T.A.P. - J.B.

[kekomi]

hyberbaric treatment is the exact opposite of altitude training (which could be called hypobaric treatment), but they have similar results (except that hyperbaric treatment has far more beneficial side-effects, for lack of a better word, and hypobaric treatment, has far more negative side effects).

hyperbaric treatment saturates the body in oxygen, where as altitude training, like you said, deprives the body of oxygen (for anyone who is unfamiliar with this, think of climbing mount everest, the higher you go, the less oxygen there is).

the stress of lower oxygen levels at higher altitudes forces the body to produce more red blood cells to try to take in as much oxygen as possible in the hypobaric environment. so when you return to sea level, you have a short lived, temporary advantage over those who trained at sea level, because you have more red blood cells then they do in a more oxygen rich environment. mechanics-wise it works the same a EPO. both work by delivering more oxygen to the body via increasing the number of red blood cells (but EPO lasts longer--it might also create more red blood cells then altitude training, but i\'m not sure about this).

hyperbaric treatment, doesn\'t increase the number of red blood cells, it saturates the body in oxygen, delivering high concentrations of oxygen directly to the tissues/organs/muscles, which is more efficient than trying to increase the concentrations of oxygen in the tissues/organs/muscles just through blood delivery alone.

but all three methods increase performance by increasing the amount of oxygen available to the body.

[kekomi]

i don\'t know enough about genetically gifted weight lifters vs chemically created weight lifters, too be honest...i was kind of under the impression they were all chemically created. weight lifting, i believe, is mostly anaerobic, not aerobic--but it would still have a performance ceiling too--you run out of fuel pretty quickly in anaerobic activities and risk tearing your muscles if you push it, which is why steroids would be so helpful, they speed up muscle recovery and repair, which would allow them to keep building on the size of their muscles...but this is all a guess...i really have no idea how weight lifting works =)

aerobic performance is capped by red blood cell count, it can\'t go much over 50% without stopping your heart; and by the ability buffer lactic acid and process glucose efficiently--there are drugs that increase these last two capabilities, but even so if you go to far, you\'ll end up tearing your muscles. pain and fatigue are the body\'s way of stopping you before this happens.this is why more efficient oxygen metabolism is such a game changer--you can go a lot farther before you have to switch over to glycolosis and before lactic acid starts eating away at your muscles.

genetically gifted human athletes are born with naturally high red blood cell counts, usually around 46-48%--compare this to lance armstrong, who was tested at just 39%. naturally gifted athletes also have higher lactic acid thresholds and can go farther aerobically before they have switch to anaerobic glycolosis to fuel their muscles--once that happens they have something like 10 seconds more of energy before they are kaput. and for whatever reason, people with naturally high blood cells counts just don\'t seem don\'t respond as well to EPO.

with race horses, the difference between front runners and closers,is that front runners exhaust their oxygen early and have to hope they have gotten far enough to make it across the line before their glycoloic fuel runs out. closers conserve their oxygen early, and hope that they have enough speed to use that saved oxygen to catch and pass the front runners before they switch over to glycolosis and hit the wall. the truth is the speed always collapses, but if they have a big enough lead, it doesn\'t matter. this is why i have never understood the obsession with rating. front runners are never going to switch over to closers, so all you do is take away their advantage.

disclosure: i\'m not a dr or a vet =)

[kekomi]

bigger muscles work against stamina--this is a well established fact.

sprinting is almost purely anerobic, and sprinters have huge thigh muscles because they need power, not endurance. distance runners are always lean--huge muscles waste energy.

i could be rude too, but i won\'t be--i\'ll just say that just because horses were huge in the 80\'s and 90\'s doesn\'t mean that they were more efficient at the classic distances. dr. fager was a classically lean horse. i doubt any of themuscle bound horses of the steroid age could have beaten him, except in sprints.

my failure to respond to you guys sooner was only because this has been about the crappiest weak of my life--first i got the word i have cancer, then i got the word i\'ve got 60 days till i\'m out of job...i\'m 41 years...

anywho--accept or don\'t accept what i post, i\'m really okay with either

[TGJB]

Very sorry to hear that, Kekomi. Good luck.