A friend just mentioned that one of his new year's resolutions is to give up caffeine. That's lovely I suppose, though I don't really understand why so many people have an aversion to caffeine or feel guilty for enjoying it.
In fact, caffeine has a well-documented ergogenic effect on athletes. During sustained, sub-maximal activities it can increase the mobilization of free fatty acids. In other words, it makes fat more available as fuel for your workout. In addition, it appears to decrease a motor unit's excitation threshold. (In non-SAT words, that means that you use more muscle for a given activity, which makes the activity seem easier.)
Blood levels peak about an hour after ingestion, though the maximum fat mobilization appears to take place after 3-4 hours, so adjust your intake accordingly. You may also want to consider decreasing your caffeine intake for a few days before a big event, since you build a tolerance after repeated use. Also keep in mind that caffeine does have some potential negative issues including gastrointestinal distress, insomnia, etc, and is a diuretic, so it should be used sparingly when hydration is a consideration
Caffeine tablets are available, and for those who are particularly averse to the GI issues and have a little creatiivty, there are other, more invasive means of administration. (Please don't make me draw a picture).
Lastly, if you're worried because caffeine is on the International Olympic Committee's list of banned substances, consider this little conundrum. While a cup of brewed coffee has about 125 milligrams of caffeine, and 100-300 milligrams have the greatest ergognic effect, most people would need to ingest 1000 milligrams to reach the threshold for testing positive. (The actual test is based on urinary concentrations, so the exact amount that you'd need to take varies, but is still in excess of the amount necessary for optimal ergognic effect.)
So, eschew the coffee, tea, cola and chocolate if it'll make you feel better about yourself. Just don't think it's gonna make you healthier.
Imagine How Slow She Would Have Been If She Hadn't Walked
Like many others, I posted a comment at her blog. And like many others, my comment was shot down by the author, who has no background in exercise science or athletics. While TPP may control her blog, I control mine and posted about the topic without her editorial comments. For those who can't be bothered to read what I opined at the time, I simply stated that while walking breaks are appropriate for those who are unprepared to run a marathon, the idea of a well trained runner going faster by incorporating walking breaks is in defiance of logic and science. But the Galloway and his cult like to give bits of anecdotal evidence (some of which is accurate and some - like their claim that Ronaldo da Costa used Galloway's method in his marathon wins - is patently false) to support their argument. Here's one they might want to leave out of the argument:
NYC MARATHON
November 1, 2009
Tara Parker-Pope
Finish Time:6:58:19
Pace:15:58/mile
As a postscript, it's interesting to note that TPP has now changed her tune. She has decided that walking breaks are no longer the way to do your best marathon or go faster as she has previously claimed. Now she says "The main benefit of the run-walk method is that it eases your body into exercise, makes marathon training less grueling and gives muscles time to recover, reducing the risk of injury. Walk breaks are an ideal way for new runners and older, less fit and overweight people to take part in a sport that would otherwise be off limits.
"The downside is that just as you are out on the marathon course about 50 percent longer than the average runner, your training time is much longer, too — four and five hours a weekend for long runs.
In other words, she is agreeing with what i said all along.
Posted at 07:33 PM in Coach's Comments, Myths | Permalink | Comments (4) | TrackBack (0)