It's pretty obvious that this is having a massive effect on performance.
1. Horse racing banned it years ago because of animal welfare.
2. Although humans can chose to take it there is a high percentage of humans that react badly to it so therefore are at a clear disadvantage.
3.Is this adding a cost to the sport along with supershoes that is turning people away .
Massive effect? Yes.
Horse racing? Barbaric industry in any case. Gorging animals on baking soda before races is the least of it, but OK.
Some react badly? Bad argument. Some people "react badly" to taking 100 grams of carbs per hour while running. Some people "react badly" to heavy training. Want to ban those?
Cost? Bicarb supplementation costs are coming down as more products hit the market. It isn't rocket science, and far, far from the most expensive part of pursuing elite running. (Which costs more: travel to training camps and time trials on tuned tracks, or a bicarb product to take for races?)
I agree - at this point, anything goes. Can’t stop progress - amiright? Might as well open the flood gates and take records into another galaxy. I mean, it’s not like it hasn’t already been happening.
It's pretty obvious that this is having a massive effect on performance.
1. Horse racing banned it years ago because of animal welfare.
2. Although humans can chose to take it there is a high percentage of humans that react badly to it so therefore are at a clear disadvantage.
3.Is this adding a cost to the sport along with supershoes that is turning people away .
Bi carb is not new. It's been round for decades. The only difference now is Maurten are able to make it marketable to regular folk and charge a fortune.
There's evidence of use back in the 30s , but since the end of the 70s it's been a staple for high intensity sport.
If you believe bi carb is changing the game then you understand nothing about the game.
It's pretty obvious that this is having a massive effect on performance.
1. Horse racing banned it years ago because of animal welfare.
2. Although humans can chose to take it there is a high percentage of humans that react badly to it so therefore are at a clear disadvantage.
3.Is this adding a cost to the sport along with supershoes that is turning people away .
Bi carb is not new. It's been round for decades. The only difference now is Maurten are able to make it marketable to regular folk and charge a fortune.
There's evidence of use back in the 30s , but since the end of the 70s it's been a staple for high intensity sport.
If you believe bi carb is changing the game then you understand nothing about the game.
Came here to say the exact same thing. Bicarb has been a staple in many high performance sport for over 40 years (track cycling as an example). It is not some new revolutionary supplement, and there is no evidence that the Maurten product is any better than the enteric coated capsules that have been around for decades.
What is new is marketing/hype, and threads like this just feed into that.
Bi carb is not new. It's been round for decades. The only difference now is Maurten are able to make it marketable to regular folk and charge a fortune.
There's evidence of use back in the 30s , but since the end of the 70s it's been a staple for high intensity sport.
If you believe bi carb is changing the game then you understand nothing about the game.
Came here to say the exact same thing. Bicarb has been a staple in many high performance sport for over 40 years (track cycling as an example). It is not some new revolutionary supplement, and there is no evidence that the Maurten product is any better than the enteric coated capsules that have been around for decades.
What is new is marketing/hype, and threads like this just feed into that.
Does it even do what people think it does? Or is it just a psychological prop?
Lol. Anyone who thinks bicarb is solely to thank for better MD times needs their heads examined
I think its just one component along with better spikes, pace tuned tracks, consolidated competition, and better coaching/more readily available training info.
Isolate them for 24 hours before competition, with an observer watching them all like a hawk, and cameras everywhere. Inspect their bags when they arrive there too. If they try to sneak a bicarb pill they are caught red handed
add serum bicarbonate levels to the blood passport
You'd be testing for sodium and it would be impossible to isolate from the rest of the diet. Monitoring athletes for a few hours prior to world class competition is probably possible - but not for every time they could race.
Not for sodium, for bicarbonate. It is ionized in the blood, then reacts with hydrogen ions to produce water and carbon dioxide, which is exhaled.
The blood has normal levels of bicarbonate already, that surely spike if someone has supplemented. So put it into the blood passport and see, before assuming it can't be tested for.
No, they should not ban it. I raced like crap my last two races with it and ran faster without it. I did notice that my legs felt less lactic with the bicarb, but if you're a baby like I've been it doesn't make a big enough difference. It makes you feel better, but you still got to grind and push through to take advantage of feeling good in your legs.
We’re in that awkward moment where we still struggle to not compare old times to what people are doing today and are constantly gobsmacked at performances.
We just need to accept that every mile raced on the track today is like 3 or 4 seconds faster than 20 years ago and then enjoy the show
It isn't bicarb that's doing it. There are countless other better options that athletes are choosing.
Not sure I'm following here. Are you arguing that bicarb doesn't really impart any benefit?
I think the new wave of amazing times is obviously due to the shoes. Also track building technology has to give a measurable benefit if the very best engineers and builders are involved.
But the biochemistry is very vague on the issue. People still demonize Lactate as Lactic acid, but the Lactate ion and hydrogen ions are two different things.
Yes they appear to accumulate in a 1:1(stoichiometric)ratio and we are supposed to believe that ingesting bicarbonate reduces this ratio, but there is another way to achieve this that doesn't involve ingesting bicarbonate.
It isn't shoes and it isn't bicarb. These have only a marginal effect. The biggest jumps are achieved through doping. It has always been so but doping is now truly in the space age. Science meets sport.
It's pretty obvious that this is having a massive effect on performance.
1. Horse racing banned it years ago because of animal welfare.
2. Although humans can chose to take it there is a high percentage of humans that react badly to it so therefore are at a clear disadvantage.
3.Is this adding a cost to the sport along with supershoes that is turning people away .
Bi carb is not new. It's been round for decades. The only difference now is Maurten are able to make it marketable to regular folk and charge a fortune.
There's evidence of use back in the 30s , but since the end of the 70s it's been a staple for high intensity sport.
If you believe bi carb is changing the game then you understand nothing about the game.
Most don't. They will do anything to avoid seeing what has really changed the game. Athletes aren't going to settle for taking a substance with minimal effect when they can get something much more potent with low risk of being caught.
Bi carb is not new. It's been round for decades. The only difference now is Maurten are able to make it marketable to regular folk and charge a fortune.
There's evidence of use back in the 30s , but since the end of the 70s it's been a staple for high intensity sport.
If you believe bi carb is changing the game then you understand nothing about the game.
Came here to say the exact same thing. Bicarb has been a staple in many high performance sport for over 40 years (track cycling as an example). It is not some new revolutionary supplement, and there is no evidence that the Maurten product is any better than the enteric coated capsules that have been around for decades.
What is new is marketing/hype, and threads like this just feed into that.
If bicarb was as effective as EPO or other banned peds it would also be banned.
Problem is, you and I get this, but the masses do not. Nearly every top-10 time from my college alma mater has been replaced. 50 years of history wiped clean from the books in a matter of a few years. To make room for what? Slop times run at BU on $200 bouncy-shoes and bi-carb. Such is life I guess.
Was just wondering what peoples thoughts were on the subject . The positive is that old drug induced records will soon all be obsolete and that's got to be a massive positive !!!
One thing I find interesting is that distance running seems to be tracking a long the same lines as swimming where teenage Phenoms are becoming more the norm (less resistance from the shoes perhaps?) and my prediction just like swimming is some will keep performing at a high level for years to come and some will fade away just as quick as they arrived .
So your prediction is that some will succeed and others won't? Let me know where I can find odds on this, I'd like to bet my life savings
Came here to say the exact same thing. Bicarb has been a staple in many high performance sport for over 40 years (track cycling as an example). It is not some new revolutionary supplement, and there is no evidence that the Maurten product is any better than the enteric coated capsules that have been around for decades.
What is new is marketing/hype, and threads like this just feed into that.
If bicarb was as effective as EPO or other banned peds it would also be banned.
Someone else said it, it's baking soda repacked and with a hefty price tag. Pretty hard to ban a food staple. if it was as effective as EPO it would be in everyone's diet .
If you want to use it just buy baking soda and mix with water.. .test it a bit first too 😂 can cause reaction, but it's worth the savings...but hundreds even thousands over a year depending on Maurten usage.
All this thread shows is people are gullible and marketing works.
Sodium bicarb is cheap, legal, and everywhere. It shows up in antacids, in kitchens, and as a routine medical tool. The only way to catch “bicarb loading” is to infer it from blood or urine chemistry, and those markers bounce around for innocent reasons. Diet shifts, dehydration, stomach bugs, bread consumption, and common medications can all move the numbers. And unlike many “enhancers,” bicarbonate is not inherently harmful. But no matter how you slice it, you can’t ban it without an unacceptable number of false positives, which is why you can’t ban it.