Using Caffeine for races discussion -

jewbacca wrote:

No real argument here, but personally I don't see any reason to exclude it for the reasons you listed. It could depend on our definitions of "grey zone." To me taking a drug that is undeniably performance enhancing with the intent of improving performance is solidly grey zone. We're talking about popping pills to run faster. Doesn't something seem funny about that?

Don't get me wrong -- I have zero qualms about using caffeine as it is both a legal and generally accepted practice. There's just something in me that says popping performance enhancers for competition doesn't line up with the spirit of the law.

it's not gray zone if it's legal.

if Salazar or any other athlete on earth is using or experimenting with stuff that is legal, it's legal. end of conversation. it's up to the governing bodies to study it and declare it illegal. until then, use away. that's how it works. altitude tents, training at altitude, caffeine, spandex shorts, vaporflys etc

it's black or white.

do you guys say no to tax benefits because you think they might be ethical "grey zones" even though they are allowed?

no, no you don't. you save your money

same thing here.

if any of you use Vaporfly shoes but say caffeine is a PED, you're absolute hypocritical idiots. the shoes are more PED than caffeine and everyone knows it. but you hold Kipchoge on some pedestal because he seems like a nice guy. find your own truths

if a drug that isn't banned (or it's effect isn't banned) is discovered to boost performance, it's not illegal, so it can be used....until it's banned.

that's how it works.

ThatAverageRunner wrote:

Trevelyan Harper wrote:

Does anyone stop taking caffeine for a week or two before a race so that it has a more profound effect? Has anyone experimented with this?

I do this for some races. Nowadays I typically have 1-2 cups of coffee a day, so a week before my goal race I will try to abstain from all caffeine except for maybe one cup of coffee on a Tuesday or Wednesday that week. I had some pretty good results doing this. Can't say for sure it makes a difference since I don't know how I would have raced had I not done that, but I had very good races so I will likely keep that up for races I plan to run fast at.

i imagine it does work that way. not not even go off of it for longer so the effect hits you more profoundly?

i NEVER drink coffee and only have it on race mornings or huge workout days. it wakes you up, gets the heartbeat up. basically, i don't need a warm-up on race morning. i only take caffeine GU's too. also evacuates the bowels too. it dulls perception of effort. feels like a drug, works great

totally awesome for 5k's too

Don't Cheat Yourself wrote:

If the rules don't prohibit it, it is not cheating. PED's are only cheating if they violate rules, not simply because they enhance performance. Steroids, EPO and any other PED's wouldn't be cheating if the they were an accepted part of the sport.

this post should be the end of the thread.

Not Buying It wrote:

Bad Wigins wrote:

It only makes a difference in amounts small enough to affect only people with very low tolerance. 100 to 200mg can speed up someone with low tolerance, but 400mg is too much for them. Those with high tolerance are basically immune to being very amped up at any dose.

0/10

Citation?

No. This is something everyone who has had a high caffeine tolerance knows without needing a scientist. Look it up yourself, or try building up a tolerance and see what happens.

Bad Wigins wrote:

Not Buying It wrote:

0/10

Citation?

No. This is something everyone who has had a high caffeine tolerance knows without needing a scientist. Look it up yourself, or try building up a tolerance and see what happens.

That's what I thought Wigins...no citation. So, it's just your opinion - big deal.

Old Slow Guy Who Keeps Going wrote:

drug oriented mentality? wrote:

What is the benefit? An adrenaline boost? Well then why not give up caffeine and allow natural adrenaline response to dominate your mood swings rather than a drug?

Studies with anhydrous caffeine demonstrated significant improvement in aerobic excercise primarily by the reduction in time to exhaustion and perceived fatigue. This is the best meta-analysis in the scientific literature on the PE effects of anhydrous caffeine:

https://jissn.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1550-2783-7-5

I can confirm this based on personal experience. Double espresso within one hour of a race or a tough workout helps me to concentrate on my pacing. In addition, it helps with bowel movement before the race. A minor downside is that I need to urinate a bit more before the race or the workout.

As mentioned above, I would use flat coke for runs lasting more than 100min. In some lap races you can bring your own drinks, so you can do that. I used to drink red bull at this stage but it started feeling too strong once I hit 40, so I switched to coke.

I've heard Diet Dew packs quite a punch. ?

boyscouts come to chat wrote:

it's not gray zone if it's legal.

if Salazar or any other athlete on earth is using or experimenting with stuff that is legal, it's legal. end of conversation. it's up to the governing bodies to study it and declare it illegal. until then, use away. that's how it works. altitude tents, training at altitude, caffeine, spandex shorts, vaporflys etc

it's black or white.

do you guys say no to tax benefits because you think they might be ethical "grey zones" even though they are allowed?

no, no you don't. you save your money

same thing here.

I'd change this slightly. To "it's not cheating if it's legal"

To me "grey zones" are actions that are technically allowed under the regs, but against the intent of the regs. Examples would include using an IV of 99ml for recovery, using your friend's albuterol inhaler even though you don't have asthma because you think you'll run faster, or using thyroid meds to balance out training demands.

[As I said before I don't see caffeine as "grey zone" because it is implicitly sanctioned by many races. At some races, if you're going to use the gels provided on course, it's hard to find a gel that isn't caffeinated.]

I don't like using "performance enhancing" as a test because:

1) whether something is performance enhancing is not WADA's sole criteria for banning a substance.

2) as noted before, many legitimate substances are performance enhancing (water, electrolytes, sugar)

3) if you have a health condition, then of course the medications that treat your condition are likely going to be performance enhancing. (To me, the better question is whether a medication enhances your performance above and beyond correcting the health condition.)

Interesting article in the NY Times on March 21st about how some recent studies identify genes that affect how each of us metabolizes caffeine for athletic performance. Seems that it demonstrates performance boost for some (those with the gene), a performance decline for those without it, and no effect for those with a moderate form of the gene.

Trouble is, it's hard to know if you have the gene or not without lab test, so the article seems to suggest just trying caffeine and see if it works for you.

darkwave wrote:

using your friend's albuterol inhaler even though you don't have asthma because you think you'll run faster

I believe this is actually a doping violation.

2) as noted before, many legitimate substances are performance enhancing (water, electrolytes, sugar)

I've never liked this argument since everything you listed are nutrients. Obviously the body doesn't need caffeine to function.

On a somewhat related note, suppose somebody took sudafed up to the legal limit. Grey zone or totally cool?

Not Buying It wrote:

That's what I thought Wigins...no citation. So, it's just your opinion - big deal.

It would be your opinion too, if you'd ever had a tolerance for caffeine, which clearly you haven't. Do you really need scientists to tell you everything?

Once again, try it. Take 400 to 600mg a day and see if it still has the same zip.

Bad Wigins wrote:

Not Buying It wrote:

That's what I thought Wigins...no citation. So, it's just your opinion - big deal.

It would be your opinion too, if you'd ever had a tolerance for caffeine, which clearly you haven't. Do you really need scientists to tell you everything?

Once again, try it. Take 400 to 600mg a day and see if it still has the same zip.

You make no sense Wigins. In fact, I think you're one of the weirder posters on this forum.

I take caffeine in anhydrous form; one 100mg capsule before workouts six days a week, which rotates between running, cycling & strength training. I've experimented by not taking it and I have less energy given that I have done the same workouts for years on end. And I'm no spring chicken at 57 yrs old but get the "same zip" at the same dosage - all the time. ?

Nick Willis doesn't. Never has he had coffee.

Old Slow Guy Who Keeps Going wrote:

drug oriented mentality? wrote:

What is the benefit? An adrenaline boost? Well then why not give up caffeine and allow natural adrenaline response to dominate your mood swings rather than a drug?

Studies with anhydrous caffeine demonstrated significant improvement in aerobic excercise primarily by the reduction in time to exhaustion and perceived fatigue. This is the best meta-analysis in the scientific literature on the PE effects of anhydrous caffeine:

https://jissn.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1550-2783-7-5

Why don't you read my post carefully and see if you can get the point I'm making? Or is the caffeine blocking your logic receptors?

drug oriented mentality? wrote:

Why don't you read my post carefully and see if you can get the point I'm making? Or is the caffeine blocking your logic receptors?

Because your post is stupid. ?

jewbacca wrote:

I'd argue the only reason it isn't banned is because of its prevalence in everyday diet. It's a more effective PED than some on the banned list. You don't think that taking a drug right before or during competition for performance enhancement is grey zone?

Caffeine was never truly banned; there was a urinary limit that as 12 mcg/ml I think (NCAA is 15 mcg/ml). For the NCAA 6-8 cups of coffee 2-3 hours before testing MIGHT trip the limit. It was not banned since it is so prevalent in foods and beverages.

There is a lot of individual response differences to caffeine and in some it might impair performance.

over analysis wrote:

meh, sugar basically gives you the same high as caffeine

When I was in school a long time ago in a psych class the definition of a drug was any substance that alter your mood. Sugar certainly qualifies under that definition.

I'm calling you out on this one wrote:

Caffeine is dangerous wrote:

Caffeine has a huge # of harmful effects.

Citations? ?

Potentially harmful

Increases blood pressure

Increases heart rate

GI distress

Increases irritability (maybe even more if you keep it away from someone!)