I was talking to an amateur competitive bicyclist about speed records, and she said her elementary physiology, with no matter how much training or doping, would prevent her from being in the running.
So I said I’d pay to send her to Switzerland for a liver transplant, new kidney, lungs, heart, whatever.
She said thanks, but what she would really like is new bone marrow, for better red blood cells (RBC).
Here I was stumped. In real life, do people who are great at achieving their VO[sub]2[/sub]Max have “better” RBCs (relative to the O[sub]2[/sub] meditation) or more of them?
I have never heard of “better” RBCs. More RBCs will improve performance but carries a risk of dying from a combination too high a concentration of RBCs and dehydration.
VO2Max is simply a measure of the body’s ability to utilize oxygen. I could have the same % of RBCs as Lance Armstrong but not perform anywhere near perform his level.
I didn’t plan on this (but I never do). I spent about an hour I guess on the wiki entry for hemoglobin and of course the inevitable side trips to translate it. I’m sure I didn’t even get halfway through but I think I got enough to be useful.
It seems that hg is also used for transporting CO2 and nitric oxide. The NO part will be important in a bit (I think). It also seems that genetic variations between and within species are common.
The side trip exploring globins was fun. Anyway, the part about the mice didn’t really make sense since I couldn’t figure out if hg could bind 4 O2’s, what did oxygen-carrying capacity mean? Fortunately I ran across this before I gave up.
That may not seem like much, but NO is a powerful vasodilator - it’s how Viagra works. So I’m assuming that the first wording was just less than artful. IDK.
Wouldn’t matter, I was talking about similar levels whether drug induced or not. Also, reaching 50% (similar to .08 for drunk driving, evidence of doping even without a positive test) is possible by altitude training for some people.