Water, on long runs
newMar...@luvtorun.com
so. I have decided to train for a marathon. How does one keep hydrated while
training for the long runs? It is winter now and I live in the Northeast.
All the parks around me have the water fountains turned off. Am I supposed
to carry the water I need for the run with me? Seems kind of heavy.
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
Doug Freese
<newMar...@luvtorun.com> wrote in message
news:41d546ed$1...@127.0.0.1...
> I've been jogging for a few years. But nothing of long distance. 3
> miles or
> so. I have decided to train for a marathon. How does one keep hydrated
> while
> training for the long runs? It is winter now and I live in the
> Northeast.
> All the parks around me have the water fountains turned off. Am I
> supposed
> to carry the water I need for the run with me? Seems kind of heavy.
Welcome to distance training in the NE. Yes, you will need to carry
fluids(for runs longer than an hour carry a sports drink rather than
plain water) be it in you hand, waist pack, stake out, or camelback. You
could try to have a friend meet you or modify your route into loops
such that you pass your house/store with fluids every N miles. You will
hardly notice the weight after a few runs.
-DF
newMar...@luvtorun.com
or two isn't out of the question.
Thanks.
FabulustRunner
>or two isn't out of the question.
Idiot. (He's going to carry money, stop to pick it out, stand in line to pay
for it?)
Holmbrew
until you need it.
Phil M.
newMar...@luvtorun.com of 31 Dec 2004:
> I've been jogging for a few years. But nothing of long distance. 3
> miles or so. I have decided to train for a marathon. How does one keep
> hydrated while training for the long runs? It is winter now and I live
> in the Northeast. All the parks around me have the water fountains
> turned off. Am I supposed to carry the water I need for the run with
> me? Seems kind of heavy.
There are several different ways of staying hydrated for a long run. My
preference (I've tried a few) is using a CamelBak FlashFlo
(http://tinyurl.com/2kjq) for distaces up to 13 miles. I can fill it with
48 oz of fluid. Every 2.5 miles I'll drink about 12 oz. For distances
past 13 miles I'll stash a 24 oz bottle at 12.5 miles (that will get me
to 17.5 miles), another bottle at 17.5 miles (that will get me to 20+
miles). You can get CamelBaks that hold more fluid, but I have not had
much success with them. I tried the CamelBak Lobo, but I never got
comfortable with using it. The fanny pack style of the FlashFlo seems
better suited for me. It is specifically designed for running. However,
there are others on this group that love the backpack style of the Lobo
(http://tinyurl.com/6ee96).
Lately I've been using the FlashFlo along with the Ultimate Direction
FastDraw (http://tinyurl.com/5xxjp). This is convenient if you do not
feel like driving out and dropping fluids along the course. Also, since
you are in a colder climate than I, leaving bottles out on your course
could be a problem since they will likely freeze like a brick by the time
you pick them up to drink. Actually, the CamelBak may freeze also. Maybe
Dot (from Alaska) will chime in with her comments on hydrating in cold
temperatures. The FastDraw holds about 20 oz. It has a comfortable
elastic strap so you don't get tired holding the bottle for so long. I'll
drink out of the bottle for the first 5 miles, then switch to the
CamelBak for the remainder. That way I don't have to carry the full
weight of the bottle in my hand for such a long time.
You mentioned carrying water. Plain water for a long training run is not
the best fluid. You need something with calories, carbs, and electrolytes
(sodium/potassium). Find out on the marathon's web site what they will be
serving on the course. Most likely it is Gatorade (gatobarf as some like
to call it). You should start used to drinking whatever it is that they
will be serving at the aid stations of your marathon. My preference is
Cytomax, but I'll switch to Gatorade in a few weeks, since that is what
they serve at Boston.
Phil M.
--
"What counts in battle is what you do once the pain sets in." -John
Short, South African coach.
Len A.
( I use old soda bottles) and drive along your route. Throw the bottles
out the passenger window every 3 to 4 miles.
Try not to throw to hard because if they fall out too far you will have
a hell of a time finding them.
Big draw back to this method... you got to go back and pick up the
bottles after the run.
Len
Phil M.
Dec 2004:
Yep. Like I said, I've done that. Not my preference.
Phil M.
Wayne Conway
store and it's merchandise. You run into the store, grab an 85 cent
bottle of water, throw a dollar bill on the counter and say "keep the
change". Takes about 30 seconds, minimizes the extra carry time and
weight, and cost less than the gas it would take to drive to a location
with fountains or stake out water.
FabulustRunner wrote:
> Idiot. (He's going to carry money, stop to pick it out, stand in line to pay
> for it?)
--
The generation of random numbers is too vital a task to be left to chance.
Dot
> Leafing through rec.running, I read a message from
> newMar...@luvtorun.com of 31 Dec 2004:
>
>
>>I've been jogging for a few years. But nothing of long distance. 3
>>miles or so. I have decided to train for a marathon. How does one keep
>>hydrated while training for the long runs? It is winter now and I live
>>in the Northeast. All the parks around me have the water fountains
>>turned off.
Can't remember the last time I saw an outdoor drinking water fountain
where I am (Alaska) ;)
Am I supposed to carry the water I need for the run with
>>me? Seems kind of heavy.
It's not that bad once you get used to it, and it gives you the freedom
to go anywhere (well, anywhere legal).
I'll echo Doug's and Phil's comment, about using sports drink for
anything over 1 hr - not just for the electrolytes and fuel, but they
should have a lower freezing point than water (I've not actually
measured them).
Doug gave you his very pithy summary, and Phil started the subthread for
the detail folks ;)
>
> However,
> there are others on this group that love the backpack style of the Lobo
> (http://tinyurl.com/6ee96).
I use a Lobo in summer, but prefer a Cloudwalker (old style) in winter
since it can carry more gear (peel/replace layers) and it's easier to
adjust the insulation. Use what works best for you - and your needs. I
just like to carry extra layers with me when I'm out alone in subzero F
on trails, for obvious reasons. What works for me is probably not needed
by most people here, and what works for most people here probably won't
work for me.
> leaving bottles out on your course
> could be a problem since they will likely freeze like a brick by the
time
> you pick them up to drink. Actually, the CamelBak may freeze also. Maybe
> Dot (from Alaska) will chime in with her comments on hydrating in cold
> temperatures.
Water or sports drink will freeze if in freezing temperatures for
extended periods - doesn't matter if store-bought bottle, sports-drink
bottle, or camelbak. Obviously the colder it is, the faster it freezes.
The sports drinks generally become like slushees, although I suppose
they may freeze solid if chilled long enough. I have had fluid become
inaccessible through the nozzles both with bottles and with camelbaks.
I've found hydration bladders the easiest way to maintain fluids on long
runs, esp. in winter. (Note: I run trails and prefer to run
self-contained. Reduces a lot of hassles for me, esp. since our races
generally have few or no aid stations. Others may be just as happy
stopping by a store or their vehicle.) I prefer to run hands free. A
standard trick is to insulate the bladder, tubing (kits available or use
pipe or quilt insulation and wrap with duct tape - latter is more
reliable), and mouthpiece, and blow the fluid in the tube back in the
bladder after every drink. Fluid in the mouthpiece is the most
vulnerable to freezing so it's best to keep this free of fluid or warm
or both. At about 0F, I drink about every 15 min, sometimes sooner.
Keeping fluid in motion helps.
With bottles, some people carry them under their jacket, some turn them
upside down to keep the slush out of the nozzle. Some bottles have wider
nozzles than others and would be less likely to freeze. I've had more
problems with frozen fluids in bottles than I have in cb. And I've never
found a 2-bottle belt that would work for me so that's another reason
*I* use cb.
FWIW, last winter I went to watch the start of the Susitna 100 (100 mi
trail race in mid-Feb winter in Alaska = cold, snow) to see how those
folks carried their fluids and learned a lot. I had been frustrated by
frozen fluids issues for awhile, but I knew others had figured it out,
so I went to the experts.
Dot
--
"If we reach all our goals, we are not setting them high enough."
- Matt Carpenter
Doug Freese
"Wayne Conway" <ido26two...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:caoBd.9794$iC4....@newssvr30.news.prodigy.com...
> Actually works quite well providing you are already familiar with the
> store and it's merchandise. You run into the store, grab an 85 cent
> bottle of water, throw a dollar bill on the counter and say "keep the
> change". Takes about 30 seconds, minimizes the extra carry time and
> weight, and cost less than the gas it would take to drive to a
> location with fountains or stake out water.
Exactly, plus a variety of drinks to pick from. Flabby is dense if not
a few crayons short of a box.
-Doug
Tim Downie
>
> I'll echo Doug's and Phil's comment, about using sports drink for
> anything over 1 hr
Just to offer another view point, you don't *have* to drink at all for runs
up to a couple of hours if the weather's cool and you're reasonably fit. I
usually don't bother carrying water unless I'm anticipating being out for
longer than 2 hours. I'm not saying that this is good practice or the best
way of training, just pointing out another option.
Happy new year all.
Tim
Yin Yang
"Tim Downie" <timdow...@obvious.yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:33o6drF...@individual.net...
heh, i wanted to say that but i figured it would start a flame war.
standing back.
Phil M.
Very true. I did notice that you said, "I'm not saying that this is good
practice or the best way of training," but I think the OP should be made
aware of the importance of hydrating for the long run as well as the
importance of practicing drinking on the run. Even to the extent of
drinking gatorbarf, if this is what they are serving at his race. Nobody
wants any surprises on marathon day.
Phil M.
Doug Freese
You are correct and I don't always follow my own advice but I do know
that drinking during the run is much better for recovery and since
recovery is the name of the game!!!!
-DF
Doug Freese
"Yin Yang" <pj...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:cr6p3u$mj4$1...@trsvr.tr.unisys.com...
of hours if the weather's cool and you're reasonably fit.
>> I
>> usually don't bother carrying water unless I'm anticipating being out
>> for
>> longer than 2 hours. I'm not saying that this is good practice or
>> the best
>> way of training, just pointing out another option.
>
> heh, i wanted to say that but i figured it would start a flame war.
>
> standing back.
In most cases we politely differ. It's usually when some starts off by
saying something like, "you dumb shit....this is the way it should be
done" that starts the war. The exception to this is Donovan and I
concerning speed and women. :)
-DougF
Tom Phillips
That probably works if one is well hydrated beforehand.
I'd still probably want to drink every 30 minutes. But
as Dot and I were discussing last week a substancial
loss of body fluids and likely electrolytes (my info)
even in cooler temps is from respiration (venting the
lungs.)
So, just because it's cool doesn't mean you can't
get equally as dehydrated as when it's hot.
Tom Phillips
Dot wrote:
>
> Phil M. wrote:
> > Leafing through rec.running, I read a message from
> > newMar...@luvtorun.com of 31 Dec 2004:
> >
> >
> >>I've been jogging for a few years. But nothing of long distance. 3
> >>miles or so. I have decided to train for a marathon. How does one keep
> >>hydrated while training for the long runs? It is winter now and I live
> >>in the Northeast. All the parks around me have the water fountains
> >>turned off.
>
> Can't remember the last time I saw an outdoor drinking water fountain
> where I am (Alaska) ;)
Oh now, what do you call a stream?
Course you may have to carry an axe to
break through the ice :)
I would think that if a hydration bladder is worn
on one's back (either in it's own or another pack)
and insulated by your outermost layer (trapped air),
your body would generate enough heat to keep it from
freezing. Course I don't consistently run in the
alaskan outback when it's -20. Same I'd think might
apply to a nozzel/tube. Stuff it down the front of
your outer shell..
Dot
> Dot wrote:
>
>>I'll echo Doug's and Phil's comment, about using sports drink for
>>anything over 1 hr
>
>
> Just to offer another view point, you don't *have* to drink at all for runs
> up to a couple of hours if the weather's cool and you're reasonably fit.
I noticed you said "cool" here, not "cold", so I'm assuming you're
talking about temperatures above +10F/-12C, probably above 20F/-8C :)
It's not clear where the OP is and whether cold (below +10F) is really
an issue. That's why I thought Doug had answered the question adequately
for the level of information the OP provided, esp. since OP was content
to stop in a store. Then Phil drew me in ;)
I would agree if running in "cool" temperatures, although I've found I
need the fluids for much over about 1:15-1:30 or I'm toast (based on the
way I've trained) - and needs increase when temps get lower (yes, that's
lower) than that, to a certain extent because of the drier air. While I
have run without fluids for over an hour on a number of occasions (and
been out longer than planned), I find I have to spend so much time
rehydrating afterward, that it's easier to stay hydrated so I can go
about rest-of-life when done. While not as fit as you ultra folks :),
I'm not exactly a couch potato, so should fit somewhere in the middle of
things. Usually somewhere around 20oz/hr works about right for me in
most temperatures where I run (-15F to +70F). *If* I reach the point of
being able to run in warmer temperatures sufficiently that I can do more
than slog, I expect fluid needs would increase above +60F.
Another point that I learned after my first trail race where I hadn't
adequately prepared for time to get back to car (point-to-point, no
shuttle) and then home, is that getting dehydrated and underfueled can
lead to long recoveries (although some of that was just the night race
situation as well as first out-of-town race). As Mike T. pointed out at
the time, on each of his IM workouts, he is working on the recovery for
the next workout. Granted, my workouts aren't that long and have lots of
recovery time in between ;), but I think it's a good approach if
training like you intend to race. yea, there's always the occasional run
that doesn't go as planned.
> I usually don't bother carrying water unless I'm anticipating
> being out for longer than 2 hours. I'm not saying that this is good
> practice or the best way of training, just pointing out another
> option.
Right. I tend to emphasize hydration (for me as well as posts) on all
runs since it's important for avoiding many things (at least it seems
that way) like hypothermia, frostbite, altitude effects (assortment of
issues there that us low elevation people don't have to deal with),
dehydration, etc. These are all factors that are seldom mentioned here.
Some runs may take longer than anticipated because of snow or other
unanticipated conditions, so I tend to take fluid/fuel for longer than
anticipated.
In my case, I also tend to try to stay reasonably hydrated / fueled by
the end in case I have problems driving home - or stop to help someone
who has slid off in the ditch (one of our snowshoers after the last
race. I bought new snow tires for my car this year because of that road
last year.) - or a road closure for whatever reason.
Admittedly, for people just running from their house in cool
temperatures (above +10F), these things aren't much of an issue. But
it's part of our running environment up here if going to races or group
runs.
For perspective, I drank about 30oz of fluid while xc skiing for 1:22
the other day - deliberately flat and easy (as recovery from ss running,
also my 1st time this winter) - about 12F/-12C, about 10mph wind in some
places. I drank another 20 oz of milk when I got home (did some quick
food shopping on the way). Ok, some of the milk was to rehydrate after
bean soup, but the 1st 10 oz was definitely needed. That was unusual,
since about 20oz/hr works about right for me running, almost regardless
of temp - not sure what was different (ok, I do have some ideas, but I'm
not convinced they were the issue). (see other thread with Tom Phillips
regarding winter hydration, can't remember subject of thread off top of
my head)
>
> Happy new year all.
>
Thanks, and same to you!
Dot
--
"After 26 hours 38 minutes, we accomplished our mission, and the next
day were fortunate to read about our adventure in the sports section of
the local papers rather than the obituaries."
-Dean Karnazes recounting their running of the WS100 trail in winter.
Dot
>
> Dot wrote:
>
>
>>Can't remember the last time I saw an outdoor drinking water fountain
>>where I am (Alaska) ;)
>
>
> Oh now, what do you call a stream?
Don't usually have any stream crossings, although I am near lakes on
some runs, but they are down in kettles - would take me a 20-oz bottle
just to get up to trail again ;)
>
> Course you may have to carry an axe to
> break through the ice :)
Actually I skiied near a floodplain a couple days ago (that was my
turnaround point). I'm not at all sure where the channel would have been
in that willow thicket. I have an approximate idea from past years, but
it woulda been work. Some of the usual seepages were completely frozen
or buried.
>
>
> I would think that if a hydration bladder is worn
> on one's back (either in it's own or another pack)
> and insulated by your outermost layer (trapped air),
> your body would generate enough heat to keep it from
> freezing.
Exactly. However, the bladder itself isn't the problem. It's the narrow
tube and especially the narrower mouthpiece opening.
Course I don't consistently run in the
> alaskan outback when it's -20. Same I'd think might
> apply to a nozzel/tube. Stuff it down the front of
> your outer shell..
Yea, that works unless the wind is blowing, and I'm zipped up tight. My
older shell had under-arm pit zips, and that worked well to slide it in
through there, but that was a tangled mess when taking layers off when
inside or even during the run. My new, lighter shell doesn't have pit
zips. We haven't had that many cold (below +10F) days yet for long runs
to try different approaches yet. So far, I bring tube over my shoulder,
but then have been able to tuck it in open shell zipper from the top
since I don't have enough insulation on mouthpiece (need to improve
that). I'm also considering making an insulated pocket for it on the
shoulder strap. I'm going to consider bringing it up under my arm also.
It's a work in progress, but I'm getting close, I think. At least I'm
not having the trouble with bottles freezing within 1+ hr that I had the
first year.
I talked with a couple people at the start of Susitna 100 (midFeb) last
year. They had their cb tubes insulated with what appeared to be either
the UD insulation or pipe insulation covered with duct tape. They need
to have about 15lb of gear or more, so most runners haul gear on a sled,
but wear cb. In that context, some have the fluid-only cb and wear that
under shell. I'm going to try to chat with more folks this year since
I'm getting so I know some of the people from other activities.
But everyone said to be sure to drink to keep that mouthpiece open - no
matter how much insulation. The obvious question that pops into mind
(well, my mind, anyway) is does this force too much drinking and that's
why 40% were hyponatremic in one study or were the "hyponatremic" folks
following some ACSM recommendation to drink 1 liter / hr or did the
study divide the competitors into hyponatremic or not based on an
arbitrary division line within the subjects, rather than a truly
fuctional one. IOW, were their "hyponatremic" subjects truly
hyponatremic or just have lower electrolyte concentrations than the
other subjects. This is what's been driving some of my questions, both
as to fluids and electrolytes.
Thanks for your comments.
SwStudio
I agree to a point, sure - it's not a problem to run without water
and just drink when you get home, but I've noticed that when I
keep right on top of the hydration game, I tend to recover faster
for tomorrow's session.
cheers,
--
David (in Hamilton, ON)
www.allfalldown.org
www.absolutelyaccurate.com
Phil M.
01 Jan 2005:
> Tim Downie wrote:
>> Dot wrote:
>>
>>>I'll echo Doug's and Phil's comment, about using sports drink for
>>>anything over 1 hr
>>
>>
>> Just to offer another view point, you don't *have* to drink at all
>> for runs up to a couple of hours if the weather's cool and you're
>> reasonably fit.
>
> I noticed you said "cool" here, not "cold", so I'm assuming you're
> talking about temperatures above +10F/-12C, probably above 20F/-8C :)
> It's not clear where the OP is and whether cold (below +10F) is really
> an issue. That's why I thought Doug had answered the question
> adequately for the level of information the OP provided, esp. since OP
> was content to stop in a store. Then Phil drew me in ;)
Oops. Was that bad?
> I would agree if running in "cool" temperatures, although I've found I
> need the fluids for much over about 1:15-1:30 or I'm toast
I wouldn't call it toast, but I will bring fluids along for runs of 8
miles or longer. Anything shorter than that, and I just make sure I have
about 20 oz before I head out the door. Anything 8-10 miles I just carry
a UD handheld. 10 and up and I strap on the CamelBak, not only for the
fluids but to carry my pager and cell phone. I don't feel good staying
out of touch from our IT department too long.
(based on
> the way I've trained) - and needs increase when temps get lower (yes,
> that's lower) than that, to a certain extent because of the drier air.
How dry? In the winter it gets to be in the 30-40% humidity range,
compared with 60-80% in the summer. I hadn't noticed my fluid needs
decreasing. I don't feel any stomach sloshing and I don't have the urge
to urinate during the long runs. So I assume I'm still hydrating
properly. I do have to remind myself to drink when it's cooler.
> Usually somewhere around 20oz/hr works about right for me in most
> temperatures where I run (-15F to +70F).
About 36 oz per hour for me, regardless of temps, 30F to 85F. So I may be
over-hydrating in the winter or under-hydrating in the summer. I do feel
better after a long run in cooler temps, but that me be due to other
problems with running in the heat.
> *If* I reach the point of
> being able to run in warmer temperatures sufficiently that I can do
> more than slog, I expect fluid needs would increase above +60F.
How much of the year is it over 60F? What is slog? Slow jog? Shuffle a
log? Sleigh with a dog?
> Another point that I learned after my first trail race where I hadn't
> adequately prepared for time to get back to car (point-to-point, no
> shuttle) and then home, is that getting dehydrated and underfueled can
> lead to long recoveries (although some of that was just the night race
> situation as well as first out-of-town race). As Mike T. pointed out
> at the time, on each of his IM workouts, he is working on the recovery
> for the next workout. Granted, my workouts aren't that long and have
> lots of recovery time in between ;), but I think it's a good approach
> if training like you intend to race. yea, there's always the
> occasional run that doesn't go as planned.
That was my point. If you're training for a specific event, you should
mimic that event with appropriate fluids when possible. For me it took
several long runs before I got the whole hydration/nutrition thing down.
What to dringk/eat, how to carry it, when to drink/eat it. I recall a few
posts a while back where people were still wondering what they were going
to do for the marathon. IMO, that's one of the things you have to figure
out for yourself (because everyone's different) by doing the long runs
and trying various things. If you've only got a few long runs to figure
it out, then you just hope you get things right very quickly.
> In my case, I also tend to try to stay reasonably hydrated / fueled by
> the end in case I have problems driving home - or stop to help someone
> who has slid off in the ditch (one of our snowshoers after the last
> race. I bought new snow tires for my car this year because of that
> road last year.) - or a road closure for whatever reason.
So you have post-run adventures as well? No wonder you need so much
fluid. You need to be super woman after your workout. ;-)
Tom Phillips
Dot wrote:
>
> Tom Phillips wrote:
>
> >
> > Dot wrote:
> >
> >
> >>Can't remember the last time I saw an outdoor drinking water fountain
> >>where I am (Alaska) ;)
> >
> >
> > Oh now, what do you call a stream?
>
> Don't usually have any stream crossings, although I am near lakes on
> some runs, but they are down in kettles - would take me a 20-oz bottle
> just to get up to trail again ;)
But you like those hills, no?
> > Course you may have to carry an axe to
> > break through the ice :)
>
> Actually I skiied near a floodplain a couple days ago (that was my
> turnaround point). I'm not at all sure where the channel would have been
> in that willow thicket. I have an approximate idea from past years, but
> it woulda been work. Some of the usual seepages were completely frozen
> or buried.
Well I would assume (because that's what I do)
that on a preplanned route water sources would be
preidentified for quick breaks. That's usually
how I travel in the backcountry. I _hate_ carrying
water :) But sounds like you're in a swamp.
>
> >
> > I would think that if a hydration bladder is worn
> > on one's back (either in it's own or another pack)
> > and insulated by your outermost layer (trapped air),
> > your body would generate enough heat to keep it from
> > freezing.
>
> Exactly. However, the bladder itself isn't the problem. It's the narrow
> tube and especially the narrower mouthpiece opening.
>
> Course I don't consistently run in the
> > alaskan outback when it's -20. Same I'd think might
> > apply to a nozzel/tube. Stuff it down the front of
> > your outer shell..
>
> Yea, that works unless the wind is blowing, and I'm zipped up tight. My
> older shell had under-arm pit zips, and that worked well to slide it in
> through there, but that was a tangled mess when taking layers off when
> inside or even during the run. My new, lighter shell doesn't have pit
> zips.
Easy to modify. Cut a suitable slit in the shell
back and stitch around the edges. Same thing as
you find on backpacks with hydration pockets. Then
just run the tube in through the slit and over the
shoulder to the neck.
> We haven't had that many cold (below +10F) days yet for long runs
> to try different approaches yet. So far, I bring tube over my shoulder,
> but then have been able to tuck it in open shell zipper from the top
> since I don't have enough insulation on mouthpiece (need to improve
> that). I'm also considering making an insulated pocket for it on the
> shoulder strap. I'm going to consider bringing it up under my arm also.
> It's a work in progress, but I'm getting close, I think. At least I'm
> not having the trouble with bottles freezing within 1+ hr that I had the
> first year.
>
> I talked with a couple people at the start of Susitna 100 (midFeb) last
> year. They had their cb tubes insulated with what appeared to be either
> the UD insulation or pipe insulation covered with duct tape. They need
> to have about 15lb of gear or more, so most runners haul gear on a sled,
> but wear cb. In that context, some have the fluid-only cb and wear that
> under shell. I'm going to try to chat with more folks this year since
> I'm getting so I know some of the people from other activities.
>
> But everyone said to be sure to drink to keep that mouthpiece open - no
> matter how much insulation. The obvious question that pops into mind
> (well, my mind, anyway) is does this force too much drinking
I'd speculate all you need is a mouthful every
10 minutes or so to keep it flowing.
>and that's
> why 40% were hyponatremic in one study or were the "hyponatremic" folks
> following some ACSM recommendation to drink 1 liter / hr or did the
> study divide the competitors into hyponatremic or not based on an
> arbitrary division line within the subjects, rather than a truly
> fuctional one. IOW, were their "hyponatremic" subjects truly
> hyponatremic or just have lower electrolyte concentrations than the
> other subjects. This is what's been driving some of my questions, both
> as to fluids and electrolytes.
I'd say the latter, since 1 L/hr hardly seems a
hyponatremia situation to me. Heck, I drink that
when just mowing the lawn :) Were they drinking
electrolytes or just water. That's the question..
Dot
> Leafing through rec.running, I read a message from dot.h@#duh?att.net of
> 01 Jan 2005:
>
>
>
> Oops. Was that bad?
No. Just that I recognize that most people here aren't running under the
same conditions as myself, so I refrain from more general or Alaskanized
replies unless I see there's a need for it. "Cold" to some people may be
20-30F, where many of these issues aren't that significant, esp. for the
duration of runs most people here do. The OP hadn't really given much
information to get a feeling for whether frozen fluids was really an
issue or not (or maybe that was a treat he had yet to experience ;) ) so
I wasn't going to say anything unless he said something.
>
>
>>I would agree if running in "cool" temperatures, although I've found I
>>need the fluids for much over about 1:15-1:30 or I'm toast
>
> (based on
>
>>the way I've trained) - and needs increase when temps get lower (yes,
>>that's lower) than that, to a certain extent because of the drier air.
>
>
> How dry? In the winter it gets to be in the 30-40% humidity range,
> compared with 60-80% in the summer.
We've been around 0-20F, 60-80% *relative* humidity the last few days. I
haven't gone back and looked at last winter, but I thought we might be
closer to 30-40%, maybe even 10-20% with the really cold temps (-20F). I
have not yet felt a need to cover my mouth yet to keep moisture in the
air and usually hits around +10F and below. My throat has been a little
dry but I found fluid relieved some of that so maybe we do get lower rel
humidity usually, I'm getting more adapted to it, or I'm using fluids
rather than balaclava to relieve dryness? I notice Fairbanks is also
around the same humidity right now and I thought they're usually lower.
BUT 0F air at 70% rel humidity holds much less moisture than 80F, 70%
rel humidity. When that 0F air enters nasal passageways and continues to
lungs, it warms to body temperature 98+F, and absorbs moisture up to
100% humidity, probably mostly from the lungs but some from the
passageway liners. It's important but whether it makes the fluid
requirements at -20F equal to those at +80F, I doubt it.
>I hadn't noticed my fluid needs
> decreasing.
Tom and I are saying that fluid needs to not decrease as much as some
people think - at least for "many" people. Some people think fluid needs
reduce with lower temperatures, and I think they may slightly from, say,
90F to, say, 40F (numbers pulled out of sky), since sweat and need for
cooling should theoretically be reduced. But if you're not seeing a
reduced need maybe that also is not necessarily true. But the body
sweats to some extent regardless of temperature. Additionally, when
temperatures get below about 0 to +10F, it feels like the air just
dehydrates the lungs because of the dryness.
> I don't feel any stomach sloshing and I don't have the urge
> to urinate during the long runs. So I assume I'm still hydrating
> properly. I do have to remind myself to drink when it's cooler.
>
>
>>Usually somewhere around 20oz/hr works about right for me in most
>>temperatures where I run (-15F to +70F).
>
>
> About 36 oz per hour for me, regardless of temps, 30F to 85F.
Interesting.
So I may be
> over-hydrating in the winter or under-hydrating in the summer. I do feel
> better after a long run in cooler temps, but that me be due to other
> problems with running in the heat.
>
>
>>*If* I reach the point of
>>being able to run in warmer temperatures sufficiently that I can do
>>more than slog, I expect fluid needs would increase above +60F.
>
>
> How much of the year is it over 60F?
In a hot year like this past one, most of our summer (say 2-3 months)
was above 60F. We set record for most days above 70F, and I can't
remember if it was 24 days or 40. Usually temperatures in the 80s are
counted on one hand. But places in the state still had forest fires
burning when they should be getting snow. Gave new meaning
to the term baked Alaska :(
In a more normal (=wet) year, a typical late summer day is probably in
the 50s with rain, or at least overcast. Late May and June may be warm
and sunny - and typically that's when we get our few days of 60-70F. So
in a normal year, say 5% above 60F, I'm guessing.
Since I've been in the field a lot in the past, I don't have much
experience at running either in heat or rain.
>What is slog? Slow jog? Shuffle a
> log? Sleigh with a dog?
Very slow jog ;) For some reason this summer, I could barely move when
it was above 70F - not sure if I was overall tired from other stuff, the
heat, the *continuous* heat without relief (we don't cool off at
"night"), lack of heat adaptation or what. In 2003, I was able to run my
hills even above 80F on those couple days when that happened. But I
could sweat fine last in 2003. In 2004, I was having a lot of problems
sweating in the warm temperatures - not sure if that's related or not.
>
>
>IMO, that's one of the things you have to figure
> out for yourself (because everyone's different) by doing the long runs
> and trying various things. If you've only got a few long runs to figure
> it out, then you just hope you get things right very quickly.
I agree. I think that's one of the drawbacks of some of the canned
programs - unless they have a section dealing with hydration and fuels.
You build miles by the program, but not necessarily the experience in
the other aspects needed.
This is an aside, but since I'm babbling anyway ;), the first year I ran
(still on roads), I built up to about 2 hr, 9mi and kinda had this,
but "what if?" feeling. Then the "what ifs" hit for the next 2 yr. I'm
just now getting close to being back where I was (on trails now), but I
feel I can handle a *lot* more situations with a broader experience
background. My peak weekly mileage still isn't close to where it was 3
yr ago, but I tend to pack more experience into each mile now ;)
>
>
>>In my case, I also tend to try to stay reasonably hydrated / fueled by
>>the end in case I have problems driving home - or stop to help someone
>>who has slid off in the ditch (one of our snowshoers after the last
>>race. I bought new snow tires for my car this year because of that
>>road last year.) - or a road closure for whatever reason.
>
>
> So you have post-run adventures as well? No wonder you need so much
> fluid. You need to be super woman after your workout. ;-)
Actually, a guy with a macho truck had stopped first but didn't have his
normal tow strap with him. I contributed a snow shovel, which didn't
help that much, but kinda flagged the couple cars so they wouldn't run
into the cable he was trying to use. Finally someone else came with
strap that they put on the macho truck, I stopped traffic from the
downhill direction, and they got him out. Everyone wished everyone else
a merry christmas and went home, saving the guy a AAA call.
I think that plus the really nasty ice we had the last day of work has
had me running mostly from the house this week with an occasional trip
to trails for ss or ski. There's enough snow in the gutters now that I
can run on uncrowned surface there so no need to get the car out.
Dot
>
> Dot wrote:
>
>>
>>Don't usually have any stream crossings, although I am near lakes on
>>some runs, but they are down in kettles - would take me a 20-oz bottle
>>just to get up to trail again ;)
>
>
> But you like those hills, no?
ah, yes.
>
>
>>>Course you may have to carry an axe to
>>>break through the ice :)
>>
>>Actually I skiied near a floodplain a couple days ago (that was my
>>turnaround point). I'm not at all sure where the channel would have been
>>in that willow thicket. I have an approximate idea from past years, but
>>it woulda been work. Some of the usual seepages were completely frozen
>>or buried.
>
>
> Well I would assume (because that's what I do)
> that on a preplanned route water sources would be
> preidentified for quick breaks. That's usually
> how I travel in the backcountry. I _hate_ carrying
> water :) But sounds like you're in a swamp.
Just that particular trail - wide floodplain. I have no idea what it's
like in a normal summer. I went to run through there this summer to see
what it was like and discovered the annual (or maybe biannual)
floodplain was completely inundated - far more than I was intending for
some stream crossing practice. So I followed another trail above water.
I'll have to go back there this summer.
Most of my routes are upland sites. Easier to carry water than find it
at least for a day outing. The winter ultras tend to take lowland routes
though over streams and lakes. Sometimes there's overflow there or
openings. Of course, as they say open water and -40F will send chills
down your spine. The summer one I'm aiming for in a few years has stream
crossings.
BTW, are you drinking straight from stream, using clorox, or filter or ...?
>
>
>>
>>Yea, that works unless the wind is blowing, and I'm zipped up tight. My
>>older shell had under-arm pit zips, and that worked well to slide it in
>>through there, but that was a tangled mess when taking layers off when
>>inside or even during the run. My new, lighter shell doesn't have pit
>>zips.
>
>
> Easy to modify. Cut a suitable slit in the shell
> back and stitch around the edges. Same thing as
> you find on backpacks with hydration pockets. Then
> just run the tube in through the slit and over the
> shoulder to the neck.
Now that's one I hadn't thought about :) Thanks. I was thinking about
poking a hole through pocket, but never considered through the jacket
itself. But then it does get to be a hassle changing layers or whatever.
I'll have to think about that though, although that could still be a
hassle getting the nozzle to mouth if zipped up in front. I'll have to
pay closer attention this winter.
>
>
>
>>But everyone said to be sure to drink to keep that mouthpiece open - no
>>matter how much insulation. The obvious question that pops into mind
>>(well, my mind, anyway) is does this force too much drinking
>
>
> I'd speculate all you need is a mouthful every
> 10 minutes or so to keep it flowing.
That sounds about right. 20 min is definitely too long - as I've
discovered when distracted.
>
>
>>and that's
>>why 40% were hyponatremic in one study or were the "hyponatremic" folks
>>following some ACSM recommendation to drink 1 liter / hr or did the
>>study divide the competitors into hyponatremic or not based on an
>>arbitrary division line within the subjects, rather than a truly
>>fuctional one. IOW, were their "hyponatremic" subjects truly
>>hyponatremic or just have lower electrolyte concentrations than the
>>other subjects. This is what's been driving some of my questions, both
>>as to fluids and electrolytes.
>
>
> I'd say the latter, since 1 L/hr hardly seems a
> hyponatremia situation to me.
That bloats me.
>Heck, I drink that
> when just mowing the lawn :) Were they drinking
> electrolytes or just water. That's the question..
The hyponatremic ones drank more fluid and took in less sodium or
electrolytes (can't remember which they actually analyzed). Another
abstract I'd forgotten about (different race) said they drank 300+/- 100
ml fluid/hr and sodium intake was 310 +/-187 mg/hr. Authors indicated
none were hyponatremic, but they had decreased serum sodium
concentration. Among the 20 subjects, mean wt loss was -1.2kg, one
maintained wt and 3 gained small amts (.2-.5kg). They attributed it to
too much fluid, but not sure why they point to that rather than too
little sodium. The average weight losses/gains seem rather reasonable to
me. Subjects were a mix of runners, skiiers, mt bikers.
Tom Phillips
Having grown up drinking from streams, I only
purify if there is known human contamination.
People are filthy :)
Wildlife I never worry about. Giardia is highly
overrated from animal sources. Most people
actually get some form of dysentery from their
human companions, not streams. It all depends
on the number of cysts present in the water you
drink. More giardia, cryptosporidian etc. more
chance for trouble. But some studies have shown
the occurance is actually rather low eben in areas
like the Sierra.
> >>Yea, that works unless the wind is blowing, and I'm zipped up tight. My
> >>older shell had under-arm pit zips, and that worked well to slide it in
> >>through there, but that was a tangled mess when taking layers off when
> >>inside or even during the run. My new, lighter shell doesn't have pit
> >>zips.
> >
> >
> > Easy to modify. Cut a suitable slit in the shell
> > back and stitch around the edges. Same thing as
> > you find on backpacks with hydration pockets. Then
> > just run the tube in through the slit and over the
> > shoulder to the neck.
>
> Now that's one I hadn't thought about :) Thanks. I was thinking about
> poking a hole through pocket, but never considered through the jacket
> itself. But then it does get to be a hassle changing layers or whatever.
Well, of course in the summer rains you might
have a leak...
> I'll have to think about that though, although that could still be a
> hassle getting the nozzle to mouth if zipped up in front. I'll have to
> pay closer attention this winter.
I was suggesting you run the tube/nozzel up the
neck area where you could easily grab it. Might
feel uncomfortable, or might get used to it being
there. I have no idea.
> >>But everyone said to be sure to drink to keep that mouthpiece open - no
> >>matter how much insulation. The obvious question that pops into mind
> >>(well, my mind, anyway) is does this force too much drinking
> >
> >
> > I'd speculate all you need is a mouthful every
> > 10 minutes or so to keep it flowing.
>
> That sounds about right. 20 min is definitely too long - as I've
> discovered when distracted.
I'd probably just forget to drink that often.
> >>and that's
> >>why 40% were hyponatremic in one study or were the "hyponatremic" folks
> >>following some ACSM recommendation to drink 1 liter / hr or did the
> >>study divide the competitors into hyponatremic or not based on an
> >>arbitrary division line within the subjects, rather than a truly
> >>fuctional one. IOW, were their "hyponatremic" subjects truly
> >>hyponatremic or just have lower electrolyte concentrations than the
> >>other subjects. This is what's been driving some of my questions, both
> >>as to fluids and electrolytes.
> >
> >
> > I'd say the latter, since 1 L/hr hardly seems a
> > hyponatremia situation to me.
>
> That bloats me.
I suppose that depends on the number of hours/L.
When running I wouldn't drink that much, but
I don't think anyone would die from it.
> >Heck, I drink that
> > when just mowing the lawn :) Were they drinking
> > electrolytes or just water. That's the question..
>
> The hyponatremic ones drank more fluid and took in less sodium or
> electrolytes (can't remember which they actually analyzed).
Sounds right.
Phil M.
> Phil M. wrote:
>> Leafing through rec.running, I read a message from dot.h@#duh?att.net
>> of 01 Jan 2005:
>>
>>Then Phil drew me in ;)
>>
>>
>> Oops. Was that bad?
>
> No. Just that I recognize that most people here aren't running under
> the same conditions as myself, so I refrain from more general or
> Alaskanized replies unless I see there's a need for it. "Cold" to some
> people may be 20-30F, where many of these issues aren't that
> significant, esp. for the duration of runs most people here do. The OP
> hadn't really given much information to get a feeling for whether
> frozen fluids was really an issue or not (or maybe that was a treat he
> had yet to experience ;) ) so I wasn't going to say anything unless he
> said something.
You usually say somewhere in your post that you are in Alaska. I think most
readers would then either skim over it or find it fascinating material (as
I do).
>>I hadn't noticed my fluid needs
>> decreasing.
>
>
> Tom and I are saying that fluid needs to not decrease as much as some
> people think - at least for "many" people. Some people think fluid
> needs reduce with lower temperatures, and I think they may slightly
> from, say, 90F to, say, 40F (numbers pulled out of sky), since sweat
> and need for cooling should theoretically be reduced. But if you're
> not seeing a reduced need maybe that also is not necessarily true.
But I'm also suggesting thay I haven't figured out my fluid needs yet. If
in cooler temps (30-40) I can process 36 oz of fluids per hour (no peeing,
no sloshing), and I can do the same at 80F+, then I may be getting somewhat
dehydrated at the higher temps.
> But the body sweats to some extent regardless of temperature.
Yes. My understanding is that the body is always giving off moisture of one
form or another. I'll have to go back and read the Tom & Dot thread.
Phil M.
Paul Wilson
says...
>
>But I'm also suggesting thay I haven't figured out my fluid needs yet. If
>in cooler temps (30-40) I can process 36 oz of fluids per hour (no peeing,
>no sloshing), and I can do the same at 80F+, then I may be getting somewhat
>dehydrated at the higher temps.
I find it interesting that you can process that much fluid. I train/run in the
same climate as you but I never take fluids until after a run (if thirsty). My
runs are typically 10 miles. When I sweat heavily in warmer temps, I'll drink
after a workout. I never touch water in races up to a 10K, regardless of
temperatures.
In one of the the first races I ran, Peachtree 2003, it was very hot by the
time we started (Time Group 9, last one), and I finally succumbed to the
offered water on the hill at around mile 5. I wasn't really 'thirsty', but I
welcomed the excuse to walk a few steps. I found I couldn't take more than a
swallow and ended up pouring it on my head.
When I ran the Silver Comet half marathon last fall, I tried to force myself
to drink often (warm day, lots of sweating), but again I couldn't get down
more than a couple of gulps despite slowing to a walk. And I never felt
thirsty. Even after the race I felt no need for water, just ate a bunch of
oranges.
This December I ran a couple of 15 mile training runs (longest I ever ran).
Since the morning temps were 34-36F during both runs, there was almost no
visible sweat. I took no water during OR after the run. I think I finally
drank something that evening. Just never felt thirsty.
Being a fairly new runner, I am wondering if I am doing something wrong. Does
your water need/tolerance come naturally to you, or did you have to train for
it?
SwStudio
> Being a fairly new runner, I am wondering if I am doing something wrong.
> Does
> your water need/tolerance come naturally to you, or did you have to train
> for
> it?
The body's thirst indicator isn't very good. You may not feel
a need for fluids, but you probably need them most of the time
you think you don't.
Paul Wilson
shhhh_...@hotmail.com says...
>
>
>"Paul Wilson" <PWils...@slotmail.com> wrote in message
>> Being a fairly new runner, I am wondering if I am doing something wrong.
>> Does
>> your water need/tolerance come naturally to you, or did you have to train
>> for
>> it?
>
>The body's thirst indicator isn't very good. You may not feel
>a need for fluids, but you probably need them most of the time
>you think you don't.
Yeah, that's what I am hearing/reading. And it sort of makes sense - although
it does surprise me that the body doesn't tell you that it needs water (even
though it 'really' does need water, as you suggest) by making you feel
thirsty. I would think that the feeling of thirst was designed exactly for
that.
Bowing to the conventional wisdom, I tried to force myself to drink in the
half despite feeling no thirst - without much success. But I seemed to suffer
no ill effects, despite not hydrating properly. I am just curious what other
beneficial effects I might experience if I force myself to drink more.
Another words, if I feel fine doing what I am doing, will I feel more 'fine'
if I drink more? And in what way?
Phil M.
> In article <Xns95D263ED85...@216.77.188.18>,
> pm...@charter.net says...
>>
>
>>But I'm also suggesting thay I haven't figured out my fluid needs yet.
>>If in cooler temps (30-40) I can process 36 oz of fluids per hour (no
>>peeing, no sloshing), and I can do the same at 80F+, then I may be
>>getting somewhat dehydrated at the higher temps.
>
> I find it interesting that you can process that much fluid.
Actually, it's more like 34 oz every hour, since my normal long run pace
is 8:30 and I'm drinking 12 oz every 2.5 miles. Also, the type of fluid
makes a difference. I don't think I could process that much if it was
just plain water. Fluid replacement drinks (Gatorade, Cytomax, etc.) that
have a carbohydrate concentration of 6 to 8% are more readily absorbed by
the body.
The following text is from a book I use for marathon training - Advanced
Marathoning" by Pete Pfitzinger and Scott Douglas.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Studies have shown that dehydration of 2 percent of body weight leads to
about a 6 percent reduction in running performance. Recently, however, Ed
Coyle, PhD, a former competitive runner and now professor of exercise
physiology a the University of Texas at Ausitn, has provided evidence
that even a small amount of dehydration causes a decrease in running
performance. This is because any reduction in blood volume will reduce
the amount of blood returning to your heart.
Balancing Training and Recovery
Poor management of your recovery can lead to overtraining.
Recovery and Supercompensation
Depending on the difficulty of the workout, you'll need from 2 to 10 days
to completely recover from a workout
Factors Affecting Recovery Rate
Nutrition and Hydration
How Much to Drink
Your baseline fluid needs when you're not training are about 4 pints per
day. On top of that, you need to add your fluid losses from training and
other activities. Becoming fully hydrated typically requires drinking an
amount of fluid equivalent to about 1½ times the amount of weight that
you lost. Discipline yourself to drink regularly throughout the day.
Replacement drinks with 4 to 8 percent carbohydrates. The carbohydrates
can help your performance during workouts lasting longer than 1 hour. The
concentration depends on your tolerance and how warm it is.
Can You Take In Enough Fluid During the Race to Prevent Dehydration?
Fluid Loss
" Cool day - 2 to 3 pounds of water per hour
" Warm day - 3 to 4 pounds
" Hot day (above 80 degrees) - 5 pounds per hour
A typical runner can absorb 28 ounces per hour (a little less than 2
pounds). Therefore, on warm or hot days, you'll incur a steady,
progressive fluid deficit. It is important to practice drinking while
running at marathon race pace until you get good at it.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
In other words if you want your training have a more positive impact on
your performance, you need to stay hydrated.
> I train/run in the same climate as you but I never take fluids until
> after a run (if thirsty). My runs are typically 10 miles. When I sweat
> heavily in warmer temps, I'll drink after a workout.
As David already mentioned, you can't know if you're dehydrated simply by
thirst. I'll admit that going for a 10-miler with no fluids isn't going
to kill me. OTOH, why would I want to do that? I feel better during and
after the run if I stay hydrated before, during and after the run. As I
already mentioned, for the 20 mile marathon training runs it is essential
to practice drinking, IMO. If I'm training for my best possible marathon
performance I want to train all aspects of surviving 26.2 miles at a
fairly fast/steady pace, that includes being able to process a large
volume of fluids.
> I never touch water in races up to a 10K, regardless of temperatures.
Same here, I never drink in races shorter than 10 miles. The benefits of
hyrdrating in that short of a race are out-weighed by having to slow down
to drink.
> Being a fairly new runner, I am wondering if I am doing something
> wrong. Does your water need/tolerance come naturally to you, or did
> you have to train for it?
I'm not exactly a seasoned veteran. I've trained for and completed 5
marathons. If you don't feel dehydrated after a long hot run, you could
test this. Assuming you have an accurate scale. Weigh yourself naked just
before you head out for your run (don't forget to put clothes on). After
completing your run, towel dry yourself and again weigh yourself naked.
Dot
>
> This December I ran a couple of 15 mile training runs (longest I ever ran).
> Since the morning temps were 34-36F during both runs, there was almost no
> visible sweat.
Don't necessarily depend on sweat indications. If it's windy or low
humidity, the sweat may not be readily obvious.
>I took no water during OR after the run. I think I finally
> drank something that evening. Just never felt thirsty.
You might try weighing yourself before/after as someone already
suggested or checking pee color (not sure if foolproof or not). If it's
clear or light colored, chances are you may be ok. Darker and you're
probably dehydrated. Armstrong's book on Performing in Extreme
Environments has a pee color chart (like soil color charts) on the back
cover, so I'm assuming pee color is reasonably reliable :)
The weighing technique allows you to estimate your fluid loss so it
gives you an idea how much you actually need. (I've never done it this
way since I'm not usually near a scale before/after.)
Dot
>
> You usually say somewhere in your post that you are in Alaska. I think most
> readers would then either skim over it or find it fascinating material (as
> I do).
>
Yea, but many times a poster that provides little information doesn't
come back,
as suggested by lack of response to questions raised by responders in
some threads.
In this case, there'd already been one cycle with Doug that seemed to
provide all
the information he needed, or at least he thought he needed ;) At least
that was my perception, so I didn't give a full-blown cb response. But,
given the fact that he is new, as you picked up on, he may be clueless
about lots of other questions he should've been asking and provided a
more complete reply.
>
>
> But I'm also suggesting thay I haven't figured out my fluid needs yet. If
> in cooler temps (30-40) I can process 36 oz of fluids per hour (no peeing,
> no sloshing), and I can do the same at 80F+, then I may be getting somewhat
> dehydrated at the higher temps.
Can't remember, have you done weight test and/or pee test (afterwards if
not during) at the various temperatures? I usually just use pee test -
and it's usually colored most times - not in danger zones, but about
right. I'm not near scales for most of my runs. In the winter, by the
time I'd weigh myself, then dress, I'd need to go again (low water
holding capacity ;) ) so I've never done that winter test.
>
>
>I'll have to go back and read the Tom & Dot thread.
It's a subthread under "Value of sweating", I think.
SwStudio
>>The body's thirst indicator isn't very good. You may not feel
>>a need for fluids, but you probably need them most of the time
>>you think you don't.
>
> Yeah, that's what I am hearing/reading. And it sort of makes sense -
> although
> it does surprise me that the body doesn't tell you that it needs water
> (even
> though it 'really' does need water, as you suggest) by making you feel
> thirsty. I would think that the feeling of thirst was designed exactly for
> that.
>
> Bowing to the conventional wisdom, I tried to force myself to drink in the
> half despite feeling no thirst - without much success. But I seemed to
> suffer
> no ill effects, despite not hydrating properly. I am just curious what
> other
> beneficial effects I might experience if I force myself to drink more.
>
> Another words, if I feel fine doing what I am doing, will I feel more
> 'fine'
> if I drink more? And in what way?
I think you will recover from runs a little easier if you drink
throughout them rather than wait till the end. I have no proof
of this, it's just anecdotal from personal experience.
Certainly as you run farther you need liquids, so you should
make an effort to get used to it to some degree.
Paul Wilson
>The following text is from a book I use for marathon training - Advanced
>Marathoning" by Pete Pfitzinger and Scott Douglas.
Thanks for the reference. Assuming those conclusions are based on bona-fide
studies (I have no reason to suspect otherwise), those are pretty convincing
arguments. I tend to pay attention to anything that promises to increase my
running efficiency, hoping it will translate directly to speed. So I find
anything that might give me an advantage on the order of several percentage
points in speed performance pretty compelling.
>In other words if you want your training have a more positive impact on
>your performance, you need to stay hydrated.
>
>> I train/run in the same climate as you but I never take fluids until
>> after a run (if thirsty). My runs are typically 10 miles. When I sweat
>> heavily in warmer temps, I'll drink after a workout.
>
>As David already mentioned, you can't know if you're dehydrated simply by
>thirst. I'll admit that going for a 10-miler with no fluids isn't going
>to kill me. OTOH, why would I want to do that?
For me, several reasons:
First, not only do I NOT get thirsty, I actually experience an aversion to
fluids while running. During races I deliberately avoid running near water
stations because the sight and thought of water actually nauseates me (maybe I
am rabid :-)).
The second problem is logistics. I hate carrying anything with me, so the idea
of a camel-back or a waist pack is not exactly thrilling. And I KNOW I won't
carry a bottle in my hands. Just plain won't.
And third, I may be somewhat susceptible to side stitches. I read somewhere
that drinking exacerbates this, so I try to minimize the risk.
So to train myself to drink more I would not only have to overcome my
aversion, but also learn to tolerate a bouncing container, all the while
risking recurrence of side stitches. Not an attractive prospect.
>I feel better during and
>after the run if I stay hydrated before, during and after the run. As I
>already mentioned, for the 20 mile marathon training runs it is essential
>to practice drinking, IMO. If I'm training for my best possible marathon
>performance I want to train all aspects of surviving 26.2 miles at a
>fairly fast/steady pace, that includes being able to process a large
>volume of fluids.
I absolutely understand and accept the need to hydrate during a marathon, or
for marathon training. But at this stage of my running career, marathons are
not in my plans. I realize that marathons are the holy grail, especially
Boston (congrats, BTW), but I just can't convince myself that marathons are
especially good for the body.
Years ago I heard Frank Shorter working as a commentator during one of the
Olympics broadcasts describe what happens to a marathoner's body. I wasn't
into running back then, but his description was so gruesome that I remember
making a mental note to stay away from that kind of activity. Shorter's
description of the hormonal changes, internal organ shut-downs, and his phrase
"and the body begins to consume itself" at mile so and so just didn't sound
too attractive.
As I become a more seasoned runner, perhaps my attitudes toward marathons will
change. But at this point I am focusing on 5 & 10K races. I ran my first half
last September, and will probably run more half-marathons this year. But
that's just about at my self-imposed limit.
>> I never touch water in races up to a 10K, regardless of temperatures.
>
>Same here, I never drink in races shorter than 10 miles. The benefits of
>hyrdrating in that short of a race are out-weighed by having to slow down
>to drink.
>
>> Being a fairly new runner, I am wondering if I am doing something
>> wrong. Does your water need/tolerance come naturally to you, or did
>> you have to train for it?
>
>I'm not exactly a seasoned veteran. I've trained for and completed 5
>marathons. If you don't feel dehydrated after a long hot run, you could
>test this. Assuming you have an accurate scale. Weigh yourself naked just
>before you head out for your run (don't forget to put clothes on). After
>completing your run, towel dry yourself and again weigh yourself naked.
I have done this a number of times. I have an accurate scale, so I know that
on a 10 mile dead-of-summer Atlanta run I will typically lose about 4-5
pounds. I definitely feel thirsty after these runs.
In the Silver Comet half race I lost about 5 pounds, but that was after
drinking an after-race pint of water and eating a couple of oranges, so the
actual loss was greater. And after drinking the pint I did not feel
particularly thirsty, until a couple of hours later.
On the 15 miler I ran a week ago at 34 F, I lost less than 2 pounds (not much
sweating) and did not feel thirsty at all.
During a normal (non-running) day, I rarely get thirsty. I actually have to
remind myself to drink. I notice I often go several days without drinking any
fluids at all, just what I get in my food.
I dunno, perhaps I have a greater tolerance for dehydration (maybe I am a
camel :-)). Although normally that's fairly convenient, I would hate to
think that I am allowing this to affect (sabotage?) my running performance.
The one intriguing reference in the material you quoted is the notion that
having more fluids in your body increases blood volume. This not only makes
sense intuitively, but also jives with other studies I have read that imply
that thinner blood has a greater capacity for carrying oxygen. If we accept
that the oxygen carrying capacity of the blood is directly proportional to
performance, then having more fluids, therefore more blood volume, therefore
thinner blood, should result in faster times.
I guess I am just trying to convince myself with all these musings that all
this makes sense and that I should try to force-hydrate, whether I like it or
not. But I am willing to try anything to go faster!
So Cheers! - I begin practicing tonight by finishing the left-over bottle of
New Year's champagne. :-]]
Phil M.
02 Jan 2005:
>> But I'm also suggesting thay I haven't figured out my fluid needs
>> yet. If in cooler temps (30-40) I can process 36 oz of fluids per
>> hour (no peeing, no sloshing), and I can do the same at 80F+, then I
>> may be getting somewhat dehydrated at the higher temps.
>
> Can't remember, have you done weight test and/or pee test (afterwards
> if not during) at the various temperatures?
I always do the pee test. I haven't compared the color to the chart you
mentioned. The color is a little darker after a long run, but not
alarmingly so. I can take a digital picuture and post it if you like. ;-)
> I usually just use pee test - and it's usually colored most times -
> not in danger zones, but about right. I'm not near scales for most of
> my runs. In the winter, by the time I'd weigh myself, then dress, I'd
> need to go again (low water holding capacity ;) ) so I've never done
> that winter test.
I did the weight test just one time last summer. After a 21-mile run in 75F
temps I had lost 1.6 pounds, or a little less than 1% of my body weight. So
I figured I had things about right.
Phil M.
--
It is for us to pray not for tasks equal to our powers, but for powers
equal to our tasks. -Helen Keller
Paul Wilson
>
>I think you will recover from runs a little easier if you drink
>throughout them rather than wait till the end. I have no proof
>of this, it's just anecdotal from personal experience.
OK, that's fair, but when you say "recover from runs", what exactly do you
have in mind? To me 'recovery' means cessation of joint pain (hips, knees,
feet, shins, etc,) so I can run again without wincing. Is that what you you
are experiencing?
Dot
> I always do the pee test. I haven't compared the color to the chart you
> mentioned. The color is a little darker after a long run, but not
> alarmingly so. I can take a digital picuture and post it if you like. ;-)
That won't be necessary since everybody can compare their own :) :)
http://tinyurl.com/48nb3
Thank you, Amazon.com, and your back cover displays ;)
I know you were just waiting for this.
>
> I did the weight test just one time last summer. After a 21-mile run in 75F
> temps I had lost 1.6 pounds, or a little less than 1% of my body weight. So
> I figured I had things about right.
>
Sounds good to me.
SwStudio
No. I'm simpy suggesting that not having to deal
with hydration when it's already becoming a bigger
issue is probably good in a 'preventative medicine'
kind of way.
Phil M.
02 Jan 2005:
> Phil M. wrote:
>
>> I always do the pee test. I haven't compared the color to the chart
>> you mentioned. The color is a little darker after a long run, but not
>> alarmingly so. I can take a digital picuture and post it if you like.
>> ;-)
>
> That won't be necessary since everybody can compare their own :) :)
> http://tinyurl.com/48nb3
>
> Thank you, Amazon.com, and your back cover displays ;)
> I know you were just waiting for this.
Yeah, what took you so long? That's perfect. That book looks interesting. I
just added it to my wish list. Thanks.
Phil M.
Doug Freese
"Phil M." <pm...@charter.net> wrote in message
news:Xns95D2CABBFB...@216.77.188.18...
> I always do the pee test. I haven't compared the color to the chart
> you
> mentioned. The color is a little darker after a long run, but not
> alarmingly so. I can take a digital picuture and post it if you like.
> ;-)
Now this would be a first. Would this include the source of the fluid
for refererence? :)
-DF
Doug Freese
No. If you are experiencing all this pain you had best re-visit why you
run and see a Vet for some good advice.
-DF
rick++
These are often in parks, althetic fields, and some stores (getting
rarer).
Hopefully I can down a liter every half hour or so on a hot day.
This method is less annoying than carrying water.
rick++
season.
That it I want to drink a fair of beverages steadily in the AM-
say about 4x12 ounces or so. On rest days when I dont run,
I'll start expelling that water late day.
This can be a symptom of diabetes. But since I've never had bad sugar
numbers, I just attribute it to a thirst instinct.
Paul Wilson
I run because it pleases me, it satisfies my competitive instinct, I get
muti-colored tee shirts, and we don't get enough snow in Georgia to ski every
weekend. OK?
As to 'visit the vet for some good advice' - thanks! Been there, done that.
When I picked up my running intensity a couple of years ago, I began
experiencing all kinds of new aches and pains. I wasn't too alarmed until a
friend convinced me that the pain in my hips was a sign of a pending premature
hip replacement (he had heard about a guy who's wife's cousin's boyfriend's
uncle had the same EXACT symptoms, kept running, and ended up with a hip
replacement).
So off to the Sport Med vet I go, one of the better vets in Atlanta. He was a
fairly young guy (not good), athletic looking (good), with beautiful offices
(and staff to go along). He had this nifty xray machine that would take a
shot and display the results immediately on a large LCD. Neat stuff.
So he looked me over thoroughly and told me there was absolutely nothing wrong
with any of my joints, except for a mild case of bursitis in the hips. He
recommended PT if it really bothered me.
Yeah, Doc, but what about all those other aches and pains, the sore knees,
etc. He said that since there was nothing wrong with me medically, I should
just learn to "listen to my body" and let it guide me toward the appropriate
levels of running intensity.
So I took his advice. For a solid week, I asked my body every morning what it
wanted to do. At the end of that week I had worn a hole in the couch,
batteries in the TV remote, and gained five pounds. I never suspected this,
but it turns out my body is a lazy beer-swilling slob that prefers to lounge
around the house and munch chips.
Well, that was the last time I "listened to my body". Now only a bone fracture
or the sight of fresh blood gets my attention. Sometimes, when I hit the
trail with some unresolved aches and pains, I actually experience a sense of
sadistic enjoyment by punishing that fat lazy little bastard inside me that
wants to quit.
When I ran my half-marathon last September, it was to be the longest distance
I ever ran in my life up that point. I had done a couple of 10K races, and
ran 10 miles a few times in training, so I figured I probably was capable of
finishing the half. But since I had not done any training for the race, and
my base was fairly low, I wasn't sure what would happen in that
terra-incognita past the 10 mile mark.
As it turned out my biggest problem occurred at around mile five, well within
my previous running experience. I had suddenly developed a debilitating pain
on the outside of left knee. I had never had that kind of pain before, had no
idea what it was. Later I learned that it was a classic case of ITB. That
was the only time I had it and it has never returned.
Anyway, as I am running the half and this pain hits me like a brickbat, my
body predictably tells me it wants to quit (right now!) and go home. Having
learned my lessons about these dialogues, I tell my body to shut up and run
through the pain. One of the images that actually helped me handle this thing
was a recollection of someone's race report on this ng about a bike shoe
problem in the Hawaii Ironman (may have been you). If that guy could tolerate
that kind of pain without quitting, so could I. That was my inspiration.
Well, the pain suddenly went away in less than a mile and morphed into a sort
of a dull ache. Toward the end of the race, I had forgotten all about it. At
that point, I had other things to worry about.
To relax after the race, I went for an easy run up Stone Mountain (one mile,
13.5 percent average grade, up to 28 percent in spots). As I tried to run up,
I suddenly rediscovered that left knee pain. It hurt like hell, but I found I
could still run, just slower.
The problem was when I reached the top and turned around to go back down.
Just couldn't do it. Couldn't take a single friggin' step down without a
crushing pain in the knee, no matter how I twisted my leg. I still don't know
how I made it down - probably walked sideways, or maybe backwards (we all know
runners have no dignity). That's how I diagnosed it as a case of ITB.
The point is that I had the pain in the race, didn't panic, didn't quit
running, and it all turned out OK. I didn't succumb to a need to visit the vet
for more advice, and all pain was gone after a few days. So now when I hit the
trail, or enter a race, and there are some aches and pains, I just keep
running.
But that probably makes me unique. I would be willing to bet there are no
other runners on this ng who ever grit their teeth and run despite the
occasional residual aches and pains.
np426z
> But that probably makes me unique. I would be willing to bet there are no
> other runners on this ng who ever grit their teeth and run despite the
> occasional residual aches and pains.
Oh, don't say that. You'll offend all the macho types that hang around
here.
Having said that, I agree with you up to a point. I'd say about 80-90% of
injuries aren't *that* debilitating, provided you work around them in your
choice of running route, training surface, training intensity, etc.
However, to learn the 'work arounds' that suit *you*, you either have to be
incredibly lucky or live with the fact that you'll make a few bad choices
that ruin your running for a while.
Roger.
Tom Phillips
"Phil M." wrote:
>
> Leafing through rec.running, I read a message from dot.h@#duh?att.net of
> 02 Jan 2005:
>
> >> But I'm also suggesting thay I haven't figured out my fluid needs
> >> yet. If in cooler temps (30-40) I can process 36 oz of fluids per
> >> hour (no peeing, no sloshing), and I can do the same at 80F+, then I
> >> may be getting somewhat dehydrated at the higher temps.
> >
> > Can't remember, have you done weight test and/or pee test (afterwards
> > if not during) at the various temperatures?
>
> I always do the pee test. I haven't compared the color to the chart you
> mentioned. The color is a little darker after a long run, but not
> alarmingly so. I can take a digital picuture and post it if you like. ;-)
Fequent dark or rust color urine can indicate
hematuria. While that could be related to
dehydration, not necesssarily...
Tom Phillips
Tom Phillips wrote:
> Fequent dark or rust color urine can indicate
> hematuria. While that could be related to
> dehydration, not necesssarily...
BTW, I would say that if your urine is consistently
_clear_ it's an indication of good hydration. If it's
cloudy (regardless of color) you're dehydrated.
That's my pee test anyway.
Scott D
run be a store I could stop ,if needed. I stop on maybe 10% of my long
runs, anything over 15 miles. I make sure I am hydrated before I go out,
and once I get back. I have always gone without fluids on long runs. I
think it helps me when I hydrate during the marathon. It makes the
marathon easier than the long runs. So I can run the marathon faster
than my training shows I should. I ran all short races this year and had
no motivation. I can only stay motivated when training for marathons
compared to training for 5k races.
Happy training
Yin Yang
"Tom Phillips" <nosp...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:41D9B389...@aol.com...
and when your urine is blood red it means you're doing your intervals hard
enough, right? right?
Paul Wilson
>
>Having said that, I agree with you up to a point. I'd say about 80-90% of
>injuries aren't *that* debilitating, provided you work around them in your
>choice of running route, training surface, training intensity, etc.
>However, to learn the 'work arounds' that suit *you*, you either have to be
>incredibly lucky or live with the fact that you'll make a few bad choices
>that ruin your running for a while.
Doubtless you are right. That's why before each and every run I ask myself
"So.... ya' feel lucky, punk?"
Paul Wilson
>
>In article <dPUBd.14709$Y_4.1...@read2.cgocable.net>,
>>"Paul Wilson" <PWils...@slotmail.com> wrote in message
>>> Being a fairly new runner, I am wondering if I am doing something wrong.
>>> Does your water need/tolerance come naturally to you, or did you have to
>>> train for it?
>>
>>The body's thirst indicator isn't very good. You may not feel
>>a need for fluids, but you probably need them most of the time
>>you think you don't.
>
>Yeah, that's what I am hearing/reading. And it sort of makes sense - although
>it does surprise me that the body doesn't tell you that it needs water (even
>though it 'really' does need water, as you suggest) by making you feel
>thirsty. I would think that the feeling of thirst was designed exactly for
>that.
From the NY Times article on hyponatremia:
"Noakes' advice is to drink only when thirsty, because the body will
instinctively know when it needs water."
Hmmm.... I guess I am not the only one that thinks that.
Doug Freese
> From the NY Times article on hyponatremia:
>
> "Noakes' advice is to drink only when thirsty, because the body will
> instinctively know when it needs water."
>
> Hmmm.... I guess I am not the only one that thinks that.
Do what works for you but my experience says, if you wait until you're
thirsty, you're screwed! I have done races where I have had to force
myself to drink to keep from getting pulled because my weight loss was
nearing 5 % and I know how to eat, drink and take my salt. If I waited
to get thirsty I would not only have been yanked but likely ended up in
a hospital. I don't know if Noakes actually said this or it was taken
out of context, but I find it ill advised if not stupid!
I have tremendous respect for Noakes and have and use his book but he is
not infallible. The drink only when thirsty falls into the same opinion
category as only do one ultra a year.Costill from Ball State is another
great guy that made some bone head statements. These guys are good but
not Gods.
-DougF
Paul Wilson
>
>Do what works for you but my experience says, if you wait until you're
>thirsty, you're screwed! I have done races where I have had to force
>myself to drink to keep from getting pulled because my weight loss was
>nearing 5 % and I know how to eat, drink and take my salt. If I waited
>to get thirsty I would not only have been yanked but likely ended up in
>a hospital. I don't know if Noakes actually said this or it was taken
>out of context, but I find it ill advised if not stupid!
>
>I have tremendous respect for Noakes and have and use his book but he is
>not infallible. The drink only when thirsty falls into the same opinion
>category as only do one ultra a year.Costill from Ball State is another
>great guy that made some bone head statements. These guys are good but
>not Gods.
Well, thanks, that's certainly a data point. I guess that's why I read this
group - in the hope that exposure to other runners' experiences will help me
formulate my own approach.
As you may have guessed from my postings, I am an instinctive runner rather
than someone who follows current running lore, or scheme. That's a
disadvantage in some ways, but also an advantage in that I am less likely to
accept doctrinaire pronouncements on running physiology without questioning
the underlying premise.
As I dive deeper into the science of running, a couple of things are becoming
apparent:
1. There is a relatively wide variation in individual responses. What may
work for many of people can easily have an opposite effect on others.
2. Running is definitely an art, not a science. That's fairly obvious from
the often contradictory recommendations of the experts. Somewhat surprising,
actually, since I would have thought that some of these fundamental issues
would have been resolved by now. A lot of this stuff is fairly easily
quantifiable, so I don't understand why there are still questions regarding
basic issues like optimal hydration.
In the absence of a definitive formula, or a standard running recipe, it still
seems to be up to individual runners to formulate their own opinion on the
various issues and customize an approach that works.
Doug Freese
> As you may have guessed from my postings, I am an instinctive runner
> rather
> than someone who follows current running lore, or scheme. That's a
> disadvantage in some ways, but also an advantage in that I am less
> likely to
> accept doctrinaire pronouncements on running physiology without
> questioning
> the underlying premise.
I totally agree - question it.
> As I dive deeper into the science of running, a couple of things are
> becoming
> apparent:
>
> 1. There is a relatively wide variation in individual responses. What
> may
> work for many of people can easily have an opposite effect on others.
A factual understatement.
> 2. Running is definitely an art, not a science.
I call it individual science.
> That's fairly obvious from
> the often contradictory recommendations of the experts. Somewhat
> surprising,
> actually, since I would have thought that some of these fundamental
> issues
> would have been resolved by now.
To many variables and why there isn't a simple formula.
> A lot of this stuff is fairly easily
> quantifiable, so I don't understand why there are still questions
> regarding
> basic issues like optimal hydration
> In the absence of a definitive formula, or a standard running recipe,
> it still
> seems to be up to individual runners to formulate their own opinion on
> the
> various issues and customize an approach that works.
Optimal is individual and the science is growing. One person can run a
marathon in the heat and do well with only water. Another runner may end
up in the medical tent with 5 IV bags. Actually when you peel the
hydration onion there are many variables than come into play. When you
have an equation with that many unknowns, it's not easy to solve. The
science rightfully says you should take some carbs, some salt and some
quantity if water and they put a line in the sand. They further qualify
that with, find out what works for you.
How many people do their homework before races? Rhetorical
-DF
Tom Phillips
I have to agree with doug and echo his sentiment.
Waiting to drink until your thirsty works _only_
if you're not engaged in any athletic endeavors.
Otherwsie it's not just stupid, it's utterly
stupid advice, because your are in fact pushing
normal physiological limits when running long.
In any outdoor/medical/rescue situation the _first_
task is to treat a victim for shock/dehydration --
usually because they are dehydrated to begin with
which results in shock situations. In other words
if you push yourself beyond physiological limits
you're asking for trouble and must take extra
precautions to avoid complications
Obviously, the author of such idiotic advice has
never spent much time being active in the desert,
where the best advice is to carry water not in
your pack, but in your stomach. I've found this
practice to be beneficial in cold alpine/arctic
environments as well. When running, it's not
advisable to carry large amounts of water in the
stomach, so the _only_ alternative is to drink
smaller amounts at regular intervals, whether
thirsty or not. Hydration is a science, not an
"art"...
Tom Phillips
Doug Freese wrote:
>
> "Paul Wilson" <PWils...@slotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> > 2. Running is definitely an art, not a science.
>
> I call it individual science.
Hydration is not an art...
> > That's fairly obvious from
> > the often contradictory recommendations of the experts. Somewhat
> > surprising,
> > actually, since I would have thought that some of these fundamental
> > issues
> > would have been resolved by now.
>
> To many variables and why there isn't a simple formula.
>
> > A lot of this stuff is fairly easily
> > quantifiable, so I don't understand why there are still questions
> > regarding
> > basic issues like optimal hydration
> > In the absence of a definitive formula, or a standard running recipe,
> > it still
> > seems to be up to individual runners to formulate their own opinion on
> > the
> > various issues and customize an approach that works.
>
> Optimal is individual and the science is growing. One person can run a
> marathon in the heat and do well with only water.
maybe he aate nothing but pretzels the night before...
> Another runner may end
> up in the medical tent with 5 IV bags. Actually when you peel the
> hydration onion there are many variables than come into play.
The variables do't have to due with human physiology.
They ahve to do with diet, preparation and medical/
physical condition.
> When you
> have an equation with that many unknowns, it's not easy to solve. The
> science rightfully says you should take some carbs, some salt and some
> quantity if water and they put a line in the sand. They further qualify
> that with, find out what works for you.
>
> How many people do their homework before races? Rhetorical
Which is the main variable. As above, the science says
and the science is medically right.
Doug Freese
>> Optimal is individual and the science is growing. One person can run
>> a
>> marathon in the heat and do well with only water.
>
> maybe he aate nothing but pretzels the night before...
Or maybe some salty Heineken. :)
-DF
FabulustRunner
>>
>> I'm up here waiting for 1".
Hey Doug, use lube, even an inch can hurt without the right prep.
Tom Phillips
Now Doug, you're testing my rather liberal
accommodations for you drinkers ;)
By consuming beer the night before he'd have
diuretically peed out most of his fluids and
so began the race dehydrated to begin with :)
Paul Wilson
>> may
>> work for many of people can easily have an opposite effect on others.
>
>A factual understatement.
Really? Note I did not say 'what may work for some people may not work for
others'. I said 'what may work for many people can easily have an opposite
effect on others'. Opposite effect. To me, that's pretty radical statement,
representing a potentially radical concept.
>> 2. Running is definitely an art, not a science.
>
>I call it individual science.
Well, if you want to call a roll-your-own concept "science", knock yourself
out. If anything, I would call it an individual art, based on available
scientific evidence, supplemented by instinct, logic and individual
experience.
>> That's fairly obvious from
>> the often contradictory recommendations of the experts. Somewhat
>> surprising,
>> actually, since I would have thought that some of these fundamental
>> issues
>> would have been resolved by now.
>
>To many variables and why there isn't a simple formula.
Why? It would seem that the testing of the amount of hydration vs. athletic
performance should not be an overwhelming task.
Paul Wilson
>I have to agree with doug and echo his sentiment.
>Waiting to drink until your thirsty works _only_
>if you're not engaged in any athletic endeavors.
>Otherwsie it's not just stupid, it's utterly
>stupid advice, because your are in fact pushing
>normal physiological limits when running long.
Well, which is it? Is it "engaged in any athletic endeavors", or is it
"running long"? They are not the same and are likely to have differing
hydration requirements.
>In any outdoor/medical/rescue situation the _first_
>task is to treat a victim for shock/dehydration --
>usually because they are dehydrated to begin with
>which results in shock situations. In other words
>if you push yourself beyond physiological limits
>you're asking for trouble and must take extra
>precautions to avoid complications
But I don't think I am pushing myself "beyond physiological limits" in my
races (maybe I should be). And I am certainly NOT discussing the effects of
hydration on post-exposure/shock victims. I am more interested in the effects
of hydration on middle distance (sub-marathon) runners, and specifically as it
relates to possible effects on performance (time) in races.
>Obviously, the author of such idiotic advice has
>never spent much time being active in the desert,
>where the best advice is to carry water not in
>your pack, but in your stomach.
>I've found this practice to be beneficial in cold
>alpine/arctic environments as well.
But I am not interested in running races in the desert or in arctic regions.
My races are conducted in relatively temperate urban environments. So the
author's suspected lack of experience at these extremes is of limited
importance. In the absence of other supporting evidence, I would definitely
not resort to automatically calling such advice "idiotic".
>When running, it's not
>advisable to carry large amounts of water in the
>stomach,
I would agree with that.
>so the _only_ alternative is to drink
>smaller amounts at regular intervals, whether
>thirsty or not.
This is where I disagree. Again, I am discussing sub-marathon distances in
temperate regions.
>Hydration is a science, not an
>"art"...
Really? Then I would ask someone to explain, in 'scientific' terms, how there
can be such fundamentally contradictory opinion on hydration between ACSM, a
respected medical body, and Noakes, an apparently respected running authority.
They can't both be right. Which of these two diametrically opposing points of
view should a neophyte runner choose to follow?
Paul Wilson
>
>Doug Freese wrote:
>>
>> "Paul Wilson" <PWils...@slotmail.com> wrote in message
>>
>> > 2. Running is definitely an art, not a science.
>>
>> I call it individual science.
>
>Hydration is not an art...
Apparently, it's a roll-your-own 'science'.
Doug Freese
>>Too many variables and why there isn't a simple formula.
>
> Why? It would seem that the testing of the amount of hydration vs.
> athletic
> performance should not be an overwhelming task.
I contend it is much more robust an issue. Factor in temperature,
humidity, food, salt, personal sweat rates, training level, pace,
elevation, just to name a few. To me and many of those that try to do
such modeling/testing, this gets very complicated. It's an equation of
many varaiables.
-DF
Doug Freese
> Tom Phillips said...
>>Hydration is a science, not an
>>"art"...
>
> Really? Then I would ask someone to explain, in 'scientific' terms,
> how there
> can be such fundamentally contradictory opinion on hydration between
> ACSM, a
> respected medical body, and Noakes, an apparently respected running
> authority.
> They can't both be right.
This is why I said in a different post that this relationship is very
complicated while you think it is simple.
So, yes, roll-your-own is accurate.
> Which of these two diametrically opposing points of
> view should a neophyte runner choose to follow?
You end up using trial and error within some reasonable boundaries. My
20 years of experience with myself and the running community suggests
drink before you get thirsty and the longer you run the more important
this becomes. Even if you don't need it to get through the run, it will
help you recover faster which in my opinion is what training is for most
of us.
-Doug
Paul Wilson
>> Why? It would seem that the testing of the amount of hydration vs.
>> athletic performance should not be an overwhelming task.
>
>I contend it is much more robust an issue.
Not denying it isn't a robust issue, but I am discussing testing this in a lab
environment. Therefore:
>Factor in temperature,
controllable
>humidity,
controllable
>food,
controllable
>salt,
controllable
>personal sweat rates,
measurable
>training level,
measurable
>pace,
controllable
>elevation,
known
>just to name a few. To me and many of those that try to do
>such modeling/testing, this gets very complicated. It's an equation of
>many varaiables.
It is complicated. That's is why a simplistic-sounding and counter-intuitive
advice like 'drink before you are thirsty' makes me cautious. What I am
suggesting is that a study along these lines would at least answer some ofthe
underlying principles involved. True, any results would still need to be
tailored for the individual, but perhaps within narrower boundaries and not
requiring 20 years of experimentation and individual experience.
Tom Phillips
Actually, most art has a good deal of science
behind it.
Tom Phillips
Paul Wilson wrote:
>
> Tom Phillips said...
>
> >I have to agree with doug and echo his sentiment.
> >Waiting to drink until your thirsty works _only_
> >if you're not engaged in any athletic endeavors.
> >Otherwsie it's not just stupid, it's utterly
> >stupid advice, because your are in fact pushing
> >normal physiological limits when running long.
>
> Well, which is it? Is it "engaged in any athletic endeavors", or is it
> "running long"?
And what difference would it make, other than
the proximity of a water cooler? If you play
a running basketball game for two hours or run
LSD for two hours?
> They are not the same and are likely to have differing
> hydration requirements.
Not medically. Dehydration occurs as the result of
fluid and electrolyte loss due to physical work
and sweating. Doesn't matter what that work is. I
could become as equally dehydrated OR hyponatremic
digging ditches in 100F weather as I could running
in 100F weather. In fact, I know someone who was
both hyponatremic and suffered a heart attack due
to low potassium levels while simply operating a
backhoe in 110F desert weather. He just wasn't
physically well adapted to the climate.
> >In any outdoor/medical/rescue situation the _first_
> >task is to treat a victim for shock/dehydration --
> >usually because they are dehydrated to begin with
> >which results in shock situations. In other words
> >if you push yourself beyond physiological limits
> >you're asking for trouble and must take extra
> >precautions to avoid complications
>
> But I don't think I am pushing myself "beyond physiological limits" in my
> races (maybe I should be).
Depends on how long those races are and how much
water/electrolyte loss vs. intake. Under normal
conditions the body maintains a balance without much
trouble. When you run 20+ miles you exceed normal
physiological conditions and additional care must
be taken.
> And I am certainly NOT discussing the effects of
> hydration on post-exposure/shock victims.
Most exposure/shock victimns get into that condiion
by ignoring hydration requirements and becoming
dehydrated beforehand.
> I am more interested in the effects
> of hydration on middle distance (sub-marathon) runners, and specifically as it
> relates to possible effects on performance (time) in races.
Certainly the distance would make a difference. But
I'd think performance-wise good osmotic balance
can only help regardless of distance.
> >Obviously, the author of such idiotic advice has
> >never spent much time being active in the desert,
> >where the best advice is to carry water not in
> >your pack, but in your stomach.
> >I've found this practice to be beneficial in cold
> >alpine/arctic environments as well.
>
> But I am not interested in running races in the desert or in arctic regions.
> My races are conducted in relatively temperate urban environments. So the
> author's suspected lack of experience at these extremes is of limited
> importance. In the absence of other supporting evidence, I would definitely
> not resort to automatically calling such advice "idiotic".
If, in fact, under physiologically stressful conditions
(which running long distances certainly is) you wait
until you're thirsty to drink you are already dehydrated
or border line dehydrated and ready to fall beyond the
margin of safety (medical wise.) The medical fact is
(and my medical references state this unequivocally)
thirst can lag behind actual fluid requirements. Under
normal "at rest" conditions, this is not much of a
problem. Under conditions of higher physiological stress
(i.e., sweating and respirating profusely) ist is simply
ill-advised to drink only when thristy.
> >When running, it's not
> >advisable to carry large amounts of water in the
> >stomach,
>
> I would agree with that.
>
> >so the _only_ alternative is to drink
> >smaller amounts at regular intervals, whether
> >thirsty or not.
>
> This is where I disagree. Again, I am discussing sub-marathon distances in
> temperate regions.
It doesn't matter. I can easily run 4-5 miles
without drinking. But if I run 10 miles (a good
hour+) I risk dehydration if I fail to drink at
least once every 30 minutes. Given it's better to
sip smaller amounts when running or doing other
intense activities, I'd say a few mouthfuls every
15-20 minutes would be more beneficial, performance
wise.
> >Hydration is a science, not an
> >"art"...
>
> Really? Then I would ask someone to explain, in 'scientific' terms, how there
> can be such fundamentally contradictory opinion on hydration between ACSM, a
> respected medical body, and Noakes, an apparently respected running authority.
> They can't both be right. Which of these two diametrically opposing points of
> view should a neophyte runner choose to follow?
I believe Noakes is merely saying don't over drink,
i.e., the "drink as much as possible" is bad advice.
I'd agree with that _unless_ one is in an extreme
environmental situation where water is not readily
available and drinking as much as possible is the
only means to store what water there is.
But if running a race I'm saying better to drink
smaller amounts regularly, not gulp down as much as
you can as often as you can. I disagree with Noakes'
apparent conclusion that electrolyte balance isn't
also important. My references state that both
hyponatremia and lack of electrolytes can both
lead to dehydration. The body works osmotically,
so it seems to me that balance is important. That's
the "science" I'm referring to.
Twittering One
behind it. >>
Form, or structure, or process.
A method, or a truth.
_______
Blog, or dog? Who knows. But if you see my lost pup, please ping me!
http://journals.aol.com/virginiaz/DreamingofLeonardo/
Dot
>>>That's fairly obvious from
>>>the often contradictory recommendations of the experts. Somewhat
>>>surprising,
>>>actually, since I would have thought that some of these fundamental
>>>issues
>>>would have been resolved by now.
>>
>>To many variables and why there isn't a simple formula.
>
>
> Why? It would seem that the testing of the amount of hydration vs. athletic
> performance should not be an overwhelming task.
>
It depends on what you consider athletic performance. If you consider
the time to complete one race = athletic performance, then it may not be
a big issue, esp. for short races. But when many people here are
stressing hydration and electrolytes, they're using talking overall
quality of training, day after day, week after week, etc - training for
events that last, say 4 hr, or more, but in some cases the races are
over 12 hrs. That is a little more difficult.
Dot
--
"After 26 hours 38 minutes, we accomplished our mission, and the next
day were fortunate to read about our adventure in the sports section of
the local papers rather than the obituaries."
-Dean Karnazes recounting their running of the WS100 trail in winter.
Dot
> Tom Phillips said...
>
>
>>When running, it's not
>>advisable to carry large amounts of water in the
>>stomach,
>
>
> I would agree with that.
>
>
>>so the _only_ alternative is to drink
>>smaller amounts at regular intervals, whether
>>thirsty or not.
>
>
> This is where I disagree. Again, I am discussing sub-marathon distances in
> temperate regions.
>
>
>>Hydration is a science, not an
>>"art"...
>
>
> Really? Then I would ask someone to explain, in 'scientific' terms, how there
> can be such fundamentally contradictory opinion on hydration between ACSM, a
^^^^^^^
> respected medical body, and Noakes, an apparently respected running authority.
> They can't both be right. Which of these two diametrically opposing points of
> view should a neophyte runner choose to follow?
>
Could be different assumptions of each, different interpretation of same
data, etc.
ACSM is US (probably lower-48-centric), Noakes is from South Africa. The
populations that they deal with on an every-day basis may be very
different. ACSM is also a committee, while Noakes is an individual. And
sometimes the "differences" may be more in semantics.
FWIW, on some of the cold adaptation issues (not hydration related, just
using as an example), Armstrong reports his findings, then also points
out that other research has not found the same responses. The issue then
is to figure out what's different about the studies - and there's
usually innumerable factors. I see this all the time in my own work,
sometimes even between my own studies.
To answer your question about neophyte runners: I tend to read,
evaluate, consider whether it has anything to do with the subpopulation
of runners to which I belong. If I'm not in the population, I don't
worry about their recommendations, but may consider whether there's
reasons why the recommendations could / could not be extrapolated.
Extrapolated data may or may not be better than a oiuja board. If I am
in the population, I'll give it more weight, esp. if it's reasonably
consistent with experience. Then I'll use that (or a modification based
on my past experience) as a starting point, then conduct my own
experiments from there.
Dot
You might understand it when you get more experience. I know there's
some things that I initially had no reason to doubt, but hadn't
experienced them. Then I waited until I had to walk before I took a walk
break and understood. Ahh, that's what they mean ;) (This is a
reference to: "If you wait until you have to walk, then you've waited
too long." Same idea.)
What I am
> suggesting is that a study along these lines would at least answer some ofthe
> underlying principles involved. True, any results would still need to be
> tailored for the individual, but perhaps within narrower boundaries and not
> requiring 20 years of experimentation and individual experience.
>
Do you have any idea how many treatments and tests you just generated?
Since there's interactions, you probably need a factorial design. You
listed 5 "controllable" factors, and I would add "elevation" and "wind"
to the list, since that will affect things also, but lets leave it at 5.
How many levels of each factor do you need? I'd go with at least 3,
preferably 5. Reps minimum of 3. But the factors that you may not
recognize as being a factor may be the most important ones and override
all the others. I'm a field vegetation researcher, trust me on this as
to lab results having limited results in field - sometimes they provide
useful information for a starting point, sometimes not. Just a different
perspective.
Paul Wilson
>
>Actually, most art has a good deal of science
>behind it.
Yeah... like poetry, or trolling.
But I know what you mean. When an experiment succeeds, it becomes science.
When it fails, it becomes art. It's nature's way of maintaining symmetry
and balance.
(Next week's topic: "Can science and religion co-exist?")
Tom Phillips
A good deal of science is based on faith :)
(faith, assumptions, not sure there's any difference...)
Paul Wilson
Aaaah... now I certainly better understand your views on hydration, nutrition,
alcohol, etc. ;-)
Paul Wilson
>>Paul Wilson wrote:
>> Tom Phillips said...
>>
>> >I have to agree with doug and echo his sentiment.
>> >Waiting to drink until your thirsty works _only_
>> >if you're not engaged in any athletic endeavors.
>> >Otherwsie it's not just stupid, it's utterly
>> >stupid advice, because your are in fact pushing
>> >normal physiological limits when running long.
>>
>> Well, which is it? Is it "engaged in any athletic
>> endeavors", or is it "running long"?
>
>And what difference would it make, other than
>the proximity of a water cooler? If you play
>a running basketball game for two hours or run
>LSD for two hours?
Oh, sure. Running and playing basketball could be
comparable. But you didn't say that. You said "engaged in
any athletic endeavors". That means ANY athletic endeavor,
right? Lifting weights is an 'athletic endeavor', but
pumping iron for a couple of hours in an air-conditioned gym
is likely to have a hydration requirement much different
than running 15 miles at 90F. Right?
>> But I don't think I am pushing myself "beyond
>> physiological limits" in my races (maybe I should be).
>
>Depends on how long those races are and how much
>water/electrolyte loss vs. intake. Under normal
>conditions the body maintains a balance without much
>trouble. When you run 20+ miles you exceed normal
>physiological conditions and additional care must
>be taken.
Well, if running 20+ miles is the definition of 'exceed
normal physiological conditions', then I lose all interest
in this discussion because I am focusing on the needs of a
runner at up to a HM distance, substantially lower than 20
miles. As long as you restrict your recommendation to drink
before thirsty to those who run 20+ miles (i.e., those who
exceed normal physiological conditions, by your definition)
and advise them that additional care must be taken, I am not
necessarily in disagreement.
>> And I am certainly NOT discussing the effects of
>> hydration on post-exposure/shock victims.
>
>Most exposure/shock victimns get into that condiion
>by ignoring hydration requirements and becoming
>dehydrated beforehand.
How do you know that? Maybe they just didn't have access to
water, despite being thirsty?
BTW, I just noted in some of the references folks have
posted in the last few days that the best treatment for
runners may NOT include pumping them immediately with IVs.
>> I am more interested in the effects
>> of hydration on middle distance (sub-marathon) runners,
>> and specifically as it relates to possible effects on
>> performance (time) in races.
>
>Certainly the distance would make a difference. But
>I'd think performance-wise good osmotic balance
>can only help regardless of distance.
Well, you may THINK that (because it appears logical to you)
but my point is that I am looking for a study that actually
demonstrates this. Similarly, I might THINK that I don't
need to drink unless I am thirsty, but you insist that that
my 'thinking' is wrong and that I should drink regardless.
You are willing to trust logic and intuition in the first
case, but you advise going against it in the second. That's
inconsistent.
>If, in fact, under physiologically stressful conditions
>(which running long distances certainly is) you wait
>until you're thirsty to drink you are already dehydrated
>or border line dehydrated and ready to fall beyond the
>margin of safety (medical wise.) The medical fact is
>(and my medical references state this unequivocally)
>thirst can lag behind actual fluid requirements.
>
>Under normal "at rest" conditions, this is not much of a
>problem. Under conditions of higher physiological stress
>(i.e., sweating and respirating profusely) ist is simply
>ill-advised to drink only when thristy.
Well, that is exactly what's being debated. But just
because you repeat it often enough, or find it in some
unidentified medical reference, doesn't necessarily make it
so. How old is that reference book? Does it provide any
supporting evidence pertinent to this situation? Does it
specifically recommend forced hydration for runs, say, under
15 miles?
>> This is where I disagree. Again, I am discussing
>> sub-marathon distances in temperate regions.
>
>It doesn't matter. I can easily run 4-5 miles
>without drinking. But if I run 10 miles (a good
>hour+) I risk dehydration if I fail to drink at
>least once every 30 minutes.
Yes, that's you. In contrast, I have found I can relatively
easily run a 13 mile race at 75 F without any hydration, no
apparent ill effects, and a recovery rapid enough to allow a
5 training mile run within several hours. Since it seems to
work for me, I am willing to change my approach only if
someone can "scientifically" demonstrate to me that I will
benefit from a different approach in some measurable way.
That's why I asked the question.
>Given it's better to
>sip smaller amounts when running or doing other
>intense activities, I'd say a few mouthfuls every
>15-20 minutes would be more beneficial, performance
>wise.
Yes, you'd 'say', but how do you, in fact, KNOW?
>I believe Noakes is merely saying don't over drink,
>i.e., the "drink as much as possible" is bad advice.
I believe the quote from Noakes I saw in the NYT article was
along the lines of 'drink only when you are thirsty'.
That's pretty definitive and unambiguous.
>But if running a race I'm saying better to drink
>smaller amounts regularly, not gulp down as much as
>you can as often as you can. I disagree with Noakes'
>apparent conclusion that electrolyte balance isn't
>also important. My references state that both
>hyponatremia and lack of electrolytes can both
>lead to dehydration. The body works osmotically,
>so it seems to me that balance is important. That's
>the "science" I'm referring to.
I understand what your beliefs are, but that's not good
enough for me. I am the type that needs to see and analyze
the evidence, instead of someone's potentially distorted
interpretation. Point me to a respected source, a
definitive book, a study, a peer-reviewed article in a
scientific or medical journal that unambiguously supports
your position. Until then this is a religious debate,
which, while entertaining enough, is unlikely to lead to any
type of a practical resolution.
Paul Wilson
>
>Paul Wilson wrote:
>
>> Why? It would seem that the testing of the amount of hydration vs.
>> athletic performance should not be an overwhelming task.
>
>It depends on what you consider athletic performance. If you consider
>the time to complete one race = athletic performance, then it may not be
>a big issue, esp. for short races. But when many people here are
>stressing hydration and electrolytes, they're using talking overall
>quality of training, day after day, week after week, etc - training for
>events that last, say 4 hr, or more, but in some cases the races are
>over 12 hrs. That is a little more difficult.
Yes, well said. It has taken me a while to recognize this difference in
perspectives and requirements. I have been trying to specifically explore
the hydration issues of middle-distance runners (i.e., 15 miles or less).
There must be other runners like that here who focus on these middle
distances and who do not train for marathons. I think it's important for
those runners to recognize that their hydration regimes may well differ
from those who run marathons (for example, the validity of the 'drink
before thirsty' mantra).
I believe you are correct in that many of the posting runners on this
group probably are marathoners who, in a well-meaning way, are giving me
the only type of advice they know - namely, marathon training/running
advice. And getting understandably irritated when I question their
cherished principles. :-(
lance...@aol.com
easily run a 13 mile race at 75 F without any hydration, no
apparent ill effects, and a recovery rapid enough to allow a
5 training mile run within several hours.
whoa...time out. my definition of racing is going all out. if you're
racing a 1/2M in 75F and not hydrating at all, not once....i highly
doubt you're going to have an optimal experience. the "feat" and
smart running/optimal performance are two separate issues. are you
willing to assert you can achieve optimal performance in a 1/2M in 75F
& no hydration?
Paul Wilson
>
>whoa...time out. my definition of racing is going all out.
So is mine, believe me.
>if you're
>racing a 1/2M in 75F and not hydrating at all, not once....i highly
>doubt you're going to have an optimal experience. the "feat" and
>smart running/optimal performance are two separate issues. are you
>willing to assert you can achieve optimal performance in a 1/2M in 75F
>& no hydration?
I don't know. That's why I am exploring the issue. So far without much
success.
As to optimal performance in the HM, I ended up 3 minutes slower than
the time predicted by my best 10K time to date. Now, was that 3 minutes
due to low hydration? Possibly, but I doubt it. I ran an absolutely horrible
race tactically, jackrabitting to a PB at 3.1 miles, and matching my PB
at 6.2 miles. Understandably, my last three miles were slow. But
overall, I thought it was OK. Incidentally, I tried to drink along the
course (because that's what everybody said to do) but found I couldn't.
My system just wouldn't accept more than a gulp or two.
Paul Wilson
>
>To answer your question about neophyte runners: I tend to read,
>evaluate, consider whether it has anything to do with the subpopulation
>of runners to which I belong. If I'm not in the population, I don't
>worry about their recommendations, but may consider whether there's
>reasons why the recommendations could / could not be extrapolated.
>Extrapolated data may or may not be better than a oiuja board. If I am
>in the population, I'll give it more weight, esp. if it's reasonably
>consistent with experience. Then I'll use that (or a modification based
>on my past experience) as a starting point, then conduct my own
>experiments from there.
Yes, I think this fits my situation to a tee. I am a non-marathoner who
is getting lots of advice from marathoners - to our mutual frustration.
Still, I will be very surprised if our basic physiological requirements
turned to be all that different. Some folks have tried to convince of
this, but I seriously doubt it's true. However, not having enough
expertise in this area to continue arguing effectively, I have let it
go. It's a pity, though, that these kinds of things can't be discussed
openly and objectively without people feeling threatened by the specter
of an alternative hypothesis. This is the type of an emotional response
and outright anger one frequently sees generated by religious 'debates'.
Doug Freese
> Dot said...
> I believe you are correct in that many of the posting runners on this
> group probably are marathoners who, in a well-meaning way, are giving
> me
> the only type of advice they know - namely, marathon training/running
> advice. And getting understandably irritated when I question their
> cherished principles. :-(
Do you think playing the patronizating pseudo intellect will win you any
points? Now go off and do some homework yourself and come back and give
us all the answers since you don't like nor trust the ones you are
getting.
-DF
Paul Wilson
>
>Do you have any idea how many treatments and tests you just generated?
You may be making this sound more complicated than it really ought to
be. All I am asking for is a controlled lab experiment where you have
a statistically significant number of participants running on a
treadmill. ALL factors involved are either controllable (speed, wind,
temperature, humidity, food intake, etc.) or measurable (altitude,
sweat rates, fitness level, etc.). And they ALL remain constant during
the test, with the exception of speed.
Divide your subjects into test groups.
Have subjects run to exhaustion without any hydration. This can be
accomplished by offering prize money to simulate race conditions.
Measure their performance.
Repeat test and let them hydrate when they ask for it. Measure
performance.
Repeat test and have them drink at pre-determined intervals. Measure
performance.
Repeat all tests for each test group. Repeat all tests at different
run speeds.
Collate and report results.
It might take a while, but it's not like trying to cure cancer.
SwStudio
>>
>>Do you have any idea how many treatments and tests you just generated?
>
> You may be making this sound more complicated than it really ought to
> be. All I am asking for is a controlled lab experiment where you have
> a statistically significant number of participants running on a
> treadmill. ALL factors involved are either controllable (speed, wind,
> temperature, humidity, food intake, etc.) or measurable (altitude,
> sweat rates, fitness level, etc.). And they ALL remain constant during
> the test, with the exception of speed.
>
> Divide your subjects into test groups.
>
> Have subjects run to exhaustion without any hydration. This can be
> accomplished by offering prize money to simulate race conditions.
> Measure their performance.
I'm not following this thread so I don't really know what this
proposed test would be trying to prove, but:
How would you measure *pre-test* hydration level differences
between subjects? Even if they were somehow exactly the same
based on each runner's weight and so on, the end result would
still be meaningless because people differ individually in their
abilities to withstand lack of hydration. Like Doug stated earlier,
"One person can run a marathon in the heat and do well with
only water. Another runner may end up in the medical tent with
5 IV bags."
Not only that, people differ in their own hydration tolerances week
by week for lots of reasons such as their current level of fitness or
even stress.
The variables are too great to perform such a test.
cheers,
--
David (in Hamilton, ON)
www.allfalldown.org
www.absolutelyaccurate.com
Paul Wilson
>
>Do you think playing the patronizating pseudo intellect
I don't believe this characterization is either fair or warranted.
I pride myself at being incapable of playing anything. Believe me,
I truly AM a patronizing pseudo-intellectual (that's what you meant,
right?).
>will win you any points?
Nope. The only thing I try to win are races.
>Now go off and do some homework yourself and come back and give
>us all the answers
What was that about patronizing? And does that mouse in your pocket
bite?
>since you don't like nor trust the ones you are getting.
Aaaah, you had your feelings hurt. How....sweet.
Paul Wilson
>
>I'm not following this thread so I don't really know what this
>proposed test would be trying to prove, but:
>
>How would you measure *pre-test* hydration level differences
>between subjects?
Have them urinate on Armstrong's test chart? Blood oxygen measurement?
>Even if they were somehow exactly the same
>based on each runner's weight and so on, the end result would
>still be meaningless because people differ individually in their
>abilities to withstand lack of hydration.
Well, actually that's my point. I am questioning the one-advice-fits all
approach. But that's why you have multiple test subjects.
>Like Doug stated earlier,
>"One person can run a marathon in the heat and do well with
>only water. Another runner may end up in the medical tent with
>5 IV bags."
This is not about marathon running. The only variable measured here is
hydration levels vs. performance on a treadmill.
>Not only that, people differ in their own hydration tolerances week
>by week for lots of reasons such as their current level of fitness or
>even stress.
That's why you repeat these tests several times to eliminate these
differences.
>The variables are too great to perform such a test.
Has anyone tried?
Tom Phillips
Well I think you understand my views on the _art_
of science.
I'm sure observations and testing of human hydration,
nutrition, etc, is a bit less assumption-based than,
say, String Theory or models for the Big Bang :)
Tom Phillips
Paul Wilson wrote:
>
> Tom Phillips said...
> >>Paul Wilson wrote:
> >> Tom Phillips said...
> >>
> >> >I have to agree with doug and echo his sentiment.
> >> >Waiting to drink until your thirsty works _only_
> >> >if you're not engaged in any athletic endeavors.
> >> >Otherwsie it's not just stupid, it's utterly
> >> >stupid advice, because your are in fact pushing
> >> >normal physiological limits when running long.
> >>
> >> Well, which is it? Is it "engaged in any athletic
> >> endeavors", or is it "running long"?
> >
> >And what difference would it make, other than
> >the proximity of a water cooler? If you play
> >a running basketball game for two hours or run
> >LSD for two hours?
>
> Oh, sure. Running and playing basketball could be
> comparable. But you didn't say that. You said "engaged in
> any athletic endeavors".
Yes, I did say that. Digging ditches or running make
no medical difference re principles of hydration...
>That means ANY athletic endeavor,
> right? Lifting weights is an 'athletic endeavor', but
> pumping iron for a couple of hours in an air-conditioned gym
> is likely to have a hydration requirement much different
> than running 15 miles at 90F. Right?
>
> >> But I don't think I am pushing myself "beyond
> >> physiological limits" in my races (maybe I should be).
> >
> >Depends on how long those races are and how much
> >water/electrolyte loss vs. intake. Under normal
> >conditions the body maintains a balance without much
> >trouble. When you run 20+ miles you exceed normal
> >physiological conditions and additional care must
> >be taken.
>
> Well, if running 20+ miles is the definition of 'exceed
> normal physiological conditions',
It just an example, not an absolute distance. You
seems to take things literally minus context.
> then I lose all interest
> in this discussion because I am focusing on the needs of a
> runner at up to a HM distance, substantially lower than 20
> miles. As long as you restrict your recommendation to drink
> before thirsty to those who run 20+ miles (i.e., those who
> exceed normal physiological conditions, by your definition)
> and advise them that additional care must be taken, I am not
> necessarily in disagreement.
>
> >> And I am certainly NOT discussing the effects of
> >> hydration on post-exposure/shock victims.
> >
> >Most exposure/shock victimns get into that condiion
> >by ignoring hydration requirements and becoming
> >dehydrated beforehand.
>
> How do you know that? Maybe they just didn't have access to
> water, despite being thirsty?
I'm a first responder (wilderness EMT) and have been
involved in enough rescues/evacs. Sometimes symptoms
include a _lack_ of thirst. People don't know they're
supposed to drink and don't because they don't feel
like it or are too mentally disoriented. Happens to
runners and boy scouts alike.
> BTW, I just noted in some of the references folks have
> posted in the last few days that the best treatment for
> runners may NOT include pumping them immediately with IVs.
That's a decision a doctor should make. Our job
is to keep from getting to that point, yes?
> >> I am more interested in the effects
> >> of hydration on middle distance (sub-marathon) runners,
> >> and specifically as it relates to possible effects on
> >> performance (time) in races.
> >
> >Certainly the distance would make a difference. But
> >I'd think performance-wise good osmotic balance
> >can only help regardless of distance.
>
> Well, you may THINK that (because it appears logical to you)
> but my point is that I am looking for a study that actually
> demonstrates this. Similarly, I might THINK that I don't
> need to drink unless I am thirsty, but you insist that that
> my 'thinking' is wrong
Medically it is wrong.
> and that I should drink regardless.
> You are willing to trust logic and intuition in the first
> case, but you advise going against it in the second. That's
> inconsistent.
no, I'm trusting my first aid handbooks and
training.
> >If, in fact, under physiologically stressful conditions
> >(which running long distances certainly is) you wait
> >until you're thirsty to drink you are already dehydrated
> >or border line dehydrated and ready to fall beyond the
> >margin of safety (medical wise.) The medical fact is
> >(and my medical references state this unequivocally)
> >thirst can lag behind actual fluid requirements.
> >
> >Under normal "at rest" conditions, this is not much of a
> >problem. Under conditions of higher physiological stress
> >(i.e., sweating and respirating profusely) ist is simply
> >ill-advised to drink only when thristy.
>
> Well, that is exactly what's being debated. But just
> because you repeat it often enough, or find it in some
> unidentified medical reference,
For one, Wilderness Medicine, Forgey. Clinical Professor
of Medicine, Indiana Universty, also president of the
Wilderness Medicine society.
> doesn't necessarily make it
> so. How old is that reference book? Does it provide any
> supporting evidence pertinent to this situation? Does it
> specifically recommend forced hydration for runs, say, under
> 15 miles?
Thrist lags behind hydration requirements. It's
a medical fact. Get over it.
> >> This is where I disagree. Again, I am discussing
> >> sub-marathon distances in temperate regions.
> >
> >It doesn't matter. I can easily run 4-5 miles
> >without drinking. But if I run 10 miles (a good
> >hour+) I risk dehydration if I fail to drink at
> >least once every 30 minutes.
>
> Yes, that's you. In contrast, I have found I can relatively
> easily run a 13 mile race at 75 F without any hydration, no
> apparent ill effects, and a recovery rapid enough to allow a
> 5 training mile run within several hours.
You also read "studies" where idiots gulp a liter
of caffeinated colas before running...
> Since it seems to
> work for me, I am willing to change my approach only if
> someone can "scientifically" demonstrate to me that I will
> benefit from a different approach in some measurable way.
> That's why I asked the question.
I don't think anyone could demonstrate anything to
you, given you reject basic common sense medical facts
about hydration and cite bizzare side stich studies.
I think this discussion itself is getting bizarre...
Tom Phillips
What's "smart" got to do with it? I don't get
the impression Paul is looking for a common sense
approach...
SwStudio
>>The variables are too great to perform such a test.
>
> Has anyone tried?
I really think the variables are too many. I can run for an
hour one day with no desire for water and be thirsty as can
be the next day. Same temps, same run. I don't know why
it's like that, but I imagine I'm not unique in this regard.
I also think variables such as stress are impossible to control,
and there's a lot of others - in your scenario motivation could
be one. I could be more dehydrated than the guy next to me
but I "outdo" him because I'm a type-a guy who wants to win
more than him. What's that got to do with hydration? Maybe
motivation is more like it.
I understand your point - I'm not at all saying you or anyone
is 'wrong', more that I just think the proposed test would make
useless data.
Paul Wilson
>
OK, you win. Purely on the strength of your convictions. I
am ashamed for having asked those silly questions. Tomorrow
I shall run an extra 10 miles as penance. Without hydration.
Dot
> Dot said...
>
>>Do you have any idea how many treatments and tests you just generated?
>
>
> You may be making this sound more complicated than it really ought to
> be.
It's also possible we're talking about different things.
I'm talking about hydration strategies to minimize the amount of
running-associated activities outside of running. IOW, I don't want to
spent a lot of time drinking before I start or drinking afterwards, nor
do I care to feel thirsty when running. I want to get dressed and go
run, come back and do other things. I want to minimize my recovery time
so I can maximize the amount of running and other activities I can do
outdoors. (perceived tiredness, total volume and/or volume at various
intensities would be the outcomes)
You appear to be talking about impact of hydration strategies on
time-to-exhaustion in a fixed laboratory environment on treadmills. I
assume your races are on treadmills.
What happens when you apply those results outside in the blazing sun,
wind, rain, snow - the conditions where most people here actually race?
All I am asking for is a controlled lab experiment where you have
> a statistically significant number of participants running on a
> treadmill.
How many is that? I'm assuming you mean a number sufficient to provide a
statistically significant response at, say, 90% level. But this depends
on variances, which you may not know ahead of time. In reality, this
number may be based on funding resources or facilities limitations.
Are your subjects selected at random from a worldwide population,
temperate US, hs xc runners, 40+ females, 30-39 males, etc? This affects
how broadly the results may be applicable.
ALL factors involved are either controllable (speed, wind,
> temperature, humidity, food intake, etc.) or measurable (altitude,
> sweat rates, fitness level, etc.). And they ALL remain constant during
> the test, with the exception of speed.
So your results are valid at only those test conditions. Vary any one of
them - temperature, humidity, wind, etc and you may get different
results. This is why you need to test at multiple levels for each
factor, unless there's some environmental quirks in your environment
that preclude certain conditions.
Now elsewhere I think you said you were from temperate latitudes, but
didn't run below 20F. Hmmm, either you don't run outside year round or
you're from more southern end of temperate or you run on treadmills most
of the time. In that case, perhaps a laboratory experiment at 70F, 0
wind, etc would be appropriate for you. But wait, since this probably
only applies to you, why bother with the various subjects. Why not test
the conditions yourself, then you know that it applies to you for the
conditions you run in?
And this is what is called an experiment of one.
I may accept guidelines from other studies, but I'm rarely in their
populations (50+ female, relatively new to running, runs outside mostly
in winter in Alaska (changing in the future)), so it's up to me to
determine what works for me.
>
> Divide your subjects into test groups.
>
> Have subjects run to exhaustion without any hydration. This can be
> accomplished by offering prize money to simulate race conditions.
> Measure their performance.
Is performance the time-to-exhaustion? I agree that may be an
appropriate measure. (I know Sam doesn't like them, but some of us are
more concerned with hours of activity / gal of fluid ;) But in general,
your questions seem more oriented toward improving race performance
(time) at sub-marathon distances. These are not the same question.
>
> Repeat test and let them hydrate when they ask for it. Measure
> performance.
>
> Repeat test and have them drink at pre-determined intervals. Measure
> performance.
The optimal intervals may vary for different individuals so this is
creating a somewhat contrived experiment.
>
> Repeat all tests for each test group. Repeat all tests at different
> run speeds.
How much rest is there between tests? How many times do they run each
test? Why speed rather than %VO2max or %LT or some other physiological
measure? Most studies that I've seen are based on some physiological
measure and duration, rather than speed since the same speed can be very
different intensities for different people. Again, if you're interested
for you and your conditions, just do it yourself.
>
> Collate and report results.
>
> It might take a while, but it's not like trying to cure cancer.
But it's only of academic interest to you. I (and probably others) am
more interested in combinations of recovery and duration / intensity).
Many people here recognize the variabilities observed in running, which
is a biological function (influenced by variable environment), not a
deterministic physical event - unless dealing with robots.
Some specialized studies may apply to those special subpopulations, and
I suppose if you're in that subpopulation, you're happy. The rest of us
just figure out what works for us on our own.
Dot
>
> The variables are too great to perform such a test.
yes
Dot
> SwStudio said...
>
>>I really think the variables are too many. I can run for an
>>hour one day with no desire for water and be thirsty as can
>>be the next day. Same temps, same run. I don't know why
>>it's like that, but I imagine I'm not unique in this regard.
>
>
> individual human responses that any testing would be meaningless?
> But if that's really true, then how can there ever be any kind of
> a general guideline that will apply to most people? If everyone
> reacts differently.
This is exactly what some of us are saying. Human individuality is
wonderful! Enjoy it. Gosh, if we weren't, why would some people run so
much better than others?
Dot
>
> I believe you are correct in that many of the posting runners on this
> group probably are marathoners who, in a well-meaning way, are giving me
> the only type of advice they know - namely, marathon training/running
> advice. And getting understandably irritated when I question their
> cherished principles. :-(
>
What you need to be careful of with all groups, is that everybody makes
a statement with their own understood context. Everybody interprets the
other comments in their own context - which may be very different. In
fact, some of the confusion / poor advice here frequently results from
the misunderstood contexts. A classic case was my first winter in the
group, and some suggestions made here where I didn't realize they were
talking about much warmer temperatures than what I was running in - and
it hadn't gotten cold yet.
This is why I'm very careful to state approximate temperature ranges,
hill slopes / height (or duration), duration of run, etc when I ask a
question. I really don't care how people in, say Alabama, keep warm at
40F or how sprinters hydrate. However, if someone in Fairbanks starts
talking about tricks of keeping warm while running at -40F, I pay
attention since that's potentially relevant for me. Even though my
current mileage is still really low, I pay attention to the ultra folks
on hydration / fueling since that is relevant both to long-term goals
and short-term training.
Now that you've stated your distance interests, you're temperate
latitude, but not below 20F, people may be able to focus their comments,
if they have any.
Dot
>
> Still, I will be very surprised if our basic physiological requirements
> turned to be all that different. Some folks have tried to convince of
> this, but I seriously doubt it's true.
I believe you said you are a neophyte runner. Experiment, read, listen,
learn. Maybe you are the exception. FWIW, I've had experts in my field
tell me that certain things didn't exist. I went and dug a few holes and
looked at the stuff under the microscope and showed them these things do
exist. But for running, there's probably a half dozen or so people here
that I listen to, test their advice, occasionally inadvertently test the
alternate hypothesis, and decide they were right ;)
Now a lot of this advice that I take comes from over 50 yo endurance
athletes that have been competing for about 20 yrs. Now it may be that
I'm in the same age class as them why their advice works, but I'm more
inclined to think that it works because it's what they've learned
through years of experience, esp. since it agrees with most other
experienced endurance athletes. I don't take it blindly. I take it as a
starting point and modify for my conditions.
You're free to do likewise or you can start from scratch.
> However, not having enough
> expertise in this area to continue arguing effectively, I have let it
> go. It's a pity, though, that these kinds of things can't be discussed
> openly and objectively without people feeling threatened by the specter
> of an alternative hypothesis.
Your main interests seem outside the main interests of many people here.
You can interpolate between the long distance and short distance or read
the web. While I've gotten some starting points here, the vast majority
of my miniscule knowledge (I'm only a beginner) has come from reading on
my own - web sites, books, newsletters, magazines, etc. - since I don't
expect anybody here to have definitive answers since there usually
aren't any.
As far as effects on performance (time to complete) on a race of the
distances of interest to you, I have absolutely no idea whether it makes
a difference how you hydrate or not. But I know for myself if I get
thirsty toward the end of a 45 min race, I'm starting to die.
Well-hydrated and I have no problems.
Phil M.
11 Jan 2005:
> Paul Wilson wrote:
>
>>
>> Still, I will be very surprised if our basic physiological
>> requirements turned to be all that different. Some folks have tried
>> to convince of this, but I seriously doubt it's true.
>
> I believe you said you are a neophyte runner. Experiment, read,
> listen, learn. Maybe you are the exception. FWIW, I've had experts in
> my field tell me that certain things didn't exist. I went and dug a
> few holes and looked at the stuff under the microscope and showed them
> these things do exist. But for running, there's probably a half dozen
> or so people here that I listen to, test their advice, occasionally
> inadvertently test the alternate hypothesis, and decide they were
> right ;)
How true. For me it's a certain mix of reading books, reading web sites,
posting and reading here, and experimenting on myself. You've got to
start somewhere, so rather than guessing what might work for you, the
external knowlege is a good starting point. From there you can tweek
things to work for your own needs and differences.
I do feel somewhat responsible for Paul's frustration, having posted a
paragraph out of a marathon training book. I should have put that into
context.
> Now a lot of this advice that I take comes from over 50 yo endurance
> athletes that have been competing for about 20 yrs. Now it may be that
> I'm in the same age class as them why their advice works, but I'm more
> inclined to think that it works because it's what they've learned
> through years of experience, esp. since it agrees with most other
> experienced endurance athletes. I don't take it blindly. I take it as a
> starting point and modify for my conditions.
>
> You're free to do likewise or you can start from scratch.
Exactly. Building on that experience and making it specific to your needs
is ceratainly a great time saver.
Phil M.
--
"What counts in battle is what you do once the pain sets in." -John
Short, South African coach.
Doug Freese
\> Are you saying that there would likely be so much variation in the
> individual human responses that any testing would be meaningless?
So tell me how confident you would be with an experiment with 10 or 15
unknowns? Wanna bet they take 13 of them and assign a constant value
because geometric permutations and combinations.
> But if that's really true, then how can there ever be any kind of
> a general guideline that will apply to most people? If everyone
> reacts differently.
Because they are averages at best and what you find is very few people
are average. Sure you get a line in the sand but you may be 12
standard deviations away. It's not only an experiment of one but a
constant changing experiment of one. Change one or two of the variables
like humidity, wind, temp, acclimation, training level, etc. and the
results from last week may not apply to this week. You need to
experiment with yourself. If you want to try the don't drink until
thirsty, or drink 20 liters before then do it and record your results.
You are trying to get pontoons around an oil slick.
> That's why you offer prize money. This type of a motivational
> technique (prize money) is routinely used in lab studies measuring
> athletic performance. It is generally accepted that it closely
> simulates actual racing conditions.
This will work just fine if we run all our races in a lab with
everything controlled. I can see it now, the Omni 5k with 2,000
treadmills and personal IV hookup.
-DF
Doug Freese
"Dot" <dot.h@#duh?att.net> wrote in message
news:wwMEd.100427$uM5....@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> Some specialized studies may apply to those special subpopulations,
> and I suppose if you're in that subpopulation, you're happy. The rest
> of us just figure out what works for us on our own.
I'm beginning to think we are being trolled. Either he has no science or
just enough to be dangerous with little sense of practical reality.
-DF
Tom Phillips
Doug Freese wrote:
>
> "Dot" <dot.h@#duh?att.net> wrote in message
> news:wwMEd.100427$uM5....@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> > Some specialized studies may apply to those special subpopulations,
> > and I suppose if you're in that subpopulation, you're happy. The rest
> > of us just figure out what works for us on our own.
>
> I'm beginning to think we are being trolled.
My thoughts also...
Tom R Wheeler
ride my 27 inch racer.
roads dirt and 5 inch sand dirt rock snow mixes. pavement this 360° 5
miles.
found 1 10¢ can.
on road. pavement. no brakes from 26 inch tires that rot out. trams
fluid, on rust chain. condensations. before home made shelter for
weights and bikes winters holds. holding well.. 26 inch tires rot from
salt roads winters well and bald.....
broken teeth worn teeth. and sprockets wheels gears gaps slips normal
to very bad. replacing parts......
total for day to 5 mile 360° back here.
I say close to 40 mlles.or 38 real time from cash lady at store.
$4.20 cans.
a hyphens hose.
4 cold beers. 2 buds, 2 miller lite.
drank 2 and did 8 more miles
back to store. $1.30
after food bought. had 1 ¢ profit for day.
walk most of 5 miles back, drank 1 beer.
kind of drunk butt warm.
fell fat uses and beers make me stay warm.......any water had is
ice......
food bought.
manias. for tuna and rye..yummy.
have mucky d $1.oo holding for February, because here jan and feb are
really tight....
4 choc twirls in french dole.
a bag of string french fries.
ate all......knees sore and move , am getting very very hard and can't
move....I bed down and watch Ninja turtles oozes...sleep.
was going to lift weights. butt 1 of 2 chicken came home after out all
night. the big black one let in garage with all others. too many too
count. with ducks and others too...floor covered with straw and
hay...... there layered like 3 levels high..ban she still missing
and pre some dead by night creatures here......
sleep until time 23 hours. drank 2 qts of tea water......then look (
note too much salt give electric stack ic, so keep try to keep salt
leval at%%%%%%% .well brain inside wake up at 7 nodes, and rest at me 5
nodes... a bird self looks........so not to bright, I am.)
watch news, leno coning.and sleep till news....6 hour. move at 7
hours.legs thighs like all 5 or 7 strand arrest operate and snap crackle
pop......coffee... a glaze donut..and hell way i feel now I scan do
another 40 miler.butt I well not...
because both bikes need my attentions.....
rain ice snow in for 2 days then artic blasted for awhile below zero
temps at night...... out of wind, t.v. v.c.r. and a little heat now and
then from a little $25.00 heater 2 years back....... and food and water.
keeps heat once 96. body heat.I evan dry my socks this way......under
sweat shit sweater turtle neck and heavy sweats...and 2 pair of socks
and my trio tennis shoe on floor here...... and I be fine.....I
laughter because the electronic needs the heat more then I do....... I
love the cold. artic....is a little bit not use to...like -40
burrrrrrdot.
a pirate I am....yarrrrrrrrrrrrr
I never work......this here is worst lest in fact it makes me not
work.......I not complaining, just ther is NO F ING JOBS AT ALL>........
cheers all. doing good.or money...........learn to live off of land
100% is me......a bird.the wilds.
or contact.
e-mail. Wheelerp...@webtv.net