The tree crap and the oxygen intake are linked in this post (or do you just troll message boards and look for specific opportunities to impart your shaky physiology?!).
I am certain (for many reasons) that the trees are not increasing oxygen sufficiently to improve performance at the Rieti track, which is what the original pseudo science post was proposing. And despite 70+ posts it is still rubbish
Get serious wrote:
The tree crap and the oxygen intake are linked in this post (or do you just troll message boards and look for specific opportunities to impart your shaky physiology?!).
I am certain (for many reasons) that the trees are not increasing oxygen sufficiently to improve performance at the Rieti track, which is what the original pseudo science post was proposing. And despite 70+ posts it is still rubbish
No, I'm interested in the reason Rieti is fast, but I see a problem when you are calling out others for junk science, when your own scientific reasoning is off.
If you said that the amount of O2 put out by trees would have to be absorbant and beyond natural levels to improve performance, I'd have no problem.
But when you base your theory off the idea that Oxygen saturation doesn't drop, which it does, and that oxygen intake doesn't effect performance, which it does, I have a problem.
I agree with you that the tree thing is crap, but the way you got to that point is just as bad science as those who you are critiquing.
I'm going to start this post by stating that I have my Master's in Biology and currently work as a consultant. My specialty is aquatic ecology. I'm not saying this to claim that I'm an expert, because I'm not anymore that ventolin's career makes him an expert. I'm only saying it because I do have experience in this area.
First, the whole statement rainforests make 40% of the world's oxygen is wrong. Its closer to 20%, and while we would absolutely be in trouble if they disappeared the true source of most of the world's oxygen is phytoplankton. Second, in college I was involved in a study that monitored changes in ecology from the center of a dense forest in Northern New York to the center of a village. We had monitoring stations set up every x distance and one of the variables measured was oxygen. Later I'll try to post our data online. I don't think it was ever published and as far as I know there are no plans to do so, so I don't think I'll be stepping on anyones toes to do so. There was no significant variation from the center of this forest to the center of town.
The one thing that might be the difference is air quality. Its away from urban areas, and the forest may actually have an effect by scrubbing the air. That said, its not going to have an effect on the sprints at all. If there is anything fishy about Rieti, its a human factor or the track itself.
The IAAF has studied this issue (not specifically related to Rieti) and has developed track surface density standards. What is the certified density of the Rieti track?
http://www.iaaf.org/community/athletics/trackfield/newsid=4666.html
This study relates to the 400 meters rather than 100 meters, but brings into focus the issues involved:
http://www.mathaware.org/mam/2010/essays/AldayFrantzWind.pdf
So twice I have said they have a great pasta night and both times it was deleted.
Strange censorship.
Does that come off as racist or something?
ys sub 7.30 for the 3k dodgy
fast track fast times - get over it distance guys
Renato Canova, I thank you for the comments. Lots of interest here in many posts, but the tiresome calling each other idiots and cursing and the like, it is what makes me loath to read the Message Boards until I run into something like the Renato Canova post. Just enjoy the facts and discussion back and forth. Whether you have PhDs or are doctors, the other stuff is tiresome and drives many of us other track fans to wonder what is wrong with track fans.
Me, I always want to run a tape measure around (kidding, but verify measurement and timing devices) when a certain meet or track produces lots of great results. Like the old proverb, trust ... but verify. Then again, we know the track at Eugene, being track only, great facility, and the excitement that surrounds it has produced some great results. As Canova says, that is a huge factor in a sport that is not just physiology, but psychology.
David Katz wrote:
I think the excellent performances at the Rieti Meet are due to the following:
1. End of season competition.
This meet always falls after the Olympic Games, World Championships, or Diamond League (past years Golden League). The pressure is off. Athletes come to this meet in a much more relaxed state of mind. They are in peak form with absolutely nothing to lose (except prize/bonus money for this meet).
2. Conditions.
The weather this year seemed to be perfect (as with most years).
3. Sandro Giovanelli (Meeting Director)is a wonderfull man. He's been around the sport for decades. Knows all the athletes, knows the agents, knows all of the other Meeting Directors. He works hard and has the respect of the world track family. Athletes know that he will treat them well.
4. The Track.
In his article, Cram incorectly states "the tight bends":
"Even Michael Johnson only managed 44.20 around its tight bends. Powell's times in both of his races will widen the discussion around this intriguing venue and what exactly are its hidden secrets."
A standard IAAF track has a radius of 36.5 meters. The Rieti track radius is almost 40m!!! Gentle turns.
Forget the oxygen/other crap you guys a spouting.. ^this is probably the closest to the real reasons why it's a good meet.
amit wrote:
What altitude are you talking about? Rieti is NOT Sesteriere! According to Wikipedia it is 405m (1329 ft) above see level!
Enough to be sprint-friendly, especially at northern latitudes (yes, there is a latitude effect for elevation/air density, in this case it enhances the effect a bit).
daggy wrote:
The oxygenation of blood in terms of saturation is not a limiting factor in aerobic performance.
That's not what Roger Bannister found in his research. He did extensive treadmill tests on himself and others with both reduced and increased oxygen, and found that everyone got way faster when the oxygen was increased above the norm.
Google 'Bannister treadmill' for numerous references to this. I would like to see studies citing the contrary.
Just to be clear: I am only saying that if you were to put distance runners on, say, 30% oxygen they would break records. I am not saying that Rieti has a significantly higher O2 content. I think Mr. Canova has pretty much summed up all the good reasons.
ventolin^3 wrote:
it's a significantly wooded area around the track, which means lots of trees pumping out lots more O2
From the overhead view, it really doesn't look like much of a wooded area (click aerial):
http://www.bing.com/maps/#JnE9LnZpYSt2ZWxpbmlhJTJjK3JpZXRpJTJjK2l0YWx5JTdlc3N0LjAlN2VwZy4xJmJiPTQyLjQwMTMzNDY5Njg2MDYlN2UxMi44NTAwNjk4Mzc0NzMzJTdlNDIuMzk5MzEwNDQwNDgwOSU3ZTEyLjg0NDM5OTY0NzYxNTg=