Something fishy about Rieti facility...

Typical athletic head-in-the-sand mentality:

"In some parts of the world they don't need an explanation for everything. Best leave it that way."

Right, Steve. I'm sure my tune will change, too, once I PR there at age 44.

amit posted "it is 405m (1329 ft) above see level!"

SO my point is proved, the altitude helps. lol.

Seriously though, since Rieti is not a Golden/Diamond League meet, it is possible that the IAAF has not certified the surface...i.e. the composition may be extremely dense = faster times.

Salvador Dahli wrote:it is possible that the IAAF has not certified the surface...i.e. the composition may be extremely dense = faster times.

no chance

it's on iaaf rota as a "challenge meeting"

no certification - no iaaf rota

So is every uninjured world-class runner clamoring to get into the Rieti meet, and if not, why not?

I sure would be--basically assured of running a PR.

If Gay had run, he would have run 9.6x, and if there had been a higher legal wind, could actually have threatened the WR.

WHY did Gay not run this meet? Too close to big-$ Brussels?

Hey, Carter-Johnson and Blake were there!

Tyson, you blew it, man. THIS was your big chance!

How I would have loved to have seen that.

Sprint Geezer wrote:So is every uninjured world-class runner clamoring to get into the Rieti meet, and if not, why not?

not if they had a hard run 2/7 before

rieti has ALWAYS been 2/7 after a huge meet

it offers little appearance/prize money, so you run there for performance not $

I sure would be--basically assured of running a PR

idiot

you are not an elite athlete at/near peak condition where 0.5% improvement is a huge gain in all-time list terms

If Gay had run, he would have run 9.6x, and if there had been a higher legal wind, could actually have threatened the WR

9.65 - 9.70 if been in race - i favour former

WHY did Gay not run this meet? Too close to big-$ Brussels?

see above

There is a rupture in the space time continuum at the Reiti facility. If you have watched any of the races you will notice that on the final 100m stretch the runners look all blurry and elongated for a split second. So this rip in the fabric of space time allows them to cover less distance and in effect post a faster time.

Yes, but presumably the signal from the starter to the clock would pass through the same rupture, unless the rupture is highly localized.

When I run there next year I'll take my tetryon scanner with me to check it out.

Yes, yes. Make sure you also take Tricorder readings of the area. This will surely confirm my suspicions about the Reiti facility.

I meant "proto-Romulan".

stoned irony wrote:

Sounds like you got a PhD from Junk Science University.

ventolin^3 wrote:

every year same question

answer ( which no one remembers ) :

it's a significantly wooded area around the track, which means lots of trees pumping out lots more O2

the local concentration of O2 is going to be significantly higher than the 21% it is at most places at sea-level

more O2 available for metabolism which will make all races potentially faster

same principle applies to webb's 1'43 & 3'46 - run in stadia with lots of wood around - check the vids

Call it junk science if you want.

I am sure there are plenty who can tell you empirically that there is something to this.

Well then hopefully someone will tell us empirically that there is something to that.

Until then, I'm going to seriously doubt it.

moron

i asked you for a refutation to increased O2 theory

you are obviously too f***in stoopid to even understand it

offer some scientific counter-argument or f*** off imbecile

stoned irony wrote:

Sounds like you got a PhD from Junk Science University.

Typical of Letsrun idiots. Alwasy in a hurry to prove how stupid they are. Where the heck to you think oxygen comes from, 7-11? It comes from the forests. Plants produce oxygen. 6% of the surace area of the world is rainforest, yet it produces 40% of the world's oxygen. The rest of the world forests produce O2 as well. Where it is produced there will be a higher concentration of O2 and that will be dispersed into the surrounding atmospheres.

As far as the altitude of Rieti, it's about the same as Zurich, so the absolute concentration of O2 molecules will be about 95% that of sea level. But I suspect that 95% isn't enough to effect the O2 saturation in the bloodstream in a significant negative way. The reduction of air resistance is worth about 0.1s a lap, we know that.

I can't find any data as to what the concentration of O2 is in forests but it would interesting to know.

I've always suspect that the times in Gothenberg were helped by the fact that it is at sea level, and the track is in the middle of a dense forrest. Anyone who has run there will tell you that air smells and tastes heavanly there.

Wow There wrote:

Yeah, I used to hear it was at about 3000 feet. But apparently not.

Where on Earth did you hear that?

Ventolin and Malmo, it is up to you to offer evidence to back up your claims about how forests affect running performance. It is not up to others to debunk claims not supported (in this discussion) by any evidence.

Salvador Sanchez wrote:

Ventolin and Malmo, it is up to you to offer evidence to back up your claims about how forests affect running performance. It is not up to others to debunk claims not supported (in this discussion) by any evidence.

These aren't claims, it's specualtion.

The source of O2 in the planet is well known. The hypothesis is that the O2 produced hangs locally in higher concentrations, and/or to what degree it affects athletic performance. I suspect that it does. I would like to see some data as to what the concentration levels O2 actually are in a forest.

Obviously, a 5% reduction of O2 in the air in Zurich doesn't effect performance at all.

At 3000ft you know have only 90% O2 concentration. We know that does hurt performance. At 5000ft you're down to 84% and at 7000, 78%.

malmo wrote:

Obviously, a 5% reduction of O2 in the air in Zurich doesn't effect performance at all.

.

I meant to add, so does that mean that an increase in O2 concentration to, lets say, 105% doesn't help, or does it? Perhaps a respiratory therapist has the answer to to this question. Obviously O2 is administered to people with severe respiratory problems so it must help them.

It would help athletes. Hyperbaric oxygen gets dissolved in the plasma outside of the Haemoglobin which is 100% saturated. It may be utilised rapidly, but it is still extra oxygen available for metabolism

But aren't hyperbaric concentrations WAY high. And usually people who benefit by artificial administration have servere metabolic or medical (smoke inhalation, for ex) problems.

The issue might be that concentrations of lets say 105% SL don't help in the course of athletic competition, much in the way that decrease O2 at Zurich doesn't hurt?