The bigger question isn't about what the NCAA and WADA/IAAF say. It's about what Jesus would say. And don't forget to wash your hands extra thoroughly after touching your privates -- they are covered with sin.
To the OP, you are going to have far bigger moral conundrums than whether to drink coffee before a race/workout.
rekrunner wrote:
Here's something to think about. Although coffee contains caffeine, coffee is, as a matter of fact, not caffeine.
Caffeine provides a well-known ergogenic benefit. This has been well studied by scientists, and it's dosage is limited by organizations such as the NCAA and the IAAF.
However, slightly less well known to the ignorant masses, despite the fact that coffee contains caffeine, coffee does not provide the well known benefits that caffeine does. Any perceived benefit is merely a placebo effect.
So if the question is simply one of morality, there is nothing morally wrong with drinking a beverage that does not in physical fact provide any known ergogenic benefit, even if the drinker does it for the wrong reasons.
POD. I was going to respond to the OP with the same thing. Coffee doesn't equal caffeine and there is a point (probably around >6 mg caffeine/kg) where caffeine actually IMPAIRS performance.
jT
Kenyans drink black tea with lots of whole milk and sugar. Moraccans drink green tea with mint and lots of sugar. Drink the former to drop a few minutes in the steeple, 5k or 10k and the latter to set a mile/1500 world record.
I've always had a problem w/ having caffeine before a race/workout. I go out of my way to avoid this. In the rare occasion I have it before a workout (never before a race), any results have an * in my mind. It's legal, but it's a stimulant performance-enhancer. Law can't document EVERY wrong choice, so we have to make choices periodically and know ourselves.
ttc wrote:
I've always had a problem w/ having caffeine before a race/workout. I go out of my way to avoid this. In the rare occasion I have it before a workout (never before a race), any results have an * in my mind. It's legal, but it's a stimulant performance-enhancer. Law can't document EVERY wrong choice, so we have to make choices periodically and know ourselves.
What other perfectly legal performance enhancing substances do you have moral issues with? Intervals? Water? Carbs?
OK, as someone who has extensively researched caffeine and sports performance as a graduate student, I feel the need to weigh in...
1 cup of coffee isn't going to do much of anything for performance. Seriously. It might make you feel better, though, and this is increasingly becoming one of the preferred explanation for caffeine's performance-enhancing abilities. Most home-brewed coffees will have 60-130 or so milligrams of caffeine. The two field tested running studies used anhydrous caffeine in doses of 3 milligrams/kilogram body weight (i.e. 130 pound runner=59.1 kgs x3= ~180 mg of caffeine) and 5 milligrams/kilogram body weight (~295 mg). Both of these studies found small, but significant, improvements of 1.0-1.2% (O'Rourke et al. 2008, 5-km track running, 11 second improvement for "well-trained" runners; Bridge & Jones 2006, 8-km track running, 24 second improvement) compared to a sugar placebo.
Personally, as an athlete and a coach, I see nothing morally or ethically wrong with using caffeine or similar substances (i.e. sodium bicarbonate) to improve performance. Caffeine is so widely used it's damn near impossible to regulate, which was one of the reasons WADA took it off the prohibited substance list in 2004. Another reason is that even high doses of caffeine (> 6 mg/kg BW) would still yield caffeine levels below the old IOC limit and could improve performance. In fact, one of the seminal papers on caffeine done by Graham and Spriet in 1991 found that only 1 subject out of 9 exceeded the old IOC limit of 12 micrograms/mL of urine.
It's not like caffeine is being abused, either. Recent data out of the doping lab in Barcelona found that caffeine use among athletes (based on urine samples collected and tested between 2004-2008) has not really increased since caffeine was removed from the prohibited list. I don't have the paper in front of me right now, but the facts appear to indicate that things haven't really changed (I believe the author is Del Coso 2011.
In addition to all this, as others have stated, there's shitloads of anecdotal evidence re. caffeine use out there...de-fizzed Cokes by top marathons in the '70s and '80s, black tea that the Kenyans drink a lot of, master's athletes popping No-Doz tablets before tossing the discus. Debsrow & Leveritt (2007) found something like 75% of athletes at the 2005 Ironman World Champs believed caffeine could improve performance, and 89% planned on using some source of caffeine during competition...
If anybody is interested in getting a copy of one of the papers I mention or is looking for more info, send me an e-mail.
False.The IAAF dropped its ban on caffeine in 2004.The NCAA does restrict caffeine use though. Urine concentrations up to 15 mcg/ml are permitted. This equates to approximately 10 cups of coffee or 10 No Doz pills.If you're not collegiate, then drink away.
rekrunner wrote:
Caffeine provides a well-known ergogenic benefit. This has been well studied by scientists, and it's dosage is limited by organizations such as the NCAA and the IAAF.
Dumb post to compare caffeine w/ intervals. You didn't fully quote me, stating caffeine as a p.e. STIMULANT. Actual nutrition and workouts truly improve the body, while caffeine is a stimulant. If you can't understand and still need to argue, then go hire a tutor for comprehension.
ttc wrote:
Dumb post to compare caffeine w/ intervals. You didn't fully quote me, stating caffeine as a p.e. STIMULANT. Actual nutrition and workouts truly improve the body, while caffeine is a stimulant. If you can't understand and still need to argue, then go hire a tutor for comprehension.
Go fret about a cup of fvckin coffee pansy-ass.
Splashing your face with cold water or being slapped in the face (as done by some weird old coaches) is also a stimulant.
I just can't see getting twisted out of shape over something that is legal, equally available to everyone, and not harmful to your health (may even be beneficial).
To the guy who told the OP to go to confession from what I recall of Catholic High School, I think a Catholic priest would say that the OP is suffering from "scrupulosity" i.e., a mistaken/excessive/exaggerated/obsessive concern with what you feel is your own sinfulness.
Rene Wenzel and Chris Carmichael (who later became Lance Armstrong's coach) gave the 1990 junior worlds TTT squad caffeine suppositories that were dosed so that they caffeine levels would be under the threshold at testing (this was before WADA removed caffeine from the banned list).
Was this cheating? I'd argue no, but it is definitely extreme.
yo gabba gabba wrote:
Man, I guess I'm out of touch, but it would be great if people here could have a real discussion instead of resorting immediately to ridicule. Not all issues are so clear cut, and sometimes it can actually be valuable to think for 2 seconds and examine things before spouting off. Letsrun really sucks.
The guy who brought up spikes nailed it yet you ignored that post. It is obvious you are trolling.
Rakahaha wrote:
What's the morality of wearing better shoes? Isn't that an unfair advantage over poor people?
Actually spikes are not allowed in the Hershey youth meets for this reason.
Smart replies only. Cold water and a slap are not stimulants. Reread the thread or hire a tutor.
jtupper-ware wrote:
rekrunner wrote:Here's something to think about. Although coffee contains caffeine, coffee is, as a matter of fact, not caffeine.
Caffeine provides a well-known ergogenic benefit. This has been well studied by scientists, and it's dosage is limited by organizations such as the NCAA and the IAAF.
However, slightly less well known to the ignorant masses, despite the fact that coffee contains caffeine, coffee does not provide the well known benefits that caffeine does. Any perceived benefit is merely a placebo effect.
So if the question is simply one of morality, there is nothing morally wrong with drinking a beverage that does not in physical fact provide any known ergogenic benefit, even if the drinker does it for the wrong reasons.
POD. I was going to respond to the OP with the same thing. Coffee doesn't equal caffeine and there is a point (probably around >6 mg caffeine/kg) where caffeine actually IMPAIRS performance.
jT
Why wouldn't coffee, which contains caffeine, give the same results as caffeine alone? What is the science behind it?
Giving athletes caffeine suppositories for the athletic benefit may be legal, up to a certain limit, but IMO would be morally questionable. I think this situation is quite different than drinking a cup or two before your race. I could go further and say if you normally don't drink coffee, but do only before races, that also could be a moral dilemma. You are only after the performance enhancing capabilities and nothing else. It's personal though IMO. I drink coffee every day no matter what. For me or others that drink coffee on a regular basis I don't see any moral dilemma in having the usual cup before a race.
Basically, if you feel guilty, even slightly, you probably shouldn't do it (talking about things that are legal).
joho wrote:
Basically, if you feel guilty, even slightly, you probably shouldn't do it (talking about things that are legal).
Because feeling guilty is not a good feeling. Or you can just get over this "guilt" and go ahead and have a cup of coffee.
Is it immoral to drink coffee? Sheesh. This is the dumbest thread ever.
coffee drinker wrote:
False.
The IAAF dropped its ban on caffeine in 2004.
The NCAA does restrict caffeine use though. Urine concentrations up to 15 mcg/ml are permitted. This equates to approximately 10 cups of coffee or 10 No Doz pills.
If you're not collegiate, then drink away.
That's not exactly true--urine concentrations vary wildly among different individuals for a given caffeine dose. See my post on the previous page, I run through some of the math on it in the link. But one of the reasons WADA removed caffeine from the banned list (aside from the fact that probably 90%+ of the world consumes it regularly) is that urine levels do not correlate well with initial caffeine dose. At the end of the day, though, you are are right: for almost everyone, it's easy to achieve an ergogenic dose (3-6 ml/kg) with NO risk of failing the NCAA's test.
CoachB wrote:
I believe there are WADA guidelines for caffiene consumption. One cup of joe won't put you anywhere near them.
^^ this...
Plus, coffee helps me poop.
yo gabba gabba wrote:
I'm a college cross country and track runner. Sometimes when I haven't slept well, I'll drink coffee before a workout or race, or maybe even if I have slept well, in order to get the benefits. I notice a clear improvement when I have had coffee 1-3 hours before. I'm wondering about the morality/cheating aspect of this. Primarily due to these effects:
-caffeine is a stimulant
-caffeine makes you burn more fats earlier so that you save glycogen for later in the race
-caffeine dilates your blood vessels
I know that the level the NCAA considers cheating is about 10 cups of coffee, and I'm only talking about 1 cup, but sometimes I feel like I'm cheating myself when I drink coffee, because running for me has always been about getting PRs and improving internally. What do you guys think?
I missed commenting, but the idea that caffeine "spares" glycogen has been discredited--also that should not be an issue in a collegiate race anyway. Caffeine probably works as the stimulant to help with fighting off the sense of fatigue.