I heard somewhere that ingesting NaHCO₃, by some unknown mechanism, helps make cells more efficient at using ATP. Either that, or the increased sodium just raises blood plasma levels.
Yes, just ignore biochem guy, he pedals this BS every time we talk about bicarb. Bicarb has real physiologic benefits. It's proven. How that translates precisely to performance enhancement is debatable. But it makes perfect sense.
I heard somewhere that ingesting NaHCO₃, by some unknown mechanism, helps make cells more efficient at using ATP. Either that, or the increased sodium just raises blood plasma levels.
Yes, just ignore biochem guy, he pedals this BS every time we talk about bicarb. Bicarb has real physiologic benefits. It's proven. How that translates precisely to performance enhancement is debatable. But it makes perfect sense.
So you don't care about biochemistry, but you believe the hype about sodium bicarbonate?
Bicarb is more accessible now with hydrogel solutions such as the one by Maurten. I’ve taken it twice before 800m races and didn’t have any side effects associated with traditional Bicarb supplementation like the need to go to the bathroom.
Caffeine, beta alanine, l-citrulline, kratom, creatine are all supplements with proven benefits. Why the distinction for Bicarb specifically? And how will you enforce it? Many off the shelf snacks from the convenience store on the way to the meet for the bus have Bicarb in them.
Just for clarity's sake... Studies on bicarb show time to exhaustion in trained athletes for a given anaerobic effort is greater. Blood lactate levels can be pushed to higher levels with bicarb than without. This is pretty big for 400-HM races. I don't believe studies have been done on longer efforts, so it's unknown whether it's beneficial for the marathon.
Over the last 2 years I've thought there must be some new drug on the market, but I'm more and more convinced that it's just bicarb on top of supershoe advancements.
Back to OP's question.... I'm undecided but am leaning towards no ban for the following reasons:
A) I'm unaware of any evidence of it being harmful, so there's no motivation from a health standpoint.
B) It's essentially a nutritional supplement. Creatine is another performance enhancing supplement that is legal. How would you justify banning one and not the other?
C) How would it be enforced? In horses they use a blood test, and it has to be done soon after competition. Are we going to require finish line blood samples?
Just for clarity's sake... Studies on bicarb show time to exhaustion in trained athletes for a given anaerobic effort is greater. Blood lactate levels can be pushed to higher levels with bicarb than without. This is pretty big for 400-HM races. I don't believe studies have been done on longer efforts, so it's unknown whether it's beneficial for the marathon.
Over the last 2 years I've thought there must be some new drug on the market, but I'm more and more convinced that it's just bicarb on top of supershoe advancements.
Back to OP's question.... I'm undecided but am leaning towards no ban for the following reasons:
A) I'm unaware of any evidence of it being harmful, so there's no motivation from a health standpoint.
B) It's essentially a nutritional supplement. Creatine is another performance enhancing supplement that is legal. How would you justify banning one and not the other?
C) How would it be enforced? In horses they use a blood test, and it has to be done soon after competition. Are we going to require finish line blood samples?
Yep, worth 1 second per lap. Pretty obvious if you really think about it and look at times/depth versus even five years ago.
Bicarb has been around OP. I think it's a perfect recipe of factors -- doping, shoes, fast tracks, the best information/science about training & nutrition, altitude, being able to train year round, etc. Add in people all going to the same place to run fast with pacers and/or pace lights. The art of racing is a bit lost. Line up & run fast in ideal conditions. That's the era we're living in with better technology/knowledge.
I don't know if it's bicarb or drugs or something else, but it is interesting that the 800m did not seem to improve with super spikes. Suddenly, last season, boom.
From what I’ve heard in interviews, Nuguse, Fisher and Hoppel do not use bicarb. I believe a handful of the top athletes are using it, but it’s not ubiquitous.
It's funny how people on here went from saying it doesn't work to saying it should be banned. The only difference is now there's companies making convenient gels for athletes to take. It doesn't make any sense to ban bicarb, it would be the equivalent of banning caffeine because it allows you to run faster.
A) I'm unaware of any evidence of it being harmful, so there's no motivation from a health standpoint.
No-one's mentioned the very high sodium content and so the long term effects of arterial stiffness/high blood pressure.
Not eating enough sodium is more of a problem for runners actually putting in some good mileage. Especially in the summer time I'm taking salt pills before most of my runs and adding more salt to my food. Low salt diets is for inactive people, not for people putting in the work.
Bicarb is more accessible now with hydrogel solutions such as the one by Maurten. I’ve taken it twice before 800m races and didn’t have any side effects associated with traditional Bicarb supplementation like the need to go to the bathroom.
Caffeine, beta alanine, l-citrulline, kratom, creatine are all supplements with proven benefits. Why the distinction for Bicarb specifically? And how will you enforce it? Many off the shelf snacks from the convenience store on the way to the meet for the bus have Bicarb in them.