the availability as climbing isn't creating millionaires.
I'm not sure how I'd feel about it if some cherished achievements from climbing history turned out to have been 'drug powered'.
It's not entirely harmless, if a guy is taking the best lines/highest profile routes someone is missing out on things they would want to do. Also as these things are bad for health it would encourage the attitude that you've got to take them too in order to keep up.
As I understand it the most effective drugs are quite expensive so that might limit the availability as climbing isn't creating millionaires.
I'm not sure how I'd feel about it if some cherished achievements from climbing history turned out to have been 'drug powered'.
It's not entirely harmless, if a guy is taking the best lines/highest profile routes someone is missing out on things they would want to do. Also as these things are bad for health it would encourage the attitude that you've got to take them too in order to keep up.
In reply to maxticate:
protein powder, creatine, electrolyte tabs, amphetamine use on the eiger, numerous trad routes named after steroids, paracetamol, aspirin, diamox, dexamethasone, nifedipene.......
hmm......
protein powder, creatine, electrolyte tabs, amphetamine use on the eiger, numerous trad routes named after steroids, paracetamol, aspirin, diamox, dexamethasone, nifedipene.......
hmm......
3
In reply to Timmd:
I really think you have undertsand the mind of someone who is at the top of their game - whether that be a FTSE 100 CEO, A top sports person, whatever.
These people will do whatever it takes to succeed.
There are also quite big cultural issues in that in the UK most people would say it is fine to take paracetamol as you can just buy it over the counter. Well, in spain you can buy steroids over the counter without a prescription so I'm pretty sure they have a different view point to most people in the UK.
My list above are all performance enhancers.
Take the case of an ultra marathon runner. It would be excceptable to use protein powder in the build up to the race (not natural and a performance enhancer), use painkillers during the race (not natural and a performance enhancer), creatine in training (not natural and a performance enhancer) but why not a steroid?
It is nothing to do with health. Why, because running 40+ miles in one go is not healthy full stop. Healthy is moderate exercise three times a week. Most top level sport buy its very nature is not healthy.
I really think you have undertsand the mind of someone who is at the top of their game - whether that be a FTSE 100 CEO, A top sports person, whatever.
These people will do whatever it takes to succeed.
There are also quite big cultural issues in that in the UK most people would say it is fine to take paracetamol as you can just buy it over the counter. Well, in spain you can buy steroids over the counter without a prescription so I'm pretty sure they have a different view point to most people in the UK.
My list above are all performance enhancers.
Take the case of an ultra marathon runner. It would be excceptable to use protein powder in the build up to the race (not natural and a performance enhancer), use painkillers during the race (not natural and a performance enhancer), creatine in training (not natural and a performance enhancer) but why not a steroid?
It is nothing to do with health. Why, because running 40+ miles in one go is not healthy full stop. Healthy is moderate exercise three times a week. Most top level sport buy its very nature is not healthy.
1
In reply to maxticate:
First of all, ask yourself why are certain drugs banned in sport. It's not about cheating, because it's only cheating because the rules are there. And it's not performance enhancement either - you are allowed to do all manner of things to improve that. No, the reason we don't want athletes taking steriods, HGH or EPO is the risk to health. We don't want young cyclists dying in their sleep with blood like treacle. We don't want East German women turning into blokes. We don't want our heroes dying in front of the camera because their brain is overidding the body's warning signs. And above all, we don't want coaches telling naive teenagers that this is what they must do if they want to succeed.
Now with climbing things are a bit differant. Risk is an inherant part of the game, and the dangers from drugs are generally smaller than other factors. Is Diamox (on the WADA banned list I believe) less ethical than bottled oxygen ? Not if it means you spend less time in the danger zone. Amphetatamines on the Eiger ? Better than getting stuck or falling off.
First of all, ask yourself why are certain drugs banned in sport. It's not about cheating, because it's only cheating because the rules are there. And it's not performance enhancement either - you are allowed to do all manner of things to improve that. No, the reason we don't want athletes taking steriods, HGH or EPO is the risk to health. We don't want young cyclists dying in their sleep with blood like treacle. We don't want East German women turning into blokes. We don't want our heroes dying in front of the camera because their brain is overidding the body's warning signs. And above all, we don't want coaches telling naive teenagers that this is what they must do if they want to succeed.
Now with climbing things are a bit differant. Risk is an inherant part of the game, and the dangers from drugs are generally smaller than other factors. Is Diamox (on the WADA banned list I believe) less ethical than bottled oxygen ? Not if it means you spend less time in the danger zone. Amphetatamines on the Eiger ? Better than getting stuck or falling off.
5
In reply to Chris the Tall:
Is big mountain drug use acceptable then because it is man vs. nature rather than man vs. man? Chance plays a large factor in successful attempts so loading the odds a little more in your favour is ok and long term health risks not so much a problem because without the advantages the odds are diminished you will return anyway? Plus you are only competing against yourself so it is of no consequence.
How would this stack up with teams competing to put up the same new mountain route?
Is big mountain drug use acceptable then because it is man vs. nature rather than man vs. man? Chance plays a large factor in successful attempts so loading the odds a little more in your favour is ok and long term health risks not so much a problem because without the advantages the odds are diminished you will return anyway? Plus you are only competing against yourself so it is of no consequence.
How would this stack up with teams competing to put up the same new mountain route?
In reply to maxticate:
Not really a question of whether it's acceptable, but whether it's noteworthy. I think cases of teams competing to put up the same route is very rare. Perhaps a better example would be the race to be the first woman to climb all 8000m peaks, which IIRC got a bit heated and nasty. Various allegations flying around, and question marks over ethics, but I don't think drug use was mentioned, or would have been much of an issue.
Not really a question of whether it's acceptable, but whether it's noteworthy. I think cases of teams competing to put up the same route is very rare. Perhaps a better example would be the race to be the first woman to climb all 8000m peaks, which IIRC got a bit heated and nasty. Various allegations flying around, and question marks over ethics, but I don't think drug use was mentioned, or would have been much of an issue.
In reply to maxticate:
In my view oxygen use is a different thing to drug use.
In my view it is much less ethical, because your are effectively turning an 8,000er into a 6,000er.
It is effectively cheating the environmental factors which is the whole point of the challenge in the first place.
Drug use seems fairer in the sense that although you get a performance enhancer, you potentially get some negative health risk so seems a fairer compromise - sort of more 'sportsmanlike'
But supplementary oxygen is just cheating full stop.
In my view oxygen use is a different thing to drug use.
In my view it is much less ethical, because your are effectively turning an 8,000er into a 6,000er.
It is effectively cheating the environmental factors which is the whole point of the challenge in the first place.
Drug use seems fairer in the sense that although you get a performance enhancer, you potentially get some negative health risk so seems a fairer compromise - sort of more 'sportsmanlike'
But supplementary oxygen is just cheating full stop.
Post edited at 15:05
3
In reply to maxticate:
In terms of high altitude climbing, I think supplementary oxygen, paying a sherpa to carry your stuff and set up your camps, paying a guide to look after you and make up for your skills shortage, use of fixed ropes and ladders are far less sporting than taking some performance enhancing drugs.
Perhaps more drugs and less fixed rope is better because at least the mountains arent being dumbed down for people who do not have the technical skills and experience to live and climb in that environment.
In terms of high altitude climbing, I think supplementary oxygen, paying a sherpa to carry your stuff and set up your camps, paying a guide to look after you and make up for your skills shortage, use of fixed ropes and ladders are far less sporting than taking some performance enhancing drugs.
Perhaps more drugs and less fixed rope is better because at least the mountains arent being dumbed down for people who do not have the technical skills and experience to live and climb in that environment.
4
EPO should be good for altitude, but then I know naff all about physiology.
In reply to elsewhere:
I absolutely cannot believe it is not being taken. When I first met my wife (a vet) she openly asked whether or not I took EPO.
I absolutely cannot believe it is not being taken. When I first met my wife (a vet) she openly asked whether or not I took EPO.
In reply to steveej:
I tend to agree, but there's a reason.
You need a sea level VO2 max of about 55 ml/kg/min just to survive at over 8km and a much higher VO2 to successfully operate (IIRC Viesturs has a VO2 > 70). VO2 is mainly genetic, and you can only obtain limited increases with training. I'm not saying there aren't other factors at play, but in general that's genetically out of reach for most. Should those people just not bother trying?
A VO2 of 55 is at a level which means the majority of people can't even participate at 8000m without supplementary oxygen. The only competition up there is with yourself and the mountain, not others. People are free to do as they wish but your genetics will play an overriding part and no amount of technical skill or experience can overcome that.
I would always prefer to climb without supplementary oxygen (and always have so far) but we're not all born equal and I know it's a borderline limiting factor for me, but I'm generally up for the challenge
Prophylactic dexamethasone use is seriously prevalent now (supposedly at around 50% of Everest climbers) and causing clear issues. At least you can't overdose on oxygen.
http://www.outsideonline.com/1914501/climbings-little-helper
I tend to agree, but there's a reason.
You need a sea level VO2 max of about 55 ml/kg/min just to survive at over 8km and a much higher VO2 to successfully operate (IIRC Viesturs has a VO2 > 70). VO2 is mainly genetic, and you can only obtain limited increases with training. I'm not saying there aren't other factors at play, but in general that's genetically out of reach for most. Should those people just not bother trying?
A VO2 of 55 is at a level which means the majority of people can't even participate at 8000m without supplementary oxygen. The only competition up there is with yourself and the mountain, not others. People are free to do as they wish but your genetics will play an overriding part and no amount of technical skill or experience can overcome that.
I would always prefer to climb without supplementary oxygen (and always have so far) but we're not all born equal and I know it's a borderline limiting factor for me, but I'm generally up for the challenge
Prophylactic dexamethasone use is seriously prevalent now (supposedly at around 50% of Everest climbers) and causing clear issues. At least you can't overdose on oxygen.
http://www.outsideonline.com/1914501/climbings-little-helper
Post edited at 15:46
In reply to John Roberts (JR):
Yeah, I hadn't even mentioned the prophylactic use of dexamthasone.
I'm just trying to put the use of performance enhancing drugs into context.
I'm not saying people shouldn't use oxygen, just that drugs aren't the be all and end all of what can constitue cheating.
The point about genetic VO2max is relevant and just goes to strengthen my point that supplementary oxygen has a much bigger impact on whether a climber can succeed above 8,000 compared to the use of drugs.
People should ultimately be allowed to do as they please. At the end of the day, some people have a duty of care to come home to their kids and if that means taking drugs so be it.
However, I wouldn't even contemplate the use of prophylactic dex.
Yeah, I hadn't even mentioned the prophylactic use of dexamthasone.
I'm just trying to put the use of performance enhancing drugs into context.
I'm not saying people shouldn't use oxygen, just that drugs aren't the be all and end all of what can constitue cheating.
The point about genetic VO2max is relevant and just goes to strengthen my point that supplementary oxygen has a much bigger impact on whether a climber can succeed above 8,000 compared to the use of drugs.
People should ultimately be allowed to do as they please. At the end of the day, some people have a duty of care to come home to their kids and if that means taking drugs so be it.
However, I wouldn't even contemplate the use of prophylactic dex.
1
In reply to steveej:
It's an interesting one though, because it is so relevant, and it varies from person to person so much. Hypothetically, someone using supplementary oxygen on Everest with a VO2max of 40 (bearing in mind that would be somewhere around the limit for 6000m ie the O2 equivalent of 8000m) might have a harder time than someone with a VO2 of 75 and no supplementary O2.
Prophylactic dex a no-go for me too, I wouldn't take diamox again either to be honest.
> The point about genetic VO2max is relevant and just goes to strengthen my point that supplementary oxygen has a much bigger impact on whether a climber can succeed above 8,000 compared to the use of drugs.
It's an interesting one though, because it is so relevant, and it varies from person to person so much. Hypothetically, someone using supplementary oxygen on Everest with a VO2max of 40 (bearing in mind that would be somewhere around the limit for 6000m ie the O2 equivalent of 8000m) might have a harder time than someone with a VO2 of 75 and no supplementary O2.
Prophylactic dex a no-go for me too, I wouldn't take diamox again either to be honest.
In reply to John Roberts (JR):
I agree its a growing problem, but its all part of the whole unethical mess that is Everest these days. When people step over bodies to get to the summit, then condemnation over drug use is unlikely to bother them too much either.
Mind you, there is that little old lady in Katmandhu who has the power to decide whether or not your ascent counts (and is the reason why Al Hinkes isn't on the "14" lists). Maybe she could be persuaded to introduce some new rules !
As to the genetic factors - why is surgery to affect performance limitations (poor eyesight, large breasts) acceptable, but not drugs ?
I agree its a growing problem, but its all part of the whole unethical mess that is Everest these days. When people step over bodies to get to the summit, then condemnation over drug use is unlikely to bother them too much either.
Mind you, there is that little old lady in Katmandhu who has the power to decide whether or not your ascent counts (and is the reason why Al Hinkes isn't on the "14" lists). Maybe she could be persuaded to introduce some new rules !
As to the genetic factors - why is surgery to affect performance limitations (poor eyesight, large breasts) acceptable, but not drugs ?
In reply to Chris the Tall:
It's more about self sufficiency than it is of use of artificial aids in my mind. The commercial outfits (who effectively dish out the permits) have a duty of care not to just take the dollar.
No amount of surgery is going to give you anywhere near the advantage that an athletically high VO2 or supplementary O2 gives you.
It's more about self sufficiency than it is of use of artificial aids in my mind. The commercial outfits (who effectively dish out the permits) have a duty of care not to just take the dollar.
No amount of surgery is going to give you anywhere near the advantage that an athletically high VO2 or supplementary O2 gives you.
Post edited at 16:32
In reply to John Roberts (JR):
Thanks for this article link it is a very interesting read.
> Prophylactic dexamethasone use is seriously prevalent now (supposedly at around 50% of Everest climbers) and causing clear issues. At least you can't overdose on oxygen.
Thanks for this article link it is a very interesting read.
1
In reply to maxticate:
It happens without a shadow of a doubt..
Even marajauna is illegal though the limit has been raised.
But outside of competition its not actually illegal depending on the substance.
It happens without a shadow of a doubt..
Even marajauna is illegal though the limit has been raised.
But outside of competition its not actually illegal depending on the substance.
In reply to maxticate:
I'm sure performance enhancing drugs could be openly used and integrated into climbing culture, but due to the fastidious nature of the UK climbing community, a new grading and terminology system would obviously be required.
Roid Onsite - (power scream brought on by rage optional)
Beta Blockers Flash - (allows you to keep a cool head on run out routes)
Cortisone Top Roped - (For horrible Chossy nightmare while hung over)
E grades can remain unchanged but you have to come to the crag straight from an illegal warehouse rave to get the tick.
I'm sure performance enhancing drugs could be openly used and integrated into climbing culture, but due to the fastidious nature of the UK climbing community, a new grading and terminology system would obviously be required.
Roid Onsite - (power scream brought on by rage optional)
Beta Blockers Flash - (allows you to keep a cool head on run out routes)
Cortisone Top Roped - (For horrible Chossy nightmare while hung over)
E grades can remain unchanged but you have to come to the crag straight from an illegal warehouse rave to get the tick.
4
In reply to steveej:
I dont know of many who use creatine or protein?
Painkillers yeah, that's pretty common.
But we are tested nowadays, not much and rarely, but there is more of a drive to catch cheats. however the world sky running champion is a convicted user of PEDS and Ian Coreless promotes her on his pages yet alleges he has a zero tolerance approach to drugs..
She's married to one of the best mountain runners in the world so if she's using it casts doubt on the whole elite level Italian system.
One of the best ultra marathoners in the world is the brother of a top level spanish cyclist banned for EPO use.. There's no proof but it does make you question how widely EPO is used.
> I really think you have undertsand the mind of someone who is at the top of their game - whether that be a FTSE 100 CEO, A top sports person, whatever.
> These people will do whatever it takes to succeed.
> There are also quite big cultural issues in that in the UK most people would say it is fine to take paracetamol as you can just buy it over the counter. Well, in spain you can buy steroids over the counter without a prescription so I'm pretty sure they have a different view point to most people in the UK.
> My list above are all performance enhancers.
> Take the case of an ultra marathon runner. It would be excceptable to use protein powder in the build up to the race (not natural and a performance enhancer), use painkillers during the race (not natural and a performance enhancer), creatine in training (not natural and a performance enhancer) but why not a steroid?
I dont know of many who use creatine or protein?
Painkillers yeah, that's pretty common.
But we are tested nowadays, not much and rarely, but there is more of a drive to catch cheats. however the world sky running champion is a convicted user of PEDS and Ian Coreless promotes her on his pages yet alleges he has a zero tolerance approach to drugs..
She's married to one of the best mountain runners in the world so if she's using it casts doubt on the whole elite level Italian system.
One of the best ultra marathoners in the world is the brother of a top level spanish cyclist banned for EPO use.. There's no proof but it does make you question how widely EPO is used.
In reply to steveej:
Protein and creatine are natural, gained from food substances and required by the body. They can be bought in factory synthesised forms, yes, but they're still natural, and so I'd struggle to agree with the suggestion that they are performance enhancing.
> Take the case of an ultra marathon runner. It would be excceptable to use protein powder in the build up to the race (not natural and a performance enhancer), use painkillers during the race (not natural and a performance enhancer), creatine in training (not natural and a performance enhancer) but why not a steroid?
Protein and creatine are natural, gained from food substances and required by the body. They can be bought in factory synthesised forms, yes, but they're still natural, and so I'd struggle to agree with the suggestion that they are performance enhancing.
In reply to Mr Trebus:
>I think we need to have doping testers stationed on all Himalayan peaks to ensure no altitude drugs are used.
Oh dear, I've used Diamox. Will I get a knock on the door?
>I think we need to have doping testers stationed on all Himalayan peaks to ensure no altitude drugs are used.
Oh dear, I've used Diamox. Will I get a knock on the door?
In reply to Tomtom:
Testosterone is also natural. Produced naturally by the body.
The difference is they are not in their natural forms or natural dosages.
Testosterone is also natural. Produced naturally by the body.
The difference is they are not in their natural forms or natural dosages.
Post edited at 17:14
In reply to Tomtom:
Of course its performance enhancing.. else why take it?
A PED is just that, there are legal and illegal PEDs.
Of course its performance enhancing.. else why take it?
A PED is just that, there are legal and illegal PEDs.
Post edited at 17:21
In reply to maxticate:
a low dose of test,cyclist dose.should see quicker recovery allowing more training.wont put on masses of muscle and should see a strength gain.
next time your mates are going to krabi tell them bring some back as its easily available out there and you can bring it back legally
a low dose of test,cyclist dose.should see quicker recovery allowing more training.wont put on masses of muscle and should see a strength gain.
next time your mates are going to krabi tell them bring some back as its easily available out there and you can bring it back legally
In reply to steveej:
I would think the estimation breaks down the further away from the extreme end you get as other factors come more into play, but from memory you lose 2% of your VO2 max per 300m above 1500m.
I'm guessing but on that basis working back from 55 and 8km it would be about 4 ml/kg/min lower.
I would think the estimation breaks down the further away from the extreme end you get as other factors come more into play, but from memory you lose 2% of your VO2 max per 300m above 1500m.
I'm guessing but on that basis working back from 55 and 8km it would be about 4 ml/kg/min lower.
Post edited at 17:53
In reply to mypyrex:
Even worse, upon summiting, you will have to bend over and spread them for the rubber gloved inspection...
Even worse, upon summiting, you will have to bend over and spread them for the rubber gloved inspection...
In reply to maxticate:
Is a performance enhancing steroid something that changes the metabolic rate whereas a supplement doesn't, it's just there to be metabolized. At least that's how I look at it.
If you take percormance enhancers In competition your basically stealing from people who don't. I guess as well you'll never know what you could have been if you hadn't taken them, chances are you'd have been beaten. It's only really relevant in competition really. There are some obvious suspects of course.
Is a performance enhancing steroid something that changes the metabolic rate whereas a supplement doesn't, it's just there to be metabolized. At least that's how I look at it.
If you take percormance enhancers In competition your basically stealing from people who don't. I guess as well you'll never know what you could have been if you hadn't taken them, chances are you'd have been beaten. It's only really relevant in competition really. There are some obvious suspects of course.
In reply to maxticate:
It's an interesting one. I do a lot of fighting and a lot of the lads that fight pro take ped's.
It's not necessarily to make you stronger/bigger but to aid recovery so you can train harder. The ped of choice is growth hormone which cost about £450 a course and that would last you about four months ish (I'm no expert). It also helps with injury recovery which is common in fighting. I think this is how they justify it.
If I were a top level climber that was getting on a bit who relied on sponsors to pay my bills and I suffered an injury, I think I'd seriously consider taking some growth.....
my two pence
It's an interesting one. I do a lot of fighting and a lot of the lads that fight pro take ped's.
It's not necessarily to make you stronger/bigger but to aid recovery so you can train harder. The ped of choice is growth hormone which cost about £450 a course and that would last you about four months ish (I'm no expert). It also helps with injury recovery which is common in fighting. I think this is how they justify it.
If I were a top level climber that was getting on a bit who relied on sponsors to pay my bills and I suffered an injury, I think I'd seriously consider taking some growth.....
my two pence
In reply to maxticate:
I went climbing on modafinil ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modafinil ) once and had a good, productive day. That one might help with trad "head" as it makes you feel quite mechanically focused and motivated and maybe dulls emotions like irrational fear a bit. I'm pretty sure it's banned in sport so it presumably has some physical performance enhancing effects too (it's an odd kind of stimulant, it's nothing like speed - not even sure if anyone knows how it works).
I don't think anyone could consider that I was cheating...
> Is doping really that much of an advantage for trad anyway or does the "head" element reduce the effectiveness of just being fitter and stronger. I don't think that the athletic ability and strong psychology can be completely disentangled as one will support the other. Being fit and strong will give an individual more confidence and a psychological boost stemming from their ability.
I went climbing on modafinil ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modafinil ) once and had a good, productive day. That one might help with trad "head" as it makes you feel quite mechanically focused and motivated and maybe dulls emotions like irrational fear a bit. I'm pretty sure it's banned in sport so it presumably has some physical performance enhancing effects too (it's an odd kind of stimulant, it's nothing like speed - not even sure if anyone knows how it works).
I don't think anyone could consider that I was cheating...
Post edited at 21:36
In reply to Jon Stewart:
Wow some of the potential side effects of that drug are nasty, not to mentioned fatal! Not sure I'd be willing to risk taking it just to feel more in the zone and increase my chances of getting up something I'd set my eye on.
There definitely appears to be a spectrum of attitude toward PED and other types of performance augmentation rather than the sharp contrast of all PEDs in sport are wrong that is portrayed in the media.
Is it somewhat analogous to technological development in F1 in that certain advantages within the spirit of the rules are allowed but anything that alters the playing field too much is banned or viewed as unsporting.
Is it dependent on how much risk of failure or loss is removed? So a train to the summit is completely unacceptable but taking Dex not so much of an issue because the risk of failure is still present?
> I went climbing on modafinil ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modafinil )
Wow some of the potential side effects of that drug are nasty, not to mentioned fatal! Not sure I'd be willing to risk taking it just to feel more in the zone and increase my chances of getting up something I'd set my eye on.
There definitely appears to be a spectrum of attitude toward PED and other types of performance augmentation rather than the sharp contrast of all PEDs in sport are wrong that is portrayed in the media.
Is it somewhat analogous to technological development in F1 in that certain advantages within the spirit of the rules are allowed but anything that alters the playing field too much is banned or viewed as unsporting.
Is it dependent on how much risk of failure or loss is removed? So a train to the summit is completely unacceptable but taking Dex not so much of an issue because the risk of failure is still present?
Post edited at 22:59
In reply to maxticate:
I generally climb better and safer when I take Methylphenidate. Does that make me a cheat?
I generally climb better and safer when I take Methylphenidate. Does that make me a cheat?
In reply to maxticate:
Have you ever read the potential side effects on *any* medication? I haven't heard any horror stories about modafinil and understand it has a really good safety profile.
I wouldn't use that drug for climbing in general, but the risk with that one is minimal (you have to consider the probability of experiencing side effects to evaluate the risk). Being candid, I was simply experimenting to see if it might be a useful thing to know about. It's unnecessary, expensive and probably makes you feel crap if used too often.
The subject is interesting though - would we opt to take drugs to enhance an already healthy life? E.g. antidepressants to cheer us up, performance enhancers for sport, smart drugs for study or work, etc. The reality is that we don't really have had to wrestle with the dilemma because drugs generally have enough side effects to make them not worthwhile unless you have a problem to alleviate.
> Wow some of the potential side effects of that drug are nasty, not to mentioned fatal!
Have you ever read the potential side effects on *any* medication? I haven't heard any horror stories about modafinil and understand it has a really good safety profile.
> Not sure I'd be willing to risk taking it just to feel more in the zone and increase my chances of getting up something I'd set my eye on.
I wouldn't use that drug for climbing in general, but the risk with that one is minimal (you have to consider the probability of experiencing side effects to evaluate the risk). Being candid, I was simply experimenting to see if it might be a useful thing to know about. It's unnecessary, expensive and probably makes you feel crap if used too often.
The subject is interesting though - would we opt to take drugs to enhance an already healthy life? E.g. antidepressants to cheer us up, performance enhancers for sport, smart drugs for study or work, etc. The reality is that we don't really have had to wrestle with the dilemma because drugs generally have enough side effects to make them not worthwhile unless you have a problem to alleviate.
In reply to maxticate:
Mrs Num Num and I floated up Moel Famau this evening after a couple of spliffs.
Mrs Num Num and I floated up Moel Famau this evening after a couple of spliffs.
In reply to Jon Stewart:
Apparently it isn't good with the pill.
It would be interesting to try it but I don't think it mixes well with the other stuff I take either.
I would love to see if it keeps me awake. I think I must be wired up backwards. Psudoephedrine is utterly sleep inducing in me.
Apparently it isn't good with the pill.
It would be interesting to try it but I don't think it mixes well with the other stuff I take either.
I would love to see if it keeps me awake. I think I must be wired up backwards. Psudoephedrine is utterly sleep inducing in me.
Post edited at 01:10
In reply to maxticate:
Looking back to V02 max, I found this paper relating to high altitude mountaineers and their physiological make up. Interesting to note Reinhold Messner only has a V02 max of 48.8 ml/kg/min.
https://air.unimi.it/retrieve/handle/2434/176388/185166/Gussoni%20J%20Appl%...
Looking back to V02 max, I found this paper relating to high altitude mountaineers and their physiological make up. Interesting to note Reinhold Messner only has a V02 max of 48.8 ml/kg/min.
https://air.unimi.it/retrieve/handle/2434/176388/185166/Gussoni%20J%20Appl%...
1
In reply to james Campbell:
Good find, that's a interesting paper - it does suggest his VO2 might have been higher than at the time of the study. He must move very efficiently! It's pretty clear that they think it's a big factor based on the summary:
"It appears reasonable to suggest that a skilled climber also characterized by a very high VO2max such as that of a top marathoner, may perform, ceteris paribus, better than even the best of the present climbers."
Bearing in mind this paper is from 1986 - look what Jornet and Steck are now achieving. Jornet has a VO2 of 92, one of the highest recorded.
Good find, that's a interesting paper - it does suggest his VO2 might have been higher than at the time of the study. He must move very efficiently! It's pretty clear that they think it's a big factor based on the summary:
"It appears reasonable to suggest that a skilled climber also characterized by a very high VO2max such as that of a top marathoner, may perform, ceteris paribus, better than even the best of the present climbers."
Bearing in mind this paper is from 1986 - look what Jornet and Steck are now achieving. Jornet has a VO2 of 92, one of the highest recorded.
Post edited at 09:57
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Loading Notifications...