How do we stop doping in cycling? (Part 1)

Well, everybody must know by now about the downfall of Lance Armstrong.  Rather than being viewed as a hero and as an inspiration, he is now commonly being referred to as a cheat, bully, and fraud.  His sponsors have dropped him, his titles have been stripped, and he has been forced to step down as chairman of Livestrong.

Admittedly, it is sad time for me because he was a childhood hero, as he was for many others.  But unfortunately, he just was not the athlete we were lead to believe.  USADA's reasoned decision paints the true picture of who Amstrong was during those years; an athlete who wins at absolutely any cost.

Who is to blame?

Although Armstong is in the spotlight with regards to his drug use, it is not as though he introduced doping into the sport of cycling.  As early as the late 1800's, athletes were noted to be using cocaine, heroin, morphine among other drugs in the hopes of enhancing performance. 

In the mid 1900's, amphetamines came along.  Italian cyclists referred to them as la bomba, due to the drug's ability to mask fatigue, and help athletes push beyond their normal limits.    

Then in the 1980's, the wonder drug, EPO, came along.  It works by increasing the red blood cell content of your blood.  With a higher red blood cell count, your oxygen carrying capacity increases, and thus performance goes up.  The winner of the 1998 Tour de France, Marco Pantani, was thrown out of the '99 Giro D'Italia for a high hematorict level (to many red blood cells), pointing to EPO use. 

We also cannot forget the entire Festina scandal, in which the entire team was thrown out of the 1998 Tour de France due to EPO use.

So, was Armstrong the inventor of doping in the sport cycling?  Not even close.  Some evidence even points to the fact that he was pressured to dope, at least in part, because of the already rampant use of EPO and other doping methods.

Armstrong racing in 1993

"It's harder to race this year, cycling is harder now. In a year, I tell you, man. I hate to point fingers, and I'm not going to do that. But there are a lot of guys who are a lot better and a lot faster than last year," Armstrong said in a 1994 interview.

He couldn't keep up in 1994 the way he could the year before.  He did not say it was because there was doping, but he was insinuating something was up; what else could he be talking about given the sports' history?

At that point in time, Armstrong was faced with a dilemma.   He could choose to either fall into obscurity within the sport, or start to dope.  What else would an ultra-competitive, aggressive, and dominant personality-type chose?  It is not a stretch to speculate that his unrelenting, and almost unreasonable drive to succeed propelled him not only to start using illegal performance enhancing drugs, but to become the best user the sport has ever seen.

In his book, It's Not About the Bike, Armstrong stated that he, "tackled the problem of the Tour as if [he] were in math class, science class,chemistry class, and nutrition class, all rolled into one. [He] did computer calculations that balanced [his] body weight and [his] equipment weight with the potential velocity of the bike in various stages, trying to find the equation that would get [him] to the finish line faster than anybody else. [He] kept careful computer graphs of [his] training rides, calibrating the distances, wattages, and thresholds."  

In the same way he methodically attacked aerodynamics, equipment, nutrition, and training, USADA's reasoned decision makes it quite evident that he and his accomplices pursued doping with the same intensity.  

What Armstrong could have done

So Armstrong made some morally wrong decisions due to pressure of an existing doping culture.  Does this make him a victim?  The culture of cycling played into Armstrong's decision to dope; there is no doubt.  His unrelenting drive to win also factored in.  

That being said, it is unreasonable to suggest that every professional cyclist with a dominant personality-type had no choice but to use banned substances.  There was a third variable at play here; the fact that there was something in Armstrong's brain that decided winning was more important than playing by the rules.

He could have taken the high road and chosen to be a regular guy who is a good cyclist.  Take Scott Mercier for example; he walked away from cycling when confronted with drugs for the first time.  While it must have been impossibly hard to walk away form the sport, Mercier admits he feels better about it these days.

With regards to Armstrong being stripped of his accolades, along with his teammates also admitting to drug use, Mercier states, "It certainly gives me some validation for the decision I made.  It wasn't that I wasn't good enough, it was just that I made different choices. They talk about winning at all costs, but are you willing to push well beyond the limits?  I'm not, I think there's more to life than that. Sport should be a level playing field and it wasn't. It was who had the best team and resources and the best medicine and that wasn't the game I wanted to play."

Former pro-cyclist, Scott Mercier

Mercier did not want to leave the sport.  He wanted to compete.  It also is obvious that there was part of him that at least considered doping as an option.  

"I would see the likes of Tyler Hamilton and George Hincapie having great success in the Tour and wonder 'where would I have ended up?" Mercier explains.

There is no doubt that Mercier was conflicted.  He had the same drive to succeed that Armstrong possessed.  But, when that drive was confronted with the idea of cheating, he opted to step away from cycling.  Armstrong could have done the same when confronted with the challenges he faced in 1994.

Yes, there were other factors influencing what Armstrong did.  However, it is just plain ignorant  if one fails to acknowledge USADA's reasoned decision and view him as a victim of cycling culture.  At the end of the day, it was Armstrong's fault.

By the same token, I think it is equally ignorant to keep beating up on Armstrong thinking that it will help.  Cycling culture was deeply rooted in doping.  Yes, Armstrong dove head first into that culture and took it to a new level.  But he is not the inventor, and the solution stems much deeper than punishing him unnecessarily.  Heck, even Armstrong's enemies agree.

It is time to move forward to figure out a real solution.  A sport where there is no doping is something I think everybody would be happier with.  Now it is just a matter of how to get there.

So what is the solution?

First of all, it is clear that what we are doing now is not enough.  After all, the UCI claims to have tested Armstrong a total of 218 times.  None of these tests were positive for doping.  There are two explanations for this:

• Somehow, there actually have been no positive tests
• Any positive tests that were found were subsequently covered up

In all likelihood, it is a combination of the two options.  The tests are flawed, there's no doubt there.  For instance, other then measuring the density of your red blood cells, EPO is very difficult to detect directly. So what is preventing athletes from doping up to the legal limit?

That aside, there is good reason to believe that the testers are also corrupt.  The UCI has long been criticized by three time Tour de France winner, Greg LeMond.  The UCI has also pushed to silence LeMond, and have not been successful in doing so. 

In an interesting story, LeMond's wife, Kathy LeMond,  testified under oath that $500,000 was paid to then UCI president, Hein Verbruggen, to get rid of a positive Armstrong test.

Most recently, Tyler Hamilton has called for Pat McQuad to step down as UCI president, claiming  hypocrisy among the union, and describing the sports inability to regulate itself.  

How do we fix this ongoing issue?  That is what I will discuss with my next post.  What are your thoughts on a potential solution?

Also, check out this article published in the British Journal of Sports Medicine, which discusses why doping should be legalized.  Is this a plausible solution in your mind?

Vitamin supplements may not be as useful as we once thought

Sorry for the delay on writing a new article.  It was a busy month with racing in France among a few other things.  This week I wrote an article for the New Hamburg Independent which takes a look at why vitamin supplements may not be as useful as you may think.  As per usual, my space is limited, and the article is more of a basic summary, but it's a good start.  Let me know if you have any other questions!

**EDIT** Keep in mind there is always two sides to the story.  It is pretty ironic that I just published this article, and then this study hits the news: http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=1380451

Thanks to Sweat Science for drawing my attention to this one!

Vitamin supplements may not be as useful as we once thought

It is undisputed that when dealing with a vitamin deficiency, supplementation is an excellent way to speed up the recovery process.  In addition, it has also long been thought that taking a daily multivitamin can go a long way in preventing disease and maintaining health, even in the absence of such a deficiency.  However, a new line of research is showing that the prophylactic use of vitamins may not be as useful as we once thought.

This issue was examined in a large 2011 study which looked at just under 39 000 middle aged women over the course of 20 years.  These women were followed to see what vitamins they were taking on a daily basis in conjunction with how long they lived. 

Throughout the 20-year block that the study took place, just under 16 000 of the subjects deceased.  Among these women, it was to the surprise of the researchers that most vitamins and minerals had little to no impact on the longevity of the subjects.  On top of that, there were a number of vitamins and minerals that were actually associated with a higher risk of death (including iron, copper, folic acid, and B-vitamins). 

This study is not the only one putting these supplements into question;  another 2011 study took a more specific approach, as they followed just under 36 000 men, and looked at the relationship between vitamin E supplementation and the frequency of prostate cancer.

Just to provide some background information, it is well established that free radical damage is associated with an increased risk of cancer.  Free radicals are essentially charged particles that bounce around in your body, create inflammation and cellular damage, and predispose you to cancer.  It is also thought that supplementing with anti-oxidants, which help rid the body of free radicles, reduce the risk of cancer.

Despite vitamin E being a strong anti-oxidant, the researchers of this study did not see what one would expect.  In fact, of 36 000 men who were followed, just over 1 200 developed prostate cancer within 12 years.  Of this 1 200, those who were taking a daily vitamin E supplement were 17% more likely to develop prostate cancer than those who were taking a placebo (a sugar pill they thought was vitamin E).  While it is highly unlikely that these supplements are causing disease, these studies are really starting to cast significant doubt in our daily multi-vitamin regimen. 

So what does this research show us?  It is important to note that these studies are not perfect.  First, they are looking at the correlation of taking supplements with the frequency of a disease, rather than actually trying to see what is causing the disease.   Just because more men who took vitamin E developed prostate cancer does not mean the vitamin E caused the cancer.  In fact, this is highly unlikely.  It is much more probable that there were other factors contributing to the disease frequency that the researchers did not account for. 

That being said, the good news is that when you repeat the same studies mentioned above, except with replacing supplements with a well-balanced diet of fruit and vegetables, we see exactly what one would expect: increased longevity and decreased frequency of cancer.  

Therefore, while we cannot definitely say if multivitamins are good or bad, maintaining a variable and consistently well-balanced diet is your best approach to maintaining optimal vitamin and mineral levels in your body.

Sleep deprivation and running performance

You know what seems to be the cool thing to do these days?  Running events that are way too long (for me).

I remember when I was in elementary school, the 800m was the longest race ever.  4 loops of the 200m track? Impossible.

Then, in grade 8, the 1500m came along; the ultimate test of endurance (or so I thought).

But boy things have changed.  Athletes are now competing in 100-mile trail races, 8 day stage races (like the ENDURrun) among other similar yet equally punishing events.  When did the marathon all of a sudden become a speed-oriented event?

Needless to say, with the popularity of these ultra events rising, the competition is starting to become much more fierce.  As a result, athletes are looking for new ways to tackle the entire host of new challenges that this type of racing introduces.

Nothing like a 24 hour marathon in Namibia!

Among the most significant of these new challenges: sleep deprivation.

The solution to sleep deprivation is an easy one (sleep more).  But just how much does sleep deprivation impact an athlete over a 24-hour period?  That's what I wanted to start looking at with this blog.

Study:

A 2009 study looked at this issue in an interesting way as they took into account both the perceived challenges of being in sleep debt along with some physiological parameters.

Subjects were forced to go 30 hours without sleep and then complete a treadmill stress test.  They first went for 30 minutes at 60% of their V02max, and then went for 30 minutes as hard as they could.  All of the subjects also completed baseline tests when on normal rest.

The subjects were evaluated using the following parameters: core temperature, skin temperature, heart rate, oxygen uptake, carbon dioxide production, some breathing measurements and rating of perceived exertion.

These are the changes the researchers saw:

• Less distance was covered after sleep deprivation (by 2.9% on average)
• Subjects consumed slightly more oxygen during the initial 30 minutes in the sleep deprivation trial
• There was very little difference in the remaining parameters, including perceived exertion

Practical Applications:

So what does this study show us?  Well, first of all, it points toward the conclusion we all would expect: not sleeping over the course of 30 hours makes you slower than if you were well rested.  

The interesting thing, however, is that there was very little difference in the numerous physiological outcomes that were looked at.  There was a hint of sleep deprivation having a negative impact on cardiovascular physiology (which the authors seem to dispel, I'm not sure why?), but all other measures remained constant.  The authors speculate that the reduction in performance, therefore, was likely due to psychological changes involving how the subjects perceived their level of exertion.

Even though the runners THOUGHT they were going just as hard after 30 hours of not sleeping, they were actually going slower.  Perhaps the lack of sleep lowered their threshold for pain?

Clearly more research is needed.  A next logical step would be to investigate WHY the subjects consumed slightly more oxygen after sleep deprivation despite moving at the same pace.  

That being said, if you are an ultra runner, and you plan on working on limited sleep, this study is nothing but good news for you!  It suggests that your body can keep working while the mind starts to fail.  SO, if you just suck it up, there's a good chance you will be good to go!

Ultra runners (or tired runners)- what are your experiences with running while on no sleep?  Is this study consistent with what you went through? 

Silent spinal fractures in Olympic athletes

This month I wrote an article for the New Hamburg Independent looking at one downside to the very strenuous training some Olympic athletes go through.  It's a pretty basic summary of the issue, but a good start nonetheless.  Feel free to e-mail me or comment on the post if you have any questions.  Enjoy!

Silent spinal fractures in Olympic athletes

With the 2012 Olympic Games coming to a close,  it is a great time to be inspired by what the human body can achieve through hard work, discipline and complete dedication.  While this high volume of training helps these athletes perform at an unbelievable level, it also can potentially come with some negative implications.

Believe it or not, some of these athletes may be walking around with training-induced fractures in their spines, and not even know it. 

One of the more impressive events undoubtedly is gymnastics.  The strength and balance put on display by these athletes is astounding.   Yet, have you ever noticed how throughout many of their routines, the athletes rapidly bend backwards throughout their lower back?

While this repeated extension may score them more points, it also increases the odds of developing fractures and forward displacement of bones in their spine.  This condition is called spondolytic spondylolisthesis.

An intact spine showing the area that breaks (LEFT), The initial fracture (MIDDLE), The vertebrae sliding forward (RIGHT)

“A broken back” sounds quite scary, and it is associated with fears of paralysis among other issues.  However, contrary to what you may think, most types of spondylolisthesis are quite common and benign.   In fact, this type of fracture is so stable, many people are completely asymptomatic and have no idea their vertebrae are not intact.

If symptoms do occur, they most commonly include low grade low back pain, a low back that tends to have an accentuated curve into extension, and tight hamstring muscles.  Patients may also experience intermittent electrical shooting pain down the leg relating to pinching the nerve roots as they exit the spinal column. 

So how do gymnasts develop this condition?  It is thought that as these athletes train throughout their younger years, the repeated extension put through their spines causes microscopic stress fractures in a specific part of the vertebrae in their lower back.  These stress fractures, while completely benign individually, start to accumulate, and completely split the vertebrae in half. 

Interestingly, this condition is not exclusive to high-end athletes.   Similar conditions can develop relating to arthritis in older individuals, and even one-time traumatic events such as a bad fall, a tough hit in hockey, or even hitting the bottom of a shallow pool during a dive.  It can even be a congenital issue that you are born with.  So if you suffer from any of the symptoms above, and past treatments for your low back pain have failed, spondylolisthesis may be worth looking into as a possible explanation.

If you do suffer from a spondylolisthesis, and you are one of the individuals who experience associated symptoms, there is plenty you can do to help manage your condition.  In fact, most cases can be managed with some simple manual therapy and specific exercises that will help to target and stabilize the affected vertebrae.

For instance, the gymnasts who induce this injury with their training often have no symptoms at all during their competitive years.  It is only when they retire, and their core musculature starts to detrain that symptoms tend to arise.  Presumably, this is because the stability their muscles once provided is no longer there.

Spondylolisthesis is therefore a condition that more often than not can be managed without surgical interventions.  Like most types of low back pain, core musculature training goes a long way.  So do yourself a favour, use these amazing Olympic athletes as inspiration, and add some back exercises into your daily routine.

Does diet composition have an impact on weight loss?

Hello friends!  Time for another enthralling blog post.  Today's topic may or may not hit close to home.  I've been asked enough about weight loss that I figured it is finally time to write about it.

As much as we like to pursue healthy living to help us feel good, prevent disease, improve quality of life and prolong life, often we simply just want to lose some weight.

And as you all know, there are way too many quick fixes.  While we would like to believe there is some magic weight loss formula, the answer, at the end of the day, comes down to calories in and calories out.

However, an area I often get questions about relates to the composition of those calories coming in.  If we are looking at the issue from a pure weight loss standpoint, does it matter what type of calories we consume?  That's what this blog will explore.

Study

A great 2012 study looked at this issue in a very clear way.  Participants were randomized into 4 groups which followed 4 very distinct weight loss diets.  The caloric content was the same, just the composition varied.

• Two protein amounts were examined (25% of diet vs. 15%)
• Two fat amounts were examined (40% of diet vs. 20%)
• 4 carbohydrate amounts were compared (35% up to 65%)

The study examined the following parameters to monitor the progress of the participants:

• total fat loss
• lean mass loss
• abdominal fat loss
• subcutaneous fat loss (the stuff right under your skin)
• visceral fat loss (the fat that coats your organs)

Results:

This is what they found:

There was NO difference between groups.  

It simply didn't matter what their dietary composition was, it only mattered if they were consuming a calorie-controlled diet.  All participants showed equal fat loss, weight loss and lean mass loss.  All participants lost equal amounts of abdominal fat, subcutaneous fat and visceral fat. 

This study confirms what many others have: weight loss in otherwise healthy individuals comes down to calories in and calories out.

Practical Implication:  

While the answer to weight loss may be as simple as calories in vs. calories out, I am not going to begin to pretend that the issue is that simple in the real world.  When addressing an individual who is trying to pursue weight loss, it is undoubtedly a complex and multifactorial challenge.  Telling someone to eat less and excercise more simply will not work- they already know that!  It's like telling a smoker, "Hey, it's bad for you, so you should quit."

However, what this study does show is that while calories in vs. calories out may not be the answer, it must become the end goal for anybody trying to lose weight.  Whether that means changing social habits, seeking psychological counseling, cutting down on work hours to allow for more exercise; the process will be individualized based on personal needs.  That being said, all of these changes lead to two things: either start burning more calories, or start eating fewer calories.

This study also shows that high protein diets (such as Atkins) really do not have the physiological implications they claim to.  These diets may still work, but most likely because they indirectly result in caloric restriction.  Heck, if you're anything like me, cutting out carbs would result in me consuming about 10 calories/day.  

Also, keep in mind this calorie in vs. calorie out thing does NOT even begin to address the nutritional aspect of what we eat.  For instance, Weight Watchers is actually decently effective in helping people lose weight.  However, the problem I have with it is if you chose to consume empty calories (i.e. 4 beers), then you are going to be forced to skip your nutrient-rich dinner; this is not good!

Conclusion:

Weight loss is a very complicated, but at the same time, a very simple issue.  The end goal: reduce caloric intake and increase exercise.  The complicated part is figuring out how you get yourself there.

Running and knee pain

If you are a runner, chances are you have experienced knee pain.  The most common concern I hear is that the constant pounding and repetitive strain creates lasting changes in the knees.  As I wrote about in a past article which you can read by clicking here, there may be some truth to these concerns.

However, more often than not, the knee pain you feel related to your running is much more benign.

Recently I wrote an article about this topic for The New Hamburg Independent.  It is a basic summary, and is by no means comprehensive, but at least a step in the right direction.  Enjoy!

Your running-related knee pain may not be that bad after all

With the weather taking a turn for the better, it seems it is finally safe to come out of our state of hibernation.  One of the best ways to take advantage of this sun and warmth is to get outside and go for a run!

While many individuals start off with good intentions, the training and activity is often prematurely ended due to injuries involving the knee.

When a runner’s knee hurts, the first reaction is to suspect that the constant pounding of running has caused lasting changes in the cartilage and other internal structures of the knee. 

The good news: this usually is not the case.

Knee pain associated with running is typically associated with two very common anatomical structures; the knee cap and the IT band.

The knee cap is the circular bone at the front of your knee.  The large quadriceps muscle attaches to the top of it, while the thick patellar tendon attaches bellow it.  This knee cap is supposed to glide nice and smoothly in between two large prominences in your thigh bone (the femur) like a train on its tracks.

However, very commonly, the knee cap can slide off its track due to muscle weakness or asymmetrical tissue tension.  This can result in unwanted friction and pinching of the soft tissues under the knee cap, causing pain at the front of your knee.  This is referred to as patellofemoral pain, or more commonly “runners’ knee”.

Aside from patellofemoral pain, injuries associated with the IT band are also very common among new runners.  The IT band is a thick layer of tissue that runs along the outside of your thigh from the hip all the way down to your knee. 

Normally, as you run, there is sufficient flexibility in the IT band to ensure excess force is not transmitted through this band at the hip or at the knee.  Also, in an ideal world, the muscles that keep the pelvis stable are strong enough to maintain pelvic stability and prevent tension from being put through the IT band. 

However, in most new runners, the IT band can become tight and the pelvic stabilizers are often not ready for the demands of running.  As a result, friction and inflammation starts to occur at the hip and the knee, which can cause pain at one or both points of attachment.  This is referred to as "IT band syndrome" (for a more comprehensive look at ITBS, see my article from 2011).

Both patellofemoral pain and IT band syndrome can be very painful.  They are often made worse with running, and feel better as you rest.  They are discouraging injuries because they often prevent you from pursuing your summer fitness goals, and sometimes scare people away from running for good.

However, these types of knee pain should not be considered a death sentence.  They should not be interpreted as instances of permanent knee damage, and should not be viewed as a reason why you just “don’t have a runner’s body.”

So how do you treat these injuries?  The answer, as per usual, is multifactorial.  However, a good rule of thumb is that prevention is the best medicine.  Slowly progressing into running via jogging and walking intervals a maximum of three times per week will help these structures become prepared for running before you jump right into your longer runs.  Working on a strengthening plan to target the muscles around the hips and knees will also go a long way to help keep you pain free.





If you are interested in building up to running in a gradual, progressive, and safe way, feel free to check out some of our training groups!  We have a program that is right for just about everybody!

Nate Brannen: The Faster Somebody

"There's always somebody faster, so just make sure you have fun with it." 

That was my Dad's advice to a younger version of myself after a "disappointing loss" in the 7-8 year-old age group category in a local triathlon.  Man, what a tough pill to swallow for my 7-year-old brain, but remarkable advice nonetheless.

What is so great about these words of wisdom is that they transcend my own running.  In fact, they apply to pretty much everybody.  So, my friends, feel free to learn from this lesson, be happier, run faster, and conquer the world because of it...you're welcome.

However, notice how I strategically placed a "pretty much" prior to "everybody else."  Why, you may ask?  Because this advice just does not make sense for some people.

Take for instance the guy in the middle of this picture: 

Nate Brannen, 2011

Who is that?  Nathan Brannen.  If you don't already know, he IS that guy my Dad was referring to- the elusive runner who is always faster.

 My Dad's advice would have been just plain nonsensical for him; sorry pops.

Brannen is one of the fastest middle distance runners Canada has ever produced.  His personal bests are ridiculous, including a 3:52.63 mile and a 3:34.22 1500m.  This speed has resulted in a career that is littered with impressive feats such as a silver medal at the 2006 Commonwealth Games, and the opportunity to represent Canada at the 2008 Olympic Games.

Most recently he has qualified to run for Canada at the 2012 Olympic Games.  He is now running faster than ever, and is definitely a guy to be watching in London.  Here is what Nate had to say during a recent interview with me:

SD: Nate, first of all, congrats on the huge A standard performance in the Netherlands last weekend. You needed a 3:35:50, and destroyed it with a PR 3:34:22. Take us through that race- what was the pace like early on? At what point did things start to hurt? Were you surprised to walk away with the personal best?

NB: Thanks Sean! I've had a very solid year of training with little to no set backs, something I have never been able to say before. I knew the time was there but I just needed the right race. I went into Hengelo just focusing on running 3:35.50 and the plan was not to get too aggressive and just focus on running my race and getting the time. I was pretty conservative through the first 1000m and started moving over the final 500. With 100 to go I felt very strong and closed really well. There is definitely more in the tank and can't wait for another big opportunity this summer.

SD: Prior to the 3:34, you had a number of A-standard close calls (including 3:35:88 at the Oxy High Performance Meet just a week before WATCH HERE). Was this all part of your plan? Did you ever doubt your ability to hit that A-standard?

NB: The plan was to get in a few races then get my time at the Oxy meet. Fortunately enough, training was going well and my first couple of races went much better than I was expecting, which made it look like I just missed the A standard but in no way or form was I approaching those races trying to attack that standard. The time was close just by focusing on racing and having fun. Oxy was the plan for the year to hit my time but they decided to split the race into 3 even sections. unfortunately for me, my race was a little slower than I would have liked and I came away with the win in 3:35.88. Had I been in any of the other 2 heats the time would have been there and there would have been no need to travel to Europe to race Hengelo; but that's just how things unfold sometimes.

SD: Now that you are headed to London (fresh off a new PR), what are your goals for The Games? Is there room to get even faster between now and then?

NB: The goals for the entire year have been to make the Olympic final. I never focused on just hitting my time or winning nationals but focused on the bigger picture and just assumed the time would come and I would be on the team. I knew I had to have a bigger focus if I want to make the final. And yes, there is definitely room to go even faster. I have a couple seconds in me.

Nate winning the 2012 Victoria Classic  (CLICK to watch)

SD: Aside from your Olympic aspirations for 2012, what else do you want to add to your list of achievements before you walk away from the sport?

NB: I plan on competing through 2016 so I have some big goals over the next 4+ years. Canadian records and some more major championship medals are at the top of the list.

SD: Nice, it's awesome to hear you are still hungry and will be competing into 2016.  That being said, you've already accomplished so much, and we should talk a little about that.  What are your top 3 proudest running moments?

NB: My first proudest moment was when I won my first NCAA 800m title my sophomore year in University. The second was winning the Silver medal at the 2006 Commonwealth Games and my third was qualifying for my first Olympic Games. I've listed them in chronological order. Making my first Olympic Team is by far my proudest moment and hopefully I'll have a new one this summer.

Nate at the 2008 Olympic Games

SD: And those accomplishments have not come without hardship.  You’ve conquered a number of very tough injuries throughout your career (including back surgery for a herniated disc, torn hamstring, stress fracture). Through these times, did you ever doubt your ability to come back to running? What kept you hungry to regain your form and perform at a high level?

NB: I definitely never doubted my ability to come back. That is one place where I am very strong. I am very realistic with my ability and where running can take me but I also know that I can overcome anything if I really want it bad enough and with running I do. The biggest thing that has kept me hungry was seeing how good I can be. I've done a lot in my career but I think I'm nowhere near my potential and that there is a lot more in me. I have come back from injuries and after only 6 weeks of training run 3:35, so I know with consistency I can really do some exciting things. I am one of those athletes who truly loves what he does. I don't know if I can say that about too many other people, especially runners. Running isn't that glamorous, the training is pretty brutal and you're away from home a lot but I just love racing and competing and training hard. I feel great satisfaction when I complete an extremely hard workout that leaves me gasping for air, face down on the track.

SD: Speaking of motivation, back in high school, you would not only win races, but absolutely dominate the competition. It is one thing to race for the win, but another to relentlessly pursue a higher level of performance just for the sake of being fast. Where does this drive come from? Is it something you were born with, or developed?

NB: In high school I only knew one thing: running fast. That's all I wanted to do and every race I went for it. Since then, my racing strategy has changed a little and the big reason is the different races I compete in. There are two types of races, championship races and time-trial type races. Championship races are about winning, and time-trial races are about running fast. The motivation to win is there in every race I compete in. I would say you have to be born this way, it's not something that is just learned over time. Anything I do I want to win at no matter if it's running or playing scrabble.

Nate in 2003 running for Michigan at the Big 10 XC Champs

SD: Back in those earlier days (high school, college) you were a big 800m guy. Any thoughts of going back to that distance at all? If so, when does that fit into the plans?

NB: Simple answer, yes! I wont fully focus on the 800m again but the plan is to split one of these seasons with the 800m and 1500m and trying to run fast in both. This season was supposed to be the year but I just didn't have a chance t get in a fast 800. I'm hoping after the Olympics to get into a really fast 800 and finally lower my PR from 2002.
 
SD: There many local younger runners who think it is just not possible to come out of Southern Ontario as one of the best middle distance runners in the world. This is especially true when you start looking at the depth of the distance running power houses like Kenya.  What are some of the best pieces of advice you would give to these aspiring young runners?

NB: Out of anywhere in Canada, Southern Ontario has probably produced the most 1500m runners in Canada. Looking back you have guys like Kevin Sullivan, Graham Hood, Doug Consiglio, Matt Kerr and Jay Cantin just to name a few. The big piece of advice I can give is focus on yourself and your running and not what the Kenyans or whatever other countries are doing. If you are consistent in your training, have goals for yourself and really want it, then anything is possible.

SD: Last question- could you have beat Steve Prefontaine?

NB: Ha, I wont even answer that. Who knows who he could have been? One reason Prefontaine is such a hero is the 'what if' that surrounds him. He ran fast and was very gutsy but by no means was he the best ever. Maybe he could have been, and maybe not, but that fact is no one will ever know.

And there you have it folks, one of the best Canadian middle distance runners ever.  Humble, confident, driven,  competitive and running faster than he ever has.   Mark these dates on your calender, and watch Nate compete against the best in the world:

Fri Aug 3rd: Round 1

Sun Aug 5th: Semi Finals

Tues Aug 7th: Final

Also, keep up to date on his training and racing here: http://www.natebrannen.com/

Most of us have to settle for working hard and having fun with our racing, but also accept that there will always be somebody faster.  Nate, however, does not fall into this group.  He has the ability to do great things in the sport, and London is shaping up to be the perfect place to showcase his immense talent.

Are you drinking enough?

Hello friends, welcome back!  I apologize for the long layoff since a unique article has been posted on the blog.  Today's hits close to home as I have spoiled many-a-races via thinking I am too tough to drink sufficient fluids.  

Believe it or not...that millisecond you lose when you slow down to drink is actually a millisecond well spent.

This is especially true when your legs completely fall off due to profound dehydration rendering you unable to do anything but crawl to the finish line (and by you I mean me..and by crawl I mean drop out).

How much to drink? 

The only issue is that the amount you need to drink is completely variable depending on factors such as how hot it is outside and even your genetics.

Humans typically sweat at a rate of 1-2 litres per hour during sustained exercise.  But even that range doesn't apply to everybody-  Alberto Salazar (an ok runner, completing a bunch of sub- 2:10 marathons among other things!) has been quoted to sweat up to 4L/hour.

The American College of Sports Medicine recommends, in general, 5-8 ounces of fluids, every 10-15 mins (depending on the ambient temp and humidity), for events lasting more than 40-60 mins.

Those numbers are great, but there are two issues; (1) they include a large range of fluid recommendations and (2) how do you know if you fall in the upper end, lower end, or totally off the entire spectrum of normal (like our friend, Alberto)?

Study

A 2010 study published in the British Journal of Sports Medicine tries to answer this question of how to know when you are dehydrated, and understanding when you need to drink.

The BEST way to see if somebody is dehydrated is to (a) take a blood sample and measure the plasma osmolality (is it too concentrated?), or (b) take a urine sample and find the specific gravity (is it too concentrated?).

Unfortunately, most of us don't have the fancy equipment handy required to make these measures.  The second best method is to just go by body weight!  The more water you lose, the less you weigh.  In this study, researchers stated that if you lose MORE than 3% of your body weight, then you are clinically dehydrated.

However, during a race situation (or even our day to day lives), we don't always have the time to weigh ourselves before, during and after a bout of physical activity.  So how reliable are the other signs of dehydration?  This is what they looked at:

• reduced skin turgur
• sunken eyes
• mucous membrane dryness
• dryness of the axillia (armpit dryness)
• inability to spit
• heart rate
• blood pressure
• respiratory rate
• thirst

So lots of things can change as you become dehydrated.  But which of these are reliable measures of how dehydrated you really are??

Results

In the study, 606 runners were evaluated during a marathon taking place in New Zealand.  This is what they saw:

• reduced skin turgor had the strongest link to percent of weight loss
• sunken eyes and thirst were also linked to percent weight loss
• inability to spit and dry mucous membranes were not linked to weight loss
• combining the individual signs of dehydration did not improve dehydration evaluation

But, MOST importantly:

• the above clinical signs, in general, were not able to reliably predict the 3% weight loss cutoff point

What does this mean?

In essence, this study shows that these objective measures of dehydration simply do not tell you if you are dehydrated.  Looking to see if your eyes are sunken, if your face is less puffy, or if you are thirsty is undoubtedly linked to your body requiring more fluids.  However, the best way to know for sure (and if you don't want to test your blood and urine) is to weigh yourself pre and post activity.

Practical Application

Fluid is important to make you perform at your best!  The hotter it is outside, the more you sweat, and the more you need to drink.  So how should you approach your fluid status?  Experiment.  Start with that 5-8 ounces every 10-15 minutes on a training day that mimics your race climate.

Weigh yourself before and after; if you are losing over 3% of your body weight, you need to drink more...and if you don't, you will end up looking like AND performing like this guy:

Me not following my own advice

Why leaning forward might be making your low back pain worse

Welcome back readers!  Today, let me start out with a brief representation of a typical conversation I have had with a few devoted fans of the blog (and by devoted fans I mean people who I force to read it).

These fans will say to me something along the lines of, "Hey Sean, you blog about sports and science and stuff."

Trying to sound as intelligent possible I say, "Yeah."

Then they say, "Yeah, but, you're a chiropractor?

Again, delving into the recesses of my advanced vocabulary, I reply with, "Yup?"

They say, "Yeah, so why do you never talk about stuff relating to backs?"

Time to sound intellectual, clever and calculated.  I say, "Ummmmm."

There you have it; I don't know why.  I guess it all comes down to which article I have most recently read that is interesting or novel.  OR the topics are based on "fan questions" (aka. my parents ask me something).

However, I can't disagree with the idea of throwing in some articles relating to the back.  So, I will work on compiling some new and interesting research on back pain.  In the meantime I have something to tide you over.

I also write for the New Hamburg Independent, and below is one of my articles which was published in a mid-May issue.  It touches on a part of back pain that is often neglected, and may be part of the reason why yours is not getting better.  It is a basic summary, but a good start nonetheless, enjoy!

 Why leaning forward might be making your low back pain worse

Low back pain is an extremely common disorder that affects 8 out of every 10 people at some point in their lives.   In fact, 26% of adults in North America report some form of low back pain every three months.

More often than not, this pain is a result of damage and irritation to the joints, muscles, and ligaments in the low back.  In these scenarios, a general exercise regime with an emphasis on strength and flexibility is undoubtedly crucial to making a speedy recovery.

However, when the intervertebral discs are involved, this general exercise regime must be much more restricted.

The intervertebral discs are soft tissue structures separating the vertebrae that make up your spine.  The outer layer of the disc is composed of tough connective tissue, but the internal component to the disc (called the nucleus pulposus) is more jelly-like. 

When a disc injury happens, the outer layer of that disc can become torn, and the inner layer can subsequently protrude outside of the disc.  The most common direction this protrusion occurs is backwards and to the side.  The damaged disc itself can cause pain, but more importantly, this protrusion can cause pain via putting pressure on the nerve roots branching from your spinal cord.

Symptoms of a disc herniation include pain with coughing or sneezing, electric or burning pain traveling down your leg, and pain aggravation with leaning forward.

If your low back pain is related to the muscles and joints, activity helps to flush out inflammation that has accumulated, keeps the muscles strong, and helps to increase blood flow which aids the healing process. 

By contrast, with a disc problem, your activities need to be much more limited.  Specifically, you need to avoid leaning forward at all costs.

Picture the intervertebral disc as a tube of toothpaste; when you squeeze the end of the tube, the toothpaste will come out of the top.

By the same logic, when you are leaning forward, you squeeze the front of your intervertebral discs which causes the nucleus pulposus to travel even further outside of the disc.  

A common mistake patients make when dealing with back issues is to stretch into the direction of pain, falsely thinking that they are creating mobility in tight tissues.  However, when the pain is originating from a disc issue, rather than creating mobility, they are actually making the issue worse, putting more pressure on the nerves, and slowing the heeling process.  

In addition, when pressure is put on the nerve roots branching from the spine, pain can be experienced as symptoms in the back of the thigh.  Another common mistake patients make is to perceive this as hamstring pain, and try to solve the issue by stretching this muscle group. 

This is another activity that must be avoided.  The stretch will not only encourage forward bending in the spine which worsens the disc issue, but will also put tension in the already irritated nerve, aggravating the leg pain.

So what can you do to help manage back pain relating to disc issues?  The answer is undoubtedly multifactorial, but avoiding bending forward at the low back is of the utmost importance. 

Run Group Information

Hello Readers!

I usually try to keep my posts strictly about the research behind health and performance.

However, I just wanted to take this opportunity to let you all know about the 3 major run groups that Health and Performance leads.  In the future, you can find group information on the Health and Performance Training Website.


(1) NEW Learn to run group

• A non-threatening way to introduce yourself to the sport of running
• 8 week program with weekly seminars on how to become a runner, and how to keep being a runner long term
• This program will set you up so that you are equipped to run 5km races 
• It will prepare you for the other two groups led by Health and Performance
• For more information about this group CLICK HERE

(2) Monday Night Interval Sessions

• Every Monday at 6:30pm at the Waterloo Rec Complex
• Free!
• Middle and long interval sessions on undulating terrain
• A mix of hill work
• High intensity, and a great way to improve your speed and fitness
• All levels welcome

(3) Wednesday Night Track Sessions

• Every Wednesday at 7:30pm now meeting at the Resurrection high school track (as of March 21st)
• Free!
• Shorter distance track workouts
• Stride drills and dynamic core work is sprinkled within the workouts
• A great way to improve foot speed and stride efficiency
• All levels welcome

There you have it!  So if you are looking to take your performance to the next level, or just starting to run for the first time, one of our run groups should work for you.  Each of the groups have a great team atmosphere, and we are all there to support each other regardless of your level.

If you have any additional questions about the groups, do not be afraid to e-mail me: seandelanghe@gmail.com 

Marathons and Knee Cartilage

Here we go again!  For my regular readers, as you know, I ran a marathon way back in November on not nearly enough training.  The race itself was great, but my knees tended to disagree with the decision for about 6 weeks after the race.

From that point on, I have been curious about the actual impact (pun intended) running has on knee cartilage.  Obviously some damage takes place over the course of 3+ hours of running, but is this damage irreversible?

Arthritis and Running

While studying at chiropractic school, it was made very clear to us that moderate levels of running are not associated with an increased incidence of knee arthritis.  Factors such as genetics, trauma, and BMI are much more strongly correlated with developing osteoarthritis of the knee.

However, the studies we reviewed in school were typically epidemiological in nature (they often looked retrospectively at these various risk factors in large populations, and then looked at the incidence and severity of knee arthritis in the same population).  These studies are great, but they fail to look prospectively at how a knee responds to a strenuous bout of running.

Because of this, I was still curious about how ONE marathon could impact the cartilage within a knee.  That's when I came across this study published in 2010 in the American Journal of Sports Medicine.  I should mention that I was exposed to the study via Research Review Service which is a great resource for all manual therapists.

The Study:

Past studies have looked at the acute impact of long distance running on knee cartilage using an MRI- some show no changes, others show some transient changes.

This 2010 article is so great because it used new methods of quantifying the cartilaginous changes that happen- the researchers were able to assign specific numbers to rate the changes that took place during the marathon.

Design:

10 runners were followed during this study.  They were selected based on a number of factors, two of which included the fact that they had never run a marathon before, and were active 30 minutes or less per day.  These subjects were not runners!

Without getting into the details, the two outcome measures used in this study included:

•  T1ρ- measures damage to the collagen-proteoglycan matrix (i.e. the protein and carbohydrates that link together and make up the structure of the cartilage)
• T2- collagen orientation and water content (i.e. is the protein in the right position, and is there enough water in the cartilage?)

The runners were tested before the marathon, 48 hours after, and then during a 3 month follow up.


Results:

• The T1ρ values (looking at damage to the protein and carbohydrates):
• Significant changes beneath the knee cap AND throughout the middle aspect of the knee
• These changes were seen at both the 48 hour and 3 month mark

• The T2 values (looking at collagen orientation and water content):
•  Significant changes beneath the knee cap AND throughout the middle aspect of the knee
• These changes were seen at the 48 hour mark
• The changes were seen to a much lesser degree at the 3 month follow up

The control group (i.e. same tests, no marathon run), showed absolutely no change in their T1ρ or T2 values throughout the study.

Explanation:

So what does this show?  Essentially, if you aren't trained, and you have never run a marathon before, you can expect to see some lasting damage to the cartilage in your knee.  This damage comes in the form of loss of water content as well as having a negative impact on the protein and carbohydrate structure of the cartilage.

This study also shows that while the damage to the proteins and carbohydrates persist 3 months later, the water content within the cartilage seems to return to baseline levels.

Limitations:

While very interesting, as with most research, there are limitations to this study.  It is important to keep in mind that these were untrained runners who ran a marathon, and then preceded to not train after the race.  Would the same degradation have taken place if they had trained properly beforehand?  Would the rate of recovery improve if they had continued to train after the race?  Would we still see the same changes 6 months or 1 year down the road?  These are all questions that this study fails to address.

That being said, it is a great preliminary round of research on the impact of marathons on knee cartilage.  It generates a plethora of questions that hopefully can be addressed in future, more comprehensive studies.

Take Home:

Running a marathon (and the training for it) definitely causes acute degradation of the articular cartilage in the knee.  This study also shows that there is a possibility that these changes persist long term.

Nevertheless, the health benefits of running for the general population (with no underlying conditions or risk factors) undoubtedly exceed the risks.  This study should not discourage you from running.  If anything at all,  this study should encourage you to incorporate a diversity of cross training to complement your running regime.

Core Strength and Run Performance

Hello readers!  Of "cores," it's that time again, welcome "back" (funny, I know)!  Before we get started, make sure you check out and like the NEW Health and Performance Facebook Page- I'll be using this page to post information on new run groups, race information, training tips, race pictures etc. 

Today I am looking into something that many endurance athletes ask me about- the importance of core exercise.  Does it really have a positive impact on performance, or is it a waste of time?  That's what I am taking a quick look at with today's blog.

The Research:

There are plenty of studies out there looking at the relationship between core training and running.  Many of these studies have a similar design- two groups of runners with small sample sizes doing a basic core routine along with a few running related outcome measures.  In my search, I came across this study published in 2009 in the Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research.

The study looked at a 6 week core routine consisting of 5 exercises conducted 4 times/week.  The outcome measures used in the study included:

•  Star Excursion Balance Test (testing balance)
• Ground Reaction Forces during different components of their gait cycle (i.e. is there more force during push off? more force during heel strike)?
• 5000m Time Trial

Results:

After the 6 week program, the authors noted that there was improvement in the balance test.  However, this improvement was seen to the same statistical significance in both groups.

In addition, the core training did not have a significant impact on the ground reaction forces observed throughout the runners' gait cycle.

Yet- the most exciting part- when the 5000m TT results were considered, the core training group showed a statistically significant improvement when compared to the control group.  In fact, the core training group improved by an average of 47 seconds compared to 17 seconds for the control group. 

What does this mean?

It's pretty obvious: do some simple core work, and you'll go faster.  There are a number of studies out there trying to deduce why this change happens.  Is it because it has an impact on running economy such as this 2004 study examines?  We're not completely sure.

While it would be nice to actually know WHY something works, at the end of the day it is more important to know if it works.  This study shows that core training may not significantly alter your biomechanics, and it may not have a significant impact on your balance (if you are already a trained athlete), but it will likely make you faster. 

Which to do?

In the study, the 5 exercises they conducted included:

1. Stability ball abdominal crunch
2. Back extension on a stability ball
3. Prone 1-arm, 1-leg raise
4. Hip raise on a stability ball
5. Russian twist on a stability ball

While these exercises are fine, they do have their risks.  Researchers have shown that the safest way to load the core (thus the low back) is when you are in a neutral position.  I'm sure many of you have heard this before, but if you lose that subtle curve in your low back, you are going to be putting unhealthy forces through your intervertabal discs (if you are leaning forward), or your facet joints and posterior elements (if you are leaning back).  You can definitely get away with some movement while doing your core work, but the safest course of action is to keep things rock solid in that neutral position.

3 great exercises proven to be effective, to complement each other well, and to be extremely safe are (click to see a video of the exercise):

1. Bird Dog
2. Front and Side Planks
3. McGill Crunch (go 1:25 into the video)

There are more advanced exercises that keep the spine neutral, but master these before you move on.  Feel free to comment or e-mail me if you're looking for suggestions that are safe.  Also, watch the man behind these exercises explain why they are healthy and effective, and why some of your conventional choices may not be: Stu McGill

Conclusion:

While the study I discussed IS only one study with a sample size of 20, what it does show is that by adding a simple core routine, you'll probably go faster.  Why does this happen?  I'm not sure, and the research isn't sure either.  But, at the end of the day, if speed is what you crave, then I wouldn't hesitate to add a regular core routine to your training schedule.

The Toronto 10km Saga

Hello readers!  Usually I blog about the science behind health, fitness and training.  Today I am writing about a topic that is somewhat different, but important in that it seems to be having a significant impact on our running community.  

For the past 26 years, there has been a Toronto 10km.  For the past 14 years of the race, it has been under the name, "Sporting Life 10km" as Sporting Life has been the key sponsor.  This year, things have changed.  There are now two races: The Yonge Street 10km and The Sporting Life 10km.  So which to chose?  And why is there a split?  With this blog, I am going to try to explain both sides of the story from an unbiased perspective.  Keep in mind, I am not a journalist, just a curious recreational runner.    

The Facts

The initiating factor in the split stems from the two marathons that are held in Toronto: the Scotiabank Toronto Waterfront Marathon and the Goodlife Toronto Marathon.  Originally both took place in the fall, but an agreement by both parties along with the city brought the Goodlife Toronto Marathon to the spring (early May).

This created conflict because the Toronto Waterfront Marathon is a Canadian Running Series (CRS) event as is the Yonge Street 10km (formerly Sporting Life 10km).  Part of the agreement was that while the Goodlife would move to early May, the CRS series would not hold another event within 2 weeks of the new Goodlife marathon date.  As a result, the 10km would have to be moved either to late April or later on in May. 

Sporting Life's Point of View

The main issue that Sporting Life publicly states is that they were not consulted with regards to this change of date.  

In an article published in the Toronto Star David Russel, co-owner of Sporting Life was quoted saying, "We were aghast that he would do that ... It was cavalier and put our race in jeopardy."

A statement on the Sporting Life 10km website echoes these sentiments. "Unfortunately, the agreement was made by CRS without the knowledge or agreement of either Sporting Life or Camp Oochigeas and without regard as to how this would impact fundraising for the charity."

In essence, Sporting Life felt blindsided by the move.  I can definitely understand these sentiments to some extent.  With 14 years of sponsorship and commitment to the CRS, feeling entitled to some control of the race does seem reasonable at first glance.  But, as you know, there are always two sides to a story... 

Canadian Running Series' Point of View

I had the pleasure of chatting with CRS director Alan Brookes online to clarify some of these issues.  I truly believe he gave me honest answers which revealed the underlying motivation for the split that stems far deeper than the marathons.  The split did not occur because of a simple date change, but from a constant struggle of differing opinions regarding the direction the race was headed long term.

Mr. Brookes made it clear to me during our conversation that the CRS is committed to producing events centered around a complete runners' experience along with encouraging elite runners to pursue excellence. 

In addition, there is also a strong charitable component to the CRS as Brookes told me that, "last year our races [and YOU runners!] raised over $6.5 million for 238 charities."

However, rather than pursuing running excellence in conjunction with strong ties to various charitable causes, Sporting Life wanted to make the race all about the charity with a lesser focus on the runners.  Essentially, their vision was a run for the cure. 

This is consistent with a statement on the new Sporting Life 10km website stating, "This year, for the first time, 100% of race net proceeds will benefit Camp Oochigeas."  

Why Does a 'Run for the Cure' Concern the CRS?

Does this mean that the CRS is anti-charity?  Not even close.  As you can see from the numbers above ($1.3 million raised at last year's 10km, $6.5 million last year total), the CRS not only values charity, but excels at contributing to these causes.  

Brookes told me, "My only concern with charity runs is that they can come and go - like Sunnybrook Run for Research or Baycrest 10K...we are all about the sport and putting on the very best events for the running community. We'll always be here for you."

So at the end of the day, Brookes sees the race as having a focus on running excellence and an exceptional race experience.  This will, in turn, lend to the lasting power of the event, and ultimately maximize the charitable donations.   

Other Motivations?

Is Sporting Life really doing this exclusively to fight for Camp Oochigeas?  Let me be clear, it is nothing short of incredible what the CRS and Sporting Life have done to contribute to this cause over the years.  If more corporations contributed this way, who knows how this could impact our society.  Yet, at the end of the day, Sporting Life is a business, and thus business oriented motivations are also at play.  

For instance, Brookes informed me that, "ourselves and New Balance wanted to move the packet pick up out of the Sporting Life store for more space, a mini-expo experience, and better race experience. Sporting Life didn't want that."

So CRS wanted a mini-expo for the runners, while Sporting Life wanted publicity for their store.  I really can't fault either side here (really, I think both sides have extremely valid motivations).  However, it just shows that (a) the CRS was fighting for the runners and (b) Sporting Life was fighting to optimize publicity for their business (why else would they be a sponsor?).

So is Sporting Life really all about the charity?  The work they do for the charity is amazing, nobody disputes that.  But, at the same time, working for a charity is great for PR...as is having the race kit pick up on site at the store.  

So Who Is Right?

After the split between the CRS and Sporting Life, there were a few things that transpired that are less then honourable.  However, the facts I revealed above show the motivation for the split, which really is all that matters in the end.

Sporting Life wants a great race all about charity that simultaneously works toward improving publicity for their company.  That makes sense to me; contribute to charity, have a great race, and improve your business at the same time.

Alan Brookes and the CRS, by contrast, wants to work toward an event centered around the runners and the race experience while still making significant contributions to charity.  That also makes sense to me; give a place for elite runners to compete, create a great race environment for all other runners, and still contribute to charities.

So who is right?  Well, at the end of day, it seems like both sides are pursuing noble causes.  However, it also is very obvious that both sides had very different goals, and when there is not enough overlap, then it only makes sense to part ways. 

My Biased Opinion

I am definitely not anti charity.  Are any of you?  I have volunteered at after-school reading programs for kids, Big Brothers of Canada, coached track teams, ran science programs, and the list goes on.  

However, I think Alan Brookes hit the nail on the head when he expressed his concern with the lasting potential of a 'run for the cure.'  If a charity finds a better way to make money, then the charity will take that route, and the race will be gone.  

I am happy to be part of a race that works toward a noble cause.  But to attract 15 000 people to a race annually, I believe more than a noble cause is required.  It needs to be fun and exciting.  I am excited to participate in an event where I can run 35:19 and still get beaten by over 7 minutes by two Canadian Olympic athletes.  How cool is that?  This runner's experience is what the CRS works hard to develop, and is why it will last (and thus, the benefits to charities will also last).  

Then again, there are lots of people out there who aren't running fans like myself.  Maybe their opinions would be much different!  

Which to Race?

So which race should you go with?  I don't really have an answer to that...how about to make it simple, everybody just does both.

Does Stretching Work?

I had a revelation today while partaking in my daily yoga routine- I am, by far, the most inflexible person in the world.  Hands down.  

Just kidding, I don't do yoga.  I really do not stretch either.  But, maybe I should...then I could be just as awesome as this guy.  I highly recommend you click on that link- the man is amazing!  If there are people like that in the world, then why can't I even touch my toes? 

Anyway, if you're like me, and you don't stretch, are we doing ourselves a disservice?

Well, the answer is a little complicated, but that is what I want to explore with today's blog.  Also, I should mention that I was first exposed to some of the articles referenced in this article at sweatscience.com (if you haven't checked it out, you should).

Does it help muscle soreness?

One of the most common reasons why people stretch is to reduce muscle soreness.  In preparation for (or to recover from) a hard workout, it is common practice to throw in some stretching to try and reduce how sore we feel the next day.  But, does this really work?

A 2011 study published in the Cochrane database  holds the answer to this question.  If you have never heard of the Cochrane database before, check it out- it is essentially where all the highest quality health care studies are pooled together to look for consistencies (or inconsistencies) in their results. 

In this review, 12 studies were included.  With a high level of consistency, the studies showed that pre-exercise stretching reduced soreness by about 0.5 on a 100-point scale.  In addition, post exercise stretching reduced soreness by a whopping 1 point on the 100-point scale.

So what does this show?  Well, if you are stretching acutely before or after an activity to reduce soreness relating to that specific activity, you are probably wasting your time.  That does not mean stretching is useless (we will get to that), but it just means that it does not fulfill this use.


How does stretching impact performance?

Well, it is widely accepted now that stretching decreases performance in power or strength oriented events (like jumping, shot put, power lifting, sprinting).

That being said, how many of you still stretch prior to participating in endurance events?  If you do, maybe you shouldn't.  Some relatively new research shows that stretching may also  decrease endurance performance.  This 2010 study looked at the impact of static stretching on endurance running.

In the study, collegiate runners were put through 2 separate 60 minute time trials; 1 with stretching before, and 1 without stretching.  The 60 minutes were separated into two components:

• First 30 mins: the running intensity was was kept at a constant (65% of their VO2 max)
• Second 30 mins: the runners were told to go as far as they possibly could

Interestingly, this study showed that on both accounts, the non-stretching trials out performed the stretching trials.

•  First 30 mins: the non stretchers burned significantly fewer calories than the stretchers (425 vs. 405 kcals) 
• Second 30 mins: during an all out effort, the runners went 3.4% further when they did not stretch

What does this show about stretching?  Well, if you do it before an endurance event, it will have a detrimental impact on your performance.  On a side note- keep in mind that this study was looking at static stretching only.

Does stretching reduce injury?

Stretching has to be good for something, doesn't it?  How about preventing injury?  This study, which is comprehensive review article, shows that the evidence is pretty inconsistent when it comes to the role of stretching and injury prevention.

This uncertainty arises because many of the individual studies referenced show that stretching has no impact on the frequency of injuries.  Check out this full text article which shows that among 1538 army recruits, their regular stretching regime had no impact on the frequency of injuries.

So does stretching help prevent injuries?  These studies suggest that in general, it does not.  However, there may be more to this than meets the eye.  So before you give up on stretching forever, keep reading...

My take on stretching and injuries: 

The above research does cast a shadow on the role of stretching in preventing injuries.  However, there is one key flaw that all of these studies fail to take into account: the cause of and the type of injury.


For example, there are many studies showing that stretching alone has very little impact on low back pain.  Does this mean that stretching is never good for low back pain?  No.

One thing that should be kept in mind when interpreting stretching and low back pain research is that there are a number of causes for low back pain. If your low back pain is originating from an instability (or too much motion), then why would stretching help? By the same logic, it would seem that the hypomobile painful back (stiff, not enough movement) may be more likely to respond to a stretching regime. Unfortunately, these two types of low back pain are not separated in the studies looking at stretching as an intervention.

So, some subjects might see benefit (probably the hypomobile individuals), and some subjects might feel worse (probably the overly flexible group).  Unfortunately, this averages out to the conclusion: stretching does not have an impact on low back pain.

The solution to this problem comes down to classifying injuries into different subsets before accurate conclusions about specific interventions can be drawn. This is where the research is headed, but we are still trying to figure the best classification system out.  For instance, check out this example for the classification of low back pain.

Conclusions:

Here are your takeaway points:

• Stretching does not reduce post exercise muscle soreness
• Stretching has a negative impact on both strength and endurance oriented activities
• Stretching is not good for ALL injuries (but is potentially very useful for some). 

At the end of the day, I hope this article helps prevent some of you from stretching for the wrong reasons.  But, I also want to make sure you are not scared to stretch- there are benefits (but maybe just not as many as we once thought)!  For instance: squeezing into a box.

Compressport

I'm looking forward to using some gear from compressport for the 2012 season!  They have lots of cool stuff, check out their site by clicking here.

But do compression socks (or other sources of compression) actually help enhance performance and/or recovery?  Stay tuned for my next blog!