Despite everything, some of these crazy times from teenagers lately still are hard for me to comprehend — they make me think something other than merely bicarb and supershoes are happening and I have to believe it has to do with training approaches (particularly from a younger age) and the change in mentality broadly speaking from trying to win races to people attacking fast times en masse
Did you run XC and track when you were in school? “Mentality” isn’t worth even a fraction of a second. In a fast paced race with better runners, no matter what a runner is thinking, there will be a point where it becomes impossible to keep up.
Despite everything, some of these crazy times from teenagers lately still are hard for me to comprehend — they make me think something other than merely bicarb and supershoes are happening and I have to believe it has to do with training approaches (particularly from a younger age) and the change in mentality broadly speaking from trying to win races to people attacking fast times en masse
Did you run XC and track when you were in school? “Mentality” isn’t worth even a fraction of a second. In a fast paced race with better runners, no matter what a runner is thinking, there will be a point where it becomes impossible to keep up.
Opportunity would be a better word. These fast track races are well organised and the best young runners are seizing the moment to show the world just how good they are.
Who has actually stated they routinely use bicarb? the LRC article I read on the matter seemed to indicate many pros did not react well to it and therefore abstain.
Interestingly Jake Wightman said that he didn't use it for the final of the Tokyo world champs. His reasoning was that it numbs his legs and he can't feel/measure his effort as well. He also added that tolerating lactate is one of his natural strengths so maybe less benefit for him.
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.
Actually, everyone gets this, and it's not new. I was part of a school-record breaking 4x400 team in high school. We ran it on a state-of-the-art college track. The old record from the 1970s had been run on dirt. I'm sure we were at least a second-per-lap faster just because of the surface, without even accounting for our better spikes. We also lifted weights, did plyos, and took creatine. We got to start training on indoor tracks a month before the snow melted, whereas the guys back in the 70s had nowhere they could run until April.
Everyone doesn't get it. It is often said here that the level of global competition today is higher than ever before because more guys are running under 3:30, 13:00, etc.
The level of competition isn't really higher. It just seems that way because more people are running fast thanks to the shoes, tracks, and supplements. But very few people acknowledge that when they say the level of competition is higher. They just look at the number of people running fast times.
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.
Have you tried training and racing in super shoes compared to regular shoes?
Have you tried using Maurten bicarb?
Have you tried racing with pacing lights?
Have you tried racing on the BU track?
If you haven't tried any of these things, then you speak from a position of ignorance.
Far from diminishing the achievements of runners of years' past, bicarb enlarges their legacies: "You ran sub-1:45 indoors before bicarb and super shoes? What a legend!"
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.
What? You're being intentionally vague here. If you're making an argument that the drop in times that most attribute to bicarb is actually due to something else like PEDs, just say that. Why the faux intrigue?
Either way, you're either misinformed or being intellectually dishonest on purpose. I'm not saying PED use isn't involved in the spate of fast times over the last several years, but the science on bicarb isn't vague at all. In fact it's very clear and well established that bicarb is an effective ergogenic aid via buffering of the hydrogen ions that you mention.
You're throwing around a lot of fancy terms about the science of it all but I'm not totally convinced you actually understand that science
Distance running used to be a sport in which the individual pursued what could be achieved with the mind and body, both in preparation and in racing (with some help from technology). Today the sport has become more of a collaboration between technology and and the body, and the result is a sport that has little relationship with its past version. Yes, technology has always been evolving, but the recent changes have been on an exponentially different scale, and should have been stopped. I see little reason to follow it any more.
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.
Have you tried training and racing in super shoes compared to regular shoes?
Have you tried using Maurten bicarb?
Have you tried racing with pacing lights?
Have you tried racing on the BU track?
If you haven't tried any of these things, then you speak from a position of ignorance.
He (rightly) tells Rekrunner how absurd it is to claim that all the tens of thousands of athletes who have taken peds didn't realize that they "don't work" (according to Rekkie). Yet he himself dismisses the first-hand experience of all the runners (from pros to hobby joggers) who can feel how different and faster the super shoes are.
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.
What? You're being intentionally vague here. If you're making an argument that the drop in times that most attribute to bicarb is actually due to something else like PEDs, just say that. Why the faux intrigue?
Either way, you're either misinformed or being intellectually dishonest on purpose. I'm not saying PED use isn't involved in the spate of fast times over the last several years, but the science on bicarb isn't vague at all. In fact it's very clear and well established that bicarb is an effective ergogenic aid via buffering of the hydrogen ions that you mention.
You're throwing around a lot of fancy terms about the science of it all but I'm not totally convinced you actually understand that science
I'm saying that there's a completely natural way to get the same effect. But the way biochemistry is explained isn't helpful to athletes.
The acidity in your muscles during a sustained high intensity effort comes from the release of Hydrogen ions, also known as protons or H+
Lactate production from blood glucose releases a proton, which increases acidity, but Lactate production from muscle glycogen consumes a proton, thereby decreasing acidity.
So it's the balance of the two in training and racing which is what makes the difference when you hit the finishing strait in a race.
What? You're being intentionally vague here. If you're making an argument that the drop in times that most attribute to bicarb is actually due to something else like PEDs, just say that. Why the faux intrigue?
Either way, you're either misinformed or being intellectually dishonest on purpose. I'm not saying PED use isn't involved in the spate of fast times over the last several years, but the science on bicarb isn't vague at all. In fact it's very clear and well established that bicarb is an effective ergogenic aid via buffering of the hydrogen ions that you mention.
You're throwing around a lot of fancy terms about the science of it all but I'm not totally convinced you actually understand that science
I'm saying that there's a completely natural way to get the same effect. But the way biochemistry is explained isn't helpful to athletes.
The acidity in your muscles during a sustained high intensity effort comes from the release of Hydrogen ions, also known as protons or H+
Lactate production from blood glucose releases a proton, which increases acidity, but Lactate production from muscle glycogen consumes a proton, thereby decreasing acidity.
So it's the balance of the two in training and racing which is what makes the difference when you hit the finishing strait in a race.
I can explain further if you wish.
Alright, I'll bite. What is the "completely natural way to get the same effect"?
Distance running used to be a sport in which the individual pursued what could be achieved with the mind and body, both in preparation and in racing (with some help from technology). Today the sport has become more of a collaboration between technology and and the body, and the result is a sport that has little relationship with its past version. Yes, technology has always been evolving, but the recent changes have been on an exponentially different scale, and should have been stopped. I see little reason to follow it any more.
What a miserable attitude to the amazing efforts of today's best young athletes.
I think you're right though. The sport is better off without you.
Distance running used to be a sport in which the individual pursued what could be achieved with the mind and body, both in preparation and in racing (with some help from technology). Today the sport has become more of a collaboration between technology and and the body, and the result is a sport that has little relationship with its past version. Yes, technology has always been evolving, but the recent changes have been on an exponentially different scale, and should have been stopped. I see little reason to follow it any more.
What a miserable attitude to the amazing efforts of today's best young athletes.
I think you're right though. The sport is better off without you.
Se ya. Close the door on the way out.
I didn't say anything about the athletes themselves. I pity any who have to come into contact with you though.
...the science on bicarb isn't vague at all. In fact it's very clear and well established that bicarb is an effective ergogenic aid via buffering of the hydrogen ions that you mention.
It is vague. We have a natural bicarbonate buffering system. Obviously if you ask AI for a respo