Why don't the run OT distance events when temps are cooler?

Or they could have taken advantage of the fact they had 18 months to hit the standard instead of waiting until after the trials to get it. Are you going to come on here and complain when it is 100 degrees during all the races in Athens too?

No, I don't care what conditions are like in Athens because once there, everybody runs under the same conditions at the same time.

You missed my point. Why not give Americans the best chance possible to get the A standard at the trials, so that this whole mess doesn't have to occur? As is, everyone needs to peak over and over again, and someone not in condition now can be selected over someone who is in great condition. Who cares if someone met the A standard a year ago or two months ago. Take those who can meet it now when the conditions are reasonable.

Conditions were perfect for Tollefson and company in their chosen event, the 5000m and they didn't get the qualifier there either.

Trials races more often than not turn into slow tactical races and are not condusive to running fast times.

The only distance races held in the heat were the 2 1500m yesterday.

That would make too much sense.

Hey I am guilty of it too, but sometimes we have to remember that there are OTHER events in track and field too, and in some of those events the conditions of Sacto were well suited. Maybe Lister would not of PR'd in the triple if the weather had been 70 degrees. It is a tough balance, but I think the meet organizers do a good job in scheduling the 10s and 5s late enough and took into consideration that the 1500s and 800s are not AS affected by the heat.

Wierd seeing my name as your "screen name."

explain to me how the weather affected the 1500m runners? they're out there for 3:40 and 4:10 respectively; that's not enough time for the heat to affect an athlete negatively.

chuck d wrote:

explain to me how the weather affected the 1500m runners? they're out there for 3:40 and 4:10 respectively; that's not enough time for the heat to affect an athlete negatively.

Yes it is. Mostly from extra blood being shunted to the skin for cooling, effectively reducing the available # of RBC's for O2 transport. The more aerobic the event the greater the effect. The 1500 is primarily aerobic.

show me a study on that, please.

Short Study on Heat and Athletic Performance for Morons

When the body gets hot (like during exercise and hot weather) it tries to cool itself through various methods, sweating, blood flow to the skin to take advantage of that evaporating sweat etc...

When oxygenated blood flows to the skin it is not flowing to the muscles which need it to perform, therefore resulting in decreased athletic performance.

According to the SAC paper - It was 97 degrees when they ran the 1500 and the track temperature was around 110.

www.runohio.com

But according to Lewis Johnson is was 120 outside and 150 on the track. Carol Lewis said runners were burning their knees from knealing on it in the blocks and had scars on their knees. They are both full of shit.

Dr. Franz Ninkompoop PhD wrote:

Short Study on Heat and Athletic Performance for Morons

When the body gets hot (like during exercise and hot weather) it tries to cool itself through various methods, sweating, blood flow to the skin to take advantage of that evaporating sweat etc...

When oxygenated blood flows to the skin it is not flowing to the muscles which need it to perform, therefore resulting in decreased athletic performance.

okay, but does it result in decreased athletic performance over 3:40 and 4:10, respectively? i've read plenty of studies on heat/humidity/etc. and the effect on endurance athletic performance. contrary to what nbc was telling everyone yesterday and what people on here say, i have yet to see one which shows anything more than a negligible effect on performances which last less than 5 minutes (or so, depends on the study). this topic is very interesting to me so when i asked for a study i was looking for something which addressed how this increased blood flow to the skin (and, apparently, not to the muscles) affected athletic performance negatively in a 1500m; i've read a few studies which say it doesn't. i am convinced that any 1500 runner who says the heat affected their performance (unless they're in the sahara) simply has a mental hurdle which needs to be overcome; i am interested, though, in anything which dissents from this position.

chuck d wrote:

i am interested, though, in anything which dissents from this position.

Does nothing exist for you unless it is published in some athletic research journal? Here's a radical idea: Go out and run an all-out 1500 (or however far you can go in 4:00) in full sun at 97 degrees (shade temp) and get back to us.

Those of us who have done it know the answer.

i never had a problem with it. i don't think alan webb did either. the two athletes at the OT who were interviewed on the subject said it wasn't a problem. i contend that it's mental issue and not a physical one. people who sprint never think of it as a problem because their efforts during races and training aren't ever sustained enough for heat to seriously affect them. people who run mid distance and distance, however, train for longer periods of time and know that it does affect them over a, say, 60 minute run; they also have likely raced 5K and above and know it affects them there. so they think that it must affect them at 1500 or a mile when, in reality, it doesn't. the effort simply isn't long enough. four minutes is not long enough for such heat to affect performance to any measurable degree.

i trust objective studies more than some guy on the message board who says "yeah, it was hot out there one day and i ran a mile and it wasn't so good. so it must have been because my blood was going to my skin instead of my muscles because that's what i think." i must just be a stickler for 'evidence'.

To see who is tough.

chuck d wrote:

explain to me how the weather affected the 1500m runners? they're out there for 3:40 and 4:10 respectively; that's not enough time for the heat to affect an athlete negatively.

they warm up in the heat. and, they're on the track for close to ten minutes before the race starts. that may have some sort of affect.

p.s. 911 is a joke.

yeah, i've thought about that. but they're able to stay fully hydrated during their warm-ups and presumably get quite a lot of shade when they're stretching and whatnot. plus their tent (or whatever staging area they go to) is shaded. they aren't on the track for ten minutes before the race, probably anywhere from 2-5 minutes from my experience. i agree that might have some effect but i tend to think it won't cost anyone significant time (we could probably argue about this all day and it could depend on how much someone warms up, how intense, are they in the shade, etc.)

there are a lot of factors which go into it: temperature, humidity, intensity of the sun, etc. i've seen this discussion numerous times on letsrun. a few times people have come on here saying they read a study which said heat and whatnot affected mile performances; but when asked for the information on it, they never produced it. and i've never been able to find much myself. the studies i've seen weren't done on runners but on bikers and one on people doing manual tasks. all suggested that heat (i think the biking one may have simulated sun) didn't become a factor until after 5 minutes of performance. of course, at the beginning, these effects are negligible but increase rather rapidly.

getting back to the original point of this thread: i can't see how the heat really affected anyone to the degree that they missed a standard or dropped out of the race (unless they didn't prepare properly, i.e. hydration).

I was in the eighth row back from the track, about 10 yards down the backstretch from the start of the 1500. It was really, really f*cking hot. I don't know about any studies, bit I can't believe the heat did not negatively affect the 1500 meter runners.