Something fishy about Rieti facility...

in runners:

http://journals.lww.com/acsm-msse/Abstract/1975/00710/Effects_of_hyperoxic_gas_mixtures_on_exercise.10.aspx

I make atmospheric measurements for a living and I think the trees theory is ridiculous. The variability in oxygen concentrations in the atmosphere is a few ppm, which is insignificant compared to the background level of roughly 20.8% (1% = 10,000 ppm).

It's very difficult to even measure the variability in oxygen concentration. Beware of junk science on the Internet, but here is a link to an article by reputable scientists that might shed some light on the issue

http://www.whoi.edu/cms/files/kcasciotti/2006/11/Keeling1992_15309.pdf

malmo wrote:

ordersofmagnitude wrote:

I think the problem many of us are having with this 'forest air' theory is that we understand that gasses diffuse very very quickly.

Actually you would have just as much proving that the newly created O2 diffuses 'quickly' as i would proving there is more O2 in a forest without the empirical proof. I would love to see if that data is available.

Let's face facts, the air over water has much more water vapor in it than over the nearby land masses. That water vapor may diffuse to adjacent parcels of air over land, but not nearly as fast as it does when the prevailing winds push it there.

Sorry, diffusion can be subtle. I'll leave to you to figure out why analogies to water vapor don't apply. Here's a simpler argument. o2 creation in the forest is a result of photosynthesis. One new molecule is created for every two molecules of CO2. Air has roughly 400 ppm of CO2 and 21% O2. So even with no diffusion and perfect respiration. The O2 levels can't go up by more than 200ppm. Which is insignificant compared to the available O2 levels. So unless you believe the CO2 is diffusing in faster than the O2 is diffusing out then the forest air theory is a fail on inspection. No measurements required.

I wonder if the improved air quality has an effect? trees will remove CO and maybe ozone, which both have substantial negative effects.

Junk science but very funny wrote:

Junk science indeed - you're a pseudo-academic, and then you tell other people they're monkeys. Look in the mirror, bro, you're a fool and the worst kind - the one that thinks they're the smartest guy in the room!

Give it a rest. You're embarrassing pseudo-science here.

Actually ventolin is a physician by profession.

Orderofmagnitude wrote:

Sorry, diffusion can be subtle. I'll leave to you to figure out why analogies to water vapor don't apply. Here's a simpler argument. o2 creation in the forest is a result of photosynthesis. One new molecule is created for every two molecules of CO2. Air has roughly 400 ppm of CO2 and 21% O2. So even with no diffusion and perfect respiration. The O2 levels can't go up by more than 200ppm. Which is insignificant compared to the available O2 levels. So unless you believe the CO2 is diffusing in faster than the O2 is diffusing out then the forest air theory is a fail on inspection. No measurements required.

I'll accept your explanation of the magnitude of the CO2 concentration in air, but your math on photosynthesis is wrong. The ratio of gas exchange in 1:1.

But it makes sense that most forests have a net CO2/O2 exhange ratio since it it known that old growth forests are no longer fixing CO2 faster than the oxygen that is being produced by the cumulative respiration in the forest.

Trees remove air pollutants:

http://www.coloradotrees.org/benefits/Effects%20of%20Urban%20Trees%20on%20Air%20Quality.pdf

air pollution harms athletic peformance:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3088377

I hate to break it to you, but its a myth that trees create most of the world's oxygen. The real factories are the many kinds of algae. Even invisible algae in the ocean makes huge amounts of oxygen. So this might hold true if the Rieti facility was in a swamp. Forests are mainly just good to look at...

Ummm, the track in Rieti is absolutely not in the middle of the woods. There are some trees, but I would not clasify the area as wooded. Those Belgium meets, yes, those are actually in the woods.

I think the slight altitude helps, the weather is always good, it falls at the end of the season. That's why people run fast.

Here's the scoop: The 100 meters is almost an exclusively ANAEROBIC event. Energy comes from glycolysis (an anaerobic process), stored ATP and phosphocreatine. You could, in effect, run the 100 meters holding your breath (except for the fact that the body is trying madly, albeit in futility, to gain oxygen). So oxygen concentration, even if it were made artificially really high, will have an insignificant effect.

End of "forest oxygen" hypothesis.

As for most of the world's oxygen coming from phytoplankton: it's true.

That was junk science. A couple of points:

1. The availability of oxygen is not the limiting factor in athletic performance. If we increase % of oxygen available it does not improve performance. We do not use all of oxygen inhaled, some is exhaled. (I can't remember percentages). Improvement come from ability of working muscles to use the available oxygen.

2. By definition gases diffuse very easily. So the increased oxygen theory is crap anyway. Because diffusion and breezes would rapidly get rid the very tiny amount of oxygen emitted by the forest.

3. The 100m has no requirement for oxygen (at the time) anyway. So the theory doesn't work for the 100m.

As other people suggest try:

- wind

- surface

- time of season (peaking etc.)

- quality of fields

- altitude (there is some science to suggest events up to 800m - 1500m benefit from reduced drag at lower altitudes. think Bob Beamon)

Get serious wrote:

That was junk science. A couple of points:

1. The availability of oxygen is not the limiting factor in athletic performance. If we increase % of oxygen available it does not improve performance. We do not use all of oxygen inhaled, some is exhaled. (I can't remember percentages). Improvement come from ability of working muscles to use the available oxygen.

I agree that the rest is suspect, but this is where you are WRONG.

There is no limiting factor. There's a whole bunch of factors that combine to make up a bigger limit.

Read the studies. If your premise was truem then giving supplemental oxygen wouldn't improve performance. The problem is research shows it does. I already linked to two studies, there are tons more.

Secondly, We don't ever run out of glycogen, there's always some left, so do you not think that glycogen limits marathon+ performance? For strength training, we never fully recruit all the muscle fibers we can, there's always strength left over, so is muscle recruitment not a factor? But if we increase muscle recruitment, performances increases, so it must be factor.

The situation is similar with oxygen. It's a cascade. You have to think in pressure differentials. We're never going to fully utilize all the oxygen. However, if we increase the oxygen cascade, more will make it all the way down to the muscles. Why? Greater differential=quicker/more diffusion. So if we drop from 98 to 90% oxygen saturation in the blood, well when it get's to the muscles that's a slightly lower diffusion gradient. That means a slightly lower diffusion. less oxygen for the muscles to use.

I flicked through the studies. The thing that stood out was they used 40%, 60%, 80% 100% oxygen to get statistically significant results. You can't seriously argue that the freakin forest increases atmospheric O2 to 40%.

Related to this was one study did a 20km ride (30+min) and therefore overhwhelmingly aerobic exercise. The events noted range from purely anaerobic (100m) through to mostly aerobic (3000m)

Get Serious' last post is probably the most realistic "theory". In fact, it may be the combination of a surface with the maximum allowable density, the relative altitude, the time of season (ideal temperature included here), quality of fields, and (let me add) positive vibes from a relaxed venue. Add these variables up and you have a situation with potential for excellent results.

Nothing fishy about Rieti. Just a nice wooded area.

It is not at altitude.

It is 402m above sea level which is lower than, for example, Zurich (410m), Munich (520m), Lausanne (597m), Madrid (640m) and Edmonton (652m).

Now I will start with - I could be totally wrong on the track. There may be more than one aths track in Rieti. But if the track I could see on Google earth in Rieti is the one we are all crapping on about then it isn't even in a "significantly wooded area".

The one I found is in the bend of a river on the edge of town. And has a few trees and farmland surrounding it.

Maybe I'm totally wrong the track could be hidden in a forest and can't be seen on Google Earth.

Then we are just left with a rubbish pseudo science theory

'The one I found is in the bend of a river on the edge of town'

That's it, the bend of the river creates a wind vortex which happens to be anti clockwise whipping the athletes round the track at world record pace

Get serious wrote:

I flicked through the studies. The thing that stood out was they used 40%, 60%, 80% 100% oxygen to get statistically significant results. You can't seriously argue that the freakin forest increases atmospheric O2 to 40%.

Related to this was one study did a 20km ride (30+min) and therefore overhwhelmingly aerobic exercise. The events noted range from purely anaerobic (100m) through to mostly aerobic (3000m)

Read my post. I'm not responding to the tree claims. I'm responding to your continued claims that oxygen intake does not limit performance. It obviously does on some level, as the studies show. In elite athletes, who about 50% of them or more, have EIAH, the likely hoood is even greater.

I think the excellent performances at the Rieti Meet are due to the following:

1. End of season competition.

This meet always falls after the Olympic Games, World Championships, or Diamond League (past years Golden League). The pressure is off. Athletes come to this meet in a much more relaxed state of mind. They are in peak form with absolutely nothing to lose (except prize/bonus money for this meet).

2. Conditions.

The weather this year seemed to be perfect (as with most years).

3. Sandro Giovanelli (Meeting Director)is a wonderfull man. He's been around the sport for decades. Knows all the athletes, knows the agents, knows all of the other Meeting Directors. He works hard and has the respect of the world track family. Athletes know that he will treat them well.

4. The Track.

In his article, Cram incorectly states "the tight bends":

"Even Michael Johnson only managed 44.20 around its tight bends. Powell's times in both of his races will widen the discussion around this intriguing venue and what exactly are its hidden secrets."

A standard IAAF track has a radius of 36.5 meters. The Rieti track radius is almost 40m!!! Gentle turns.